Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 214-08City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER 14 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: APRIL 28, 2008 CMR: 214:08 APPROVAL OF SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AND RECORD OF LAND USE ACTION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,600 SQUARE FOOT ULTRAVIOLET (UV) DISINFECTION FACILITY TO REPLACE THE EXISTING SYSTEM, AND THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE UV DISINFECTION FACILITY FOR THE PALO ALTO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT AT 2501 EMBARCADERO WAY RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), A~chitectural Review Board (ARB) and staff recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution to approve a Negative Declaration and the application for Site and Design Review for a new ultraviolet wastewater treatment facility, based on the findings and draft conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachments A & B). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) began planning for a sustainable future with the initiation of the Long-Term Goals Study (LTGS) in 2000. Through a series of worl~shops, the RWQCP and stakeholders established a set of goals for the plant that meet the environmental and socioeconomic needs of the community. The disinfection system was the focus of the LTGS because of its use of hazardous chemicals, and was identified for change as the first step towards sustainability. Subsequent studies and workshops with the stakeholders concluded that ultraviolet (UV) disinfection presents the most viable alternative for replacing the existing chemical disinfection system. The life cycle analysis showed that the UV alternative releases fewer toxins, consumes less energy, and lowers the RWQCP’s greenhouse gas emissions substantially. On August 6, 2007 (CMR:322:07), Council authorized consultants, RMC Water and Environment, to design the new UV facility. Construction of the project is tentatively scheduled to begin at the end of 2008, once all entitlements have been received and funding is secured. CMR:214:08 Page 1 of 4 The proposed UV wastewater treatment facility will be replacing the existing chemical based treatment system. The new UV facility would consist of a 3,600 square foot concrete channel structure approximately 80 feet long and 45 feet wide, sitting 11 feet above grade. The UV facility and the associated lamp washdown and cleaning area would be permanently covered by an open-walled structure that would be approximately 30 feet tall. The project includes the installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels on the structure’s roof top. The base of the structure is ui~finished concrete with aluminm-n railings. The metal canopy will have a dark brown finish, similar to the existing buildings at the facility. Attaclm~ent D includes additional background information, site photos, and photosimulations of the project. DISCUSSION The project site is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, bordered by Embarcadero Road and Harbor Road, directly across from the Bay. The site is zoned Public Facility with the Site and Desi~-~ Overlay PF(D). The RWQCP has the primary function of treating the entire City’s wastewater before it is released into the Bay. The wastewater plant functions are an existing permitted use, and the proposed UV facility is compatible with existing uses at the site. Within the RWQCP site, there are numerous buildings and structures, all related to its daily operations. Along the Embarcadero Road and Harbor Road frontages, there is existing mature vegetation approximately 50 to 75 feet tall that screens many of the internal structures. The RWQCP is surrounded by passive recreational uses, the Palo Alto Airport, and office warehouse uses. The project is in conformance with the zoning regulations for the PF zone district, but because the project is located in the Baylands Nature Preserve, there are additional principles for development that should be followed (see Attachment I). The overall mass of the project, due primarily to the canopy requirements, does not fit well with the Bayland’s aesthetic, but the project is well screened from all public views. However, the facility has a utilitarian function and has limited design alternatives. The proposed project meets the four Site and Design review findings as outlined in Attachment A, Section 3. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On March 12, 2008, the Plarming and Transportation Commission reviewed the proposed project and recommended (6-0-0-1) that the project be approved, with two additional conditions. There was one member of the public who spoke in general support of the project, but voiced concerns about the loss of four parking spaces and questioned the format of the Record of Land Use Action. Verbatim minutes are found in Attachment K. At the PTC meeting, there was discussion about the importance of the landscape screening of the project and site overall. The conditions that were added by the Commission addressed these specific concerns. The first condition was to add landscaping to a section on Embarcadero Road that had a gap in the existing landscaping and secondly to prepare and implement a landscape plan for appropriate screening of the entire facility that is harmonious with the Baylands. Attachment A, Section 6, provides the complete list of draft conditions of approval for the project. CMR:214:08 Page 2 of 4 On April 3, 2008, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the proposed project and recommended (5-0) that the project be approved, with one additional condition to require that the project include an educational component for the public that describes the functions of this facility. The RWQCP has provided a summary of their existing educational program (Attachment E) that meets this ARB condition. No members of the public spoke on this item. Verbatim minutes are found in Attachment M. RESOURCE IMPACT The funds for the project have been appropriated in the Wastewater Treatment Enterprise fund. It is expected that grants and the State Revolving Fund will cover most of the estimated project cost of $21.3 million. Since the City is in the process of applying for more than one funding source, the specific breakdown of the funding for the project has yet to be determined. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Baylands Master Plan and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. The project is well screened from public views, which mitigates its visual impact on the Baylands Nature Preserve. The project advances the City’s sustainability policies by using the UV treatment process and by incorporating the PV panels on the roof. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. The 30-day public comment period for this document was completed on February 29, 2008. No comments were received on the Draft Negative Declaration. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CLARE CAMPBELL Planner ,STEVE EI~’ISLIE ~ Director of Plarming and Community Envirom-nent EMILY HkRRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:214:08 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENTS A. Record of Land Use Action B. Resolution Approving the Negative Declaration C. Location Map D. Applicant Submittal / Background IE. RWQCP Educational Program F. Comprehensive Plan Table G. Zoning Table H. Correspondence I. Site Assessment and Desi~ Guidelines, Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (excerpt) J. PTC Staff Report, March 12, 2008 w/o attachments K. PTC t~xcerpt Verbatim Minutes, March 12, 2008 L. ARB Staff Report, April 3, 2008 w/o attaclm~ents M. ARB Excerpt Verbatim Minutes, April 3, 2008 N. Negative Declaration and Initial Study Checklist O. Plans (Councilmembers only)* * Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff COURTESY COPIES Daisy Stark, Public Works James Allen, Public Works Phil Bobel, Public Works CMR:214:08 Page 4 of 4 A TTA CHMENT A DRAFT ACTION NO. 2008-XX RECORD OF THE COI!NCIL THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 2501 EMBARCADERO WAY: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AbYD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 07PLN-00378 (CITY OF PALO ALTO, APPLICANT) On April 28, 2008, the Council approved the Negative Declaration, by resolution, and the Site and Design Review application for a new ultra violet wastewater treatment facility in the PF(D) Public Facility with Site and Design Overlay Zone District, making the fol!owing findings, determination and declarations: SECTION !.Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On December 3, 2007, the Palo Alto Regiona! Water Quality Contro! Plant applied for Site and Design review for the construction of a new 3,600 square-foot ultra violet wastewater treatment facility in the PF(D) Public Facility with Site and Design Overlay zone district. ("The Project"). B. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission") reviewed the project on March 12, 2008 and voted [6-0-0-i] to recommend that Council approve the project. The Commission’s actions are contained in the CMR: 214:08. C. Following Commission review, the Architectura! Review Board (ARB) reviewed The Project on April 3, 2008 and voted (5-0) to recommend approva!. The ARB’s actions are contained in the CMR: 214:08. SECTION 2.Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmenta! review under provisions of the California Environmenta! Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration. An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that, with the implementation of standard conditions of approva!, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development and, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review beginning January 31, 2008 through February 29, 2008. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Negative Declaration are contained in CMR: xxx:08. A TTA CHMENT A SECTION 3.Site and Design Review Findings I. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The proposed wastewater treatment use will be consistent with the existing functions of the Water Quality Contro! Plant and does not further impact the existing and potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites than the existing conditions. The new facility is located within the developed Regiona! Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) lot and the existing mature tall vegetation screens the project from public views. The existing screening maintains a harmonious and compatible relationship between the WQCP and the Bay!ands environment. 2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activi ties, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The Project will maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas, the proposed design and size of the project are generally consistent with the existing uses at the Water Quality Contro! Plant, and the construction of all improvements wil! be governed by the regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of deve!opment. 3. Sound principles of environmental ecological balance are observed in the project. design and The proposed ultra violet wastewater treatment facility includes sustainable design in that it would eliminate the current use of chemica! toxins for the disinfection process. In addition, the project includes a large array of photovo!taic panels on almost a!l of its roof structure. The Project wil! not have a significant environmental impact as indicated by the proposed Negative Declaration for this Project. 4. The use will be in accord wi th the Palo A1 to Comprehensi ve Plan. The project proposal, as conditioned, complies with the policies of the Land Use and Community Design and the Natural Environment elements of the Comprehensive Plan that pertain to the preservation of the Baylands environment and wastewater treatment. A TTA CHMENT A SECTION 4.Site and Design Approval Granted. Site and Design Approval is granted for the project by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G), subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record. SECTION 5.Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantia! conformance with those plans prepared by RMC Water & Environment titled "UV Disinfection Facility", consisting of 8 pages, dated February 2008 and received February 13, 2008, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approva! in Section 6. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Deve!opment. A complete copy of this Record of Land Use Action shall be printed on the plans submitted for the Building Permit. SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval. Planning Division !.The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans received on February 13, 2008, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission or City Council. A complete copy of this Record of Land Use Action shal! be printed on the plans submitted for the Building Permit. 2.New landscape screening shall be installed along Embarcadero Road, filling in any missing sections. Landscape plans shal! be submitted to Planning for review and approval before submitting for any associated building permits. 3.The RWQCP perimeter landscaping shall be maintained for optimal growing conditions to provide screening for the lifetime of the structure that is built. 4.In the unforeseen circumstance that the existing perimeter trees and landscaping is diseased or in decline, mitigation to replace or treat the trees shal! be done in a timely manner to preserve the existing trees or install replacement landscape to maintain the visua! screen. Before installation, any plans for replacement ~egetation shall be submitted to Planning for review and approval. 5.Public Works shall develop and implement a landscape plan for appropriate screening of the entire RWQCP facility that is harmonious with the Baylands. The plan shal! be submitted for formal planning review before the project is fina!ed by city inspectors. A TTA CH]~IENT A The applicant shall develop and implement an educational component for the public that reflects the functions of the wastewater treatment facility. 7.Once the details of the "final" project have been determined, the applicant shall submit the fina! plans to Planning staff for compliance review before building permit submittal. SECTION 7.Term of Approval. i. Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approva!, the approva! shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Pa!o Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G) .080. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DPShWINGS REFERENCED: t. Those plans prepared by RMC Water & Environment titled "UV Disinfection Facility", consisting of 8 pages, dated February 2008 and received February 13, 2008. 4 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE- CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ULTRA VIOLET DISINFECTION FACILITY FOR THE PALO ALTO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT AT 2501 EMBARCADERO WAY WHEREAS, the Ultra Violet Disinfection Facility Project ("Project") would replace a chemica! disinfection facility at the Palo Alto Water Quality control Plant; and WHEREAS, the City as the lead agency for the Project has prepared a Negative Declaration for the Project. A Draft Negative Declaration was released for a 30-day public comment period on January 31, 2008. A public meeting to hear public input on the Draft Negative Declaration was held on March 12, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (~CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq. The Negative Declaration including the project description, environmental checklist is attached as Exhibit to this Resolution and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration, including comments received and the responses to those comments. No comment was received except a support letter from CLEAN South Bay; and WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration was prepared by the City and the city environmental consultants and reflects their independent judgment and analysis. There is no substantia! evidence on the basis of the record as a whole that the Project wil! have a significant effect on the environment; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. Adoption. The City Council finds that the Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA 080303 jb 0130286 1 NOT YET APPROVED and adopts and approves it. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public meetings on the proposed Project and al! other matters deemed materia! and relevant before considering the Project for approval. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED: Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager Director of Public Works 080409 jb 0130286 2 NOT YET APPROVED EXHIBIT ~A" [Negative Declaration to be attached.] 080409 jb 0130286 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Commttnity Environment California Environmental Quality Act DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: Project Name: Application Nos.: Address of Project: Applicant: Owner: January 28, 2008 Ultra Violet Treatment Facility 07PLN-00378 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Contact: Daisy Stark, 650-444-6352 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Location and Description: Proj ect Location The project site is located in the most nocthem section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of U.S. Highway 101. The project site is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, on the easterly side of Embarcadero Way approximately 750 feet north of Embarcadero Road intersection. Project Description The proposed project would replace the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant’s (RWQCP) existing chlorine disinfection facility with an ultraviolet (UW) disinfection facility which would be built adjacent to the existing Chlorination Station building. The new UV facility would consist of a concrete channel structure approximately 80 feet long and 45 feet wide, sitting 11 feet above gade. The U-V facility and the associated lamp washdown and cleaning area would be permanently covered by an unenclosed structure that would be approximately 30 feet tall. The project includes the installation of photo voltaic panels on the structure’s roof top. The new UV facility would eliminate the use of all ammonia hydroxide, gaseous sulfur dioxide, and chlorine gas that is used for disinfection. Ultra VioLet Treatment Facility ND Page 1 of 2 II.DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project located on San Antonio Road and frontage roads from Alma Street to U.S. Highway 101 Interchange could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential enviroranental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. Project Planner Date Director of Planning and Community Environment Date Ultra Violet Treatment Facdity ND Page 2 of 2 Legend "...-.-.,e Project Site The City of Palo Alto ATTACHMENT C 2501 Embarcadero Way UV Treatment Facility Zone Map This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS APPLICANT’S SUBMITTAL INFORMATION 2501 Embarcadero Way- UV Treatment Facility Attachment D Project Submittal Letter Project/Site Summary Table Project Background Photosimulation Supplemental Site Photographs Cityof Palo Alto Public Works Department Nov. 30,2007 Divisions Administration 650.329.9_373 650.329.2299 fax Engineering 650.329.2151 650.329.2299 fax Environmental Compliance 650.329.2598 650.494.3531 fax Equipment Management 650.496.6922 650.496.6958 fax Facilities Management 650.496.6900 650.496.6958 fax Operations 650.496.6974 650.852.9289 fax Regional Water Quality Control 650.329.2598 650.494.3531 fax Dept. of Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject:2501 Embarcadero Way - RWQCP UV Disinfection Facility Project. The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant on behalf of the City of Palo Alto requests for review of a project to construct a new treatment tank with solar canopy within the interior area of the existing plant property. The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) proposes the ultra-violet (UV) disinfection facility project to replace its existing chemical disinfection facility. The project would use existing buildings and would require the construction of only one new structure. The new UV structure would be located in the interior asphalt area of the fenced RWQCP property, adjacent to the existing Chlorination Station building. This location is shielded by groves of tall trees and existing tall buildings from the public and the Bayland. The new structure would be an approximately 3600 square-feet (80 ft by 45 ft), 11 feet high rectangular concrete structure that will house the UV equipment. The proposed 3600 sq. ft. UV structure is sized for the largest UV equipment currently in the market. Depending on the actual equipment selected through the competitive bid process, the structure may be smaller. The UV structure will be partially covered with a solar paneled canopy. It is necessary to cover the portion of the structure housing the UV lamps to protect the equipment from the elements and allow workers to safely maintain the electrical equipment during rainy weather. The top of the canopy provides a good surface area for mounting of solar panels, which would reduce electric power consumption of the UV facility. The solar canopy will be approximately 30 feet above the existing grade and will be supported by metal poles. The height of the solar canopy is determined based on the clearance required to provide sufficient head room for equipment removal from the structure. Access to the new UV facility would be through the existing gated paved roads through the RWQCP. No new road and no clearing are required for the construction and operation of the new UV facility. Four parking spaces would be removed in order to accommodate the new UV structure. These parking spaces are for vendors/sales person visiting the RWQCP. There are more than a dozen vendor parking spaces in other areas of the RWQCP and they are never fully occupied. Hence, no impact due to the removal of the four spaces is expected. The RWQCP began planning for its future in 2000 with the initiation of the Long-Term Goals Study (LTGS). The RWQCP formed a stakeholder group consisting of local and regional environmental groups, business leaders, community groups such as the League of Women Voters, and the RWQCP partner agencies. Through a series of stakeholder workshops spanning several Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine RO.Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 years, the RWQCP and its stakeholders developed goals for the plant to meet the environmental and socioeconomic needs of the communities. The Disinfection Facility Plan is a result of the LTGS planning effort and is the RWQCP’s first step in designing a sustainable future. