Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-02 City Council (3)TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE:AUGUST 2, 2004 CMR:364:04 SUBJECT:THE POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE FORWARDS WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION THE DRAFT SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CENTER RECOMMENDATION The Policy and Services Committee is forwarding the issues related to scoping an environmental impact report (EIR) for an Environmental Service Center (Attachment 1 - CMR 176:04) to the full Council without making its own recommendation. COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff met with the Policy and Services Committee (Committee) on May 19, 2004 to discuss the proposed Environmental Service Center (ESC). Staff reconamendations included approval to continue the current solid waste programs in Palo Alto; approval to pursue the concept of a comprehensive ESC including environmental review; pursuing voter approval to change the land-use designation of the proposed area, permitting and advanced design of the facility; and approval of the draft scope of services for an EIR. At the Committee meeting, two motions were proposed. The first motion changed the staff recommendation to the following: Continue current programs for the time being to allow staff to come back with clear alternatives; approve the study of the concept of an ESC and return to Committee with environmental review and any land use designation changes; approve the initiation of an ESC design (a study without a commitment to size, etc); authorize staff to return with a scope of services for an. EIR that includes active recreation uses, regional and interjurisdictional cooperation and a description/commitment to. minimize the impact on parkland and delete the authorization for voter approval at this time. A substitute motion was proposed as follows: Approve staff’s recommendation with the following change: Delete the 19-acre ESC option. CMR:364:04 Page 1 of 5 The Committee voted on the main motion with Council members Burch and Morton voting yes. The substitute motion was voted on with the Council members Cordell and Kishimoto voting yes. Therefore, both motions failed and the staff recommendations are being forwarded to full Council for without a Committee recommendation. Some of the issues/questions that were raised by committee members and the public at the May 19 Committee meeting are addressed below. ls Council being asked to approve construction of the project at this time? No. There are two anain approvals that are necessary at this time. Council is being asked to approve the concept of the project in order to move forward with preparing an environmental impact report (EIR); to begin research on necessary permitting to change the "look" of the landfill and to approve the scope of services for an EIR to determine impacts to both existing and proposed uses of the site. Once the EIR is complete, staff will return to Council with further recommendations regarding the size of the facility and to request approval to put a measure on the ballot for land use designation changes. The EIR must be certified before Council can take an action to put the measure on the ballot. U~as there been any consideration of other sites in the City? Staff has considered the Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) site, and has determined that it is too small for a full-sized ESC. The EIR will include an alternatives analysis that reviews potential alternate sites and configurations. Would this project use valuable infrastructure funds? If an ESC were to be constructed, it would use Refuse Enterprise Funds and not General Fund infrastructure dollars. Therefore, it would not interfere with the myriad of infrastructure projects already funded through the General Fund. Why hash ’t there been outreach to the public about this issue? There have been numerous public meetings to discuss the ESC, as noted below. will continue to provide information regarding the project as it moves forward. Staff September 15, 1998 Finance Committee approved draft scope of services for feasibility study and a report for design and construction of a recycling, composting, and transfer facility at Palo Alto Landfill (CMR:353:98) March/April 2001 Finance Committee approved budget submittal for ESC as a CIP (project 9701) June 2001 Council approved Budget including ESC CIP July 17,2001 Staff met with Finance Committee to request moving forward with construction of ESC and selling LATP. Finance CMR:364:04 Page 2 of 5 Committee did not want LATP property sold and also requested staff meet with Parks & Recreation, Planning, and Public Arts Commissions for discussion of ESC July, 2002 Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared and issued for Comments July 23, 2002 August 8, 2002 September 9, 2002 January 2004 Staff met with Parks and Recreation Commission. Parks & Recreation questioned whether ESC ’would require voter approval ~- Staff met with Planning Commission - Planning Commission also questioned whether ESC would require voter approval Staff met with Public Art Commission Public Arts Commission didn’t see any connection between their role and ESC project Community Recycler (newsletter article) distributed in Palo Alto Weekly April 12, 2004 May 19, 2004 Study session with Council .on - Staff made presentation to update Council on status of ESC project prior to Policy & Services.meeting Staff met with Policy & Services .Committee- Policy and Services were deadlocked 2-2 on motions Explain the difference in using 19 acres versus the 6 acres. The 19-acre alternative includes the following, not included in the 6- acre alternative: Full composting facility Bin storage area for PASCO Inert solids storage area Generation facility Roads, setbacks and landscaping TOTAL: 5.75 acres 1.25 2.20 2.25 1.35 12.8 acres In the event that the 6-acre option is selected, another site would need to be found for bin storage and inert solids would need to be hauled directly to recycling facilities outside the City. This would result in additional expense to the City as City crews and City contractors utilize the existing facility. "Chip and ship" of yard trimmings would replace the compost operation and would result in approximately CMR:364:04 Page 3 of 5 a $380,000 annual loss to the solid waste program. Landfill rent to the General Fund of $1.2 million each year (for the 12.8 acres) would not be paid. Other ramifications of discontinuing composting in Palo Alto are outlined in the attached staff report. The scope of services for the EIR needs to include more information. The attached scope of services has been modified to more clearly outline issues described at the May 19 Committee meeting such as reviewing active recreation uses, regional and interjurisdictional cooperation, and minimizing the impact on parkland. More focus should be placed on waste reduction. Although it is difficult to measure the amount of waste avoided through waste reduction activities, waste reduction education is provided through the City’s recycling program. .Some examples of waste reduction activities include: Home composting education On-going cla.sses are available on how to compost at home and includes ability to purchase home composting bins at a reduced cost Grasscycling Recycling wizard Reusable diapers Living Simply campaign Junk Mail Reduction Program Citywide garage sales Countywide campaigns Holiday campaigns Earth Day events Promotes leaving grass clippings on the lawn after it is mowed Provides education to school age children on waste reduction and recycling Promotes using reusable diapers and diaper services Raised awareness of the relationship between purchasing habits and waste generation Provides means to reduce junk mail to the home Promotes reuse Such as "Paperless...it’s better for business" - Promotes electronics uses versus paper uses Promotes gift "experiences" versus material goods Promotes reusable packaging, reusable mugs versus paper cups, reusable transport packaging and many other educational articles. CMR:364:04 Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1" C1VfR 176:04 Attachment 2: Revised Scope of Services PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL" JACKSON Deputy Director, Public Works Operations GLENN S. ROBERTS Director Public Works ~ARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:364:04 Page 5 of 5 TO; DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORiKS DATE: SUB,P£CT: 19, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVtCE CENTER CNAR:176:04 REPORT LN BR!EF The: Palo Altoiland~’fll<is scheduled todose in.2011. This report discusses the solid waste activities that are currently available in Palo Alto and provides a recommendation for the !ong-term management of the Ci_ly’s .solid. waste.. This-report includes a recommendation for development of a comprehensive Environmental Service Center (ESC) in Palo Alto t~hat..:wi!l inc!.ud~ a compost facility, a recycling. &op-off and-- processing ¯ center;.:.a permanent household hazardous waste facility; a material recovery facility/mini-transfer stati0r~.(MRFiTS); a bin storage area, and an inert solids storage area for on Or :off=site: recycling. Proposed renderings, have been developed as requested by the Planning and Transporfation, PubliC-.. Art#and Parks anc[ Recreation Commissions. The report also includes alternatives to building a comprehensive ESC and includes ramifications of continued long-term use of the {unnyvale Material Recovery and Transfer (SMART) Station. The use of dedicated parMand to consnmct an ESC is addressed with proposals to acquire adjacent, lands, to be-dedicated as parMand and-to obtain voter=approval-:to change the land-use designation. . ..~-,: ::_.-. :-,.- CMR:176:04 Page ! of 17 RECON[i’vlENDATION Staff requests that the Policy and Services Committee reconmaend to the City Council: 1.That the current programs for solid waste in Palo Alto continue in the City; Approval to pursue the concept of a comprehensive ESC, which would include environmental review, pursuing voter approval to change the land-use designation of the proposed area, permitting and advanced design of the facility. Approval of the draft scope of services for an environmental impact report BACKGROUND The Palo Alto landfill is scheduled to reach capacity in 2011. It is a 137-acre landfill, with 126 acres permitted for waste disposal. Over 75 acres have aheady undergone final closure. Staff has been reviewing solid waste alternatives for residents, City crews, businesses, institutions and contractors once the landfill is closed. The current programs operating at the !andfil! site are described below. All figures are based on 2002 activity,, as those are the latest fig~tres to be reviewed and updated by the State of .California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Unless otherwise noted, the tonnage numbers have been taken from the Annual Landfill Performance or Recycling Reports. Solid Waste Disposal and Diversion In 2002, the City disposed of a total of 78,272 tons of refuse (38,.841 tons to Kirby Canyon Landfill, 27,244 tons to the Palo Alto Landfi!l, and 12,187 tons to other landfills !ocated througtaout California): A total of 139,416 vehicles visited both the City landfill! composting operation (65,i15 vehicles) and the recyciing center (74,301 vehicles). These visitors included residents, non-residents, businesses, City crews and contractors working on behalf of the City. Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) also collects and delivers refuse to the Sunnyvale Material and Recovery Transfer (SMART) Station. The SMART Station is a materials recovery and transfer station that began operation in October 1993 on 10 acres in Sunnyvale. It was built through a partnership with the cities of Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto, although Sunnyvale retains ownership and final operational decision-ma~king over the station. The term of the agreement is through 2021. The SMART Station has a capacity to process 1,500 tons of solid waste per day. It is currently operated under contract by Green TearoJZam~ker of San Jose. The SMART Station is approximately 10 miles south of Palo Alto. Although the City enjoys very active participation in residential and COlrmaercial recycling programs, there is still a sizable amount of recyclable materials that can be recovered through the SMART Station operation. At the SMART Station, waste is processed mechanically and through C!vLR: 176:04 Page 2 of 17 hand sorting to recover remaining recyclable materials. !n 2002, the SMART Station received 48,682 tons of waste from the Palo Alto community and was able to recover 9, 841 tons of recyclables from this waste stream. The remaining waste from the SMART Station is trucked 27 miles to the Kirby Canyon Landfill (operated by Waste Management, Inc~ (WMI)) in Coyote Valley at the south end of San Jose for ultimate disposal. Palo Alto’s agreement with Kirby Canyon is also good ¯ through 2021. Curbside Rec¥clin~ and Recycling Drop-off Center Pro~am A drop-off recycling center was opened to residents at the entrance to the landfill in 1971. The center accepts metal cans, glass bottles and jars, newspaper, mixed paper, blueprints, cardboard, scrap metal, plastics (#1 #7), polystyrene, .plastic. bags, milk and juice cartons, rnotor oil, oil filters, antifreeze, appliances, scrap metal and household and auto l~.t-~=~;ao T]a~ o,,rlaeirlo r~o*rolina nrnornrn ~n~ expnndact tn ~arva all si_n_g!e-family homes in 1980 and most small- to medium-sized apartment buildings. The commercial!industrial 19u~, with the City pro-riding !~ee~cycmtg pro~am began in ~ " " consulting services to large businesses on ways to decrease waste. By 1989-90, the City actively promoted recycling to businesses of all sizes. In 2001, the Ci~ added cathode ray robes (CRT, e.g. computer monitors and televisions) recycling to the Palo Alto landfill as a drop-off service. In 2002, the recycling program collected 14,177 tons of materials. Composting Pro~am . This program started as a composting drop-off program in July 1979 and allowed residents to bring yard trimmings to the City’s landfill. The program expanded in 1987 with a pilot yard trimmings collection program that went into a full-scale curbside collection program in 1990. The composting facility currently processes over 16,000 tons of yard trimmings each year. Today, the processed product is sold to local nurseries and retail customers, netting revenues of approximately $100,000 annually. Compost is also utilized on City projects and is made available to residents five times per year at compost give-away events held at the city landfill. The City also operates a "chip and ship" program whereby yard lrimmings are ground and transported off-site and applied to farmland applications. Househo!d H~dous Waste Collection Pro~am The Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Program began in 1983 and collects approximately 270 tons of hazardous waste per year through drop-off events and at the recycling center. HHW inciudes products such as paint and paint products, solvents and ~q,,~le h,a~eohnlrl clonnor~, paq~ie.id~ and herbicides, hypodermic needles, mercurv wastes, fluorescent fighting tubes, and pool and photographic chemicals. The City currently holds 14 one-day events per year in a temporary location at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). Hazardous waste such as used motor oil, oil filters, auto and household batteries and antifreeze are accepted at the recycling CM1~:176:04 Page 3 of 17 center on an ongoing basis. Businesses generating small quantifies of hazardous waste can also participate in the program for a fee. HHW is also extracted from the refuse going to the landfill through the landfill load-checking program. When the California Integrated Waste.Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) was enacted, one of its requirements was that each City develop a Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) outlining how the city would handle its HHW. Palo Alto included plans for a permanent collection facility in its HHWE. The HHWE was approved by Council in 1991 (CMR:307:91). The County of Santa Clara Integrated Waste Management Program currently heads a countywide HHW Collection Program that is utilized by all Santa Clara County cities except for Palo Alto. At the time of its inceptipn, Palo Alto was already operating collection events on a more frequent basis than what would have been available through the County program. ~3so, the inconveplence to residents of having to txave! to collection sites outside of the City limits made the Palo Alto pro.gram even more at~actaYe.~ .....~1_..~_,~ ....~_ ....,,.,, o¯Piurca,~-, s m~nual pa,~cipafion ~t~ for HHW Collection is approximately thiee percent and Palo Alto’s participation rate is between 10 - 13 percem. Palo Alto Landfill Salvage Program This program began in 1993. Loads delivered to the City’s landfill are inspected for dirt, gravel, bricks, metal, tires, large appliances, computer monitors and televisions which, when found, are pulled and recycled:In 2002, over 21,700 tons of materials were collected. Inert Solids Recycling Program In Ju!y 1991, the Palo Alto landfill stopped accepting inert solids (e.g. Portland cement concrete, asphalt, aggregate base rock, etc) from City contractors and required that they take these materials to a recycling facility. Landfill staff also required City maintenance crews to separate inert solids and the materials were stockpiled at the landfill until a sufficient quantity was accumulated to minimize the cost of recycling the materials. In 2002, 4,874 tons of inert solids were collected at the Palo Alto landfill for recycling. The Counci! will be considering adoption of a construction and demolition debris ordi_r~a_n_ce that requires a minimum level of recycling for inert solids generated from public and private construction projects. Public Education Key to nll c~tv t_he solid waste diversio_n, programs is providing education to the public. Solid Waste Program staff provide outreach to residents, schools and businesses through print media such as newsletters, newspaper ads, utility bill inserts, and through interactive means such as workshops, school assemblies, and special events. CMR:176:04 Page 4 of 17 Landfill Closure State law and regulations require the City to divert waste from the landftll by recycling, and to treat and dispose of household hazardous waste generated by households. In order to comply with these State mandates, and in light of the following defining events occurring, it is urgent that a decision be made about tong-term solid waste management in Palo Alto: o The landfill will reach capacity in 2011; The composting facility and recycling drop-off center at the Palo Alto landfill need to be relocated by early 2005 and 2007 respectively, to make room for refuse disposal prior to final closure; The current landfi!l filling plan requires moving the fill areas to stay under the revised landfill grading plans by early 2005; Staff will need time to revise the landfill closure plans and obtain the proper The HHWE approved by Council in June 1991 assumed a permanent HHW facility. A decision for long-term solid waste management is necessary by early 2005 tO provide a transition for residents, City crews and businesses once the landfill is closed. Palo Alto has a Memorandum of Understanding with Sunnyvale and Mountain View to use the SMART Station and with WMI to use the Kirby Canyon landfill until 2021 with a potential 10-year extension¯ As previously indicated, the City of Sumnyvale maintains full ownership and operational control of the SMART Station and WMI retains full control of the Kirby Canyon land_fill. Palo Alto is required to pay Sunnyvale a host fee, which, in 2002 was $3.23 per ton. Based on the 48,682 tons of waste sent fln’ough the SMART Station, a total of $157,243 was paid in 2002 to Sunnyvale to use its facility. Although Palo Alto currently maintains an excellent rapport with Sunnyvale and WMI, future decisions regarding long-term solid waste management for Palo Alto and Sunn~ywale may not always be in agreement. For example, Palo Alto has taken a recommendation to Council to change curbside recycling collection from the crate system to single stream, whereby all recyclables (other than yard waste) would be collected in one wheeled cart. Sunnyvale has opted to go to split-cart collection, in which paper waste is collected in the same container as other recyclables, but the container is split in tw,0. Pa!o Alto staff believes that sLn_g!e stream collection is preferable since there is less potential for contamination and capital costs to initiate the program would be less expensive. However, in future years Paio Alto may be subject to final decisions made by the City of Sunnyvale. In 1999, the City contracted with Brown, Vence & Associates (BVA), who prepared a cost-benefit analysis and conceptua! design for development of a permanent recycling center and transfer station (Attachment A). The primary objective was to assess options to handle waste after closure of the City’s landfill. BVA concluded that a comprehensive CMR: 176:04 Page 5 of 17 Environmental Services Center a!lowing Palo Alto to consolidate its solid waste operations, upgrade the public drop-off and curbside processing facilities, continue to increase diversion of waste from disposal, and efficiently transfer non-recyclable waste to a disposal facility would be the preferred option. The results of the cost-benefit analysis indicated that the construction and operation of a transfer station and material recovery facility in Palo Alto was less expensive than relying on the SMART Station to handle all refuse and recyclables. Based on the BVA repoI~, it was estimated that the cost savings of processing matel-ials through the City’s ESC versus processing materials through the SMART Station would be over $1 million per year. If the cost of self-haul and. City vehicles were included in those calculations, tlie savings could be as much as $1.8 million. In July 2001, staff met with the Finance Committee (CMR 297:01) to gain conceptual approval to consm~ct an ESC and was directed to meet with the Public Art Commission, p~t~ ,~,,,-1 Recreation Cow_mission ~rt Plnnnin.g nnd. Trnn~portation Co_m_m_ission for input prior to any further Council actions. Although no actions were taken at the commission meetings, many issues were raised regarding what aesthetic impact an ESC -would have to the "park expetience." Because oft he diminishing acreage of parkland in Palo Alto, the commission members questioned whether building an ESC was appropriate given the land-use designation of the area and if voter approval would be necessary to change the land-use designation. Commissioners also queried how construction of an ESC complied with the Baylands Master Plan. Many of the commissioners’ questions had to do with the size of the facility and they asked that some visual materials be prepared so that they and the public could have a better understanding of the proposed project size and its impact to the neighboring park. In response, staff has prepared a recommended option and alternate options for long-term management of solid waste for consideration by P & S and