HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1550City of Palo Alto (ID # 1550)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 4/11/2011
April 11, 2011 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 1550)
Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine}
Summary Title: Council direction on Energy/Compost Study
Title: Request for Council Direction on Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
due to Council in June 2011
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to:
1)Submit a Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study on an Energy/Compost Facility
in early June 2011, based upon the Preliminary Analysis submitted to Council on
March 21, 2011, and Council and Public Comments.
2)Present a manageable number of scenarios in the Draft Feasibility Study
containing a range of input values which reflect the range of comments received.
Executive Summary
Staff is recommending that Council direct staff to submit a Draft Feasibility Study on an
Energy/Compost Facility in early June 2011, as envisioned in the established schedule
for the City’s consultant, Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI). This will provide Council with
a draft study reflecting Council and public comments. This will provide Council the
opportunity to terminate the work at that point should Council determine that an
Energy/Compost Facility in Palo Alto does not need further study at that time.
Background
Palo Alto’s Blue Ribbon Compost Task Force recommended to Council that an Anaerobic
Digestion Facility be pursued in the vicinity of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (Plant) to manage the City’s yard trimmings, food scraps and wastewater
solids (“biosolids”). The exact location of such a facility has been problematic because
of Palo Alto’s urbanized nature, the fact that no land has been specified for such a
facility, and the fact that the Landfill has been dedicated as Parkland (Byxbee Park).
Following receipt of the Compost Task Force Report, on April 5, 2010 (CMR:165:10,
Attachment A), Council directed staff to:
April 11, 2011 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 1550)
1)Hire a consultant to evaluate Dry Anaerobic Digestion;
2)Prepare an applicable level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) focused on 9-
acres of Byxbee Park;
3)Study energy conversion-technologies including Anaerobic Digestion at Palo
Alto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant as part of its Long Range Master Plan-Facility
Planning process; and
4)Pursue partnering opportunities for organics processing within 20 miles of Palo
Alto.
Palo Alto hired ARI to conduct the Anaerobic Digestion Study, and staff has been
pursuing Nos. 3 and 4 above. An appropriately scoped EIR (No. 2 above) will be
produced at the appropriate time should Palo Alto continue to pursue a Palo Alto
Facility. Council members requested that a Preliminary Analysis be completed ahead of
the full Feasibility Study. The Preliminary Analysis was done by ARI and placed on the
Palo Alto website on January 26, 2011. Public meetings were held on February 23 and
March 9,and public comments have been received in writing and at the meetings. City
Council conducted a Study Session on March 21 and staff indicated it would return to
Council for further direction on April 11, 2011.
Discussion
Public comments and Council comments on the Preliminary Analysis of Dry Anaerobic
Digestion on the Landfill/Byxbee Park 9-acre site were received at the Council Study
Session on March 21, 2011. Earlier comments had also been received. Staff has
analyzed those comments and has planned to prepare a Draft Feasibility Study in June
based upon the Preliminary Analysis and the comments received. Should Council direct
staff to continue the Draft Feasibility Study, staff would make the following changes and
additions to the Preliminary Analysis:
1)Include additional “export” (non-Palo Alto site) alternatives in which Wet
Anaerobic Digestion is used in place of incineration at the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP).
2)Lift the Net Present Value (NPV) analysis from the detailed analysis to the
summary tables.
3)Include the replacement costs of the wastewater solids (biosolids) incinerator in
those alternatives involving the incinerator.
4)Conduct more runs of the economic and greenhouse gas models, providing new
data points with respect to the following input parameters:
a.Land Rent Value
b.Greenhouse Gas Value (“CO2 Adder”)
c.Interest Rate for Loans
d.Contingency Amount
e.Amount of any Grants
5)Summarize the data such that Council can determine whether to complete the
Feasibility Study or forego further work at that time.
April 11, 2011 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 1550)
In summarizing the data (in No. 5 above) for the Draft Feasibility Study in June, staff
will assist Council in efforts to determine alternatives with the greatest environmental
benefits at the lowest costs. A manageable number of scenarios will be presented to
reflect a range of perspectives. All alternatives will assume that the current RWQCP
Multiple Hearth Incinerator must be replaced at some point.
Other Comments
Staff’s above proposal modifying the Preliminary Analysis does not address all
comments received. Some comments would require substantially more time and
funding. Examples include:
1)A new alternative to combine biosolids and food scraps in wet anaerobic
digesters and then combine the digestate with yard trimmings, using some
combination of the RWQCP site and the Landfill/Byxbee park site;
2)Full integration of the Energy/Compost Feasibility study and the Long Range
Facilities Planning for the RWQCP; and
3)Consideration of gasification and other high temperature conversion technologies
in Palo Alto.
Initiative
It is likely that a Citizen Initiative to undedicate Parkland for an Energy/Compost Facility
will appear on the November 2011 Ballot in Palo Alto. Several points related to the
Feasibility Study can be made:
1)The Initiative does not require construction of a facility, but only allows it. City
Council would ultimately decide whether a facility is constructed.
2)The Initiative contains a provision allowing Council to re-dedicate the site as
parkland after 10 years, if some or all of the area is not used for an
Energy/Compost Facility.
3)The Initiative does not exclusively focus on Dry Anaerobic Digestion and would
allow other “equally environmentally protective” technology alternatives. The
Preliminary Analysis focuses on Dry Anaerobic Digestion. Neither the Preliminary
Analysis nor the Draft Feasibility Study was scoped to provide a quantitative
analysis of all technologies which may be “equally environmentally protective”.
Resource Impact
The additional work described to prepare the June Draft Feasibility Study will require
additional funds. Those funds are being taken from other future tasks in the ARI
contract so that the schedule can be adhered to and the Draft produced in June.
Specifically, the work to prepare the California Envrionmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial
Study will be delayed to allow the more critical work to be completed. Should it be
decided to ultimately complete the CEQA Initial Study, a contract amendment will be
prepared and submitted to Council for approval. This contract ammendment would
April 11, 2011 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 1550)
require additional funding, but is not the subject of this CMR.