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan in that it meets the Land-use, Transportation, and Natural Environment goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: ao Land-use - the proposed facility will be constructed in the interior area of the existing plant site that is designated for wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed additional facility does not change the designated use of the site, does not increase the site area, and does not change the zoning. The proposed building is less obtrusive in size and height than the existing buildings on the plant site, and is designed to match the appearance of the existing buildings of the plant. b°Transportation - the proposed UV technology would replace the existing chemical disinfection technol0~w and minimize transportation of hazardous chemical through the roadways in Palo Alto and the Bay area. The UV facility would require substantially less transportation of material to the plant. The project would reduce traffic through city streets, the region, and the entire Bay area. Natural Environment - the UV facility would conserve the natural environment by reducing pollutant discharge to the Bay. It would reduce hazardous chemical storage and use at the RWQCP. Hence potential public exposure to a hazardous chemical release is minimized; thereby the project helps protect life and properties. The UV facility would also reduce a significant amount of green-house gas emission and regional energy consumption. The UV facility is on the top Council agenda. The site and design of the proposed project complies with all of the Palo Alto municipal code objectives as re-iterated below: The project is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the structure will resemble existing facility structures and is located in the interior area of the existing RWQCP property boundary. The project is appropriate to the function of the project in that it was designed specifically to treat wastewater using UV disinfection at the RWQCP. An environmental engineering firm that specializes in wastewater collection and treatment engineers the design. The design is in keeping with the Plant’s existing sense of order. o The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the height and bulk of the proposed structure is smaller than the existing structures that are seen behind the proposed project from the vantage point of the Baylands looking across Embarcadero Road. The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structure in that Plant’s structures including the proposed structure are evenly distributed throughout the property. Access to the project site and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians and vehicles in that the project plans for adequate roadway to accommodate operational needs. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the project is sited in a previously disturbed, paved area on the RWQCP property. No vegetation would be impacted. o The materials, textures, colors, and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function in that they are the same or similar to adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements We have sited and desig-ned the project to improve the environment, minimize impact to the public, and to meet all of the city’s requirements. We appreciate your consideration of an approval of the proposed project. Richard Wetzel Manager, RWQCP UV Disinfection Facility - RWOCP PROJECT DATA Applicant CPA Public Works~aisy Stark Owner City of Palo Alto Leaseholder Assessor’s Parcel Number I 008-05-005 Comprehensive Plan Desig-nation I Zoning District I PF (D) Surrounding Land Use I PF (D) and ROLM (E) (D) (AD) EXISTING CONDITIONS Property size Street frontage Existing buildings floor area Property setbacks Front Rear Side Side Floor Area Ratio - site coverage, buildin~ Height of existing buildings Existing parking facilities Landscape features PROPOSED PROJECT 44,006,007 sq. ft. Embarcadero Way, Embarcadero Road, Harbor Road 75,080 SF 175 ft. 30ft. 40 ft. 60 ft. 0. !7% coverage 45ft -10ft 70 parking (incl. Handicapped parking) Tall trees surround the entire site New structure sq.ft. Property Setbacks Front Rear Sides Floor Area Ratio - site coverage, building Height of proposed building Parking facilities Landscape Features 3600 sq ft. - water treatment tank, open top 4290 sq ft. - sunshade above tank and washdown area 175 ft. 30ft. 40 ft- 60 ft. 0.18% coverage 11’ high tank with 19’ high sunshade above tank Existing (no additional stall needed) Tall trees surround the entire site Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant UV Disinfection Project UV DISINFECTION FACILITY PROJECT BACKGROUND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 Introduction The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) uses gaseous chlorine and sulfur dioxide to disinfect and dechlorinate treated effluent before discharge to San Francisco Bay. Through a multi-year stakeholder process, the RWQCP has developed a project to replace its existing gaseous chlorine and sulfur dioxide disinfection system with an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system. The UV system would provide disinfection of effluent before discharge to the Bay, and would also provide disinfection for recycled water produced at the RWQCP. A liquid sodium hypochlorite system would be installed to replace the gaseous chlorine currently used for non-disinfection processes at the plant. Figure 1-1 shows the regional project location. 1.2 Background The RWQCP began planning for its future in 2000 with the initiation of the Long-Term Goals Study (LTGS). The RWQCP formed a stakeholder group consisting of local and regional environmental groups, business leaders, community groups such as the League of Women Voters, and the RWQCP partner agencies including the Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos, the Town of Los Altos Hills, Stanford University, and the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. Through a series of eight stakeholder RWQCP UV Disinfection Project 1-1 Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant UV Disinfection Project xvorkshops spanning three years, the RWQCP and its stakeholders developed goals for the plant to meet the environmental and socioeconomic needs of the communities. The long-term goals established through the LTGS reflect an overarching goal of sustainability and are intended to assist the RWQCP in planning and designing for a sustainable future. At present, the plant uses chlorine gas follo~ved by sulfur dioxide to disinfect and dechlorinate its treated water prior to discharge to the San Francisco Bay. Chlorine gas was historically the chemical of choice for disinfection. However, most treatment plants in the Bay Area have converted to other types of disinfection due to concerns over on-site storage and transportation of chlorine gas and sulfur dioxide. This concern, along with the fact that minimization/elimination of potentially hazardous chemical usage is one of the plant’s long-term goals, spurred the RWQCP to embark on a Disinfection Alternatives Work Plan in 2004. The goal of the Work Plan was to identify a shortlist of disinfection alternatives for detailed review and to formulate a work plan to evaluate each of the short-listed alternatives. To meet this goal, the RWQCP engaged with stakeholders in a series of workshops, during which they identified, developed, and screened candidate disinfection technologies. Through a series of four work Plan workshops spanning nine months, the RWQCP and the stakeholders developed and evaluated disinfection alternatives. The conclusion of the Work Plan analysis was that UV technology presented the most viable alternative to chlorine gas for effluent disinfection at the RWQCP. The RWQCP and the stakeholders decided to evaluate t~vo disinfection alternatives in more detail in a Disinfection Facility Plan; conversion to UV treatment and continuing the use of chlorine gas. The stakeholders indicated that, with respect to environmental sustainability, the Disinfection Facility Plan should investigate the environmental impact of UV versus chlorine by conducting life cycle assessment of the two technologies in terms of minimizing the release of toxins to the environment and minimizing energy consumption/maximizing energy life cycle efficiency. The Disinfection Facility Plan began in July 2006. The results of the analysis of UV disinfection versus the no project alternative of continued use of gaseous chlorine for disinfection are included in this California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document. 1.2.1 Stakeholder Involvement The RWQCP has worked to involve stakeholders throughout all three phases of the project, i.e. the Long- Term Goals Study, the Disinfection Alternatives Work Plan, and the Disinfection Facility Plan to obtain consensus on the recommendations resulting from the ~vork. The RWQCP hosted a series of workshops that all interested members from the public were welcome to attend. The RWQCP personally invited the LTGS stakeholders, who represent a wide range of environmental and socioeconomic interests of the communities, to reconvene for these workshops. These stakeholders were encouraged to share information about the project with other potentially interested parties. Between 15 and 22 stakeholders attended each of the workshops. Announcements on the studies were published in the RWQCP’s 2004 and 2005 Annual Reports (RWQCP, 2004; RWQCP, 2005). These reports were distributed at stakeholder workshops and were submitted to the City of Palo Alto, the City of Mountain View, and the other partner agencies. In the City of Palo Alto, the reports were included in the City Council’s meeting packages that are made available to the public. The RWQCP also created a Disinfection Alternatives Work Plan website to inform the public of the project.l The website details the history of disinfection at the RWQCP and was used to announce upcoming workshops and provide workshop meeting minutes. A comment form was made available on RWQCP UV Disinfection Project 1-2 Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant UV Disinfection Project the website for the public to send comments to the RWQCP and to be added to the mailing list for the project. The project mailing list was used to send updates and notices about each of the workshops. 1.3 Project Objectives and Need The Project objectives are to reduce release of toxins to the environment by eliminating the use of chlorine and sulfur dioxide in the RWQCP disinfection process and replace it with a UV disinfection process, and to replace the non-disinfection gaseous chlorine uses with a liquid sodium hypochlorite system. The project has bee developed in accordance with the long-term goals established by the stakeholders during the LTGS described in Section 1.2. The long-term goals that are applicable to this project are as follows: ¯Meet or Exceed Regulatory Requirements ¯Minimize Energy Consumption and Maximize Energy Life Cycle Efficiency o Minimize or Eliminate Potentially Hazardous Chemical Usage °Minimize or Eliminate Release of Toxins to the Environment °Minimize Impact on Ecosystem °Minimize Impact on Community, Including Neighboring Communities °Minimize or Justify Financial Impact on Rate Payers °Involve Stakeholders in the Decision making Process °Maximize Worker Safety °Maximize Recycled Water as a Supplemental Source 1.4 Existing Facilities The RWQCP is located within the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara, offof Embarcadero Road on the north side of Highway 101 (see Figure 1-1). It is located near light industrial and office buildings, the Palo Alto airport, and Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (Baylands Preserve). The RWQCP is a "tertiary" facility capable of producing highly filtered and disinfected effluent. The RWQCP currently disinfects with chlorine gas folloxved by dechlorination with sulfur dioxide prior to discharge to the Bay. Dechlorination is required to reduce the chlorine residual to a level that is not toxic to aquatic life, and sulfur dioxide is therefore considered an integral part of the disinfection process. The plant is also implementing the addition of ammonia hydroxide to the disinfection process. The chloramines formed from the addition of ammonia will help reduce the formation of trihalomethanes, a disinfection by-product that is regulated in the plant’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit. On an average dry weather day the plant uses approximately 2,000 lb/day of chlorine, 600 1b/day of sulfur dioxide, and 220 lb/day of ammonia hydroxide. Approximately 70 percent of the chlorine used daily at the plant is for disinfection. The remaining 30 percent of the daily usage is for auxiliary process including hydrogen sulfide control at the sludge belt presses, biological growth control in the filter bac~vash, and maintaining a chlorine residual in the recycled water distribution system. The chlorine facility includes a chlorine contact tank, a dechlorination mixing structure, a chlorine/sulfur dioxide building, and chemical tanks and pumps within a bermed outdoor containment area. The chlorine/sulfur dioxide building was originally constructed in 1969. A renovation completed in 1986 resulted in the current building configuration, which includes a chlorine bulk storage room, a sulfur dioxide bulk storage room, a chlorination control room, and an equipment room. Chlorine and sulfur dioxide are delivered to the plant by 18-20 ton tanker trucks. The chemicals are then off-loaded to the corresponding individual 25-ton capacity steel storage tanks. In addition to the bulk tanks, there are provisions to store one-ton containers of each chemical. A maximum 74,000 pounds of each chemical RWQCP UV Disinfection Project 1-3 Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant UV Disinfection Project can be stored on-site in bulk storage and one-ton containers. The chlorine and sulfur dioxide are distributed throughout the plant as either a gas or as a solution. Both chlorine and sulfur dioxide are classified as acutely hazardous materials. The plant has an extensive accidental release prevention program to minimize the safety risks associated with the storage and handling of the chemicals. Maintaining and updating the safety procedures requires a significant investment of resources. 1.5 Proposed Project New Facilities: The new UV system would be located entirely inside the fenced RWQCP property, adjacent to the existing Chlorination Station building. The selected location for the UV system is shielded from the public and the Baylands by groves of tall trees. The UV facility consists of an approximately 3,600 square-feet by 11 feet high rectangular concrete structure (80 ft by 45 ft) that will house the UV equipment. The proposed 3,600 sq. ft. UV structure is sized for the largest UV equipment currently available. Depending on the actual equipment selected through the competitive bid process, the structure may be smaller. The UV structure and lamp wash down and cleaning area will be partially covered with an axvning to protect workers and equipment from rain during operation, maintenance, and repair of the UV electrical system. Metal poles would be erected to support the awning and solar panels would be installed on top of the awning. The awning would be approximately 19 feet high above the top of the new concrete structure to provide sufficient head room for equipment removal and maintenance. Part of the existing chlorine/sulfur dioxide building will be converted to a UV Electrical and Control room that would house the electrical equipment associated with the UV system and the liquid sodium hypochlorite system. Access to the new UV system and the new liquid sodium hypochlorite system would be through the existing gated paved roads through the RWQCP. No new road and no clearing are required for the construction and operation of the new UV facility. The rated treatment capacity of the plant would not be increased and discharge quantities to the Bay would remain the same. The Project would improve effluent water quality because UV disinfection does not produce Trihalomethanes (THMs), N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), and cyanide, which are currently produced as by-product of the chlorine disinfection system. In addition, the outfall structure would not be modified as part of this project. The recycled water production capacity of the RWQCP is currently 4 million gallons per day (MGD). Using the fourth channel of the UV system, during the low summer flow months, for recycled water disinfection would increase the summer time recycled water production capacity to a maximum of 6.5 MGD. Operation and Maintenance The new UV facility would use approximately 540 gallons per day (gpd) of liquid sodium hypochlorite. The level of truck traffic for deliveries to the site is expected to be similar to current operations. However, by converting to UV disinfection with some supplemental sodium hypochlorite solution on- site, the trucks would be hauling liquid hypochlorite, not the highly hazardous compressed chlorine and sulfur dioxide gases. Approximately 440 of the lamps in the UV facility would need to be replaced each year. Management of these spent UV lamps must comply with California’s Universal Waste Rule. The conversion to UV would increase the amount of universal waste generated by the RWQCP, but the plant would still be classified as a small quantity handler. Since the RWQCP already is accustomed to managing spent fluorescent lamps, no new procedures of training would be necessary. RWQCP UV Disinfection Project 1-4 ~-~ 00_.I 5q (D 0 0# Attachment E RWQCP Education Program The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) educates and informs the public through plant tours, a website, printed materials, and school pro~arns. Plant Tours (Grades 6 and up) Tours of the RWQCP are a popular educational tool used by schools, youth groups, and citizens. The tour educates the public tl~rough an informative video, colorful information packet, and staff-led site visits to plant process areas. Tours are scheduled in advance by calling (650) 329- 2598. The tour takes about one hour. Tour itinerary: Classroom session - At the start of the tour, the tour group is shown a ten-mirmte video that shows water as an important resource and gives an overview ofwastewater treatment. After the video, the group is shown visuals of plant process schernatics, aerial photos, and models of the treatment process. Visitors are given a colorful brochure of the RWQCP. ,Tour of Operations area - The first stop is the central control room and the plant laboratory, where the processes are controlled, monitored, and analyzed for efficiency. The quality of the water at various stages of treatment is also monitored and tested. Tour of process treatment areas - After the visit to the operations area, the ~oup is led to key stops along the process route. Visitors are shown the biological processes actively treating the wastewater and the final treated clear water prior to Bay discharge. The last stop is at the recycled water area. Visitors can see the plant’s recycled water system and the adjacent landscaping showing the nexus between recycled water and landscape irrigation. The combination of the brochure and the tour leader’s explanations reinforce the tour participant’s learning as they walk through the steps of wastewater treatment. 2~OZl/’S tire cttllelllly suspemled because of a high volume Of COIlSlrttc[ioll pI’ojects cllld chemical sc(eO, co~wer~ts. However; tours will resume at the start of tile 2008-2009 school year. Upon completioi~ of the ~e~, UV Disinfection Facilio:, the UV Disi~(ectio~ Facilio~ will be i~tcorporated into the tour and new brochures will be printed. Facilio~ sig~zage will be added to match existing tour sig~s. A plaque describing the UV disinfection process for the effluent and the recycled water will be mounted at the UV fitcilio~. The new tour iti~eraW will include a show of the UV lamp module out of the cham~el to help tour participants understand the disinfection pl-ocess. Website ( www. cio,ofl)aloalto, o~/et~viJ’oizment/water__qualio,, asp) The website infomas the public of the plant’s functions and interfaces with the public on the plant’s activities. The site hosts various plant related topics and programs that are of interest to the public. "Regional Water Quality Control Plant" web page This section elicits the plant’s mission, its goal and vision to evolve into a sustainable wastewater treatment system. "Long-term Goal" web pages This site walks the viewer through the wastewater treatment processes of the plant. The viewer will gain knowledge on how the processes work, the issues and concerns, what improvements could be made, and how to achieve sustainability. Public meeting announcements and agenda are also published at this site, and the meeting minutes are posted for public viewing. "Water Reuse" web pages The plant’s water reuse policy, the rules and regulations are published in this section. Viewers learn how recycled water is generated, the quality of the recycled water, how the water could be reused beneficially, and what precautions should be taken with recycled water usage. Public meeting minutes are posted. Endorsements and messages from various organizations, such as the Santa Clara County Medical Association, are also posted. "Projects" web page On-going and near-tema projects are posted in this section to inform the public of the schedule of activities that may be of interest to the public. This web page is regularly updated to provide the most up-to-date infomaation. Printed Materials The RWQCP publishes brochures and project flyers to highlight the importance of pollution prevention, wastewater treatment, and recycled water. "Workiug for a Cleaner Bay" brochure The brochure gives facts about the RWQCP wastewater treatment plant with many visuals showing wastewater treatment in action, and describes the steps of the wastewater treatment process. The brochure also provides pollution prevention tips. "Water Reuse Program" flyer The fact sheet is updated as needed to provide the public a status report on the RWQCP water reuse program. New recycled water projects are announced, and new information regarding the use of recycled water is noted in this flyer. "Long-term Goals" annual report This annual report provides a summary of projects undertaken by the RWQCP during the year, and demonstrates how the RWQCP follows the roadmap of the term-terna goals study to become a sustainable treatment system. School and Pollution Prevention Programs Water-quality related educational programs are available to public and private schools within the RWQCP service area (East Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford). The RWQCP reaches 100 classrooms each year. We work one-on-one with teachers to tailor our programs to meet student needs. The pro~ams cover a variety of water-quality topics for grade levels ranging from elementary school to high school. In addition to classroom visits, the RWQCP offers educationa! materials and videos for use in the classroom. Creek Pollution Prevention (Grades 2-5) Students learn about how water pollution affects the plants and animals in local creeks. They participate in activities to discover how pollution from urban areas ends up ira the creek and how they can reduce water pollution in the vital creek habitat. The relationship between creeks, wetlands and the watershed is also studied. C’urriculum Objectives: o What is a creek and how is it related to our watershed °How pollution enters and effects the creek environment ¯Harmful effects of urban development on creeks o Pollution prevention for creeks o Interactive classroom projects and games Down The Drain (Grades 2 and up) What is the difference between a sewer and a storm drain? Through hands-on activities, students learn about urban impacts on the natural water cycle and how they can help prevent water pollution. Other topics include recycling at home, sewage treatment, operation ofwastewater treatment plants and how storm drains are cormected to the San Francisco Bay. Our Environment Up Close (Grades 3-6) With the use of the EnviroScape® model, your students become detectives searching for pollutants ira our enviromnent. They will learn the sources of common pollutants, where these pollutants travel and how they affect our envirom-nent. The model includes houses, roads, industry, a farm, a construction site, a golf course, a partially logged forest, two creeks and a bay. Other presentations include a Watershed Mapping activity that uses self-directed learning teclmiques to demonstrate how pollution travels throughout our enviromnent. 