Comncil. DISCUSSION Recommended Option: Build a Comprehensive ESC in Palo Alto This scenario requires utilizing approximately 19 acres adjacent to the RWQCP to build an ESC in Palo Alto. The proposal would include replacing the existing recycling center with an integrated and multi-functional facility consisting of a compost facility, a recycling drop-off and processing center, a permanent household hazardous waste facility, a material recovery facility/nKni-transfer station (MRF/TS), a bin storage area, and an inert solids storage areas for on or off-site recycling (ARachrnent B). The comprehensive ESC.can be operational prior to the.final closure of the landfill and would remain in operation indefinitely following ~e closure of the-landfill. Staff believes that the comprehensive ESC facility provides many long-term benefits and is the most complete solution to the furore solid waste needs of the community. The CMR:176:04 Page 6 of 17 facility would allow for the seamless continuance of current programs, and also provide the necessary infrastructure and resources to develop and implement future programs. One component of the ESC would be a permanent HHW facility. The permanent HHW facility would be open and available three to five mor~fings each week for use by residents, in contrast to the current monthly HHW collection event. There is potential for this service to generate revenue for the City, since Pato A!to could market this service to other cities in the County. Another benefit to locating the ESC facility at the landfill is the continuance of the composting facility and operation within Palo Alto. Compost give-away days would still be available to residents. Revenue would be generated from the sale of the finished compost (approximately $100,000 ammally) and the expense to chip and ship the material would be minimized (approximately $200,000 in additional expenses would be avoided). In ~,~s~,~,., ~11 ~ho ~1~ ,T~o o.~. ~.~.~s ~ P.~ .aAto ,-osiao~t% CiW crews, businesses, and institutional organizations that now occur at the landfill would be available through the ESC MRF/TS and recycling drop-off facilities. The City could cominue co!lecting user fees, which cmzent!y totals approximately $2,000,000 annually. The City would retain control.of waste diversion, marketing collected recyclable materials, and be able to add programs as necessary to maintain and increase the landfill diversion to comply with State mandates. This is an important aspect of the program since, as indicated previously, if Palo Alto continued utilizing the SMART Station, any final decisions regarding marketing of materials and expanding programs would be the final decision of the City of Sulmyvale. Cost savings would be realized through avoided transportation to Surmyvale and environmental concerns such as air pollution due to longer drives and increased vehicles on the road would be minimized. This could be a substantial benefit to .the environment given that over 139,416 vehicles visited the landfill/composting operation and recycle center in 2002. Without an ESC in Palo Alto, the percentage of solid waste diverted by the community potentially could be jeopardized. In 2002, the waste generated in Palo Alto was 173,937 tons. The State has mandated that every city divert 50 percent of its waste stream; Palo Alto currently diverts 55 percent. While diversion tonnage collected by Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) would presumably not be affected, the inconvenience incurred by waste generators and recyclers traveling to the SMART Station is also an important consideration since it could lead to an increase in illegal dumping. The diversion tomnage delivered by residents, businesses and contractors could end up at various disposal sites or as illegal dumping, and would therefore not be counted toward the total Palo Alto diversion, The City could potentia!ly be out of compliance with the State mandate and would be subject to frees of up to $10,000 per day. CMR:176:04 Page 7 of 17 Constructing a comprehensive ESC would require voter approval to change the land-use designation of dedicated parkland for approximately 19 acres. While staff understands the importance of conserving parkland and the visual aspects of developing an area near parkland, the proposed location for the ESC is next to the existing RWQCP and would be shielded from the future Byxbee Park through use of landscaping hillocks and berms. In order to comply with commissioners’ request for visual materials, renderings of the proposed ESC were developed. The renderings are based on preliminary layouts and designs and are provided to show, in concept, the architectm’al type, colors and size of building that might be constructed and how it may appear visually against the backdrop of Byxbee Park. The building design will promote features that integrate with the park environment and exlaibit sustainability and green building concepts. Advantages of the comprehensive ESC proposal include: Convenience to re~id.ents, City crews, businesses, programs would be available within city limits ¯,~-~m sa s -Rent of $1.9.million paid to General Fund annually ~City control of materials markets ~City control of program changes and expansion and i_n_sfiO_!f!o_n_s since al! Environmental benefits through decreased number of trips to Sunnyvale Reduction in HHW mobilization costs A Palo Alto shovccase of sustainability through green building practices Continued involvement/leadership in refuse/solid waste/recycling policy and. legislative issues Creates a plan to handle solid waste and waste reduction programs past 2021. Disadvantages: Capital costs may require rate increase ® Opportunity cost or benefit of lost parkland Alternative 1: Build a Reduced-Scale ESC This scenario would require approximately six acres of land on the landfill footprint and would include all of the components of the comprehensive ESC, except for the inert solid and composting operations. The facility components of this option are: a recycling center, a HHW facility, self-haul disposal, a~d a "chip and ship" facility for yard waste in lieu of a composting area (Attaclmaent C). The recycling center would allow for curbside and drop-off processing of recyclables. A reduced-scale ESC would accommodate self- haul waste for residents, City crews, businesses, and institutions/organizations. Under the reduced-scale ESC option, reduced transportation costs and air pollution would likely be similar to the comprehensive ESC option.This option would also require voter approva! to undedicate six acres of parkland.~ CMR:176:04 Page 8 of 17 The limitations of this option are that it does not include a full composting operation, only a "chip and ship" operation. Because of the competition for markets and the susceptibility of the materials to disease, it can be difficult to market the "chip and ship" materia!. This could potentially affect the waste diversion percentage and jeopardize the City’s ability to maintain the State mandate of 50 percent diversion. When the City begins to chip and ship all materials, it will impact net revenue to the Refuse Fund by $300,000 annually, due to the loss of composting revenues and additional transportation costs. Compost give-away events would also be discontinued. The inert storage facility component would be eliminated which would further reduce the diversion percentages. Since it would be inconvenient for self-haul customers, many would opt to dispose of the material as refuse. Advantages: Convenience of recycling and HHW drop-off, self-haul within City limits Reduction in Hh~g mobilization Costs Disadvantages: ®Compost give-away days would be discontinued for residents ®An additional $300,000 net annual revenue/loss with the loss of compost sales and additional transportation expenses to operfite a chip and ship operation. ®"Chip and ship" products are susceptible to restrictions based on the condition of the green waste materials and are not as easily marketed on the open market ¯Limits program expansion and local control of materials marketing ¯Capital costs may require rate increase. ®General Fund revenues would decrease with the reduction of CUlTent landfill rent payments. ® Oppommity cost or benefit of lost parkland Alternative 2: Buitd a Recycling and HHW Area This scenario would encompass approximately three acres of land that is not currently on the landfill footprint and would only include the curbside and drop-off recycling processing and HHW collection programs (Attachment D). All other materials and waste, including self-haul by residents and businesses, would need to be taken to the SMART Station or other regional waste disposal facilities. This option severely limits furore program expansion and the City’s ability to sustain its programs. Having only recycli_~g ~_nd HI-IW area would increase transportation costs and contribute to environmental concerns related to air pollution due to longer drives and an increased number of vehicles on the road. This option would require voter approval to undedicate three acres of parkland, CMR:176:04 Page 9 of 17 Although this alternative is alluded to in the Byxbee Park Master Plan, it is the least desirable of the Palo Alto options as it severely limits recycling and eliminates self-hanl of waste in Palo Alto for residents, businesses and institutions. Advantages: o Would only~utilize three acres of parkland , Reduction in HHW mobilization costs Disadvantages: ® Environmental and economic impacts would occur due to additional transportation to and from the SMART Station from self-haul, City crews, and city contractors ®Limits program expansion and local control of materials marketing o The City will not have a long-range plan to handle solid waste and composting components beyond 2021. ®General Fund revenues would -’ ........w-ith the -~-~---~-- -~ .......1__~ml ....aecreas~I~I.IIICI~I!JII I)l Cklll~llt li:lJl~J.illl IE;III. payments. ,Opportunity cost or benefit of lost parkland ,Compost give-away days for residents would be discontinued for residents. o Additional net revenue/loss of $300,000 would occur with the loss of compost sales and additional transportation expenses due to chip and ship operation. Potential for increase of illegal dumping Alternative 3: Use the SMART Station Once the landfill is closed, recyclable materials and garbage that is collected curbside, drop-off recycling and yard waste would have to be taken to the SMART Station for processing. Self-haul customers would be required to take all waste to. the SMART Station or other regional waste disposal facilities. Another site would need to be found to build a HH-W facility. Waste diversion amounts for composting and inert solids would drop significantly and could potentially put Palo Alto’s diversion out of compliance with State mandates. Relying on the SMART Station would mean that the City would lose control over recyclable materials markets and would lose its ability to control development of new diversion programs, There would be an increase in transportation costs by PASCO since all collection vehicles would have to travel to Sunnyvale to dump their loads, as well as the inconvenience to residents and businesses of having to travel to Sunnyvale with waste or recycling drop-off. Currently, an average of 25 to 30 garbage trucks per day travel to the SMART Station. if Paio Alto were to haul waste directly to Kirby Canyon landfill using transfer trucks, there would only b~ approximately 6 to 8 trucks per day on the road. This would result in a 75 percent decrease in the number of garbage trucks traveling on the highway. The City would need to discontinue programs such as those for polystyrene and blueprint recycling since those programs are not available through the SMART Station. Although not a regular occurrence, the SMART Station has had several occasions in which labor disputes have impacted operations. In the event that a labor dispute leads to a work stoppage or closure of the SMART Station, ClvI~:176:04 Page 10 of 17 Palo Alto would be forced to take its trash directly to Kirby Canyon Landfall. This would significantly increase operating and transportation costs and have a negative environmental impact due to the number of vehicles on the road for a longer period of time. Recently, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission of Santa Clara County, comprised of elected officials from .various cities throughout.the County, has become concerned with the diminishing number of local recycling facilities available in the County as cities begin to merge programs. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Corrm~ission would like to ensure that recycling remains readily available and convenient to users and recommends that communities provide more local recycling facilities versus consolidating facilities on a regional basis. This option would negatively impact the solid waste programs and would conflict with the City’s policy of fostering a sustainable community. ® No capital costs Disadvantages: ,Loss of City control of program expansion and materials marketing. ®Diversion amounts could drop significantly and potentially put Palo Alto out of compliance with State mandate of 50 percent diversion. ®Host fee payments to Sumnyvale would increase. .Elimination of programs that are not available at S MART. ¯Finding a site for a permanent HHW faciliw. ®Increased transportation costs by PASCO to Sunnyvale of approximately $1.2 million per year. Environmental and economic impacts would occur caused due to additional transportation to and from the SMART Station from self-haul, City crews, and City contractors, ~Limits program expansion and local control of materials marketing ¯The City will not have a long-range plan to handle solid waste and composting components beyond 2021. , General Fund revenues would decrease with the elimination of current landfill rent payments. Opportunity cost or benefit of lost parkland. Compost give-away days for residents would be discontinued. Net revenue loss of $300,000 would occur with the loss of compost sales and %,,~. atlon.additional transportation expenses due to a chip and sNp "~ " Potential for increase of illegal dul’nping. Alternative 4: Use the Los Altos Treatment Plant Site forRecycling and HHW Area The Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) site at the east end of San Antonio Road consists of 13.26 acres that is contiguous with the Baylands. Palo Alto currently owns one-half of CMR:176:04 Page 11 of 17 the property, with the town of Los Altos owning the remaining half. The parcel was designated as Public Facility Zoning District [PF(D)]. In March 2000, Council adopted a resolution (CMR:161:00 Resolution 7930) for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment that changed it to Public Owned. Conservation Land and Major Institution/Special Facilities. Without changing land use, 4.5 acres could be available for the recycling and HHW facility. However, even the 4.5 acres has requirements for mitigation. If this option were selected, fl~e City would have to accelerate negotiations with the Town of Los Altos to purchase its one-half interest in the site. In the last meeting with Los Altos, staff could not come to an agreement over the price 6f the site. Initially Palo Alto offered over $3.3 million for the site, Los Altos countered with $6.4 million. The current offer to Los Altos is just over $4 million. Advantages: o Land is contiguous with the Baylands ~Easy access ta ~4i~hwnv 101 o Not in residential area Disadvantages: o Refuse Fund would have to purchase Los Altos one-half interest in property ,Space is being considered for other uses ¯Property has U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional areas that require mitigation Replacement.of Parkland Acreage in an effort to maintain the number of acres of parkland in the City, staff has investigated two alternatives that include acquiring acreage next to the Baylands that could be designated as parkland. The first alternative involves acreage at the ITT Property that is contiguous with the Baylands. The City currently owns this property (36.5 acres) but the former owners, KFS World Communications, Inc. (KFS), maintain an easement for the site for ship to shore communications. The City entered into an agreement with KFS to purchase its easement in 1993 for $370,000 (CMR 462:93). The date of purchase was contingent upon KFS receiving FCC approval to relocate its transmitters. To date, this approval has not been received. Staff from Administrative Services Department has been in contact with KFS to determine its progress. Technically this might not be considered a replacement of parkland, since the Baylands Master Plan provided for the ITT site to become!,o~,l,~"°~lrl""’~ once the ~,,~T~o .......... and easement fo~ ~e site were no longer beir~g used. The idea is that the Refuse Fund could pay KFS for the easement and make it happen now. This remains an option. " .......~ ~ ....~-’~ : ....~ ....~ ~" 26 .....o* *~ LATP -~ desc~ho~ above. This scenario would involve a land swap, with the LATP site offered for parkland in order to use the additional acreage at the landfill. CMR:176:04 Page 12 of 17 Inthe event that one of these land swap options was selected, there would be recreational opportunities in these areas, through the addition of nature trails and. in the case of the LATP, conversion of the land to a wetlands habitat. RESOURCE IMPACT Based on the 1999 BVA study, the .estimated cost for building the comprehensive ESC would be approximately $12 million, ftmded by the Refuse Enterprise Fund. The attached table (Attachment E) is a summary of the capital and operating costs for each option. The annualized capital costs were calculated assuming that bond financing costs are approximately 15 percent of the total .capital costs, the financing rate is six percent and the financing telcn is 20 years. It is important to note that the rent cost has been updated from the BVA study and that the rent will be paid to the General Fund based on the most recently appraised value of $100,188 per acre. For the Comprehensive ESC, the capital cost would be $11,920,400, The annual roli~g stock, equipment replacement, utilities,-cons’~ables, Nel, a~s~afio~ Ns~ce, ~een waste process~g costs, and a 15 percent con~gency. The revenue ($2,310,000) generated ~ou~ ~e comprehensive ESC would ~clude boN ~e sale of recyclable materials ~d sale of compost. The operation of a Nll compos~g faciliW was not ~cluded ~ ~e BVA study, ~erefore $100,000 is ~cluded for ~e sale of compost. The capital costs for ~e comprehensive ~d re&ced scale ESC would be Ne same except for ~e addition of~e compost facili~ for ~e comprehensive ESC. Alternative 1 :Reduced Scale ESC The capital cost of the reduced scale ESC is $11,4i3,000. The capital cost for the reduced scale ESC does not provide for a full composting program, rather only a chip and ship operation for yard trimmings. It also does not include inert solids recycling or bin storage for PASCO. The armual operating cost including operations and maintenance and rent would be $5,391,166. While the operations and maintenance costs and the annual revenues appear to be the same for the comprehensive ESC and the reduced scale ESC, the reduced scale ESC cost and revenue offset each other and are not included in the studv. Alternative 2: Recycling and HHW Area The capital cost would be $5,191,000. The annual operating costs would be $1,804,564 and annual revenues would total $571,000. AAtemafive 3: SMART Station Although the SMART Station is already constructed, the capital cost shown on the attached table ($9,914,498) includes the debt se~-cice that Pa!o Alto pays to Stmnwale. .In _00~, Sunnyvale refinanced the bonds that reduced Pa!o Alto’s obligation to CMR:176:04 Page 13 of 17 $6,230,227. The operating costs ($3,508,~03) do not include composting of yard trimmings, as Sunnyvale does not currently operate a compostmg program. Alternative 4: Los Altos Treatment Plant This option would be the same as Alternative 2--a recycling and HHW area. The capital cost would be impacted, since Palo Alto would need to purchase Los Altos’ one’half interest in the property. Also, under this scenario, there would be no rent paid to the General Fund as the Refuse Fund would p.urchase the property. Currently, over $2 million in revenue is received, through the landfill tollboothl This revenue will be lost once the landfil! is c!osed. After the landfill is closed, rent paid by the Refuse Fund to the Genera! Fund would no longer be required. The Refuse Fund currently pays $4.7 mi!lion per year for rent. Revenue for rental of the land to the General Fund of $1.9 million would be derived if a comprehensive ESC is constructed. Whether or not an ESC is constructed, the Refuse Fund will have ongoing costs once the for 30 ye~s for ~e gas and leachate systems. Ftmds ~e c~ently available ~ Ne Capial Improvement Fund for iNfial development of the ESC and ~y en~-om~entN studies mad ~ ~e ReNse Ente~fise F~d for clos~e and post-closure ma~ten~ce. As p~ of ~e E~ process, an updated cos~enefit ~alysis will be developed. TINIELINE Attached is an abbreviated timeline showing a number of milestones that need to be met in order to coi~struct the ESC prior to the landfill closure (Attactunent F). The timeline may change based on Council’s decision regarding the construction of the ESC. POLICY IMPLICATIONS If Council approves any of the ESC options, a change to the land-use designation of parkland would be required. This would involve voter approval to undedicate parkland as required by City Charter. The Baylands Master Plan developed in 1978 and the 1980 Byxbee Park Master Plan and the 1991 revised Byxbee Park Plan provide that when the landfill is closed it will become a pastoral park. In the 1980 Bvxbee Park Plan, the recycling center was to be relocated near the RWQCP during an interim phase of park development and removed from the park at completion, with the interim recycling center site converted to a parking lot. The Byxbee Park Master Man updated in June 1991 indicates that is recycling center site on the southeast side of the RWQCP may be utilized for a pelrnanent recycling center. The 1991 Byx_bee Park Plan also anticipates future use of the proposed SMART Station. It is important to note that at the time the origina! Baylands Master Plan (1978) and the Byxbee Park Master Plan (1981) were approved, State diversion mandates were not in place and these plans could not foresee the changing requirements mandated by the State. CIvIR:176:04 Page 14 of 17 Once State mandates were established that made waste prevention and HHW programs a more viable means of solid waste management, the City incorporated them into its long- range plans, including the possibility of a recycling center to remain in Byxbee Park and providing policies supporting recycling in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. The City’s Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 1998 contains some ambiguities relating to long-term planning of solid Waste management. The City’s Comprehensive Plan indicates that after landfill closure, all of the City’s waste will go to the SMART station. Staff believes that recyclable materials are not ~waste" and therefore would not fall under this Comprehensive Plan goal. Many of the programs listed in the Comprehensive Plan may