Environmental Review
The Feasibility Study itself is not a “project” as defined by CEQA and no environmental
review is required at this point in the process.
ATTACHMENTS:
·Attachment A CMR165-10 (PDF)
Prepared By:Philip L. Bobel, Manager, Environmental Compliance
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
•
..-: .. ,.:;
City of Palo Alto 11
City Manager's Report
TO: ' HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: APRIL 5,2010 CMR:165:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Direct Staff: 1) To Defer Further Action on an
Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility or Aerated Static Pile (ASP)
Composting Facility Within Palo Alto, Until and Unless a Usable Site
is Identified; 2) To Examine the Feasibility of Energy Conversion
Technologies (Including AD Technologies) During the Upcoming
Regional Water Quality Control Plant Master Planning Process;
3) To Pursue Local Partuering Opportunities with SMaRT® Station
Partners and/or Local Organic Waste Processing Companies that are
Developing Private or Energy Conversion Facilities Within a 20-Mile
Radius of Palo Alto; and 4) To Resume Acceptance of Commercial
Garbage at the Landfill
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to:
1. . Defer further action on an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility or aerated static pile (ASP)
composting facility within Palo Alto, until and unless a usable site is identified;
2. Examine the feasibility of energy conversion technologies (including AD technologies)
during the upcoming Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Master PI arming
Process;
3. Jnvestigate and pursue local pannering opportunities with SMaRT® partners andlor local
organic waste processing companies who are developing private AD or energy
eonversion facilities within a 20-mile radius of Palo Alto; and
4. Resume acceptance of commercial garbage at the landfill.
BACKGROUND
Thc City currently maintains a 7.5 acre conventional windrow composting facility for yard
trimmings on an active section of the Palo Alto Landfill (located within Byxbee Park) which is
expected to close within 12 months after the landfill reaches the permitted grading levels. The
landfiIl is expected t(j reach permitted capacity near the end of 20 II. The
green material managed at the facility includes source ,separated yard trimmings such as lawn
clippings, lcaves, tree and shrub clippings, brush, and other vegetative materials generated
through landscape maintenance activities. Additionally, leaves accumulated through the City's
street sweeping operations "selected screened loads" and clean tree trunk/limb wood grindings
(I to 2-inch chips) are also managed at the facility.
CMR:165:10 Page 1 of6
On August 6, 2007, Council directed staff to develop a work plan to explore options to keep
compo sting in Palo Alto. A work plan for a composting feasibility study was presented and
approved by Council on January 22, 2008 (CMR: 116:08). Staff prepared the feasibility study
and presented the results of the study on April 28, 2008 (CMR:219:08). At that point Council
directed staff to table the issue until the Baylands Master Plan update was approved and to get
the input of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC). On December IS, 2008 (CMR:470:08) and January 12, 2009
(CMR: 116:09), Council further discussed the composting issue and made a decision to convene a
citizen-based Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to further examine the composting question. At
that time, Council specifically directed the BRTF to avoid parkland location options.
On October 19, 2009, the BRTF presented its results and recommendations to Council
(CMR:402:09). The lead site recommended by the BRTF would have had resulted in potential
impacts on the Palo Alto Airport operations, as expressed to Council. Therefore, Council
directed staff to further examine the other alternatives and return to Council. The motion from
October 19, 2009 consisted ofthe following directives:
1) Accept the September 9, 2009 Palo Alto Compost Task Force Final Report (Report)
submitted by the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF);
2) Direct Staff to implement the short term recommendations for CUl'l'ent compost
operations contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the Staff response;
3) Request Staff to retum with analysis and recommendation of whether to incorporate
an interim solution of aerobic static pile composting or consider off site composting
on an interim basis;
4) Staff to evaluate the two options (Embarcadero Road/Airport site and 5-6 acres in the
northwest corner of the current landfill site) on the locations;
5) Staff to consider an option of partnering with another city or cities;
6) Staff to consider whether there are other locations on Embarcadero Way that could
work, this would take no more than 90 days;
7) Location of any facility would not have any negative impact on the Palo Alto Airport,
its operations, finances, and relationship with the FAA or Santa Clara County;
8) Staff to work closely with the airport community in the development of any
proposals, and
9) Staff to take into consideration the Airport Business Plan being developed.
In a separate action, Council adopted a statement of intent to proceed toward an anaerobic
compo sting system, at an unspecified location.
Since the last Council action on composting, staff held a public meeting with airport stakeholders
at West Valley Flying Club Meeting Room on November 4,2009. Minutes from that meeting
are included as Attachment A and further documented the negative impacts of a site on Airport
property. Staff also held a public meeting to discuss the expected recommendations of this staff
report at Cubberley Community Center, Room A-6 on December 9, 2009. Notes from that
public meeting are included as Attachment B. In addition, staff presented information (and
answered questions) to the Council in a study session on March 8,2010.
CMR:165:10 Page 2 of6
DISCUSSION
Short-term Recommendations
Staff has implemented all of the short-tenn recommendations for current compost operations
contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the staff response (Directive No.2, above). The
analysis of aerated static pile (ASP) composting within Palo Alto or off site composting as
interim solutions (Directive No.3, above) is contained in Attachment D. Staff concludes that an
ASP facility is too expensive and that there is no site that could be ready in time to serve as an
interim facility. Therefore the current interim plan of taking yard trimmings to the Z-Best Gilroy
facility should continue to be the shortcterm approach, JlPon closure of the Palo Alto Compost
Facility.
Loeal Siting Options
Evaluation of three pennanent siting options (the Embarcadero Road/Airport site, the northwest
comer of the eurrent landfill Byxbee Park site, and private properties along Embarcadero Way),
is also summarized in Attachment C, consistent with Directives No. 4 and 6, above. After
furthereonsultation with the Airport community, staff concludes that the Embareadero
Roadl Airport site would negatively impact that community and proposes no further work on that
site in confonnance with Directive No.7, ahove. With respect to the possible sites along
Embarcadero Way referenced in Directive No.6, staff concludes that procurement of sufficient
property would be too expensive and potentially disruptive for the existing land .owners and
tenants .. The site closest to the RWQCP entrance is a self-storage facility with numerous
individual tenants. In addition there would be neighborhood compatibility hurdles with utilizing
the properties on the west side of Embarcadero Way.