5Iercury: Past & Present (Grades 4-5) Students travel through time, discovering how mercury has been mined and used in northern California since the time of the Gold Rush. They will figure out how this toxic metal is transferred throughout ecosystems, including that of our San Francisco Bay. Other topics include the history of mercury and what we can do to help limit mercury contamination in our area. Curriculum Objectives: ¯How mercury became a pollutant in our environment ¯How mercury impacts ecosystems and water systems ¯How mercury can accumulate in organisms of the food chain ¯Mercury pollution prevention activities to protect the enviromnent and people Storm Drain Stenciling (Grades 4 and up) Does your school have storms drains on campus? If so, let us help educate your students about pollution prevention near storm drains. Stenciling your campus storrn drains with the DRAINS TO CREEK or DRAINS TO BAY logo can be combined with a video on creek pollution and prevention or with a presentation of the EnviroScape model. Watershed Pollution Prevention (Grades 4-5) What is a watershed? Why is it improtant? Students learn how groundwater and surface water systems are connected. Other topics include COlnmon pollutants, drilling water supplies, the effect of urban development on our watershed and much more. Curriculum Objectives: ¯What is a watershed ¯How pollution enters and affects the watershed ¯Halqnful effects of urban development on the watershed °Pollution prevention ¯Interactive classroom projects and games What’s Bugging You?! (Grades 2 and up) Students crawl into the world of common pests in our local environment and discover how control methods for these pests contribute to water pollution. Through the introduction of 17PM- integrated Pest Management- students learn about the cultural, physical, mechanical and biological methods of pest control. Interesting facts about common insects and bugs will be presented, with hands-on activities to introduce these concepts. We’ll ansxver questions such as: ¯What do insects and bugs have to do with water pollution? ¯Is there such a thing as a "good bug"? ¯Which are the "bad bugs"? ¯Why should we leave spiders in their webs instead of killing them? °What do you do if you see one ant by itself?. ¯What can [ do to protect the water from pollution? l~licrobes In Sewage (Grades 6-8) Studems jump into the miniature world of the microbes that keep our water clean. They will investigate microbes and try to match what they see under the microscope with keys and charts. The biological, chemical and physical processes used in sewage treatment plants will also be explored. Curriculum Objectives: ¯How the Baylands are connected to the food ~veb ¯How to identify organisms tlu’ough classification of structure ¯How microbes reduce dissolved pollutants Sewer Science (Grades 9-12) Sewer Science is a hands-on lab that teaches high school students about municipal wastewater treatment using specially designed tanks, analytical equipment, and a student workbook. Developed specifically to meet the needs of grades 9 through 12, this powerful tool can help wastewater treatment plants reinforce pollution prevention messages and introduce students to careers in the wastewater field. Key Benefits Meeting high school science educational standards while addressing the outreach needs of wastewater treatment agencies, the Sewer Science Curriculum Objectives: ¯ Teaches students the basic concepts of how wastewater is treated prior to being returned to the environment ¯Is interdisciplinary - microbiology, chemistry, physics, and environmental science °Links science and technology to envirorunental impacts and issues °Fosters an awareness about the fate of household chemicals ¯Encourages students to take responsibility for the household products that they us Attachment F COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE 2501 Embarcadero Way - UV Treatment Facility The project site is designated as Major Institution/Special Facility in the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation provides for institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations. There are no proposed changes in the use; the existing use, a waste water treatment facility, is an appropriate use for this land use designation. The proposed project is consistent with the listed Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs. Goal N-l: A Citywide Open Space System that Protects and Conserves Palo Alto’s Natural Resources and Provides a Source of Beauty and Enjoyment for Palo Alto Residents. Policy C-25: Make infrastructure improvements on public open space only when these improvements are consistent with the goals of protecting and conserving the natural environment. Policy L-l: Retain undeveloped Baylands northeast of Highway 101 as open space. Policy N-8: Preserve and protect the Bay, marshlands, salt ponds, slough, creeks and other natural water or wetland areas as open space. Program N-37: Monitor wastewater treatment industry practices relating to the use of chlorine to disinfect wastewater. The use of chlorine in wastewater treatment is being questioned and discouraged by many environmental advocacy organizations because it can combine with organic chemicals to form highly toxic and persistent compounds such as dioxin and chloroform. Most of the chlorine used by Palo Alto reacts with pathogenic organisms and bacteria, and is transformed to chloride. The concern is that some chlorine will produce chlorinated hydrocarbons such as dioxin which can accumulate in living tissue. Presently, the level of chlorinated by-products (such as chloroform and other chlorinated hydrocarbons) meets all regulatory requirements. Nonetheless, the wastewater treatment industry is exploring other disinfection technologies and a shift is likely in the coming years. Ultraviolet light is the substitute that looks best now, given available data. Once successfully demonstrated at larger facilities, Palo Alto may decide to change to a different disinfection method in the future. City of Palo Alto Attachment G ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 2501 Embarcadero Way- UV Treatment Facility DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED PF ZONE DISTRICT STANDARDS PROJECT STANDARD Street Fronting Setbacks Complies 20’ Interior Setbacks Complies 20’ adjacent to ROLM(E); 10’ adjacent to PF(D) Floor Area Complies 1:1 Lot Coverage Complies 30% Height 30’50’ Project is not located within 150’of residential uses or zone districts. ROLM(E) requires 20’ for all setbacks. The project is adjacent to the rear lots of ROLM zoned parcels and must use this setback as a minimum. City of Palo Alto Attachment H CORRESPONDANCE 2501 Embarcadero Way- UV Treatment Facility There was one public comment received on this project. The letter of support is below: February 18, 2008 RE:- Support for Ultra-Violet Disinfection Facility at Regional Water Quality Control Plant On behalf of CLEAN South Bay, I am very pleased to support the installation of the proposed Ullxa-Violet Disinfection Facility. Reducing or eliminating the use of chlorine was one of the top health and safety priorities of the stakeholders (including me) in setting environmental and sustainability goals for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. So I am delighted the City and its Partners are moving to early implementation of this important recommendation. The full life-cycle analysis supporting Ultra-Violet Disinfection compared with the production and Iransport of chlorine shows the UV alternative uses less energy and produces less carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas). These benefits are in addition to the health and safety concerns of importance to RWQCP staff and the surrounding communities. Anything you can do to expedite the installation and operation of the Ultra-Violet Disinfection Facility will be appreciated. Thanks for considering this request. Sincerely, " Trish ~ .vey~ Cofounder, ~I~EAN SouthBay 527 Rhodes Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 326-0252 or mulvey@ix.netcom.eom co: Interested Parties City of Palo Alto Attachment I S PLANNING ATTACHMENT J & TRANSPOR TA TION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Clare Campbell Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE:March 12, 2008 SUBJECT:250~,.Embarcadero Way [07PLN-00378]: Request by the Palo Alto Reglbrial Water Quality Control Plant, on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, for Site and Design review for the construction of a new 3,600 square foot ultra violet wastewater treatment facility, replacing the old treatment system. Zone District: PF(D) Public Facility with Site and Design Overlay. Environmental Review: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the application for Site and Design Review, based on the findings and draft conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action (Attacl~nent A). BACKGROUND The project has had a preliminary review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on February 21, 2008. The Board unanimously provided positive and supportive feedback on the project. There were no public comments for this item. Site Information The project site is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, bordered by Embarcadero Road and Harbor Road, directly across from the Bay. The site is zoned Public Facility with the Site and Design Overlay PF(D). The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) has the primary function of treating the entire City’s waste~vater before it is released into the Bay. The wastewater plant functions are an existing permitted use, and the proposed project does not impact the allowable City of Palo Alto Page 1 uses at the site. Within the RWQCP site, there are numerous buildings and structures all related to its daily operations. Along the Embarcadero Road and Harbor Road frontages, there is existing mature vegetation approximately 50 to 75 feet tall that screens many of the internal structures. The RWQCP is surrounded by passive recreational uses, a small aircraft airport, and office warehouse uses. Proiect Description The proposed project, an ultra violet (UV) wastewater treatment facility, will be replacing the existing chlorine based treatment system. The new UV facility would consist of a 3,600 square foot concrete chamael structure approximately 80 feet long and 45 feet wide, sitting 11 feet above grade. The UV facility and the associated lamp washdown and cleaning area would be permanently covered by an unenclosed structure that would be approximately 30 feet tall. The project includes the installation of photo voltaic (PV) pm~els on the structure’s roof top. The base of the structure is unfinished concrete with aluminum railings. The metal cm~opy will have a dark brown finish, similar to the existing buildings at the facility. Please see Attachment C for additional background information, site photos, mad photosimulations of the project. Sustainable Desi, .~,n The proposed use ofa UV treatment system is a benefit to the enviromnent in that it eliminates the current use of toxins, such2a.s ammonia hydroxide, gaseous sulfur dioxide, and chlorine gas, for disinfection. In addition, th-e project includes PV panels on ahnost a!l of its roof structure. SUMb’IARY OF KEY ISSUES: The project is in conformance with the Zoning regulations for the PF zone district. Because the project is located in the B aylands Nature Preserve, there are additional principles for development that should be followed (see Attachment G). The overall mass of the project, due primarily to the canopy requirements, does not fit well with the Bayland’s aesthetic, but the project appears to be well screened from all public views. The facility has a utilitarian function and has limited design alternatives. The proposed project meets the four Site and Design findings by being compatible and harmonious with the surrounding land uses, maintaining desirability of investment in the area, utilizing envirol~rnental desi~, and complying with the Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment A, Section 3 for details). POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Baylands Master Plan policies and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. The project is well screened from public views, which mitigates its visual impact on the Baylands Nature Preserve. The project advances the City’s sustainability policies by using the UV treatment process and by incorporating the PV panels on the roof. TIMELINE The Site and Design review process provides for the following review: PTC, ARB, and then City Council for final action. The project is tentatively scheduled for ARB review on April 3, 2008 and Council review by late April/early May. City of Palo Alto Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Enviromaaental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. The 30- day public comment period for this document was completed on February 29, 2008. No comments were received on the Draft Negative Declaration. ATTACHMENTS A. Record of Land Use Action B. Location Map C. Applicant Submittal / Back~ound* D. Comprehensive Plan Table E. Zoning Table F. Conespondence G. Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (excerpt) H. Negative Declaration and Initial Study Checklist I. Plans (Commission only)* * Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff COURTESY COPIES Daisy Stark, RWQCB Prepared by:Clare Campbell, Plam~er Reviewed by: Cathy Siegel, Advance Plarming Manager Department/Division Head Approval: Curtis Williams, Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Page 3 Attachment K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Excerpt Draft Verbatim Minutes tVednesday, March 12, 2008 Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton A yen tte Palo Alto, California 94301 2501 Embarcadero Wav~: Request by the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, for Site and Design revie~v for the construction of a new 3,600 square foot ultra violet wastewater treatment facility, replacing the old treatment system. Zone District: PF(D) Public Facility with Site and Design Overlay. Environmental Review: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Yes, good evening Commissioners. My name is Clare Campbell I am the project planner. I would like to start off just by clarifying a few of the questions that came up from the Commissioners. A request was made to correct the Zoning Map, Attachment B in the Staff Report. There were some concerns over the labels overlapping and the labels not quite being in the right location. Unfortunately these GIS layers are not available for Staff to edit and so that is just how it is. It still is an accurate representation of the zoning. The next item was to correct the map to show a polygon for the actual project area instead of a circle. I used a circle because there is no existing polygon our GIS system that I could select to highlight that area. The plan is actually part of two very large parcels that cover most of the Bay Lands. In Attachment C I assembled the information that was provided by the applicant and I placed them in the order that I thought was appropriate. I understand that the page numbering is off because of that but I will make sure I remove the numbers for future use to reduce confusion. A question was raised about the materials that were listed on sheet A-1 of the plans. The materials are concrete, stainless steel, the prefabricated steel, and it is all written actually on the sheet itself it is just written right on the actual different components of the project. There isn’t an actual list there. There is a reference to the color as well to the canopy cover it is a dark brown color. Just for clarification the existing perimeter landscaping is a critical element for this project because it provides the screening and in Attachment A of the Staff Report it is the Record of Land Use Action. There are conditions of approval that address the specific issue. The conditions require that the existing landscaping be maintained for optimal growing conditions and timely mitigation required if the trees with landscaping start to decline. So that way the screening is well maintained for the life of the project. This concludes Staff’s portion of the City of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 presentation. I will turn it over to Marilyn Bailey the consultant who has been working on the project to do her presentation. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. Ms. Bailey you will have 15 minutes to make your presentation. Ms. Marilvn Bailey, Consultant: Thank you. I would like to give just a brief overview of the project. Again this is the Ultraviolet Disinfection Facility for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant for Palo Alto. Just as a refresher the plant is located at 2501 Embarcadero Way, which is in this blocked circled area. This project has resulted from about eight years of public input into this process starting in 2000 with a Long-Term Goals Study, which established criteria and goals for future improvements at the wastewater treatment plant. That led to a disinfection alternatives work plan in which those goals were applied to the disinfection process. As a result of that work which analyzed a number of methods of disinfection at the plan the UV Disinfection process was selected as the most viable long-term disinfection option for the treatment plant. We are now in the Facility Plan UV Final Design stage, which takes the UV concept and develops eventually biddable plans and specs for implementation of the project. Over the eight years we have had 13 public workshops on this process. There have been 15 to 20 stakeholders per workshop, and a wide range of attendees at those workshops including representatives of environmental groups, business representatives, citizens of Palo Alto, and the partner agencies. So again this has been a stakeholder driven process and decision tt~oughout. The lifecycle analysis, one of the key goals of the Long Term Goal Study was sustainability. As an example looking that the lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions it favors UV disinfection. UV uses more onsite power demand than a chemically based disinfection process. When you factor in manufacturing and transportation UV disinfection uses much less CO2 emissions or greerd~ouse gas emissions than a chemically based system would. This sho~vs the site plan of the treatment plant without the UV process. You can see here in black is the outline if the treatment plant itself. The UV system would be located within the plant boundaries in the center of the process units as this blue square indicates. This is a rendering of what the UV facility would look like. It is a relatively simple process building. It is actually a str~cture that consists of four concrete channels with UV equipment located in each of those channels, aluminum handrail and stairs for access. This is a prefabricated steel canopy over the center part of the structure it provides the support for the bridge crane which is needed to remove the UV equipment for maintenance. It provides shelter for rain and sun from maintenance and operations staff who need to work on the equipment. It also provides a platform for the installation ofphotovoltaic cells on top of the roof. As Clare mentioned it is dark brown color to match the existing architecture at the plant. The lighting is under the canopy. Normally the lighting is off even during the nighttime. We do need to have lighting available for emergency maintenance operations during the nighttime and those would be operated manually by switches at the bottom of the stairs. Again, normally there xvould be no lighting associated with this process. This sho~vs a detail of the four channels of the UV system. In ~vet weather the flo~v passes through those channels and is discharged to the Bay. During the dry weather the first channel is Cio’ of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page 2 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 !5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 isolated and is used for recycled water production while the remaining channels again go to the Bay. In this photo we show the site where the UV system would located. This is the incinerator building, which is the prominent feature at the plant. Its height is approximately 48 feet tall. The UV system would go immediately in front of this equipment building as shown in this. Again, it consists of a concrete channel. This is approximately 11 feet tall and the roof canopy, which is 30 feet tall. This series of photos shows from the perimeter of the plant looking in towards the UV facility with three views of that view. Photo A is taken from Embarcadero Road looking east. In all these case you cannot see the UV facility so ~ve have outlined in white where it would be again if you could see it. The perimeter screening covers it from view. This is from the Embarcadero Road looking east. This is from Harbor Bay looking south you see the incinerator building and the UV facility would sit next to it. This is from the plant entrance on Embarcadero Way. The UV facility is screened not only by the trees but by other process structures. This series of photos is standing in the center of what would be the UV site looking at the surrounding facilities at the treatment plant. Again, this is where the site would sit. This is an existing concrete tank. This is the maintenance building, the incinerator building, and this is the equipment building that the plant where the UV facility would be located immediately adjacent tO. In summary, the project has been designed for minimal impacts and is the result of a stakeholder driven process. It is located in the center of the wastewater treatment facilities to avoid impacts both to the environment and the public. It is screened from view. We recognize as one of the conditions of approval the landscaping will continue to be maintained by the Regional Plant. The Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for comment. No public comments were received on the Negative Declaration except for the letter of support from Clean South Bay. This project has also been presented at a preliminary Architectural Review Board meeting where it was well received and they had no suggested changes to the appearance of the structure itself. That concludes our presentation. Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioners, are there questions for the applicant? Commissioner Fineberg. Commissioner Fineber~: My first question is the trees versus solar. Is the raised canopy that is going to hold the solar panels well clear of the landscaping trees at the perimeter that provide the visual screen? Ms. Bailey: Yes it is. There are no trees within the plant site itself, which is where the canopy is. They are well clear of the perimeter trees. Commissioner Fineber~: Okay. In Attachment C there is a letter with the applicant’s submitted information. On page two it says the UV facility is on the top Council Agenda. W-hat does that mean? City of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page 3 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Mr. Phil Bobel, Manager of Environmental Compliance, Utilities Department: I think we are referring to the fact that this has positive greenhouse gas implications and in the Climate Action Plan perspective it is a positive feature with respect to that. Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Then on Attachment C it talks about liquid sodium hypochlorite system will replace the gaseous chlorine currently used in the non-disinfection process. Will the sodium hypochlorite be discharged into the Bay and have there been any studies on what the effect that will be? Mr. Bobel: The sodium hypo-chloride system that we are talking about adds the same amount of chlorine as our current system. So there is no new addition. In fact when we are done with this there will be less chlorine in the discharge. What is more important is that we de-chlorinate, that is we add another chemical currently prior to discharge to the Bay. We check it very carefully with continuous online monitoring. So now and in the future where there is chlorine there would always be the agent to reduce the chlorine to chloride. So we would always reduce the chlorine to chloride before we discharged any to the Bay. That has always been and always would be the process. Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. My last question, is the UV system a proven technology? Are there other cities in the area that are using it and are they of comparable size? Ms. Bailey: Yes there are a number of treatment plants in the Bay Area and around the country that use UV. Many of them are larger than this. Santa Rosa, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, nationwide about 20 percent of UV facilities of disinfection facilities are using ultraviolet. As new facilities are built they are predominantly UV. Dublin/San Ramon is a new facility, Novato Sanitary District is building a new treatment plant, which is UV disinfection, and Watsonville is building a recycled water facility, which is UV disinfection. It is a very established long-term disinfection treatment system. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, questions for the applicant. Commissioner Keller: There was a comment about continuing to require maintenance of the perimeter trees and landscaping. I remember when I visited the site because of the consideration of using part of it for a recycling center that as part of the perimeter landscaping there was a whole bunch of recycling bins being stored there. I am wondering if those recycling bins have been removed and the landscaping restored. Mr. Bobel: We are working on that area. I think the bins are all gone now. That area that you are talking about needs work and we recognize that. The planting needs to be rejuvenated. We need to rejuvenate that irrigation system there and plant new plants. Ultimately we would actually like to beef up that berm, that kind of soil feature that exists in part along that area. So to do this we have scheduled in Fiscal Year 2008-09 a new project that would essentially refurbish the landscaping around our site and reinstall irrigation systems when we need it, plant new plants along that area you are talking about as ~vell as other parts. We are going to look at the whole thing in 2008-09. Do you want to see the area Arthur is raising? Commissioner Keller: I think it is based on Figure 6 and it is near the area where it says ’no photo, inaccessible to the public.’ CiO, of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page 4 of 20 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22., 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Bobel: Right. He is talking about this area right along here. So this area in particular we are going to look at in 2008-09 and almost certainly have a new project to refurbish that. We will also look at the whole situation. The area that is c!osest to this project is over here so we will also look at that area. This is the one that you are talking about, Arthur that was identified when they considered the recycling center for that area. Ms. Bailey: Just one note. These are elevated, relatively tall, process structures. From this side you cannot see the UV facility because of the process structures. Cormnissioner Keller: Thank you. I notice that L~ is in sunlight and sunlight is often the best disinfectant and it is because of UV that we talk about that. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Garber, questions for the applicant. Vice-Chair Garber: Remind me, the UV process is the last step in the process of the water being treated, is that correct? Ms. Bailey: Yes. Vice-Chair Garber: Is there a master plan of work that the whole treatment area is marching to and if there is where does this project fit within that? Mr. Bobel: That is a good question and we recognize that we need a master plan. The answer is that all of the work that was identified in the original plant is essentially completed. Ia~ 2009-10 we plan to initiate a new master planning process for the plant. So there are no other identified projects but we expect that this 2009-10 master planning effort will involve some. There is one minor project that you will probably see in the future to relocate the flare from the landfill. It is actually a landfill thing the gas flare for the landfill will be relocated to the sewage treatment plant. That is the only other project and is a very small project that is going to be coming before the master plan. Vice-Chair Garber: Just for clarification, the project that you mentioned about the bins and the rest of that would it come before the master plan or would that be considered as part of the master plan? Mr. Turner: Well, the bins were just being stored there and I am almost sure they have been moved now. Those were the recycling totes. Vice-Chair Garber: One final question if I may, and remind me again, are there state incentives of any sort that the City is taking advantage of in regards to this project? Ms. Bailey: State incentives in terms of financial. The project is being funded by state revolving fund, which is a low interest financing pro~am from the state. So it does make it more economical. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, questions for the applicant. Cio’ of Palo Alio Marcl~ 12, 2008 Page 5 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Commissioner Lippert: UV disinfected is the preferred method. In fact my Rotary Club sponsors a UV disinfection program in a village in Guatemala and it is very low tech and works very well taking care of bacteria. How are chemicals removed from the wastewater? Ms. Bailey: Phil will answer that. Mr. Bobel: We usually call it a tertiary plant consisting of three parts. We have gavity settling, then we have biological action, and then thirdly filtration which makes it a tertiary plant. So all of those three components remove different pollutants. Stuff that will settle or gets glommed onto particles that settle get removed in the primary unit. Long chain organics get reduced to shorter chain organics and CO2 in the biological part. Then in the tertiary part, the filter, we get all kinds of stuff taken out there as well because of the filtration and because things are absorbing onto particles that are filtered. So really all components are removing almost all types of chemicals as it goes through but they are not removing all the chemicals, let me make that clear. It is not like we are removing 100 percent. Our removal efficiency varies from about 25 percent at the worst to 99.9 percent. So we have a wide range of removal percentages depending on the contaminate. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. One last question just to follow up on that. Are there any other communities that are contracting with us to use our wastewater plant and how does that tax the system? Chair Holman: IfI might, I think it is an interesting question but I am not sure that it applies to our Site and Design review or impacts. Commissioner Lippert: It does because what it has to do with is whether this is being built to meet just the current demand or how far in the future. Chair Holman: So are you indicating perhaps that there might be a traffic impact to this if other communities might use it? Commissioner Lippert: I really don’t know. I am just asking the question to find out if other communities are using it and whether it is going to tax the facility. Mr. Don Larkin, Assistant City Attorney: If the questions relate to sound environmental design and ecological balance that fits within the purview but if it relates to anything else it probably doesn’t. Chair Holman: Thank you, City Attorney. Mr. Bobel: Our treatment plants treats sewage from Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, and East Palo Alto. Those are all contract cities and this project is designed to meet the full load from all those cities with a projection into the future. They are partners in our sewage treatment plant. They pay their fair share. They will pay their fair share of this proj ect. Vice-Chair Garber: A follow up. So with the addition of this plant for how many more years will this city be able to enjoy the facility such as it is? CiO, of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page 6 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Ms. Bailey: Why don’t I start with that? What is setting the sizing of the UV facility is the wet weather flow, which is projected at 80 million gallons per day. That is the existing wet weather flow to the plant. We are not adding additional capacity beyond that, however, because that is a high number for normal operation this provides capacity to build out for the next 25 years. That is what the expected life term of this would be. Mr. Bobel: That is true for Palo Alto. It is kind of a complicated situation. Not all of our partners have that same degree of buffer capacity that Palo Alto does but what Marilyn says is true for Palo Alto. Ms. Bailey: Although when we did the project we looked at the long-term projections for all of the partner agencies. So it does provide capacity for again approximately 25 years. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas, questions for the applicant. Commissioner Sandas: Yes. This is one piece of a whole big Regional Water Quality Control Plant. So are there any plans for changing out other parts of the plant in the near future that would possibly improve our environmental friendliness? Mr. Bobel: That is what we are going to do in this 2009-10 master planning process. So we don’t have any plans except for this minor relocation thing I talked about for the immediate future. The next big issue for the sewage treatment plant and for all sewage treatment plants is the solids, the stuff that is left over at the end. Currently those are incinerated. There are a lot of features of the incineration process, which are less than optimal. However, there are a lot of negative features associated with what most sewage treatment plants do ~vhich is cart it out into the Central Valley somewhere and try to get rid of it. So we have a large policy issue in front of us looking to the future and that is the main one that we will tackle in the 2009-!0 master planning process. Chair Holman: I have a couple of questions and then we wil! go to the public and Commissioners have more questions as well. If you could confirm for me on page 7 of Attactvnent C, the photogaphic exhibit, there are three photographs on that page. I have two questions about the one in the upper left hand corner. Can you confirm that that is Embarcadero Road looking east as opposed to west? Ms. Bailey: Yes, let me go to slide 11. This is Embarcadero Road the person is looking that direction, east. The second one is taken fi’om Harbor Road looking southerly. Then again C is taken from the plant entrance looking northerly. The plant is a little bit offtrue north so it is actually looking...if we call this plant north it is looking that direction or into the plant itself. Mr. Bobel: The answer to your question is yes. You are asking about that arrow that she is pointing at now is looking that direction and we are calling that east. Chair Hohnan: Okay. In that same photograph dashed line images can you describe what those if there was nothing there so this is representing dash line images actually represent? and actually the one to the right of it as well the represent? Are they as the project would appear how this building is setback? What do these City of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page 7 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Ms. Bailey: Both would show if you could see the UV facility it would be that shape and size from that distance. So it is the outline of the UV facility. Chair Hohnan: Okay. Then how far away from the trees are they? Then it looks like the photo on the far left that actually part of the building might be visible because there is not screening in front of it for instance. Mr. Bobel: If you drove a little further down Embarcadero way from 101 and looked in you could see the facility that is correct. Through the gate and there is a small gap in the vegetation adjacent to the gate and you could see it. You asked how far it was from the fence and it is probably 100 feet or 150 feet from the fence, which in that bottom photograph the fence that you were trying to look through is on the right. So it is about 150 feet to the right of the structure. Ms. Bailey: This is what you see right now through the gate. This is the incinerator building, which is what you would see right now through the back gate that Phil was discussing. So we would be in front of that but smaller. Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Then my last question is these are from the road but we also have an improved park that will be there and there will be quite some elevation to that park. The park isn’t designed yet but there are elevations that exist and will be waded. Is there any evidence of what the visibility of this would be from the park? Mr. Bobel: She is going to go back to that map so we can show you where the hill is that you are talking about. So just to remind everybody here is the blue square where the new facility is going to be. The elevated area, the landfill essentially, what will become park is here. We did not attempt to do a visual that would look at the thing from this direction. There is quite a bit of the sewage treatment plant, which would be visible from above say 25 feet, standing on a hill here, there is quite a bit of this. Whether you would be able to see our new building is real questionable because this building here, our incinerator, is substantially bigger and taller. So our incinerator I think would block your vision of this building from anywhere in the ne~v Bixby Park area. Chair Holman: Thank you for that. We have two members of the public who would care to speak to this item and I know we have more questions for you as well. So our first speaker is Herb Borock and he will be followed by John Klein and you will have five minutes. Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Holman. Good evening Commissioners. This is a project where a City Division is the applicant and it sets a good example because the contact for public review of the environmental documents is the Planning Division. You have had projects, some requiring E12~s done by Public Works Engineering such as the police building or Community Services Department where we are told to send our comments on the environmental document to what is essentially the project applicant outside of the Planning Division. I would hope that at some point the Council would set a policy that these all are handled by the Planning Division for projects public as well as private. CiO, of Palo Alto Marck 12, 2008 Page 8 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 The Record of Land Use Action looks a little bit different than what I am used to seeing. It is a legal document so I expect it to be drafted by the City Attorney’s Office. It refers to the project as being located in a particular zone rather than identifying it as a specific site. That is in the first paragraph in Attachment A, Section 1.a. It seems to me the more appropriate and consistent is saying this is 2501 Embarcadero Way rather than saying it is in the PF(D) zone. There is in the environmental initial study the description of the project as being in the Baylands Nature Preserve. I always thought the Baylands Nature Preserve was Bixby Park, which is dedicated parkland. This site and others that are not in dedicated parkland are part of and covered by the Baylands Master Plan, which is something else. I hope by the time it gets to the Council and if it is necessary to correct that wording so it is clear that this isn’t part of dedicated parkland. The project statement indicates that the facility will cause a reduction in parking for spaces. It seems to say that it won’t have any effect. Well, one effect that it does have is that it is taking a site, which probably has less parking than would normally be required by this zone and making it less. Even if it has no environmental effect it still requires an entitlement to do that. I don’t recall whether you could use a Design Enhancement Exception for reducing the parking otherwise you need a Variance but five years ago the zoning code was changed so you don’t even need a hearing any more for a Variance. The Director can sit in his office and just issue a Variance. It seems to me that the environmental notice and the approvals should indicate when entitlement is needed to reduce the parking by four additional from what would normally be required in the zone. The Staff Report refers to an item that I believe is Attachment G, which is a document on Baylands Nature Preserve I guess design guidelines of some kind. It doesn’t indicate that this is something that has ever been approved by anybody and it appears from the context that it is something for the design of things that are in the parkland as opposed to something for the other buildings and parcels that are outside of the dedicated parkland. In any case, I don’t notice something in the approval documents that has any referral to it such as in the Record of Land Use Action. Although this might be something that would be an approval at Staff level or at the ARB that would relate to it. I know at some point there is a discussion of some more detailed document implementing the Baylands Master Plan. I don’t recall seeing that coming along and maybe this might be part of that. So those are just stylistic questions but it seems to me we should get them right because we have to be able to get them right on something that just needs a Negative Declaration then when we get more complex projects that require a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report these are the kinds of questions that I am sure ~vill be brought up. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. Our second speaker from the public is John Klein. You are here for item number four? Okay. So Mr. Borock you were our only speaker on this item. So Commissioners, additional questions for the applicant. I had Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: The first question relates to the timing of this project. What is the relationship between the timing of this project and the timing of the C~ you were referring to with respect to the landscaping? Cio, of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page 9 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Mr. James Allen, Senior Engineer, Regional Water 0ualit¥ Control Plant: The project is going to go out to construction at the end of this year. We hope to start construction by May of 2009 and be completed by November of 2010. So we will be starting up our master plan right at the end of this project. Mr. Bobel: It is a little confusing because there are two master planning things we have been talking about. One is for landscaping and one if for the plant. So Jamie was just talking about the master planning for the plant. What you asked about was how does this the end of construction which is November 2010 relate to our plan to refurbish that landscaping. So the landscaping plan we are going to do in 2008-09, we don’t have an exact date on it. We should be able to be up and running with any fixes that are needed in this area roughly at the same time that this construction is completed on this project. Commissioner Keller: Okay. What is the review process for the plant master plan, the overall master plan? Mr. Bobel: The overall master plan we are still inventing an exact process for that. I would envision that it would go along the lines of our previous process for our Goals Study where we would involve our partner stakeholders of the five cities and Stanford, environmental goups here, and anybody who wanted to, frankly. So we will invent a process for that and be announcing it widely. Commissioner Keller: Is that under the purview of the UAC? Mr. Bobel: The UAC may get involved in this. They don’t get involved in all aspects of the sewage treatment plant. That is another thing we will have to work out. Commissioner Keller: The next question is with respect to the amount of parking. Is there an identification of how much parking is currently at the site and how much parking is required? Ms. Campbell: I don’t actually have those specific numbers. I was talking with Daisy Stark, the Project Manager from Utilities and in conference with her colleagues on the site they made the determination that they had excess parking. They were talking about how visitors can no longer go inside. So they seem to have extra parking so I did not do that calculation. Perhaps Phil might be able to elaborate more on that for us. Ms. Bailey: One thing to note is that the plant is, again this is employee parking, this portion of the plant is not open to the public. You can see here that there is adequate employee parking in this area. So the area that we are replacing was basically stripes on the asphalt. Mr. Bobel: To be honest I don’t think there has ever been an official parking plan. At the sewage treatment plant parking really isn’t an issue. We have room. We can add additional parking place on the wide expanse of asphalt that we have if there is a need. It is just not really an issue. Commissioner Keller: The last comment or question is this. I notice that there is identification of the lot number as part of the Environmental Impact, I believe it was part of the checklist. Anyway somewhere it indicated that this facility is overlapping two parcels. Then I decided to go and take a look at what those two parcels are and downloaded them from the County Cio, of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page 10 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 !8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Assessor’s Office website and discovered that one parcel is essentially the Baylands logical east if you will of where the original creek went, San Francisquito Creek. And the other parcel is the difference between where the creek used to be and where the creek is I guess now. That seems to be a very strange parcelization. It seems to me that there should be a parcel for the Regional Water Quality Control plant, and a parcel for the wetlands, and a parcel for the recycling center or the dump. Right now Embarcadero Road seems to be not in a separate parcel or whatever. Mr. Larkin: That is an interesting question. There is no map in front of you today. So that is m~related to Site and Design. It is an interesting question but maybe something you can discuss off-line. Commissioner Keller: I actually disagree Mr. Attorney because part of the thing is Site and Design is setbacks. I have a problem figuring out what the setbacks are if there is no proper parcel map. It seems to me that the discussion in terms of Attachment E. Mr. Larkin: Setbacks are not part of Site and Design. Site and Design is construction and operation of the use in a manner that is harmonious and orderly, desirability of investment, the conduct of business, sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance, and Comprehensive Plan consistency. Commissioner Keller: There was an Attachment E that indicates the development standards with respect to the proposed project and development standards with respect to the PF zone district standard. One of the things on there is street fronting setbacks and interior setbacks and such. I assurne that those interior setbacks are with respect to a lot line. In fact the lot line goes in the middle of this parcel. This parcel lot line is actually in the interior of a project, which seems rather strange. Chair Holman: Might I suggest this? Given this is not a question for the applicant let’s at a minirnum take this up at the end of this discussion of this and maybe we can get a clarification from the City Attorney or City Staff. Let’s complete our questions for the applicant at this time. Commissioner Fineberg you have had your light on. Comrnissioner Fineberg: Can you tell us what environmental groups or what groups of residents or interested parties participated in the work groups? Mr. Bobel: Yes, Jamie can add to it, the ones off the top that were most active were the League of Women Voters and Clean South Bay were the two most active. Several people like Florence LaRivierre kind of more or less representing herself were involved. I can’t remember the name of the group she is also associated with. Those were the main groups. To be honest with you there isn’t a huge interest group that we have managed to assemble when we go out to find people who would like to follow what we are doing at the sewage treatment plant but those are the main ones. Mr. Allen: There were some citizens and some representatives from HP as well. Cormnissioner Fineberg Thank you. Also, as you know the site is in a 100-year floodplain subject to tidal inundation. I can see from the plans that it is raised but is it correct to assume CiO, of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page 11 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 that all chemical storage and ongoing operations would also cause no threat if there were to be ten feet of water sitting at the plant? Mr. Allen: Our existing chemical systems are being retrofitted so they are above elevation eight and they wilt be able to withstand a 100-year flood. Then this UV facility wilt also be above elevation eight, all the critical equipment. Commissioner Fineberg: Is the operation of this new piece moving in the direction that the plant would continue to operate in a flood or are we still no plan when there is a flood? Mr. Allen: One hundred percent of our facilities are not flood proof. There are facilities at the treatment plant that are below elevation eight. Commissioner Fineberg: Is the new piece though operational? So would that be starting to move the plant towards being able to operate with a flood? Mr. Allen: Right. Commissioner Fineber~ Okay, thank you. Mr. Bobel: The other thing, the 1998 floor although it caused a lot of problems citywide did not cause a problem at the sewage treatment plant except the capacity was exceeded but the plant did not flood. The problem we experienced in 1998 was we basically maxed out of the amount that we could take through it because water was inundating the servers and coming to us not because of a problem we had at the sewage treatment plant. Chair Hohnan: Before I forget too, would both you gentlemen Mr. Bobel and Mr. Allen please be so kind as to fill out a speaker card for item number three and provide it to Staff before this item is over. Commissioner Fineberg, did I cut you off?. Commissioner Fineberg: No, I was just going to say thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Lippert: Just following up on my line of questioning earlier about the other communities that tap into this. The projections that you have done are based on the next 25 years of growth. Are those numbers based on numbers that are in our Comprehensive Plan or where did you get those numbers from? Mr. Allen: We used the 2035 ABAG projections from Projections 2007 and used industry standard 90 gallons per resident per day and 30 gallons per employee per day and kind of validated against our existing flows. We don’t have any existing standards on that but it penciled out and the projections were within the capacity of the treatment plant. So we are fine on ~owth because of the ~vater conservation of the past and the slow gowth of the communities we are not going to be exceeding capacity according to our projections in the next 30 years. Commissioner Lippert: So it takes the ABAG numbers into account for our community and the surrounding communities? CiO, of Palo Alto Marcl~ 12, 2008 Page 12 of 20 5 6 7 8 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Allen: Correct. Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. Chair Holman: Could I just remind members of the public who are here that if you want to speak to the next item if you would please turn your cards into Staff over here, which is contrary to typical procedure but if you would do that it would be appreciated. Vice-Chair Garber do you have a question for the applicant? Are we getting near completion? Vice-Chair Garber: Yes. Remind me, I may have seen it but if I did I am not remembering it. The addition of this new facility replaces some equipment does it replace any of the facilities that are currently there? Mr. Bobel: Yes, it replaces a relative small facility in that we are reusing the main building. There is a building adjacent to the blue square there that we are reusing. So from your perspective frankly you wouldn’t see a visual impact of this. If you walk around it is going to look like an additional thing without much missing. Vice-Chair Garber: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you had a follow up? Commissioner Keller: Yes. A question by Conmfissioner Lippert about projections with respect to ABAG, I am wondering what your projections were with respect to commercial square footage and water usage, what your projections were and particularly with respect to Stanford growth, and with respect to .... Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, if I could can you relate this to our Site and Desig~ Review? Commissioner Keller: It is based on the issue of the longevity of the project. I was basically following up to a question that another Commissioner asked. So did you use? Mr. Bobel: Let me explain another feature of this. Although Janaie points out that we did look at these projections the limiting factor at the sewage treatment plant is the initial 1970 desiN~. That was 38 million gallons per day average annual flow and 80 million gallons as an instantaneous maximum, the number that Marilyn referred to. Those design features we are now moving fol-~vard with. We don’t want to make them any less than the rest of the plant and we are not making them any more than the rest of the plant. So we are designing to the level that was designed in 1970. It so happens that before a!l of our times our predecessors decided to size this thing at 38 million gallons a day. We are currently at about 26 million gallons a day. So there is quite a bit of capacity that exceeds these ABAG projections not because we used these particular ABAG projections in designing the facility but because we double-checked against the ABAG projections. So I want to make that clear. What we are talking about here is just a double-checking that took place. The real design of this plant occurred in the late 1960’s when they looked for~vard and they said we are going to build Cio~ of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page 13 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1"7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 this thing at 38 MGD. We find ourselves now at 26 MGD because as Jamie points out there has been a lot of water saving. There hasn’t been the anticipated growth in our area. Commissioner Keller: So would it be fair to say that whenever you are doing improvements to this plant you are doing it for the design of that 38 million gallons per day with a peak capacity of 80? Mr. Bobel: Yes and there is one other feature. There is an average almual dry weather flow. So there are actually three features that we design toward. Then we would double-check them against these ABAG figures to make sure we weren’t starting to run into some problem. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: I have just one last question. Who is in charge of code enforcement issues for Public Works projects? Mr. Bobel: What kind of code enforcement are you talking about? Chair Hohnan: For instance about plantings. So if there was a landscape violation who is in charge of enforcement of a code violation on Public Works projects? Mr. Bobel: What we are going to be doing in the future, and I will be the first to admit there has been failures in the past, in the future we are going to take it as a responsibility of our own at the plant to make sure that we comply with any future and actua!ly past requirements that this Board has imposed. So we wil! be taking that on as our own requirement and tracking it and making sure we comply. Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioners are we ready for a motion? Vice-Chair Garber. I apologize Commissioner Lippert has one more question. Commissioner Lippert: UV treatment makes the assumption that there is power available. In the event of a power outage what is the backup plan? Mr. Bobel: The backup plan is a backup generator. We have to put in a new backup generator and Marilyn reminded me that is actually why these four parking places had to go. The backup generator is going to sit adjacent to that blue square and provide the backup power for this. Commissioner Lippert: And that is a diesel generator? Mr. Bobel: Yes. Commissioner Lippert: What will be longest this length of time that that would run? Mr. Bobel: It may have to be refueled. You mean before it is refueled, how big is the tank? Does anybody ka~ow? Twenty-four hours and then it has to be refueled from our MSC. Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. Chair Hohnan: So I will close the public hearing and then go to Vice-Chair Garber for a motion. City of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page 14 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 MOTION Vice-Chair Garber: I would like to move that we for~vard the Staff’s recommendation to the City Council and recommend that the Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the application for Site and Design Review based on the findings and draft conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action. I suspect there are going to be one or two proposed additions to this, which I would be happy to entertain including ones on landscape. SECOND Commissioner Keller: Second. Chair Holman: So we have a motion and a second. Before I ask you to speak to those this is a question I had intended to ask Staff. The recommendation references a Mitigated Negative Declaration but I believe it is Negative Declaration so could Staff clarify that, please? Ms. Campbell: You are absolutely correct it is a Negative Declaration. That is just a typo I apologize. Chair Holman: So Commissioner Garber would you are to change your motion or amend it? Vice-Chair Garber: I will amend it to remove the word ’Mitigated’ and use only the word ’Negative.’ Chair Holman: Would you care to speak to your motion? Vice-Chair Garber: No, I don’t think I need to. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller as seconder? Commissioner Keller: I don’t need to speak to my second. I just wish to offer an amendment, which is that not only the landscaping be maintained but it in fact be restored to the conditions required by previous conditions of approval. Mr. Williams: You are talking about the landscaping where the recycling center was proposed to be moved? Commissioner Keller: Yes. Mr. Williams: Okay. Chair Holman: We might need a little bit of a clarification of that location. Mr. Larkin: There is really no nexus to require anything over on the other end of the project. You are really looking at impacts of this project. I think that is something that Staff from Public Works has already mentioned that they are going to go forward with but recommend against including it in the motion. CiO, of Palo Aho March I2, 2008 Page 15 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Chair Holman: Mr. City Attorney, might I say that I think in the past we have had projects where there has been a code enforcement issue and before a new permit was recommended we required that previous nonconformance or noncompliance be corrected beforehand. Mr. Larkin: We have done that but that is typically where the code issue is on the same project site or area where there is a nexus bet~veen the prior code violations and the new violations. Chair Hohnan: I think we have a potential solution here, Vice-Chair Garber. Vice-Chair Garber: I was just going to ask if we could ask the applicant to accept it as a condition of approva!? Mr. Williams: I think we could ask that. I think the main concern about the way it ~vas raised is that as they indicated they are preparing a plan to do exactly that but they would not want to be tied to restoring it to exactly what was proposed before because they think they may be able to do something better than that at this point. Mr. Bobel: Can I just elaborate on that? We know there are several people that would like to participate in an exercise to take a new look at that area. We would like to do that with them and it might not result in exactly what was there before it might hopefully be better than what as there before. So I would not like to see us constrained to that now 25-year old plan. Vice-Chair Garber: Can I ask questions related to this? One, could we add an amendment that makes this a recommendation but a requirement and/or t~vo, can we do this as a separate motion after this motion as a recommendation? Mr. Larkin: I think your first alternative was perfectly fine given what the applicant just said. Vice-Chair Garber: You want to try it? Go ahead. Commissioner Keller: Can I say that instead of an amendment that says restoring it to what it was or was required but that we put wording in there that says or comparable based on the o,~i,~,, through?process that you are ~ .~ Vice-Chair Garber: How about we recommend that the applicant undertake a study that would restore the landscaping to meet the various guidelines of the Bay and the zone, etc. Mr. Williams: Develop a plan as opposed to prepare a study I think would be preferable. Commissioner Keller: Develop and implement the plan I think would be fine. Part of the issue is that the landscaping was not necessarily because of the Baylands it was basically screening of the plant. The landscaping is not properly screening the plant from the site that they didn’t show us pictures from. So that is part of the issue. So as a condition of approval I think it would be reasonable to have the applicant develop and implement the plan for appropriate screening of the plant to maintain a harmonious and compatible relation between the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and the Baylands environment in the spirit of the prior requirement. Would that be acceptable? Mr. Bobel: Something like that is fine, sure. Cit3’ qf Palo Alto Marcl~ 12, 2008 Page 16 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 !7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Chair Holman: Is that acceptable to the maker? Vice-Chair Garber: It is. Chair Hohnan: Okay. Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Lippert: I ~vould like to offer a friendly amendment here. Since the use of the photovoltaic is not quite obvious except to provide power to the city that in fact the primary backup be photovoltaic during daylight hours in the case of an emergency and then the diesel generator would kick in to supplement that. The idea is to try to reduce the amount of emissions. Mr. Larkin: I think that probably exceeds the scope of the Site and Design because it is an operational issue. I think it is a great suggestion if they can do it. Mr. Bobel: We can’t do it. We would love it if that surface area were large enough to provide enough power to even power this particular facility or our whole plant but it won’t be enough to do either. It won’t be sufficient. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: While the photovoltaic may not provide enough power to operate the facility since you are going to be providing synch (backup) for the power from your diesel plant does that mean the photovoltaic will continue to operate or they won’t operate? It seems to me that the idea that your photovoltaic operates when the power is do~vn is the issue and having it feed power is a useful thing. That is one of the problems with photovoltaic without backup systems. Mr. Bobel: The way the normal design is it would go solely to the diesel generator. We can take a look at that to see if it is technically feasible. I am not sure. It is not normal and there may be technical reasons why it is not feasible. We don’t know right now. Mr. Williams: IfI can just add that these are good suggestions but they are not on target with the Site and Design Review. They are operational issues that are nice suggestions. I am sure Phil will take them into account but we should stick to the Site and Design criteria for the motion. Vice-Chair Garber: AJe you going to let your proposal stand? Commissioner Lippert: Let me tell you where the rub is or the issue is. Chair Holman: Related to Site and Design. Commissioner Lippert: Correct. The diesel generator is part of that Site and Design. I have difficulty with it in terms of its carbon footprint. The idea here is that the City has the capacity to generate solar energy. There are other facilities within the City of Palo Alto, the corporation yard has solar panels, that power could be kicked back into the grid and over to the waste treatment plant in the case of an emergency. What I am looking for is to try to reduce the use of that generator. It is necessary but the question is is it necessary that it run for 24 hours? Ci0’ of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page ] 7 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Chair Holman: So your reference is to sound environmental practices. Commissioner Lippert: That is exactly right. What I would like to see and we are only talking in the case of an emergency. We are not talking about normal operations. The primary be solar first if there is some kind of power outage say through an earthquake and the grid goes down we do have locally produced electricity that could augment and run this waste treatment plant during daylight hours. Chair Hohnan: City Attorney, do you need to comment, please? Mr. Larkin: Well, I think when you are dictating what happens off of the site then it is far outside the bounds of Site and Design. I think you need to look at what is being proposed and what is happening on the site. I think again they are nice suggestions for Phil but I don’t think that is within the Site and Design Review purview. Vice-Chair Garber: I am not going to accept the suggestion but I would like to by way of minutes make that as part of the Commission’s recommendation for the planned operation. If there are opportunities to make efficient use of that that directly creates the opportunity for some savings and/or efficiencies we should absolutely do that. Mr. Bobel: It is a good idea. We should look into it and we will. Chair Holman: Commissioner Fineberg. Commissioner Fineberg: Could that recommendation include some wording that safety of the facility and the public trumps any considerations of efficiency though? I wouldn’t want them to have to go to a backup system that isn’t as safe for the public. Mr. Williams: I am sure in their analysis of that that will be their position and Phil will get back to you on whether that is feasible. Mr. Bobel: It will and we won’t even if you ordered us to ~ve wouldn’t do anything unsafe. Chair Holman: I have potentially two friendly amendments to make. One is on Photo A, page 7, Attachment C that I referenced earlier. I would like to add additional landscape screening at that left hand portion across from the gate to further and better screen the project. Vice-Chair Garber: I am happy to accept that. Chair Hohnan: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I will be happy with it. Chair Hohnan: You are both so agreeable, thank you. The other one is a bit more complicated and it has to do with code enforcement. I absolutely trust Mr. Bobel’s comments and their sincerity about complying with the landscape requirements and maintenance. At the same time it is always a dicey situation to have the applicant do the code enforcement on their own project. So I am looking to Staff to say could the Planning Department then be in charge of code enforcement for this project or what would you suggest? CiO, of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page 18 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Mr. Larkin: I think it is adequately covered in the code. It is just a matter that the City is not likely to sue itself. It is already covered in the code as to who has responsibility for enforcing conditions. Chair Holman: Yes, except the project exactly that Mr. Bobel knows about the issue was that Public Works was doing the code enforcement on Public Works. So there is essentially no enforcement. It is a fox in the henhouse. So I am going to have to ask Mr. Bobel a question because ~ve have closed the public hearing to get him to respond. If you have a suggestion, Mr. Bobel? Mr. Bobel: Well I was just going to remind Curtis that we have this draft policy within the City still in draft to deal with this very issue and it was triggered by this very case you are referencing. The draft policy would put on the departments the responsibility to do this monitoring for their projects but to have a system where they would come back annual and report to the City Manager and the Plarming Department on compliance, and if there was any noncompliance that would have to be reported to Council. So we are trying to setup a process that ~vould demonstrate how the departments are doing with respect to policing themselves. Chair Hohnan: Is there a name for that document? Mr. Bobel: Not yet. Mr. Williams: Not yet, we have discussed that and I think the intent is to have the Planning Department be sort of a clearinghouse for all of those departmental efforts. So if somebody does complain they have someone in the Planning Department to go to and make that complaint. We need to get with the department and make sure that it happens. Again, I don’t think there is anything you can do with a condition here or something like that to make that operate differently. It is something we just need to put into practice. Code enforcement says you are required to meet conditions of your approval. So it is a procedural thing that we need to deal with internally. That is the way right now without that policy being officially adopted are going to handle it from here on. Chair Holman: Could I suggest that we add as a condition of approval that the, there are no good words for this, that the rectification of the existing code enforcement problems be included either the one in the works now or a new one be included as a condition of approval once implemented or once desi~ed to be added to this project. That is dicey wording. Mr. Larkin: You can recommend that the facility come into code compliance. The only thing that is problematic about the suggestion is dictating who does it because that is something that is fully within the City Manager’s purview. Chair Holman: That is why I didn’t. I said I was referencing the document that Mr. Bobel referenced. Vice-Chair Garber. Vice-Chair Garber: Perhaps the way to word it is that should the City adopt policies that allow for more effective oversight of projects be made that they become retroactively applicable to this project. CiO, of Pa]o Aho March 12, 2008 Page ]9 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Mr. Larkin: No because again that is an internal City function that is solely under our Charter and code that only the City Manager can dictate City internal functions. The Commission and Council cannot. Vice-Chair Garber: So your recommendation to the maker is not to make it. Mr. Williams: I think so. I think if you would like to pass along to the Council that you want to outside the formal motion itself that enforcement of this condition and other related conditions is of critical importance to you and that there needs to be mechanisms in place to make that happen that is fine. But actually incorporating something into the motion that somehow directs any way that that necessarily should happen is as Don said not appropriate. Chair Holman: So I am happy to incorporate the comments that you just made, Curtis, as something that I think this Commission appears to be most interested in seeing. [Note for the record: Commission microphones malfunctioned] Chair Holman: We will carryon this way just to finish up what I was trying to say. I think the Commission has expressed interest in seeing that that is carried forward, not as part of the motion, but as comments to Council. Commissioner Fineberg has a clarifying question. Commissioner Fineberg: In my training I have been under the assumption that code enforcement resides in the Planning Division. How is it that there is code enforcement authority in Public Works and where does the authority for that come from? Mr. Larkin: This is a little outside the scope but code enforcement for zoning project approvals is in the Planning Division but there is lots of code enforcement. Police officers enforce municipal codes. Fire department enforces municipal codes. Public Works enforces municipal codes. So it is not limited. Zoning approval, Site and Design approval that is in the Planning Division but that authority comes both from the code and then in terms of who physically does the code enforcement that is the direction of the City Manager who makes personnel decisions. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Tuma absent) Chair Hotman: Okay, Commissioners, I think we are ready for a vote on the motion to approve Staff recommendation to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Site and Desiga~ application as well with the two amendments provided. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That motion passes on a six to zero vote with Commissioner Tuma absent. CiO, of Palo Alto March 12, 2008 Page 20 of 20 Attachment L Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date: To: April 3, 2008 Architectural Review Board From: Subject: Clare Campbell, Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 2501 Embarcadero Way [07PLN-00378]: Request by the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, for Site and Design review for the construction of a new 3,600 square foot ultra violet wastewater treatment facility, replacing the old treatment system. Zone District: PF(D) Public Facility with Site and Design Overlay. Environmental Review: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. RECOMMENDATION The Plmming and Transportation Commission (PTC) and staff recommend that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and approve the application for Site and Design Review, based on the findings and draft conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action (Attactvnent A). SUMMARY On February 21, 2008, this project was presented to the ARB in a Preliminary Review. The comments made at that meeting were in general support of the project and no major changes were recommended at that time. Proiect Description The proposed project, an ultra violet waste~vater treatment facility, will be replacing the existing chemical based treatment system. The new UV facility would consist of a 3,600 square foot concrete channel structure approximately 80 feet long and 45 feet wide, sitting 11 feet above grade..The UV facility and the associated lamp washdown and cleaning area would be permanently covered by an unenclosed structure that would be approximately 30 feet tall. The project includes the installation of photo voltaic panels on the structure’s rooftop. The base of the structure is unfinished concrete with aluminum railings. The metal canopy will have a dark brown 07PLN-00378 Page 1 of 3 finish, similar to the existing buildings at the facility. Please see Attachment C for additional back~ound information, site photos, and photosimulations of the project. Conformance The project is in conformance with the Zoning regulations for the PF zone district. Because the project is located in the Baylands Nature Preserve, there are some basic principles for development that should be followed (see Attachment F). The overall mass of the project, due primarily to the canopy requirements, does not blend well with the Bayland’s aesthetic, but the project appears to be well screened from public views. The facility has a very utilitarian function and there appear to be limited alternatives for design. Sustainable Design The proposed use of a UV treatment system is a benefit to the environment in that it eliminates the current use of toxins for chemical disinfection. The project advances the City’s sustainability policies by using the UV treatment process and by incorporating the PV panels on the roof. COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION On March 12, 2008, the PTC reviewed the proposed project and recommended (6-0-0-1) that the project be approved, with two added conditions. There ~vas one member of the public who spoke in general support of project, but voiced concerns about the loss of four parking spaces and questioned the format of the Record of Land Use Action. Verbatim minutes are found in Attachment E. At the PTC meeting, there was discussion about the importance of the landscape screening of the project, and site overall. The conditions that were added by the Commission addressed these specific concerns. The first condition was to add landscaping to a section on Embarcadero Road that had a "hole" and secondly prepare and implement a landscape plan for appropriate screening of the entire facility that is harmonious with the Baylands. Attachment A, Section 6, provides the complete list of draft conditions of approval for the project. On a more broad level, another concern was raised by the PTC relating to the code enforcement of past and future approved City projects. In the circumstance that approved City projects either do not comply with the approved plans and related conditions or deteriorate into non-compliance, a mechanism should be in place and enforced to ensure projects remain in compliance with their approvals. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initia! Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. The 30-day public comment period for this document was completed on February 29, 2008. No comments were received on the Draft Negative Declaration. 07PLN-00378 Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENTS A. Record of Land Use Action B. Location!Zoning Map C. Applicant Submittal / Background D. PTC Staff Report, March 12, 2008 E. PTC Excerpt Draft Verbatim Minutes, March 12, 2008 F. Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (excerpt) G. Correspondence H. Negative Declaration and Initial Study Checklist I. Plans (Board Members Only) COURTESY COPIES Daisy Stark, RWQCP Prepared By:Clare Campbell, Planner Manager Review:Curtis Williams Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment 07PLN-00378 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thursday, April 3, 2008 REGULAR MEETING- 8:30 AM City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: Board members: Clare Malone-Prichard (Chair) David Solnick, (Vice-Chair) Bob Peterson Judith Wasserman Heather Trossman Staff Liaison: Russ Reich, Planner Staff: Atny French, Current Planning Manager &even Turner, Senior Planner Elena Lee, Senior Planner Clare Campbell, Planner Jennifer Cutler, Associate Planner Alicia Spotwood, Adtninistrative Associate Board Member Malone Pilchard: Item number three, 2501 Embarcadero Way, request by Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, for Site and Design review for the construction of a new 3,600 square foot ultra violet wastewater treatment facility, replacing the old treatment system. The Zone District is PF(D), Public Facility with a Site and Design Overlay. Do you have a Staff presentation? 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings (MajoO 2501 Embarcadero Way [07PLN-00378]: Request by the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, for Site and Design review for the construction of a new 3,600 square foot ultra violet wastewater treatment facility, replacing the old treatment system. Zone District: PF(D) Public Facility with Site and Design Overlay. Environmental Review: An initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. City of Palo Alto April 3, 2008 Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ATTACHMENT M Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Good morning. This project came before you as preliminary review in February and the Board was very supportive of the project. The project has since been to the Planning Commission and they recommended approval of the project adding two conditions regarding the landscaping. One of these conditions requires that a break in the landscape screen along Embarcadero Road be replanted and that will come back to us for Staff review before they do their building permits. Other than the required landscaping the project has not been modified since you last saw it. Marilyn Bailey, the consultant working on the project is going to give you a very brief presentation. Thank you. Ms. Maril’,in Bailey, Consultant: Thank you and good morning. I will go through this briefly because for most of you this is a repeat of the previous presentation. The project is located at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, which is across the road from the airport. This is a rendering of the UV facility. I also have it on a board here if you would like to see that in more detail later. It is a fairly simple structure. It is concrete channels with aluminum handrail and stairs. It has a prefabricated roof canopy, which provides the support for the bridge crane needed to remove the UV equipment. It provides sun and shade shelter for the maintenance crew and operations crew working on the UV equipment. It provides a platform for photovoltaic cells on the top of the roof canopy and there is also lighting mounted under the canopy. It normally will be off it is only for manually operated for nighttime maintenance operations. It is again normally off. City of Palo Alto April 3, 2008 Page 2 of 8 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ATTACHMENT M 1 This is full photograph although it is hard to see with this wonderful sunlight coming through. 2 There is the UV facility it is located in the center of the existing wastewater treatment plant. 3 Looking at that area in more detail here is a site plan of the existing plant and location of the 4 proposed UV facility, which will be adjacent to an existing structure called the equipment building. This is a roof plan showing again the top of the roof canopy with the photovoltaic cells. Here is the channel, the plan at the channel level showing the four UV channels. Water flows through that channel and is disinfected for discharge to the bay. Then in summertime the southern most channel, the one at the bottom of the screen, is isolated and used for disinfection of recycled water. These are mechanical sections showing the bridge crane removing the UV equipment that is what has set the site and the height of the roof canopy is the need to clear the UV lamps for maintenance and for removal. Here are two elevation views. Again it is a relatively straightforward structure, concrete channel, metal roof canopy, aluminum handrails and stairs. Here are north and south elevations. This is the resulting structure. We have some photo views, again difficult to see. This is the site before construction of the UV facility. There is a large incineration building on the left which is the dominant feature in this area, the plant, and the UV facility will be built in front of that existing lower building, which again will look like this when it is completed. City of Palo Alto April 3, 2008 Page 3 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ATTACHMENT M There are some photo simulations of the outside looking into the perimeter of the plant, A, B, and C. You cannot see the UV facility from the exterior of the plant because it is screened by other buildings. It is screened by those perimeter plantings, which is Clare mentioned there is one gap in the perimeter planting here and those trees will be replaced as part of this project. If you could see the UV facility it is outlined in white. This was taken from Embarcadero Road looking east, from Harbor Road looking south, and there is again the top of the incineration building. This is from the plant entrance on Embarcadero Way looking north and the UV facility would be over here. This set of photos is standing in the center of the UV facility looking at the surrounding structures at the wastewater treatment plant. There is an existing chlorine contact basin, which will be replaced that purpose will be replaced. The basin will remain in place but its function will be replaced by the UV system. This is the maintenance building looking north, the incineration building, and again will be adjacent to this small structure, which is currently used for chemical storage. I believe that is it. Board Member Malone Pilchard: Thank you. Are there any members of the public here to speak about this application? Okay. Let’s start with Heather. Board Member Trossman: I continue to strongly support the project. I think it looks great. I wish that other buildings that were more visually accessible had the same clarity that a really utilitarian building can have. It has nice proportions I think it is terrific. City of Palo Alto April 3, 2008 Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ATTACHMENT M I do have one little question about the extent of the photovoltaic panel. There is a big difference in what you were thinking about depending on the brand I guess. Does that change the extent of the roof form or does it simply mean that there is the same roof form but just a portion of it is devoted to photovoltaic? Ms. Bailey: No, it gets smaller depending on which UV vendor is selected. What is shown is the maximum size. The UV vendor will be selected as part of the bidding process. Since it is a Public Works project we can’t sole-source a vendor. So the size will depend on which equipment wins the bid. Board Member Trossman: So the footprint would be substantially different, looking down on it. Ms. Bailey: Yes. Board Member Trossman: covering .... Because the roof doesn’t extend that far out fight now from Ms. Bailey: The entire structure would get smaller and so the roof would proportionately get - so it would be proportionately the same but the entire structure including the concrete channels would get smaller depending on which UV vendor is selected. Board Member Trossman: I see. So we are approving the largest possible configuration. City of Palo Alto April 3, 2008 Page 5 of 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ATTACHMENT M Ms. Bailey: The largest possible footprint. Board Member Trossman: Okay, fine. wouldn’t mind seeing this. Thank you. I am glad that screening is being provided even though I Board Member Malone Pilchard: David. MOTION Board Member Solnick: I thought it was fine before and I still think it is fine. I really have no comments and I would just move for approval. SECOND Board Member Wasserman: Second. Board Member Peterson: I wanted to ask one question if I could. Board Member Malone Pilchard: You will get your chance don’t worry I never cutoff questions. Judith, did you have any comments? Board Member Wasserman: Actually yes. I heard at the Green Building Ordinance discussion the other week that there was going to be more use of recycled water or reclaimed water, City of PaIo Alto April 3, 2008 Page 6 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ATTACHMENT M whatever you want to call it. I would like to add a condition that there be an educational component to this project. I know we talked about that before that somewhere someplace there be a board that explains what is going on and how the water is being used. ! am hoping that someday reclaimed water will be as sexy as photovoltaic. That is my comment. Would you accept that amendment to the motion? Board Member Solnick: Certainly. Board Member Wasserman: Thank you. Board Member Malone Prichard: Bob, questions or comments? Board Member Peterson: The question is how is this painted? What gets colored in this structure? Ms. Bailey: Really nothing gets painted. The concrete is a natural concrete without any color. That is how the rest of these structures at the plant are so there is no concrete colorant added. The aluminum is just aluminum. The roof structure has an anodized dark brown. I know it is difficult to tell from these photos and I apologize for that. Board Member Wasserman: Your rendering shows that. You could hold it up again. Ms. Bailey: If you could see the rest of the buildings you would see that .... City of Palo Alto April 3, 2008 Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ATTACHMENT M Board Member Peterson: So it is all natural materials. Ms. Bailey: It is all natural material. This is a dark brown color and these existing structures in these insets and this entire building are a dark brown metal. That is how this color was selected. Board Member Peterson: Actually, I was just thinking if there were things to be painted it would be nice to have it friendly and bright. Are the railings all natural too? Ms. Bailey: They are all natural. In general at a wastewater treatment plant it is a very highly corrosive atmosphere. We try to minimize the amount of paint because it doesn’t last long. It is an ongoing maintenance problem and expense to the City. Board Member Peterson: Good, thank you. Board Member Malone Pilchard: I have no comments. I was in support of it before and I still am as presented. So with that I will close the public heating and we will vote on the motion to approve it with the addition of an educational component. Did you want that to be reviewed by anybody or just required of Staff’?. Board Member Wasserman: Staff. MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-0) Board Member Malone Pilchard: Okay. All in favor?