be. consistent with the objectives of an ESC. On the other hand, many of the Comprehensive Plan land use, natural environment, and park policies may not be consistent .with locatq~ng an ESC ~e~ail~tv in the. l~nvlnnrt~ Natural Enviromnem N-48 Continue sponsoring a regular household hazardous waste collection event. N-52 Improve City composting practices and continue promoting a household composting program. N-53 N-54 N-55 area. Continue to develop source separation programs for recyclable solid waste materials for all waste generators. Continue to develop long-term solid waste management programs that include safe and environmentally sound disposal methods such as the SMART Station. Maintain and expand the use of the Recycling Center at the City’s refuse disposal Policies that may not be consistent with location of an ESC in the Baylands: Land Use and Community Design Element L-4 With adoption of the Baylands Master Plan in 1978, urban uses were limited to approximately 200 acres of existing development along Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road. The remaining 1700 acres -were dedicated for recreation and restoration of m_axs_hla_n_d wildlife habitat." L-1 Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area...Retain undeveloped Baylands northeast of Highway 101 as open space. CMR:176:04 Page 15 of 17 Map L-2, Urban Service Area. Tl~e landfill site is located outside the urban service area. Natural Enviromnent N-1 Palo Alto’s foothills and baylands wi!! continue to be conserved as open space over the term of this Plan. Policy N-1 Manage existing public open space areas...in a mmmer that meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs. Policy N-8 text. The 1987 Baylands Master Plan identified the baylands as a special resource warranting conservation and preservation as open space. Community Services and Facilities C-26 Maintain and enhance existing park facilities. The ............follnwing ctr}e.nment-S ~lqa ~-rrq~nnart ......the e.ansmmtian nf a recvc, lin~~ ~ ....~ center within Citv.~ limits: Pa!o Alto Municipal Code (5.20.270) The City wi11 maintain within the City’s territorial limits a recycling center that accepts from residents and non-residents the delivery of recyclable materials. Palo Alto SustainabiliW Policy Related sustainability objectives include: Implement source reduction, reuse, recycling @ and composting programs that reduce waste. Manage hazardous waste in a safe manner with a priority of using recycling and energy extraction methods first and landfilling methods last. Eliminate, if practical and feasible, waste generated within the community. Eliminate, if practical and feasible, the use of hazardous or toxic materials that, when used, generate hazardous waste. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In 2003, the City issued a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for a conceptual.ESC. The City received co_mments and questions regarding the project from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Integrated Waste Management Board. Based on their comments, the project and alternatives have been revised to incorporate additional mitigation. However, after discussions with staff and commtmity leaders, it was dete~.,ap~ ~L~.ed ,h~, ~ ~,.k~her nnd mare e~vten.~ive review wou!d be required becanse of the need to resolve City policy issues as set fortth in the Master Plan and the long-term solid waste program impacts for this project or any project alternatives. Staff is requesting Council approval to issue an RFP (Attacl~*nent G) for consulting se,wices to prepare an EIR for the Environmental Services Center facility and Byxbee Park Landfill Plan CMR:176:04 Page 16 of 17 revision. The EIR will need to be certified prior to any requests for voter approval of land-use designation changes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: ¯ Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: BVA Cost-Benefit Analysis Table Site Plan for Comprehensive ESC .Site Plan for Reduced-Scale ESC Site Plan for Recycling mad HHW Area Capital and Operating Costs Table Timeline Draft Scope of Services PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL" J AN~_LT. rFORE1MAN Executive Assistant GLENN S. ROBERTS A Director of PuNic Works EMILY Assistant City Manager CMR:176:04 Page 17 of 17 ATTACI-E~IEN% A ATTACH]VIENT B ..........Cl~SOdO~d O/qV OqVd ~ ~ ~ ~ ............. "<( n 0 © h i Z J ATTACHMENT C Z o~ o I-©,< ILl ATTACHMENT W3±NBO ~@OlAh~3@ 9VJ_NB~NO~JlAN3 OqSOdONd O±9V OqVd Z ATTACHMENT E <@ <~ < 1.1,.I E 0 0 0 ¯ ’~ r-" 00 OO O ATTACHMENT F ,-~ 0 ,--~0 O O o o o ~. J J ATTACI-tM~ENT G PART !! - SCOPE OF SERVICES ¯ City of Palo Alto 1.General Information The City of Palo Alto (City) owns and operates a municipal solid.waste landfill that includes a temporary compost facility and a recycling drop-0ff center within the property boundary (see Figure 1). The compost facility is currently located within the interior of the landfill and the recycling drop-off center is located at the landfill entrance. After all phases of the landfill undergo closure, the City is proposing to construct an integrated multi-functional solid waste facility, called the Environmental Services Center (ESC), on the landfill footprint. In preparation for this project, the City is seeking the services of a qualified and experienced firm for developing a Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the. ESC. Information regarding the City’s current solid waste activities and operations, impending future events that will significantly impact the City’s solid waste disposal, and proposed ESC description are provided below. Previously, an Ini.tial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) had been prepared by the City’s consultant and circulated through the State Clearinghouse for the ESC project (see Attachment 1). Comments on the MND were received from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), the Santa Clara County, Department of Environmental Health, and draft responses were prepared by the City’s consultant. The IS/MND was not adopted by City Council. A decision was made by the City to prepare an EIR because of a combination of factors that included changing the entrance of the facility (from Embarcadero Road to IEmbarcadero Way) and controversial land use policy issues, as well as other issues that might not have been adequately addressed in the MND (particularly with regard to the compatibility of the ESC project with the Baylands Master Plan). By submitting a proposal, the proposer certifies that they have reviewed and agree with the terms and conditions of the RFP and the City’s standard agreement (see Attachment 2). The standard agreement will be used for developing the agreement between the City and the firm that has been evaluated as the winning proposer, in accordance with the RFP criteria. Current Solid Waste Tonnaqe and Facilities In year 2002 in accordance with AB 939 mandates, Palo Alto diverted approximately 95,700 tons of its waste volume through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities and disposed approximately 78,300 tons of waste at the Palo Alto, Kirby Canyon, and other landfills around the Bay Area. In 2002, approximately 39,500 to.n.s of refuse generated by the City were transpo,~ed to the Paio Alto Landfill. Waste streams going to the Landfill are typically grouped into three categories: waste from drop box trucks and front loaders deposited by the City’s refuse collection contractor, Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO); waste generated and deposited by City crews and contractors; and self-haul waste generated and deposited by residents. The remaining refuse (approximately 48;700 tons per year) PART t~ - SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto generated by the City and collected by PASCO is transported to the Sunnyvale Material Recovery and Transfer (SMART) Station where the recyclable portions are recovered and the remaining waste residue (approximately 38,800 tons per year) is transported to Kirby Canyon Landfill in San Jose. The 7:5-acre temporary Compost Facility Operates under a standardized permit and acdepts approximately 16,000 tons of green waste per year for processing. The 1.5-acre Recycling Center accepts recyciable material.s (paper, glass, metals, plastic, .and some household hazardous wastes [see Table 1 - List of Recyctabte Materials]) from Cityresidents and businesses. The Recycling Center processes approximately 14,200 tons per year of material. An area of approximately one-adre at the Palo Alto Landfill is Used for inert solids (concrete and asphalt debris) storage until the material can be sent off-site for recycling. The city’s Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Program collects about 270 tons per year of HHW from both its drop-off Recycling Center and its HHW Collection Event that operates out of the Water Quality Control Plant under a temporary HHW Facility Permit. Im__.~__~endinq Events Three approaching events will significantly impact Palo Alto’s solid waste disposal in the future. They are: Palo Alto recently revised its landfill closure plan. New calculations in the closure plan indicate the landfill will reach capacity by August 20! 1. Palo Alto’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) "with Sunnyvale: and Mountain View to use the SMART station will terminate on October 15, 2021 (if the parties canncJt agree on an extension). Extension of the MOU and continued operation of the SMART station is subject to the sole discretion of Sunnyvale. Pa!o Alto’s agreement with Waste Management to use Kirby Canyon Landfill will terminate on October 7, 2021. At that time, the City will have the option to extend the term for an additional 10 years. Proposed Comprehensive Environmental Sen/ices Center Facility Approximately 76 acres of the 126-acre landfill area permitted for filling have undergone f na! nlnsl~r~-. AnnrnY m~’~l~ 5(q ~’r~ F,~ ...... ÷ to ~’1~’~ A~er ~’- entire landfill is closed, the City’s Baylands Master Plan provides for re-establishing only the Recycling Center on the landfill footprint. However, due to the expansion of diversion and solid waste activities required under the current regulatory structure, the City wishes to expand the solid waste services beyond what was previously envisioned in the Baylands Master Plan. PART ~ - SCOPE OF SERVICES city of PaSo Alto The City. has already completed, a preliminary feasibility study for developing a Recycling Center (RC), a Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Facility (PHHWF), and a Material Recovery Facility/Transfer Station (MRF/TS) within the landfill boundary. In order to provide continuity for other diversion activities and solid waste services currently in operation, staff envisions adding a Composting Facility (CF), an Inert Solids Storage Facility (ISSF), and an area for drop box/bin storage to the above-described facilities. This multi-functioned facility will be called the Environmental Services Center (ESC). Staff has. identified approximately 19 acres at the landfill that wduld house the comprehensive ESC facility. Voter approval will be required to change the land use designation of these 19 acres from dedicated parkland. Also, in order to accommodate this facility, the final grading plan for the landfill will have to be revised: The City has just recently hired a consultant to prepare a conceptual layout with grading and drainage plans (see Figure 2), a landfill closure sequencing plan with volume calculations based on the new grading p!an, and a schedule for operational and permitting considerations, In addition to the recommended project to build a comprehensive ESC facility in Palo Alto, staff has also identified 4 alternatives as described in the City Manager’s Report dated May .19, 2004 (CMR:176:04) and in the Alternatives section of the environmental issues below. This Request for Proposals (RFP) is seeking the services of a qualified and experienced firm to prepare a cost benefit analysis and to conduct an EIR for the comprehensive ESC and the various alternative facility options. The EIR will address and include, but not be limited to, the environmental issues listed below. In determining the environmental impacts, the consuitant shall be responsible for reviewing all aspects of the project and not be limited to the issues or studies mentioned below. P!anninq and Land Use The EIR will. describe the existing land uses adjacent to and within the project area. Voter approval wil! be required to change the land-use designation from dedicated parkland. Land use impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed ESC facility will be described, including the compatibility of the proposed and existing land uses in the project area. The project’s consistency with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, ÷h,=.,,~ ,--,~,,~,,,~.