With respect to the construction of an Anaerobic Digestion facility in the northwest comer of the
current landftlllByxbee Park site, staff concludes that a detailed Feasibility Study would have to
be conducted by an engineering consultant to detennine costs and fully evaluate impacts.
Projected cost data obtained by Staff from venders has not been verified and is not sufficient for
final decision making. An Anaerobic Digestion facility is consistent with the October 19, 2009
Council direction and with the recommendations of the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force.
However, given the key constraint (site is on dedicated parkland) of the landfilllByxbee Park
site, staff does not recommend moving forward with the Feasibility Study until and unless the
constraintis removed (Recommendation No.1, above). A Feasibility Study of this magnitude is
best completed in conjunction with an Enviromnental Impact Report so that appropriate
mitigations are identified and incorporated into the project design. The total estimated cost of
this detailed analysis would exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars. This is a staff estimate
based on experience with the formerly proposed Enviromnental Services Center (ESC) at nearly
the same location on Byxbee Park.
Regional O)2portunities
Additionally, staff is actively exploring conversion technology options with the otherSMaRT®
Station partner cities, as well as opportunities to send organic materials to potential new privately
developed anaerobic digestion facilities.
Regiollal opportunities for anaerobic or other advanced processing are preliminary, but emerging
quickly. Several jurisdictions in the area are begiuning to express interest and explore their
CMR16S:10 Page 3 of6
abilities to build and operate regional facilities to provide organics processing in the future.
Currently no firm commitments exist, but opportunities for collaboration eould be pursued by the
City as they are identified. For example, the City's SMaRT® Station partners, Mountain View
and Sunnyvale, both have adopted zero waste goals. In addition, the City has an established
relationship with them in owning and operating a transfer and processing facility through 2021.
Both of these cities have an immediate interest in developing or using conversion technology to
meet their waste reduction goals and would likely be potential partners to build and operate an
anaerobic digestion or other conversion facility.
The primary private sector processing OPP011unity available in the near term is a facility being
developed by GreenWaste Recovery, Inc (Green Waste). GreenWaste, along with their business
partner from Germany, KOMPOFERM, have formed a subsidiary company called Zero Waste
Energy Development Company, Inc. (Zero Waste Energy). They are in the fmal planning stages
of designing a IS0,000-ton per year anaerobic digester in San Jose located approximately 12
miles from Palo Alto.
In September 2009, the City of San Jose and Zero Waste Energy executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) regarding their intent to develop lease terms for use of approximately 40
acres of a closed landfill site loeated beside the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control
Plant· for a biogas facility. The first phase of the processing site, 50,000 tons per year, is
anticipated to be ready for operation as soon as late 2011. Initially, the processing plant
anticipates taking a blend of food scraps and yard trimmings from jurisdictions to produce
biofuel and compost.
GreenWaste is the collection and processing provider for the City of Palo Alto's solid waste,
recyclables, yard trimmings, and food scraps. Staff has had preliminary discussions with
GreertWaste about utilizing this facility for the City'S food scrap tonnage, and some or all of our
yard trimmings. Finally, staffhas also met with another company, Harvest Power, that is also
pursuing development of a regional AD facility for the south bay area. Harvest Power has not
identified any specific faeility location yet.
Regional Water Quality Control Plant Master Plan
Under the existing adopted Capital Improvement Project (CIP) WQ-IOOOl, staffwill soon be
procuring consultant services to prepare a Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant. The draft scope of work requests an analysis of energy conversion technologies (including
anaerobic digestion) that might be suitable replacements for biosolids incineration in the future.
The Master Plan Work is scheduled to begin later this year.
Feedstocks and End Products
Regardless of whether the City pursues partnership with a private firm or a regional conversion
technology facility, it is important to nnderstand our various feedstocks and what end products
are to be produced and marketed. A feedstock is the raw waste material that would be proeessed
and includes food waste, sewage biosolids, yard trimmings, and soiled paper. A single
technology may not be best for the various organic material feedstocks that exist in Palo Alto.
For example, certain feedstocks require greater vector and odor control than others. Certain
feedstocks may also affect the marketability of any end product compost material due to
concentrations of metals, fecal coliform bacteria, and other contaminants. These issues will
CMR165:10 Page 4 of6
continue to guide the City into a solution that will best serve Palo Alto's needs for the long term.
Because of the upcoming Master Plan and the various prospects for new regional facilities, it is
not yet clear whether a joint venture with other communities, a processing contract with a private
facility, an anaerobic digestion facility at the RWQCP, or some combination of the
aforementioned are in the City's best interests. Therefore, staff is recommending continuing to
explore advanced tecImoiogies at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and at Regional
locations in the South Bay area, as expressed in Recommendations 2 and 3 above.
Commercial Garbage Disposal Moratorimn
On January 12, 2009 Couucil passed a motion containing the following provision:
"The City shall suspend accepting commercial garbage at the Palo Alto dump while awaiting
City Council action on the recommendations ofthe BRTF."
Staff interprets this provision to mean that it is to recommence acceptance of commercial
garbage upon further action by Council on the compo sting issue. Staff is seeking Council
confirmation of this interpretation through Recommendation No.4, above.
Follow-up to Study Session on March 8, 20 I 0
Attachment D contains further staff responses to questions and comments raised at the Study
Session on March 8,2010, including the potential early conversion oflandfill Phases IIA and lIB
to park use.
As a follow-up to the community· response at the Council Study Session on March 8, 2010,
Council may wish to provide specific direction to staff about conducting a scientific random
voter survey regarding the Byxbee Park site option. This survey would gage resident sentiment
about the possible undedication of a portion of Byxbee Park for an organic material processing
and energy generation facility. Similar voter surveys have been performed about other issues for
less than $25,000. Staff could therefore procure these polling services using unspent Refuse
Fund operating budget for program and project consultants. Survey questions and language
could be referred to the Policy and Services Committee if the Council moves to proceed with this
type of community outreach.