(ayes)Opposed? That passes. City of Palo Alto April 3, 2008 Page 8 of 8 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5~h Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2441 F~_X (650) 329-2154 www. cityofpaloalto, org Environment Attachment N Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code 21,000, et sec.) that the following project will not have a significant effect on the environment. File Number ] TAZ 07PLN-00378 ] Project Name I Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Owner City of Palo Alto Project Location APN(s)I Date 008-06-001; 008-05-005 I 01/28/2008 Project Type Site and Design Review I Applicant Regional Water Quality Control Plant The project site is located in the most northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of U.S. Highway 101. The project site is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, on the easterly side of Embarcadero Way approximately 750 feet north of the Embarcadero Road intersection. Project Description The proposed project would replace the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant’s (RWQCP) existing ch!orine disinfection facility with an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection faciliU, which would be built adjacent to the existing Chlorination Station building. The new UV facility would consist of a concrete channel structure approximately 80 feet long and 45 feet wide, sitting 11 feet above grade. The UV facility and the associated lamp washdown and cleaning area would be permanently covered by an unenclosed structure that would be approximately 30 feet tall. The project includes the installation of photo voltaic panels on the structure’s roof top. The new UV facility would eliminate the use of all ammonia hydroxide, gaseous sulfur dioxide, and chlorine gas that is used for disinfection. Purpose of Notice To elicit public and agency comments on the draft Negative Declaration. Public Review Period: 30 days I Begins: 01/31/2008 I Ends: 02/29/2008 Public comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this negative declaration are invited and must be received on or before the end of the public review period. Such comments should be based on specific environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to Clare Campbell. Oral comments may be made at the hearing(s). A file containing additional information on this project may be reviewed at the Planning Office under the file numbers appearing at the top of this form. For additional information regarding this project and the Ne,~ative Declaration, please contact Clare Campbe!l. at (650] 617- 3191. The Negative Declaration and Initial Study may be viewed at the following locations: (1) City of Palo Alto, Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Responsible Agencies sent a copy of this document: State Clearing House Mitigation Measures included in the project to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level: None. A reporting or monitoring program must be adopted for measures to mitigate significant impacts at the time the Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved; in accord with the requirements of section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Prepared by: Approved by: Signature Date Signature Date City of Palo Al}o -- Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act DRA FT NEGATIVE DECLARATION I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: Project Name: Application Nos.: Address of Project: Applicant: Owner: January 28, 2008 Ultra Violet Treatment Facility 07PLN-00378 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant 25:01 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Contact: Daisy Stark, 650-444-6352 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Location and Description: Project Location The project site is located in the most northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of U.S. Highway 101. The project site is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, on the easterly side of Embarcadero Way approximately 750 feet north of Embarcadero Road intersection. Project Description The proposed project would replace the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant’s (RWQCP) existing chlorine disinfection facility with an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection facility which would be built adjacent to the existing Chlorination Station building. The new UV facility would consist of a concrete channel structure approximately 80 feet long and 45 feet wide, sitting 11 feet above gade. The UV facility and the associated lamp washdown and cleaning area would be permanently covered by an unenclosed structure that would be approximately 30 feet tall. The project includes the installation of photo voltaic panels on the structure’s roof top. The new UV facility would eliminate the use of all ammonia hydroxide, gaseous sulfur dioxide, and chlorine gas that is used for disinfection. Ulna Violet Treatment Facility ND Page 1 of 2 II.DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project located on San Antonio Road and frontage roads from Alma Street to U.S. Highway 101 Interchange could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. Project Planner Date Director of Planning and Community Environment Date Ultra Violet Treatment Facility, ND Page 2 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT TITLE Ultra Violet Treatment Facility LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 ._:_ CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Clare Campbell, Planner City of Palo Alto 650-617-3191 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant 250! Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Contact: Daisy Stark, 650-444-6352 APPLICATION NUMBER 07PLN-00378 PROJECT LOCATION 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Parcel Numbers: 008-06-001; 008-05-005 The project site is located in the most northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of U.S. Highway 101, as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The project site is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, on the easterly side of Embarcadero Way Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 1 of 27 Negative Declaration approximately 750 feet north of Embarcadero Road intersection, as showh~on Figure 2 and 3, Vicini~ Map and Aerial. Figure 1’ Regional Map .Figure 2: Vicinity Map Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 2 of 27 Negative Declaration o o Figure 3: Project Location Aerial GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site is designated as Major Institution/Special Facility in the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation provides for institutional, academic, governmental, and cormnunity service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations. There are no proposed changes in the use; the existing use, a waste water treatment facility, is an. appropriate use for this land use designation. ZONING The project site is zoned PF (D), Public Facilities with a Site and Design overlay. The PF zone district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. There are no proposed changes in the use; the existing use, a waste water treatment facility, is an allowable use in this zone district. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would replace the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant’s (RWQCP) existing chlorine disinfection facility with an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection facility which would be built adjacent to the existing Chlorination Station building. The new UV facility would consist of a concrete channel structure approximately 80 feet long and 45 feet wide, sitting 11 feet above grade. The UV facility and the associated lamp washdown and cleaning area would be permanently covered by an unenclosed structure that would be approximately 30 feet tall. The project includes the installation of Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 3 of 27 Negative Declaration 11o photo voltaic panels on the structure’s roof top. The new UV facility would eliminate the use of all ammonia hydroxide, gaseous sulfur dioxide, and chlorine gas that is used for disinfection. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The project site is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve. The surrounding active uses include light manufacturing and office and a small-scale airport operated by the County of Santa Clara. The Baylands allows for passive recreational uses such as trails for walking, biking, and bird watching. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): NPDES permit for construction and preparation of SWPPS ~ Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health - Hazardous Material Business Plan The Project has been sited on the existing wastewater plant site to avoid impact on public, wetlands and habitats. Therefore no impact is expected and no permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), or California Department offish and Game (CDFG) would be required ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLI[ST AND DISCUSSION OF INIPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS l)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 ~mpact" 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)~(Mitigated) 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 krnpact.’~ 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 (C)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 4 of 27 Negative Declaration 6) 7) 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. 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. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)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. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS_ The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. No AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor? C)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? d)Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources? e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? f)Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ? Sources 1 1,2-Map L4 1,2-Map L4 1,2 1 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 5 of 27 Negative Declaration DiSCUSSiON: The project will have less than significant aesthetic improvements. The proposed new facilities would be shielded from public view by the existing vegetation, approximately 50 to 75 feet tall, growing along the perimeter of the fenced RWQCP property. The project is located within the developed RWQCP site and, although located in a passive park/nature preserve, the project will not interfere significantly with the park use or impact the natural setting. The project would have minimal irapacts on the nighttime views since there is no normally planned activity at the UV facility at night that requires regular lighting. The lighting installed at the UV facility will have manually operated light switches and the lighting will normally be turned off. The lighting will be turned on only if needed for emergency night-time maintenance activities, and then only for the duration of the activity. Mitigation Measures: None Required AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant envirom~nental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. issues and Supporting Information Resources 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? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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? Sonrces 1,3 1, 2-Map L9, 4 Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No impact DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland," ’~Unique Farmland," or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None Required Ultra Violet Treatment Faciiity Page 6 of 27 Negative Declaration C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct with implementation ¯of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM~0); ii.Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the-State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality, standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? Sources 1,5 1,5 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact i. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1 Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)~" exceeds 10 in one million ii.Ground-level concentrations of non-1 ] ~ carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEI Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 7 of 27 Negative Declaration ~ssues and Supporting Information -Resources e) Would the project: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? 1 1 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation ~ncorporated Less Than Significant Impact NO impact D~SCUSSI[ON: Based on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District:s (BAAQMD) thresholds, it is not anticipated that the project would affect any regional air quality plan or standards, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The extent of the effects on air quality will be during the period of site preparation and construction. The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Basic Control Measures to reduce particulate emissions during project construction to a less than significant level. The project site is located in the Baylands, within a nature preserve, where there are no residential uses in the area and only limited commercial uses nearby. The project and related construction are not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants. Project construction would generate fugitive dust (including Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in size or PM~0) and other criteria pollutants, primarily through excavation activities, construction equipment exhaust and haul truck trips, and related construction worker commute trips. Fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day depending upon the level and typed of construction activity, silt content of the excavated soil, and the prevailing weather but are expected to be minimal due to the nature of the construction activities for this project. Construction is expected to last 12 to 15 months. Given this period of time, and the scale of construction activities, daily combustion emissions from construction vehicles and construction-worker commute trips would not be significant or cumulatively considerable. Criteria pollutant emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NO3) from these emission sources would incrementally add to regional atmospheric loading of ozone precursors during the construction period. BAAQMD Guidelines recognize that construction equipment emits ozone precursors, but indicate that such emissions are included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans, and that construction emissions are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone data in the Bay Area (BAAQMD, 1996). Consequently, the BAAQMD recommends determination of significance with respect to construction impacts be based not on quantification of emissions and comparison to thresholds, but upon inclusion of feasible control measures for PMI0. During the excavation of the UV structure foundation, the construction contractor wil! implement dust control measures such as watering exposed soils in order to control PM10. With respect to project conformity with the federal Clean Air Act, the project’s potential emissions are below minimum thresholds and are well below 10 percent of the area’s inventor?, specified for each criteria pollutant designated non-attainment or maintenance for the Bay Area. As such, further general conformity analysis is not required. Mitigation Measures: None Required Ultra Violet Treatment Facili~Page 8 of 2"/Negative Declaration D.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either - directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ~.; c)Interfere substantially with the mogement of any native resident or migatory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migrator?, wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? e)Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? SOUFCes 1, 2-Map N1, 6, 7, 8,9 1, 2-Map N1,6 1,2,4,6 1,2,6 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact DISCUSSION: The project proposes is located within the developed fenced area of the RWQCP. The Project site is not located within a known movement corridor for wildlife species and does not support habit. The RWQCP and the Project site are not located within an area covered by a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No wetlands, trees, or natural communities are located within the construction disturbance area. No impacts to wetlands or other sensitive natural communities would occur. No trees or vegetation would be removed by the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None Required Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 9 of 27 Negative Declaration CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting information Resources a) b) Would the project: Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural ¯ resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? Sources 1, 2-Map L7 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource LS, 10, pursuant to 15064.5?1] 17 l, 2-Map 13, 14, t5, 16, 17: 18, 19,20, 21 1,10, 1Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any hmnan remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeter{es? Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the Cib"s Historic Inventor-2’? Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated Less Than Significant Impact c)7 e) No Impact 1,2-Map L8, 21 l, 2-Map L7, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, t7 1,10f)Eliminate important examples of major periods of California histoo’ or prehistoo,? D]~SCUSSI~©N: The proposed project would be. sited entirely on previously disturbed ground within the fenced area of the RWQCP. Excavation for the proposed structure will not go below the foundation of the adjacent existing Chlorination Station structure. Mitigation Measures: None Required a) Fo GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting information Resources Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 10 of 27 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting InformationResources Would the project: Rupture of a "known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Sources Potentially Significant Unless 22, 23 Potentially Significant Issues Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ii)2-Map N10, 31 iii) Seismic-related ground failure,2-Map including liquefaction?N5, 24, 31 iv) Landslides?2-Map N5 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 1 of topsoil?-~’- c) Result in substantial siltation?1 d) 2-Map N5, 31 2-Map N5, 24 1, 2-Map N5 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? e)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994); creating substantial risks to life or property? f)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? g) Expose people or properb, to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? DISCUSSION: The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. Projects are constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. Ultra Violet Treatment Faciliu,Page 11 of 27 Negative Declaration The proposed project would not e2pose people to substantial adverse risks of loss, injury, or death since the proposed project does not include construction of habitable structures. The site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo "Earthquake Fault Zone" for fault rupture hazard, and the potential for fault rupture to damage the pipeline is considered low (Hart and Bryant, 1997). However, the Project site could undergo very strong to violent ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on the San Andreas or Hayward fault. The project site is classified as having a high liquefaction potential (CDC CGS, 2006). The existing RWQCP facilities in the vicinity of the proposed Project site, e.g. the fixed film reactors, are supported on piles and the boring log for construction of the fixed fihn reactors indicates bay mud. The presence of bay mud indicates the likely presence of expansive soils as defined by the Uniform Building Code. The existing chlorine facility was constructed on piles. Similarly, the new UV facility is expected to be constructed on either the existing piles or new piles. This would be confirmed by a geotechnical report during final design. In addition, adherence to the generally, accepted construction practices would reduce the impact of liquefaction hazards to less than significant. Landslide potential is considered low due to the flat terrain at the Project site. Construction activities involving soil disturbance, such as excavation, stockpiling, and grading could result in increased erosion and sedimentation to surface waters. Substantial erosion is considered unlikely because of the relatively small scale of earthmoving activities necessary for project implementation, and because the UV facility site is located on a paved area of the RWQCP. Implementation of standard engineering erosion-control techniques would reduce potential impact to water quality to a less-than-significant level. The Project site is located in an ar_~.a that ~vould experience very strong to violent shaking in the event of a major earthquake along the San Andreaaor Hayward fault. With proper engineering, the construction and operation of the operation of the Project is not expected to result in any significant adverse short- or long-term impacts related to geology,, soils or seismicity. Mitigation ~{easures: None Required G.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS issues and Supporting information Resources Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? Sources ], 25 ], 25 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant impact No Impact Ultra Violet Treatment Facility.,Page 12 of 27 Negative Declaration e)Be located on a site which is inclu~ied 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? f) For a project located within an airport Iand 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? g)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? h)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, inju~,, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 2-~ j) Create a significant hazard to the pfiblic or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? 