~~q~"~’~’4° Master Plan and zoning, and ~v,~lu~ o~ of any incompatible land use impacts from proposed land use changes will be addressed. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant land use impacts, as warranted. Recreation The EIR should evaluate the impacts on existing neighborhood and regional parks from loss of this 19 acres of future pastoral parkland, especially with regard to the City’s Comprehensive Plan program, goals and policies. PART !~ - SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto Geoloqy. Soils, and Seismicify. The EIR will describe the proximity of the project site to any known earthquake faults and evaluate the likelihood of exposing people or structures, including environmental control systems located at the landfill such as landfill gas or leachate collection and removal systems, to pot&ntial adverse effects related to rupture of known earthquake faults, ground shaking, ground failure including liquefaction or landslides. The EIR will also describe the soil conditions of the site and discuss if development of the site will result in soil erosion or create soil instability, Hydrolo.cly and Water Qusfity The project site is located in an area that is subject to potential flooding in a 100-year flood event according to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The EIR will discuss the potential effects of constructing the ESC facility in a 100-year flood zone. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant impacts, as warranted. Bioloqical Resources The EIR will evaluate the biological conditions on the site, impacts of the development of the ESC and entrance road on any sensitive species inhabiting the area, and. identify appropriate mitigations. The EIR will identify and describe the location and condition of existing trees, including size, health and structure. In addition, the document will discuss Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. Mitigation measures will be developed, as warranted. Historical and Cultural Resources Although City files and maps do not indicate any sensitive historical, cultural, or archaeological resources within the proposed site area, the EIR will evaluate the impacts and provide discussions related to these resources if foundMitigation measures will be developed, as warranted. Traffic and Transportation The traffic impact analysis.(TIA) for the project will identify the traffic impacts of the ,nters~ctl~,,o and .~.4 ..........~proposed ,4~,,,~1,~,,~,~÷~,,,., ....on key ;~ ’"~"~ u~uway ~eu,,~u~L~ in "~--u ~ vicinity of the project. The impacts will be evaluated in conformance with City policies and the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program if required. The TIA will describe the existing and proposed traffic circulation conditions (including vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit) in the vicinity of the project site and wi!! address the adequacy of access to and from the proposed project site. Parking for both vehicles and bikes will also. be discussed. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant transportation impacts, as warranted. The EIR will discuss the key findings of the TIA and include the entire TIA as an appendix. PART 11 - SCOPE OF SERVICES city of Polo Alto Visual ©ualitv and Aesthetics The project will introduce new structures, facility components, and lighting to the project site. The EtR will describe the existing visual character of the pFoject area and will include photographs to illustrate the text. The change in the visual character resulting from the proposed project will be described in the FIR. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant aesthetic impacts, as warranted. Air Quality The EIR will evaluate potential air quality impacts from the proposed development based on the criteria, established by the Bay Area Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Because the ESC facility will be located on top of a solid waste landfill, landfill gas migration is a potential impact for buildings and structures. Mitigation measures for facilities and structures must be developed for gas control in accordance with B.~JkQMD regulations and CIWMB Title 27 regulations (including but not limited to 27 CCR 20933). Deconstruction of existing structures and construction of the project facility may result in short-term air quality impacts and mitigation measures will be identified in the FIR, as warranted. Noise and Vibration The EIR will describe the existing noise levels (including automobile and trL~ck traffic, and heavy equipment noise) and potential increases in noise levels resulting fr6m the project. Short-term construction and on-going operation noise impacts will be assessed. The EIR should address impacts from the proposed development of the ESC facility and identify all feasible mitigations to reduce or avoid disruption to sensitive, habitats, and small businesses, if warranted, during the construction and subsequent operation of the ESC facility. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant noise impacts, as warranted. Utilities and Infrastructure The EIR will describe the project requirements for utilities and service systems and will address the capadity of the existing and planned systems to accommodate the various project components. Appropriate mitigation will be identifiedto reduce any significant impacts, as warranted. Public Services The EIR will assess the potential far any p~lhlir’..<nn4r’.~.~ impuritY, r~,,~,~ from construction of the ESC facility. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant Public Services impacts, as warranted. PART ~l - SCOPE OF SERVICES city of Paio Alto ’ Enerqy The EIR will include a discussion of the energy impacts from the proposed ESC facility and describe how the project will efficiently use energy and reduce any impacts on these resources. Hazardous Materials This project includes the construction of a Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility where hazardous materials will be temporarily stored. The EIR will evaluate potential impacts from hazardous materials and wastes that may be stored or ericountered at the site. In addition, because the.project site is located at a solid waste landfill, undocumented hazardous materials illegally or unknowingly disposed of may also pose environmental impacts during or after construction of the facilities. Mitigation measures wil! be identified for any impacts, as warranted. .Growth-inducement The EIR will identify and describe in qualitative terms the extent to which infrastructure (including transportation improvements) proposed or required by the project would include excess capacity, and identify what, if any, additional development might be accommodated by that capacity. Significant Unavoidable Impacts The EIR will identify any impacts that cannot be avoided, if the project is implemented as proposed. Cumulative Impacts The E1R will ir~clude a Cumulative Impacts section that will address any significant cumulative impacts of the project when considered with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. Alternatives The E!R will evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project, based on the results of the environmental analysis. The alternatives discussion will focus on those alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The alternatives could include the following: 1. Reduced Development Alternative: a)Build a Reduced-Scale ESC - This scenario would require approximately 6 acres of land on the landfill footprint and would include all of the components ¯ PART I! - SCOPE OF SERVICES city of Palo Alto of the comprehensive ESC (as described above), except for the inert solid and composting operations. The facility components of this option are: a recycling center, a HHW facility, self-haul disposal, and a "chip and ship" facility for yard waste in lieu of A composting area..The recycling center would allow for Curbside and drop-off processing of recyctables. A reduced-scale ESC would accommodate self-haul waste for residents, City crews, businesses, and institutionstorganizations. b)Build a Recycling and HHW Area - This scenario would encompass approximately 3 to 3.5 acres of land that is not currently within the landfill footprint and would only include the curbside and drop-off recycling processing and HHW collection programs. All other materials and waste, including self-haul solid waste destined .for landfill by residents and businesses or yard waste for composting, would need to be taken to ’~’-LI I~ SMART Station or other regional waste d!sposal facilities. 2. Location Alternative: Use the former Los Altos Treatment Plant Site fora Recycling and HHW Area - The former Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) site at the east end of San Antonio Road consists of 13.26 acres that is contiguous with the Baylands. Palo Alto currently owns one-half of the property, with the town of Los Altos owning the remaining half. This scenario would entail constructing the facility described in alternative lb above at the LATP site and would only include the curbside and drop-off recycling processing and HHW collection programs.. Palo Alto would have to purchase the remaining half of the property from Los Altos to construct this facility. 3. No Project Alternative: All waste/recyclables to SMART Station - No development of ESC facility or any facilities in Palo Alto to accommodate solid waste or recycling programs when the landfill reaches capacity and closes in 2011. All solid waste collection and recycling will take place at the SMART station, All solid waste collected by PASCQ and self-haul waste in Palo Alto would be transported to the SMART station for sorting and iJItimate disposal at Kirby Canyon Landfill. All curbside and ~,,-,,~u, ,=,~y,~,,=~,~ ma~r,o,o ~,~,~,,~ u,~n~po,~eu to theo,v,~r~ ~ for processing. The Palo Alto Landfill (and Recycling Center) wil! beclosed as scheduled and the landfill area will be converted into passive parkland for use by the public. B.Scope of Work In general, the work of this project consists of the.following tasks: Task 1 Consultant shall review and evaluate all information, data, and drawings in the following reports, including, but not limited to: PART ~I - SCOPE OF SERVICES city of Palo Alto Task 2 Environmental Services Center at the Palo Alto Landfill Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)~ Initial Study, Final Draft, May 31, 2002 State Agency Comments on the Environmental Services Center MND described above after circulation Recycling Center and Transfer Station Conceptual Design and Cost Benefit Analysis, April 8, 1999. The Baylands Master Plan and EIR, May, 1978 Byxbee Landfill Park, Palo Alto Baylands, Park Conversion Plan and Program, Phase I, Design Development, December 1980 B.yxbee Park Palo Alto Baylands Update, December, 1989 Byxbee Park Palo Alto Baylands Update, December, 1991 The Palo Aito Landfill Joint Technical Document, April, 2004 The Report of Composting Site Information, August, 3, 2000 Palo Alto ESC, Conceptual Layout Plan, June,. 