Attachment E is an aerial map from the Study Session presentation that shows two City-owned
areas of the Baylands that are not currently dedicated as parkland. These areas could potentially
be swapped for land within the current Byxbee Park. A potential survey could also gage voter
sentiment towards such a land swap idea.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There. is no additional resource impacts associated with the recommendations in this report
beyond what has already been anticipated in the Council adopted Zero Waste Operations Plan
(CMR:123:07).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The staff recommendations in this report do not constitute a "project" as defined by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CMR165:1O PageS of6
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendation does not represent changes to existing City policies. The recommendation
is consistent with the Council adopted Zero Waste Plan and Council priorities to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Notes from Public Meeting on November 4, 2009
Attachment B: Notes from Public Meeting on December 9, 2009
Attachment C: Staff Memo on Further Compost Facility Evaluation
Attachment D: Staff Memo Addressing Council Questions from Study Session on March 8, 20 10
Attachment E: Map of Potentially Offsetting Areas from Study Session Presentation
PREPARED BY: ~<t·a~~
APPROVED BY: 1l:1~----'
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: . J
/ City Manager
Page 6 Qf6
A) Plllllose:
Meeting Summary
1114/09 CompostlAirport Public Meeting
(4:00-5:30 pm -Palo Alto Airport)
ATTACHMENT A
To explore potential sites for organics material management which would have "no
imp!j.ct" on the Palo Alto Airport (per I 0/19109 direction from the Palo Alto Council.)
B) Attendees:
Airport
Community Members
Chuck Byer
Harry Hirschman
Ralph Britton
Pat Roy
Larry Shapiro
Michael Baum
C) Summary:
Former Compost
Task Force Members
Bob Wenzlau
Emily Renzel
Palo Alto City Staff
Cara Silver
Steve Emslie
Phil Bobel
The group brainstormed and identified impacts to the Palo Alto Airport associated
with seven (7) different location configurations of Organics Material Management
(OMM) facilities. (See D. below for details). There appear to be three configurations
which are likely to have no impact on the Airport (with several qualifiers noted in
Part D).
1. Locating. the OMM on Embarcadero Way (currently privately owned
buildings) ..
2. Locating the OMM on the Los Altos Treatment Plant (LA TP) site and
locating the municipal operations planned for the LATP site on Embarcadero
Way (currently privately owned buildings).
D) Identification ofImpacts on the Airport:
1. Locating OMM on the current Landfill site. and swawing aWfoximately 10
acres of the North Runway site (22 acres total) as dedicated parkland. Thus, a
I b acre strip of the North Runway site, the eastern half, would become
parkland. The group assumed that the dedication itself would involve no
physical changes; that any physical changes would be a separate action
involving separate analysis.
IMPACTS:
No impacts tq the Airport were identified as long as the following points were
reCognized and addressed:
Page I
u; lPWDIADMINIKAREN\CMRI040510i 165-10 C ompC31lng Resp.nselAlltlChmenC A.doc
ATTACHMENT A'
a. The FAA must be consulted for any rules they may have. Their approval
may be needed,
b. Sufficient "buffer" must be allowed adjacent to the runway for aircraft
wingspan.
c, The new Parkland (North Runway site) would have to have restricted
access to prevent people and animals from entering.
d. The existing levee must be maintained. In fact, it may need to be
augmented in light of sea level rise.
e, There may be a habitat mitigation area at the north end of the North
Runway site which must be maintained.
2. Locating OMM on Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocating Ailll0rt
facilities per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to PA Council. This
option would move the Heliport and Terminal to avoid impacts from the
OMM in the southeastern corner of the Airport.
IMPACTS:
The following impacts on the Airport were identified:
a. The changes to the layout of Airport operations are major and funding
would be needed. Both the amount and source of funds would be issues.
b. Cost of moving Embarcadero Road and resurfacing (at a minimum) of the
Airport access road would be impacts.
c. New location of the Heliport is not safe due to incoming fixed wing traffic
and proximity to fuel storage.
d, Negative visual impacts to the Airport would occur.
e .. ' All of the negative impacts identified in the Task Force Report associated
with the Embarcadero Road/Airport site would apply.
3. Locating OMM at the LATP site and move the activities plarmed for the
LATP site to the Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocate Airport facilities
per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to the P A Council.
IMPACTS:
The negative impacts listed as 2.a -2.d above would also apply to this
concept.
4. Locating OMM on land riow occupied by privately owned buildings on one or
both sides of Embarcadero Way.
IMPACTS:
The following issues would have to be addressed and mayor may not turn out
to be actual impacts on the Airport:
a. The potential for a bird attraction hazard would have to be investigated.
Page 2
U:IPWDIADMfNlKAREMCMRI0405fOIf65·fO Com posting ResponselAltachmenCA.doc
ATTACHMENT A
b. A· 1,200 foot distance would have to be achieved with respect to yard
waste.
c. A 1 mile distance would have to be achieved for food waste.
5. Locating the OMM at the LATP site and locate the activities planned for the
LATP site where the privately owned buildings on one or both sides of
Embarcadero Way are now.
IMPACTS:
No impacts on the Airport were identified, assuming that there were no bird
attraction issues from the operations that would be located on Embarcadero
Way.
6. Locating the OMM at the LA TP site and locate the activities planned for the
LATP site on the North Runway site.
IMPACTS:
The following impacts on the Airport were identified:
a. FAA approval would be needed
b. Access would have to be provided which does not exist, creating safety
Issues.
c. Oversight of contractors and City staff would have to be addressed.
d. Bird attraction would have to be addressed.
7. Separate the OMM activities, locating only the curing piles (possible aerated
static piles) on the North Runway site.
IMPACTS:
The following impacts on the Airport were identified:
a. Access which does not now exi1;t would have to be provided, creating
safety issues.
b. The bird attraction issue would have to be addressed.
c. FAA approval would be needed.
8. Locating the OMM on the Landfill site and creating offsetting parkland
(approximately 10 acres) at the North Runway site.