1, 2-Map N9, 26 1, 2-Map N7 ], 2-Map N7 DISCUSSION: The proposed Project would eliminate the use of all gaseous sulfur dioxide and chlorine gas at the RWQCP. These gases are classified under the Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) Hazard Class 2.3, which indicates a poisonous compressed gas. Eliminating the transportation and storage of these highly hazardous compressed gases would greatly reduce the hazards at the site. In addition, the Project would eliminate the use of ammonia hydroxide a liquid classified under D.O.T. Hazard Class 8 - Corrosive material. Construction activities would involve the use of certain potentially hazardous materials such as paints, fuels, oils, and solvents. These materials would generally be used for demolition equipments, generators, and other construction equipment, and would be contained within vessels engineered for safe storage. Spills during onsite fueling of equipment or an upset conditions (e.g., puncture of a fuel tank through operator error) could result in a release of fuel or oils into the environment. Storage of large quantities of these materials at the construction site is not anticipated; however, in the event of an uncontrolled release of these materials, protocol specified in the county-required Hazardous Materials Management/Spill Prevention Plan (Plan) would take affect. The Plan, reviewed and approved by the Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, would be given to all contractors working on the project. The purpose of the Plan is to provide on-site construction personnel, environmental compliance monitors, and regulatory agencies with a detailed description of hazardous materials management, spill prevention, and spill response/cleanup measures associated with the construction of project elements. In addition to construction activities, the proposed project will increase the use of UV lamps at the project site. The mercury used in UV lamps can only be released to the environment if the integrity of the lamp is compromised. Lamp manufacturers design their lamps to ensure that mercury is fully sealed within the lamp and to prevent leakages. UV equipment manufacturers, in turn, design their systems carefully to avoid lamp rupture; Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 13 of 27 Negative Declaration they perfo~n rigorous testing to make certain that the lamps within their systems ca~withstand a specified range of operating conditions. While the risk of breaking a UV lamp during nornaal wastewater operations and maintenance is very low, accidental breakage during the handling of the lamps may occur. The California Universal Waste Rule allows accidentally broken lamps to be recycled along with intact lamps. The greater concern with mercury in UV lamps is the disposal of the spent lamps. Compliance with lamp recycling regulations outlined in California’s Universal Waste Law will minimize these impacts. The RWQCP is required to update their exlsting Hazardous Materials Business Plan to reflect changes in hazardous material handling and storage, due to storage and handling of UV lamps on the site. The revised Plan will be submitted to the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Department. The Palo Alto Airport is located across Embarcadero Road from the RWQCP. The Project would replace the existing chlorine facility with a UV disinfection facility. The new structure would not interfere with any airport operations. The Project would not result in a safety hazard for people working the Project area. The construction is not anticipated to interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project is located within an urban setting and would not expose people to wildfire risks; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. rxdiitigation Measures: None Required HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUAL]I%Y issues and Supporting !nformation Resources i Sources Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in :~quifer 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)? 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? 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? d) 11,27 1, 2-Map N2 1,28 1,28 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated Less Than Significant impact No impact Ultra Violet Treatment Facility,Page 14 of 27 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources e) g) h) Would the project: 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?. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 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? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 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 or being located with-in a 100-year flood hazard area? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Sources 1,28 1,28 1,2-Map N6 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact j)1 ~ k) Result in stream bank instability?1, 2-Map DISCUSSION: The project site is located in the AE flood zone. The project shall be constructed to meet all required building codes to address the safety/flood issues and would reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. The project shall incorporate standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required by the Regional Water Quality, Control Board and the City of Palo Alto to protect water quality,. The proposed project would improve effluent water quality, from the RWQCP by eliminating common by- products of chlorine disinfection. A formal Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required for construction activities. The RWQCP would be required to apply for coverage under the SWRCB’s General Construction NPDES Permit and develop a project-specific SWPPP prior to commencement of any construction activities. Development of SW-PPP, implementation of BMPs, and compliance with SWRCB NPDES permit requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with sedimentation or pollutant concentrations in stormwater runoff originating from construction activities. The project area is not subject to seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows, and no impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: None Required Ultra Violet Treatment Facility.’Page 15 of 27 Negative Declaration LAND USE AND PLANNI~NG Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project:Issues Unless Impact M’itigation Incorporated a)-Physically divide an established community?] b) c) d) 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 environmenta! effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communJb’ conservation plan? Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? -i"- e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? 1,2 1,2,4 DISCUSSION: The proposed project would be completely contained within the existing RWQCP property. The project does not impact the existing established uses of the area and would not divide an3’ existing community. The project site is not located within a local coastal program, or habitat conservation plan. Mitigation Measures: None Required Jo MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) Would the project: 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? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page t6 of 27 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources b) Would the project: 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? Sotlrces 1,2,29 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Inc9,rporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None Required K. NOISE .... Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: 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? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d)A substantial temporar3, or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinit3,above levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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? g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? Sources 1,2,30 1,2 1,2 1,2 1, 32 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 17 of 27 Negative Declaration .~ssues and Supporting l~nformation Resources h) Would the project: Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? !) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? SOLIFCCS Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation incorporated Less Than Significant lmpact No Impact DiSCUSSltON: The project site is located within a nature preserve, where there are no residential uses in the area and only limited commercial uses nearby. The project and related construction are not anticipated to have any affects on sensitive receptors. Construction activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, grading and construction, which will be short term in duration. Standard approval conditions would require the project to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term construction that complies ~vith the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant. Construction noise would result from operation of equipment and vehicles. Base on the types of equipment that will be used at the project site, peak noise levels generated by construction would be typically between 70 dBA and 90 dBA within 50 feet, although occasional noise levels may reach 100 dBA within 50 feet, for short periods of time (US EPA, 1971). In accordance with Section 9.10.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, no individual piece of equipment would be allowed to produce a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet and the noise level at any point outside of the RWQCP property would not exceed 110 dBA. The recreational trail in the Baylands Pre.serve is located approximately 100-150 feet from the edge of the project area and the salt marsh and tidal slough habitat is roughly 250 feet from the site. The Palo Alto airport is located across Embarcadero Road from the RWQCP. The existing airport noise exposure at the RWQCP would remain unchanged. There are no residences in the project area and workers at the project site are not expected to be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport noise. Mitigation Measures: None Required Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 18 of 27 Negative Declaration gJ issues and Supporting Information Resources POPULATION AND HOUSING Sources 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)? b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? .~.. 1,27 1 1 1 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact DISCUSSION: The project is non-residential and does not create more jobs. There would be no impacts to the population and housing units in Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None Required M.PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: 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: a) Fire protection? Sotlrces Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 1 1 1 b) Police protection? c) Schools? Ultra Violet Treatment FaciliD,Page 19 of 27 Negative Declaration No Impact issues and Supporting information Resources Sources Would the project: d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? 1 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact The proposed project would modify the existing RWQCP, a governlnent facility, by replacing the existing chlorine gas disinfection facility with a UV disinfection facilit-y. These alterations would increase the safety at the plant and the community by eliminating hazardous chemicals. The proposed project would not require new public services. In addition, the project would not induce growth, which would require the creation of increased public services. Therefore, no physical or environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or altered governmental facilities would result. Mitigation Measures: None Required N.RECREAT~_©N issues and Supporting information Resources Would the project: 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? 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? Son tees Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No impact DISCUSSION: The use of existing recreational facilities would not be impacted by the proposed project. The project would not generate new users and does not require new or expanded recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures: None Required Ultra Violet Treatment Facility’Page 20 of 27 Negative Declaration Oo Issues and Supporting Information Resources TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Sources 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)? b)Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in change in air traffic pat-terns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d)Substantially increase hazards due..to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2,27 1,28, 32 1, 27, 28 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e)1, 27, 28 f)Result in inadequate parking capacits,?1, 28 g) l, 27, 28 ~1" h) l, 27, 28 J) 1 27, 28 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped 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 local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to.LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1, 27, 28 NegativeUltra Violet Treatment Facility Page 21 of 27 Declaration k) 1) m) Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sotlrces Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0. t or more? Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? Create an operational safety hazard? l, 27, 28 1,27, 28 Potentially l Potentially Less Than No impact 1,27, 28 Significant Issues Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact n)1,27, 28 NO/" o)1,27, 28 ,~/ p)!, 27, 28 ~" D~SCUSSION: The proposed project would convert the RWQCP to UV disinfection and eliminate gaseous chlorine. The long- term truck traffic ~o the RWQCP would be reduced. However, there will be increase in traffic during construction. Traffic-generating construction activities related to the project would consist of the daily arrival and departure of construction workers to the work site; trucks hauling equipment and materials to the work site; and the hauling of excavated spoils. Project construction would require a crew of approximately 15 workers on average. Construction equipment would include trucks, compactors, rollers, front loaders, backhoes, graders, bulldozers, pavers, concrete mixers/pumpers, generators, compressors, pneumatic tools, and jackhammers Based on the estimated crew size, and assuming some overlap in construction activities at the work site, construction worker trips traveling to and from the work site are not anticipated to exceed 15 round trips (30 one- way trips) per day. Access to the site would be via Embarcadero Road, which is classified as an "arterial" street in this area. According to Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the existing traffic on Embarcadero Rd. in 1998 was approximately 12,500 trips per day and the projected traffic for 2010 is 13,700 trips per day (Palo Alto, 1998). Thus, the project-generated trips would account for less than 0.5% of the traffic on this road each day and would not be substantial relative to background traffic conditions. Project-generated trips would fall within the daily fluctuations of traffic volumes for nearby roadways. Therefore, this short-term increase in vehicle trips would not significantly affect level of service and traffic flow on roadways. The project would not impact air traffic patterns or increase safer), risks. Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 22 of 27 Negative Declaration Truck trips associated with projedt construction are not expected to be substantial relative to background traffic conditions and no lane closures would occur due to project work. Therefore, the proposed project construction activities are not expected to affect emergency vehicle access in the vicinity of the work site. The proposed project would create temporary parking demand for construction workers and construction vehicles at the plant. The RWQCP has existing staging area with sufficient parking spaces for construction projects. Mitigation: None Required Po Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Sources Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 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? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h)Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1,27 ] 28 1,28 1, 27, 28 I, 27, 28 Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact DISCUSSION: The proposed Project would convert chlorine disinfection to UV disinfection. The UV disinfection would produce higher quality effluent because it does not produce THMs, NDMA, or cyanide, which are produced as Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 23 of 27 Negative Declaration byproducts of chlorine disinfection (RMC, 2006). Therefore, project implen-~entatiohwould not result in any exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements. The proposed Project would consti-uct the UV facility on a previously disturbed and paved property. The Project would not increase the impervious areas of the site, and would not require a water supply and would not generate wastewater for treatment. Any runoff from the site would be directed back to the RWQCP, which has the capacity for the runoff. Therefore, the Project would not result in construction of new water, wastewater treatment facilities or storm water faculties. Mitigation Measures: None Required Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGN!{F~CANCE issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Significant Would the project:Issues 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-sust~ining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community., reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history, or prehistory.? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" 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)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1,6, 10,27, 1,2"7 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No impact DISCUSSI!ON: The project does not have the potential to degrade or affect the environment since it is contained within the already developed/disturbed RWQCP site. There will be no substantial adverse effect on humans, vegetation or fauna. The new UV facility would be an improvement to the environment, producing higher quality effluent due to fewer by-products and reducing or eliminating the use of other hazardous materials. Mitigation Nteasures: None Required Ultra Violet Treatment Facility,Page 24 of 27 Negative Declaration SOURCE REFERENCES 1.Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project 2.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 3.California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Internet website: http://ww~.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/index.htm. Accessed on December 3, 2006. 4.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title I8 - Zoning Ordinance 5.Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Impacts of Projects and Plans, December 1999. Internet website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ceqa/ceqa_guide.pdf. Accessed on December 2, 2006. 6.Field reconnaissance conducted by a biologist from Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, September 11, 2006 7.California Department offish and Game. 2006 California Natural Diversity Database Rarefind [CD-ROM]. Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Department offish and Game. Sacramento: California. 2006. -~. 8.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by Project in the Mountain View (428A) and Palo Alto (428B) USGS 7 ½ Minute Quadrangles. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/ssp_lists. Accessed November 15, 2006. 9.California Native Plant Society,. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. Internet website: http://cnps.web.aplus.net!cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi. Accessed November 15, 2006. 10. Field reconnaissance conducted by William Self Associates Senior Archaeologist, Eric Strother, M.A., RPA., October 30, 2006 11. National Register of Historic Places 12. California Register of Historical Resources 13. California Inventory of Historic Resources, 1976 14. California Historical Landmarks, 1990 15. California Points of Historical Interest listing, May 1992 and updates 16. Historic Property’ Directow (Office of Historic Preservation current computer list) 17. Government Land Office Plots 18. Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Expansion, 1997. 19. Holman, M.P. Archaeological Field Inspection of the Palo Alto Golf Course, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California, 1994. Ultra Violet Treatment Facility . .-Page 25 of 27 Negative Declaration 20.Environmental Science Associates. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Con~ol Plant Reuse Pipeline, Cultural Resources Inventory Report, 2003. 21.Letter from the Native American Heritage Commission, October 27, 2006. 22.Atquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 23.Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A. Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 1997 (revised). Internet website: ftp:!/ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/SP42.pdf. Accessed on December 3, 2006. 24. California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey. Seismic Hazard Zones - Mountain View Quadrangle. Official Map Released: October 18, 2006. Accessed on-line at http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/html/pdf_maps_no.html on December 3, 2006. 25. RMC Water and Environment. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Disinfection Alternatives Work Plan Stuciy. August 2005. Prepared for the City of Palo Alto, 26. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). Internet website: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed on December 5, 2006. 27.RMC Water and Environment. Palo Alto Regional V/ater Quality Control Plant Disinfection Facility Plan Report. June 2007. Prepared for t.he City of Palo Alto. 28.RMC Water and Environment. Palo Alto UV Disinfection Basis of Design Report, Dr@ Technical .?viemorandum, December 2007. Prepared for the City of Palo Alto. 29. Stinson, M. C., M. W. Manson, J. J. Plappert. Mineral Land Classification Map: Aggregate Resources On@ - Alameda and Santa Clara Counties. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1982. 30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. December 1971. 31. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload 32. Palo Alto Airport Master Plan Report, December 2006 Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 26 of 27 Negative Declaration 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. 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 pr:~ject MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unlessmitigated" 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 DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Date Director of Planning and Community Environment Date Ultra Violet Treatment Facility Page 27 of 27 Negative Declaration