2001 CMR:176:04, May, 2004 Solid Waste Refuse Fund Budget Document for 2002-03, 2003- 04 Solid Waste, Recyctable Materials, and Household Hazardous Waste tonnage for 2002-03, 2003-04 Renderings and layouts of the comprehensive ESC facility and alternative facility options. Consultant shall prepare a Project EIR for the comprehensive ESC facility (see Figure 2) which shall include the following subtasks (please note: the City shall prepare {he Notice of Preparation and Notice of Determination): Subtask 2.1 Subtask 2.2 Subtask 2.3 Subtask 2.4 Subtask 2.5 Subtask 2.6 Subtask 2.7 Subtask 2.8 Subtask 2.9 Revise Project Description, Refine Site Plans, and Define Alternatives Prepare Responses to Comments on the Circulated Notice of Preparation (the Notice of Preparation will be prepared and submitted by the City) Conduct Environmental Impact Analyses Prepare Administrative Draft_ Prepare Screen Check Draft EIR Prepare Draft EIR Prepare Administrative Final EIR/Responsesto Comments Prepare Screen Check Final EtR Prepare Final EIR and Mitigaton Monitoring Report and Resolution of Findings including Overriding Oonsiderations if required (City will prepare Notice of Determination) PART ~ - SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Pato Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Consultant shall attend six (6) meetings, one kick-off meeting and five (5) additional meetings during the course of this project as determined by City’s staff. Consultant shall prepare a cost benefit analysis for each of the alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, based on the conceptual layout drawings and the conceptual facility designs discussed in the BVA report entitled "Recycling Center and Transfer Station Conceptual Design and Cost Benefit Analysis". The cost benefit analyses shall include: Facility Throughput Capital costs Annual costs Annual revenues Net annual costs, and Net costs per ton Consultant shall reproduce and prepare the number and type of hard copy deliverables as indicated below and one copy in digitized form for each document, spreadsheet or drawing (for documents and spreadsheets, Microsoft Word and Excel 2000 9.0.4402 SR-1 file format or compatible and for drawings, AutoCAD Map 2000 Release 4file format or compatible): Task/Subtask Tylae of Deliverable Numberof Copies, Subtask 2.1 Subtask 2.2 . Subtask 2.4 Subtask 2.5 Subtask 2.6 Subtask 2.7 Subtask 2.8 Subtask 2.9 Project Description, Refine Site Plans, and Alternatives 5 Responses to Comments on the Circulated Notice of Preparation 1 Administrative Draft EIR 10 Screen Check Draft EIR .........1 Draft EIR and Notice of Completion 100 Administrative Final EIR 10 Screen Check Final EIR 1 Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Report and Resolution of Findings including Overriding Considerations if required 50 1 Camera-ready original i Task 4 Cost Benefit Analyses - Project & Alternatives: 60% complete 5 95% complete 5 Final 5 PART tl - SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto Task 6 Optional Task: Consultant shall, if necessary and at the discretion of the City, prepare amendment(s) to the Project EIR as required, if during the CEQA process significant modifications are made to the project. Because it may be difficult for the consultant to calculate a cost estimate for this .task, for budgetary purposes the City will allow for a $10,000 cost estimate for this task in the bid schedule that will be renegotiated and approved at a later date. Examination of Existinq Documents The Consultant shall carefully examine existing documents and records and shall be satisfied as to the conditions encountered, as to the character, quality, and quantities of work to be performed, as to the requirements of the Request for Proposals, .and as. to the standard agreement terms and conditions. It is mutually agreedthat submission of a proposal shall be considered prima facie evidence that the consultant has made such an investigation. Schedule Work under this request for proposal shall be completed within 240 calendar days of the Notice to Proceed for Task 1 through Task 5. A Notice to Proceed "NTP" is anticipated to be transmitted by July 30, 2004. The project shall be completed by March 27, 2005. Consultant shall submit a detailed schedule for the complete project consistent with the key milestones listed below. l~lilestones Completion Number of Days From NTP 1.Kick off meeting 2.Complete Review Information (Task 1) 3.Prepare Reponses to Comments on the Circulated Notice of Preparation (Subtask 2.2) 4. Complete Administrative Draft EIR (Subtask 2.4) 5. City Review (Administrative Draft EIR) 6.Complete Draft EIR ~"~’÷’~"" o ~ 7.45 Day Circulation/Receive Comments 8.Complete Administrative Final (Subtask 2.7) EIR/Responses To Comments 9. City Review (Responses to Comments) Complete Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Report and Resolution of Findings including Overriding Considerations if required (Subtask 2.9) 10. City Council Certification of Final EIR 7 days 14 days 21 days 111 days 132 days 146 days 191 days 205 days 2!9 days 226 days 240 days PART l~ - SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto Proiect Administration This proiect shall be administered by the City of Palo Alto, Public Works Operati.ons Division, Technical Serv.ices Section. All questions and matters related to the Project shall be brought to the attention of the Project Manager. Information to be Provided bY the City The City of Palo Alto will provide a topographic map and all relevant and readily available reports, data, and information as .requested by the successful bidder, especially information for completion of the cost benefit analysis. Payment Invoices will be paid monthly based on the work completed to date of an itemized invoice. PART tl - SCOPE OF SERVICES city of Palo Alto TABLE 1 LIST OF REC¥CLABLE MATERIALS ACCEPTED AT PALO ALTO’S RECYCLING CENTER Paper Oardboard Newspaper White Paper Computer Paper Mixed Paper Magazines ¯ Phone Books Blueprint Glass Metals (Ferrous and Non-Ferrous) Scrap Metal Tin Cans Aluminum Cans Scrap Aluminum Electric Motors Plastic High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Poiyethylene Terephthalates (PET) Polystyrene Household Hazardous Wastes Auto Batteries Household Batteries Used Oil Filters Waste Motor Oil Antifreeze ATTACHMENT 2 PART II- SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto 1.General Information The City of Palo Alto (City) owns and operates a municipal solid waste landfill that includes a temporary compost.facility and a recycling drop-off center within the property boundary (see Figure1). The compost facility is currently located within the interior of the landfill and the recycling drop-off center is located at the landfill entrance. After all phases of the landfill undergo closure, the City is proposing to construct an integrated multi-functional solid waste facility, called the Environmental Services Center (ESC), on the landfill footprint. In preparation for this project, the City is seeking the services of a qualified and experienced firm for developing a Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the ESC. Information regarding the City’s current solid waste activities and operations, impending future events that will significantly impact the City’s solid waste disposal, and proposed ESC description are provided below. Previously, an Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) had been prepared by the City’s consultant and circulated through the State Clearinghouse for the ESC project (see Attachment 1). Comments on the MND were received from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (ClWMB), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), the Santa Clara County, Department of Environmental Health, and draft responses were prepared by the City’s consultant. The IS/MND was not adopted by City Council. A decision was made by the City to prepare an EIR because of a combination of factors that included changing the entrance of the facility (from Embarcadero Road to Embarcadero Way) and controversial land. use policy issues, as well as other issues that might not have been adequately addressed in the MND (particularly with regard to the compatibility of the ESC project with the Baylands Master Plan). By submitting a proposal, the proposer certifies that they have reviewed and agree with the terms and conditions of the RFP and the City’s standard agreement (see Attachment 2). The standard agreement will be used for developing the agreement between the City and the firm that has been evaluated as the winning proposer, in accordance with the RFP criteria. Current Solid Waste Tonnaqe and Facilities In year 2002 in accordance with AB 939 mandates, Palo Alto diverted approximately 95,700 tons of its waste volume through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities and disposed approximately 78,300 tons of waste at the Palo Alto, Kirby Canyon, and other landfills around the Bay Area. In 2002, approximately 25,800 tons of refuse generated by the City were transported and disposed at the Palo Alto Landfill. Waste streams going to the Landfill are typically grouped into three categories: waste from drop box trucks and front loaders deposited by the City’s refuse collection contractor, Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCQ); waste generated and deposited by City crews and contractors; and self-haul waste generated and deposited by residents. In addition, approximately 13,700 tons of refuse PART II - SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto are generated by the City but disposed at other local landfills. AppEoximately 48,700 tons per year of solid waste generated by the City and collected by PASCO is transported to the Sunnyvale Material Recovery and Transfer (SMART) Station where the recyclable portions are recovered and the remaining waste residue, approximately 38,800 tons per year, is t~ansported to and disposed at Kirby Canyon Landfill in San Jose. The 7.5-acre temporary Compost Facility operates under a standardized permit and accepts approximately 16,000 tons of green waste per year for processing. ,The 1.5-acre Recycling Center accepts recyclable materials (paper, glass, metals, plastic, and some household hazardous wastes [s_ee Table 1 List of Recyclable Materials]) from City residents and businesses. The Recycling Center processes approximately 14,200 tons per year of material, An area of approximately one-acre at the Palo Alto Landfill is used for inert solids (concrete and asphalt debris) storage until the material can be sent off-site for recycling. The City’s Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Program collects about 270 tons per year of HHW from both its drop-off Recycling Center and its HHW Collection Event that operates out of the Water Quality Control Plant under a temporary HHW Facility Permit. Impending Events Three approaching events will significantly impact Palo Alto’s solid waste disposal in the future. They are: Palo Alto recently revised its landfill closure plan. New calculations in the closure plan indicate the