IMPACTS:
There is no guarantee that the FAA will accept dedicating 20 acres as
"Parkland" and thereby reducing the available Palo Alto airpark land by 20%.
Until further clarification is gained on this item, it should not be included in
the "no airport impact" category.
Page 3
U:\PWD\ADMINlKAREMCMR\0405JO\J65~1O Compos{ing RespanseiAUachmen(A doc
ATTACHMENTB
On 12/9/09 City Staff presented its preliminary thinking in response to Council's
10/19/09 directives. The responses will undergo more work, and likely be
presented to Council on 2/1/10. Staff sought, and received, feedback on the
following concepts:
1. Interim Aerated Static Piles:
Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to cost, length of time to bring on
line, and lack of an authorized site. (The interim (post 2012) "fallback" is
the Z-Best (Gilroy) compost facility).
2. Long Term Sites in Palo Alto:
a. Airport Site
Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to impacts on the Airport
and the Council directive to have "no Impact" on the Airport.
b. Embarcadero Way Site
Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to high cost of purchasing
landlbuildings.
c. Landfill CByxbee) Site
. Sfaff is unlikely to recommend conducting a
feasibility/environmental study at this time due to uncertain
availability of the site and the high cost of a
. feasibility/environmental study.
3. Areas to Pursue:
a. Nearby Sites » Staff will pursue taking organics to a new anaerobic
digestion facility likely to open as soon as 2010 in San Jose
(Greenwaste, Zanker Road). approx. 12.5 miles from the
Embarcadero/101 interchange ( Note: Much closer than Z-
Best which is 53 miles ). » Staff will purs.ue the possibility of an energy recovery facility
at the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale, although it is just an
idea at this point.
b. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Master
Planning » Staff will consider anaerobic digestion and other energy
recovery possibilities at the RWQCP as the Master Planning
gets underway in 2010. (Not able to handle yard trimmings,
or all food waste within the RWQCP, however.)
The following feedback was received at the meeting;
Comments from Public
On Palo Alto Staff Presentation
at 12/09/09 Public Meeting
ATTACHMENTB'
Individual members of the public suggested that the following thoughts (or ansVjers to
questions) be included in the report back to City Council on (or about) 211/10:
I. Indicate that there is citizen support (as well as citizen opposition) to an organics
management. facility on the landfill (Byxbee) site.
2. The City's Solid Waste Management Plan filed with the County would have to be
revised if a new Palo Alto Compost Facility were to be developed.
3. The regional situation with respect to organics management should be discussed.
4. For Aerated Static Piles (ASP) and Anaerobic Digestion (AD), the extent to which
operating facilities exist should be discussed.
S. The emerging responses to the Santa Barbara RFP should be summarized to show
what technologies are actually being proposed by bidders there.
6. The quality of the food scraps processed at Z-Best (Gilroy) should be mentioned as it
is apparently contaminated with plastics and other non-food material.
7. The quality of biosolids should be discussed with the "hazardous waste" issue and the
"long term build-up" issues described.
8. The schedule for developing Greenwaste's Zanker Road facility should be explored
to determine why it is happening so much faster than Staffs estimation of a Palo Alto
facility schedule. . .
9. A resident "Initiative" would shorten the schedule by eliminating one of the two ErRs
shown on the Palo Alto Staff schedule.
10. The Waste Management Board management staff were much more optimistic about a
.Palo Alto schedule and should be consulted.
11. Wh~n will Greenwaste's .Zanker Road facility be able to take yard trimmings and
biosolids?
12. What has the experience to date been of taking commercial food waste in Palo Alto in
Palo Alto?
13. The process outputs (e.g., energy, compost) of an organics processing facility should
be fully considered as a decision is made on the type of process.
14. The sensitivity of the facility location to noise, light,. traffic, dust and pollutants
should be described.
15. Drawings showing what the various site locations would look like should be
presented.
16. Make it clear that the "Landfill site" is on "Byxbee Park".
3/111 0 ATTACHMENTC
Staff Evaluation
Follow-up to Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) Recommendations
For Developing an Organics Processing Facility Within The
City of Palo Alto
n Staff analysis and recommendation for developing an interim Aerated Static Pile (ASP)
composting operation within Palo Alto versus adopting the Zero Waste Operations Plan of
sending yard trimmings to SMaRT/ZBest. .
The advantages of the City developing an ASP composting facility in Palo Alto after the existing
composting facility closes are mainly: reduced greenhouse gas vehicle emissions through a
closer destination facility; and that the City could control the facility and add other organic
wastes to the process (biosolids, food scraps, etc). Control of the facility and organic wastes that
could be processed could allow the City to implement residential curbside collection of food
scraps in their green waste carts.
Disadvantages of the City developing its own facility in the interim are the high cost of
developing an ASP operation ($3 million initial capital investment); and the fact that there is no
land readily available for the placement of an ASP facility in the intermediate term.
Staff does not believe that the $3 million investment for an ASP Facility developed on any
existing City-oWned property is warranted because of the interim nature of the ASP (Council has
prioritized Anaerobic Digestion) and because there is no readily available site for the facility.
2) Evaluation of Three Potential Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility Sites.
Site #1 Other Unspecified Locations Along Embarcadero Road
Staff focused primarily on the existing commercial properties along Embarcadero Way for this
portion ofthe evaluation. Five properties ranging in size from I to almost 4 acres were evaluated
by the Real Estate Division of the Administrative Services Department. Table 1 below
summarizes the potential acquisition costs for these properties. The properties' layout in relation
to the Airport and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is shown in Figure 1.
If only the three properties along the east side of Embarcadero Way are considered, acquisition
costs could range between $8.2 to $13.7 million for these 3.15 acres ofland. It is very unlikely
that even just these three properties would be easy to acquire. Eminent Domain would likely be
necessary. One of these three properties houses California Self Storage and another is currently
leased by Victor Aviation Services. Only the property at the comer of Embarcadero Road
appears to be vacant at the time of this report. It contains a two-story structure for research and
development and offices. Staff does not recommend pursuing the acquisition of these properties
for an organics processing facility.
Page I of 8
3/1/1 0 AITACHMENTC
Table 1: ROUGH ACOUISITION ESTIMATES FOR EMBARCADERO WAY PROPERTIES
High Mid Low
Street Number APN Acres $100/sf $80/sf $60/sf Facts
Sold 7/06 lor approx.
WEST 1880 008-03-027 1.19 $5,183,640 $4,146,912 $3,110,184 $4,250,000 recently
refurbIshed ~ avail
SIDE for lease
2440 008-03-072 3.95 $17,206,200 $13,764,960 $10,323,720 Newer R&D Sites -
several vacancies
! 1900 008-03-071 1.14 $4,965,840 $3,972,672 $2,979,504 Olo.r building -
available for lease EAST Older building -• SIDE 2415 008-03-030 1 $4,356,000 $3,484,800 $2,613,600 currently leased
i 2425 008-03-068 1,01 $4,399,560 $3,519,648 $2,639,736 Self storage facmty
Totals 5,14 $22,389,840 $17,911,872 $13,433,904
COMPARABLE DATA:
2525 E, Bayshore Road -1,44 acres, same age bldg -Comp Value per Real Quest $6,250,000 -Sold 4/2006
$4,200,000
1010 Corporation Way -Currently for sale -21 ,500 sl, Bldg, Office/R&D, Vacant, 1,10 ac lot size -for sale price
$5,300,000'" $246,51/51
CONDEMNATION COSTS CONSIDERATIONS (assume +30% to above mid range flgure):
Courts must find that: 1) public Interest and necessity require the project; 2) the project is compatible with the
greatest public good and least private Injury; and 3) the property is necessary for the project
Costs to consider: Fair market value, plus attorney fee$, appraisal fees, relocation expenses, payment for
business fixtures, equipment and good will, and if leased possibly relocation andlor tenants leasehold interest to
be compensated, .
NOTES and ABBREVIATIONS:
East Side parcels represent the lots next to RWQCP
APN: Assessor's Parcel Number
sf: Square Feet
Page 2 of8
3/1/10 AITACHMENTC
Figure 1: EMBARCADERO WAY PROPERTY LOCATIONS
Airport
I
\
Baylands
. \
" \
Site #2 Embarcadero Road/Airport Site
Based on meetings held with Airport stakeholders, there are no options within the airport
property that have no negative impacts on its operations, finances, or relationships with the FAA
or Santa Clara County,
Page 3 of8
3/1!1 0 ATTACHMENTC
Site #3 Northwest Corner of Current Landfill Site (Byxbee Park)
Staff has conceptually developed a 4.7 acre grading plan (Figure 2) at the Northwest comer of
the landfill adjacent to the PAR WQCP that might be large enough for a large AD facility that
could accommodate the City's entire organic waste throughput. The grading plan incorporates
dedicated park acreage from the area adjacent to the PARWQCP fenceline (facing the landfill)
and overlying approximately 2 acres of the existing landfill.
Implementing this conceptual grading plan would mean raising the grades of the existing land
adjacent to the landfill approximately 5 feet to approximately 15 feet above mean sea level
(MSL). This conceptual site would partially overlie the landfill final contours approved by the
landfill architect (Hargreaves Associates, April 2008). If an AD building were developed on this
site then the top of a building could be as high as 40 feet above MSL -lower than the highest
elevations ofthe landfill that are 60 feet above MSL.
Permits and Approvals
Permitting an AD facility at the Northwest corner of the landfill would involve CEQA, State
permits and local approvals and voter approval to undedicate a portion of Byxbee Park. This
entire development process would be expected to take 7 or 8 years to complete (See timeline
Figure 3). Because this site overlies the landfill and because this site would probably require two
EIRs and a vote to undedicated parkland, the schedule for development of a large AD facility
would be expected to take three to four years longer than a site that did not have these land use
issues.
• An Environmental Impact Report (ElR) would be required. It is likely that two EIRs may
be required - a programmatic EIR to support the vote to undedicate the parkland and
later, a design level EIR that would support the permits and approvals;
• A new or revised solid waste facility permit would be necessary;
• A new Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Facility Pennit would
likely be required. A new high technology organics facility with emissions control would
meet the BACT standards (Best Achievable Control Technology).
• New or revised Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) will probably be required from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board since the proposed operation would be sited
partiallyi'on the landfill. Flatter grades overlying the landfill can be permitted as long as
an 'effective system for diverting surface drainage and preventing ponding is designed in
accordanee'with California Code of Regulations Title 27 Section 21090 (b)(1 )(B).
• Local permits and approvals would inelude revising the Baylands Master Plan,
Planning/Site & Design Review approvals, voter approval to undedicate parkland etc.
Page 40f8
31111 0 ATTACHMENTC
• The City would need to modifY the landfill's post-closure plan to reflect this continued
operation on the closed landfill. Also, a facility operations layer and drainage features
would need to be designed and constructed to protect the landfill's cap.
• An amendment to the landfill lease with the State Lands Commission would be necessary
for the improvements.
Other Impacts
Sino;:e the proposed facility can be incorporated into the PARWQCP, the existing landscape
screen trees would need to be removed and new landscaping improvements would need to be
installed at the perimeter of the new facility.
Access to Byxbee park could still be available via the existing parking lot. Some trails planned
at the north end of the landfill would need to be rerouted to avoid the new facility. Maintenance
of the park/landfill could still be undertaken.
Development Costs
Hilary Gans from the Blue Ribbon Task Force completed and presented to Council a preliminary
cost estimate of $ 13.75 million for an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) w/ Energy Recovery system
that is large enough to handle the City's yard trimmings and some food waste. This capital cost
estimate includes the cost of a specialized building, gas collection system and electricity
genenitjng equipment but did not include the cost of an asphalt operating surface or materials
handling equipment cost since the City (\lready owns all the necessary heavy equipment required
to run a c~mposting system.
The cost' per ton calculation to process the City'S organics would depend on what type of facility
is developed, what type of organic wastes would be managed at the facility and what throughput
of tonnage would be possible. A consultant feasibility study would need to be performed before
these costs could be accurately developed.
3) Evaluation of Other Options
Figure 4 presents timelines for two recommended courses of action: 1) study the feasibility of
developing energy recovery facilities for biosolids and limited foodwaste during the upcoming
RWQCI' Master Planning project, and 2) pursue partnering opportunities with SMaRT and/or
private ventures building nearby anaerobic digestion facilities.
Page 5 of 8
Figure 2" C " onceptual Grad" Facility on B b mg Plan for AD yx ee Park
ATIACHMENT"C
2010
IMMEDIATE
"J!
'" ..
" a
'"
BY COUNCIL
Projected Schedule
RFP • Request for Proposal
AD • Anaerobic Digestion
EIR • Environmental Impact Report
Figure 3: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
CITY OF PALO ALTO
2011 • 2012
Council Decision
2010)
(Apr 2010)
Landfill
TIMELINE IN YEARS
2013 2014
Compost Facility Closes
(Dec 2011)
2012)
" (Nov 2012)
2015 2016
Selection of
Design-Build
AD Vendor
(JuI2012)
Begin Design,
Focused EIR,
.......... Permits and
Approvals
(JuI2012)
MATERIAL TO SmaRT
2017 2018 2019
Complete and Certify EIR,
rReceive All Pennits and Approvals.
(JuI2016)
. ,
I I , I
I I
Construction
and Startup
(Dec 2017)
P E KIVIAI'II t:: I'll
FACILITY
D . I I AD eSlgn, I Constr I I J • 1 Feasibility I Lag I Vendor CEQA, ! & Startup---1
• • Study/EIR • !TimeL RFP Permit (17 Mos)
(24 Mos) (8 MOS)(9 Mos) (48 Mos)
o
l '" co
!2. co
NO IMMEDIATE
COUNCIL ACTION
REQUIRED
Staff Driven
(Limited AD at WQCP)
Staff Driven
(Track Partnering Opportunities)
AD • Anaerobic Digestion
Figure 4: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT TIME LINES
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Begin Feasibility
rMaster Plan
TIMELINE IN YEARS
(June 2010) Landfill Closes
Compost Facility Closes
2011)
Landfill Closes
Complete Feasibility
,..........Master Plan
(May 2012)
Compost Facility Closes
(Dec 2011)
TRACKIN<iPA~ERING OPPORTUNITIES WITH NEW REGIONAL AD FACILITIES
g
I
~ -i
()
3/30/10 ATIACHMENTD
Staff Memo
Follow-up to Council Questions from Study Session on March 8, 2010
Council Email Ouestion: The Composting [Blue Ribbon Task Force] Report was originally
paired with a Colleagues memo on Early Opening of Portions of Byxbee Park. This
complementary item was amended and passed on Nov 2, 2009. It was stated at that meeting that
this item on the Early Opening would return 'quickly'. Will it be on the Agenda on AprilS along
with the Composting Report?
The COUNCIL MOTION from November 2,2009 stated:
1) Direct Staff to work with the Parks and Recreation Cormnission and Hargreaves and
Associates to develop fmal park design goals for Phase II of Byxbee Park including
provision to access and views and return j.o Council with a proposed impl()lUentation
budget, and 2) Direct Staff to take the necessary steps to open the completed and
approved landfill area (Phase II AlB in the Baylands Master Plan) to the public as
interim open space by the end of 2011 or sooner; 3) Amended to direct Staff to
report back to Council with an estimated budget for the work in both parts of
the Motion in a timely manner.
Staff Response: The attached Table 1 outlines the steps necessary to prepare closed Landfill
Phase IIA and Phase lIB for early public access. Staff will begin adding clean soil to low areas
in the previously closed sections within the next few months (weather permitting) in order to
fulfill the post-closure responsibility of addressing settlement. Most ofthe top-deck areas have
settled one to two feet. (or more) within the last several years. The current goal is to accept and
spread enough clean soil to bring the closed sections up to the original designed grades of these
already capped landfill areas.
The proposed FY 2011 budget for the Landfill Closure (CIP RF-llOO 1) has been adjusted to
provide $600,000 for the work required to prepare Phase IIA and Phase IIB for public access.
This will include: changes to the environmental control systems (leachate and landfill gas
collection piping) to place piping and well heads underground, minor grading and improvements
to site access roads, and removal of perimeter fencing. The Refuse Fund budget does not include
money to prepare final park design goals in conjunction with Hargreaves and the Parks &
Recreation Commission, final park design (which should include Phase lIC), nor final park
construction.
Staff believes it would be more efficient and cost effective to bury the piping system
underground when the Phase lIC closure is completed because there will be the efficiency of
earth moving equipment and a single contractor to mobilize rather than administering two
discrete projects successively. If Council decides to initiate the early opening of Phase IlA and
Phase lIB and to bear the extra expense, it would prohably only speed up the potential to open
these areas by about one year earlier than if the work was combined with the closure construction
on Phase lIC. It is also not clear yet how the park-related improvements will be funded.
Page 1 of5
TABLE 1
BYXBEE PARK -PHASE IIA & PHASE liB CLOSED LANDFILL PREPARATION WORK
I
ESTIMATED
TAS.q DESCRIPTION STATUS COST SOURCE OF FUNDS TIME LINE
1 IAdjust the setUed surface with new topsoil to raise the IN $50,000 PWD -Refuse: Landfill Complete by October 201 0 finished grade back to the permitted elevations PROGRESS Operations
IRevegetate surface following settlement remediation IN PWD -Refuse: Landfill 2 IPROGRESS $25,000 Operations Complete by December 2010
I Seek Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) approval for I PLANNED I PWD -Refuse: staff-level Complete by December 2010
3 (assuming no permitting "early" public access to Phase IIA & Phase liB task hurdles)
4 I Design, plan and permit changes to environmental control PLANNED $50,000 PWD -RefuSe: Closure Pending FY 2011 Budget systems (leachate and landfiU gas collection piping) reserve (CIP RF-11 001)
5 I Modify environmental control systems to place piping and PLANNED $500,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure I Pending FY 2011 Budget well heads underground reserve (CIP RF-11001)
6 IMinor greding and improvementof site access roads I PLANNED $25,000 IPWD -Refuse: Closure
reserve (CIP RF-11001) IPending FY 2011 Budget
7 I Remove perimeter' fencing IPLANNED $25,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure
I reserve (CIP RF-11001) Pending FY 2011 Budget
I Prepare Final Park Design Goals in conjunction with I PLANNED ICSD: ???
»-
8 $25,{)00 Pending Council action ~ Hargreaves and the Parks & Recreation Commission
('J ::c
9 I Final Park Design (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED $470,000 ICSD: ??1 IPending Council action a;::
~
10 I Final Park Construction (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED I $4,700,000 leSD: 1?? IPending Council action
..,
"
3/30/10 ATTACHMENTD
Study Session Question: Refuse fund has right to parkland until June 30, 2011 future use
would require $3.7 million annual payment? Is that built into the numbers?
Staff Response: CMR 104:07 established the following rent schedule for both the active and
closed portions of the landfill:
City of Palo Alto I
Landfill Rent
Schedule
Rent
Payment
(Smoothing
Rent Charged Schedule)
2004-05 7420925 4,288,747
2005-06 7420925 4288747
2006-07 7420,925 4,288,747
.2007-08 7420,925 4,288,747
2008-09 7,420,925 4,288,747
2009-10 7420925 4,288,747
2010-11 7420,925 4,288747
2011-12 0 4,288,747
2012-13 0 2,094,332
. 2013-14 0 2,094,331
2014-15 0 2,094331
2015-16 0 2,094,331
2016-17 0 2,094,331
2017-18 0 2,094,331
2018-19 0 2,094331
2019-20 0 2,094,331
2020-21 0 881,851
This rent schedule encompasses the entire landfill area (approximately 100 acres of both active
and closed). The amount of rent attributable to the piece of land being considered for
composting would be proportionally less. The current annual rent payment for the entire landfill
is approximately $4.3 Million. If the Refuse Fund occupies any portion of Byxbee Park for a
longer period than contemplated in the rent schedule, the schedul~ would have to be re-adjusted.
The schedule was based on the information available at the time that assumed a projected landfill
closure on June 30, 2011. The schedule adopted by the Council in 2007 contained a number of
Council-directed policies, including: (1) the Refuse Fund should be paying the General Fund for
use of the inactive portion until it is formally converted to park use; (2) the rent attributable to
Page 3 of5
3/30/10 ATTACHMENT D
the inactive portion should be less than fair market rent since the Refuse Fund is not actively
using the property and (3) the rent payments should be amortized over time so that Refuse rates
are not substantially impacted. The current economy which has led to less commercial dumping
at the landfill together with the temporary City Council imposed commercial dumping
moratorium may result in a slightly later landfill closure date. The City is in the process of
determining whether there is a need for further refining this rental schedule al).d whether there is
a need for an updated appraisal.
Study Session Question: If there is a de-aunexation of the parkland, the parkland will take on the
value of commercial properties around it. Refuse Fund would have a liability for approximately
that amount?
Staff Response: If the parkland is de-alUlexed and the Refuse Fund continues to utilize the
property for Refuse purposes (including composting), the Refuse Fund would be responsible for
the payment of rent. The rent would be based on the highest and best use which is most likely
research and development/industrial use.
Study Session Question: Concerned about buffer betWeen industrial activities and parkland -
will there be an EIR to estimate the impact on Parkland?
Staff Response: Yes, an ErR for a compost project would address land use compatibility and
related aesthetic issues. The zoning ordinance governing the new use could also prescribe
appropriate setbacksl buffer zones.
Study Session Question: 90% solution email by Bryan Long -can his solution be part of the
April 5 discussion?
For reference, the recommendations in Bryan Long's 90% solution email are:
I. Improve collection rates of our new commerciaVmultifamily food waste collection
program, and implement a residential food scrap collection program. Utilize Z-Best
or other regional facility to compost or digest these food wastes for the time being.
2. After landfill closure, divert yard trimmings to Z-Best or other regional composting
facility, and
3.. Direct RWQCP staff to incorporate alternatives for anaerobic digestion ofbiosolids
and Palo Alto's food scrap collections into their comprehensive [Master 1 plan.
Direct staff to consider yard trimmings as well, but as a secondary priority and only
if it does not significantly increase the cost or lengthen the timeframe required.
Page 4 of5
3i30/10 ATTACHMENTD
Staff Response: Staffs recommendation is largely in line with what is referred to as the 90%
solution. The upcoming RWQCP Master Plan will include an analysis of options for managing
the biosolids that are currently incinerated. The analysis ofbiosolids options won't constitute a
full "Feasibility Study". However it will include site specific cost and revenue estimates, general
environment impact analysis and life cycle estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Taking some food waste ",ill be analyzed, but it is very unlikely that anything close to all the P A
food waste could be handled within the RWQCP footprint.
It is important to note that the RWQCP is funded 35% by Palo Alto and 65% by its other
Partners. Therefore, expenditures (including planning) for waste streams generated by only Palo
Alto would have to be funded by 100% Palo Alto funds .. Major Capital Improvement Projects at
the RWQCP also require approval by the Partner City Councils in addition to the Palo Alto City
Council.
Study Session Concerns: Numerous questions posed by Council at the study session related to
the size, cost, operations, buffer zones, and environmental impacts of an anaerobic digestion
facility.
Staff Response: These types of questions are best answered through a detailed feasibility study
combined with a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) so that all mitigation measures can be
identified and properly estimated for cost. The cost of such a detailed study would exceed
$250,000. Previously a similar effort for the project known as the Environmental Services
Center (ESC) would have cost over $400,000 (CMR 125:05). The largest portion of the
proposed ESC was the composting area. Because no readily available site has been identified,
staff does not recommend moving forward with a full scale feasibility study for anaerobic
digestion at this time.
Page 5 of5
I I >. 0 C)
c: CO c: en --0 --I , CO I , I ,
--c: Cl) Cl) I ,
CO Cl) ~ s.... « u I ,
0 0 0 c... .....I
April 5, 2010 CMR 165:10