landfill will reach capacity by August 2011. - " Palo Alto’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sunnyvale and .Mountain View to use the SMART station will terminate on October 15, 202"1 (if the parties cannot agree on an extension). Extension of the MOU and continued operation of the SMART station is subject to the sole discretion of Sunnyvale. Palo Alto’s agreement with Waste Management to use Kirby Canyon Landfill will terminate on October 7, 2021. At that time, the City will have the option to extend the term for an additional 10 years. Proposed Comprehensive Environmental Services Center Facility Approximately 76 acres of the 126-acre landfill area permitted for filling have undergone final closure. Approximately 50 acres have yet to be filled. After the entire landfill is closed, the City’s Baylands Master Plan provides for re-establishing only the Recycling Center on the landfill footprint. However, due to the expansion of diversion and solid waste activities required under the current regulatory structure, the City wishes to PART II - SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto expand the solid waste services beyond what was previously envisioned in the Baylands Master Plan. The City has already completed a preliminary feasibility study for developing a Recycling Center (RC), a Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Facility (PHHWF), and a Material Recovery Facility/Transfer Station (MRF/TS) within the landfill boundary. In order to provide continuity for other diversion activities and solid waste services currently in operation, staff envisions adding a Composting Facility (CF), an Inert Solids Storage Facility (ISSF), and an area for drop box/bin storage to the above-described facilities. This multi-functioned facility will be called the Environmental Services Center (ESC). The ESC would also house a "Sustainability Center", similar to the visitor centers that are highlights of all major parks. This Center would entail an office or group of offices at the ESC facility that would enhance the park, by adding an educational component for solid waste and environmental concerns. Staff has identified approximately 19 acres at the landfill that would house the .comprehensive ESC facility. . Voter approval will be required to change the land use designation of these 19 acres from dedicated, parkland. Also, in order to accommodate this facility, the final grading plan for the landfill will have to be revised. The City has just recently hired a consultant to prepare a conceptual layout with grading and drainage plans (see Figure 2), a landfill closure sequencing plan with volume calculations based on the new grading plan, and a schedule for operational and permitting considerations. In addition to the recommended project to build a comprehensive ESC facility in Palo Alto, staff has also identified 4 alternatives as described in the City Manager’s Report dated May 19, 2004 (CMR:176:04) and in the Alternatives section of the environmental issues below. This Request for Proposals (RFP) is seeking the services of a qualified and experienced firm to prepare a cost benefit analysis and to conduct an EIR for the comprehensive ESC and the various alternative facility options. The EIR will address and include, but not be limited to, the environmental issues listed below. In determining the environmental impacts, the consultant shall be responsible for reviewing all aspects of the project and not be limited to the issues or studies mentioned below. Planninq and Land Use The EIR will describe the existing land uses adjacent to and within the project area. Voter approval will be required to change the land-use designation from dedicated parkland. Land use impacts that would occur as a result of the.proposed ESC facility will be described, including the,compatibility of the proposed and existing land uses in the project area. The project’s consistency with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the Baylands Master Plan and zoning, and evaluation of any incompatible land use impacts from proposed land use changes will be addressed. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant land use impacts, as warranted. PARTII -SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto Recreation The EIR should evaluate the impacts of loss of the various passive parkland acreages of proposed ESC facilities on active and passive parklands in Palo Alto. The evaluation will" include affects on existing neighborhood and regional and inter-jurisdictional parks from loss of acreages of future pastoral parkland, especially with regard to the City’s Comprehensive Plan program goals and policies. The EIR will also investigate mitigation measures and alternatives that will minimize impacts on parkland. Geoloqy, Soils, and Seismicity ..... The EIR will describe the proximity of the project site to any known earthquake faults and evaluate the likelihood of exposing people or structures, including environmental control systems located at the landfill such as landfill gas or leachate collection and removal systemsl to potential adverse effects related to rupture of known, earthquake faults, ground shaking, ground failure including liquefaction or landslides. The EIR will also describe the soil conditions of the site and discuss if development of the site will result in soil erosion or create soil instability. Hydrology and Water Quality The project site is located in an area that is subject to potential flooding in a 100-year flood event according to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The EIR will discuss the potential effects of constructing the ESC facility in a 100-year flood zone. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant impacts, as warranted. Bioloqical Resources The EIR will evaluate the biological conditions on the site, impacts of the development of the ESC and entrance road on any sensitive species inhabiting the area, and identify appropriate mitigations. The EIR will identify and describe the location and condition of existing trees, including size, health and structure. In addition, the document will discuss Palo AIto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance: Mitigation measures will be developed, as warranted. Historical and Cultural Resources Although City files and maps do not indicate any sensitive historical, cultural, or archaeological resources within the proposed site area, the EIR will evaluate the impacts and provide discussions related to these resources if found. Mitigation measures will be developed, as warranted. Traffic and Transportation The traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the project will identify the traffic impacts of the prop6sed development on key intersections and roadway segments in the vicinity of the PART I~ - SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto project. The impacts will be evaluated in conformance with City policies and the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program if required. The TIA will describe the existing and proposed traffic circulation conditions (including vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit)in the vicinity of the project site and will address the adequacy of access to and from the proposed project site. Parking for both vehicles and bikes will also be discussed. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant transportation impacts, as warranted. The EIR will discuss the key findings of the TIA and include the entire TIA as an appendix. Visual Quality and Aesthetics The project will introduce new structures, facility components, and lighting to the project site. The EIR will describe the existing visual character of the project area and will include photographs to illustrate the text. The change in tl~e visual character resulting from the proposed project will be described in the EIR. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant aesthetic impacts, as warranted. Air Quality The EIR will evaluate potential air quality impacts from the proposed development based on the criteria established by the Bay Area Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Because the ESC facility will be located on. top of a solid waste landfill, landfill gas migration is a potential impact for buildings and structures; Mitigation measures for facilities and structures must be developed for gas control in accordance with BAAQMD regulations and CIWMB Title 27 regulations (including but not limited to 27 CCR 20933). Deconstruction of existing structures and construction of the project facility may result in short-term air quality impacts and mitigation measures will be identified in the EIR, as warranted. Noiseand Vibration The EIR will describe the existing noise levels (including automobile and truck traffic, and heavy equipment noise) and potential increases in noise levels resulting from the project. Short-term construction and on-going operation noise impacts will be assessed. The EIR should address impacts from the proposed development of the ESC facility and identify all feasible mitigations to reduce or avoid disruption to sensitive habitats, and small businesses, if warranted, during the construction and subsequent operation of the ESC facility. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant noise impacts, as warranted. Utilities and Infrastructure The EIR will describe the project requirements for utilities and service systems and will address the capacity of the existing and planned systems to accommodate the various project components. Appropriate mitigation will be identified to reduce any significant impacts, as warranted. PART II -SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto Public Services The EIR will assess the potential for any public services impacts resulting from construction of the ESC facility. Mitigation measures will be identified for any significant Public Services impacts, as warranted. Ener,qy The EIR will include a discussion of the energy impacts from the proposed ESC facility and describe how the project will efficiently use energy and reduce any impacts on these resources. Hazardous Materials This project includes the construction of a Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility where hazardous materials will be temporarily stored. The EIR will evaluate potential impacts from hazardous materials and wastes that may be stored or encountered at the site. In addition, because the project site is located at a solid waste landfill, undocumented hazardous materials illegally or unknowingly disposed of may also pose environmental impact.s during or after construction of the facilities. Mitigation measures will be identified for any impacts, as warranted. Growth-inducement The EIR will identify and describe in qualitative terms the extent to which infrastructure (including transportation improvements) proposed or required by the project would include excess capacity, and identify what, if any, additional development might be accommodated by that capacity. S~qnificant Unavoidable, Impacts The EIR will identify any impacts that cannot be avoided, if the project is implemented as proposed. Cumulative Impacts The EIR will include a Cumulative Impacts section that will address any significant cumulative impacts of the project when considered with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. Alternatives The EIR will evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project, based on the results of the environmental analysis. The alternatives discussion will focus on those alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The PART ~ - SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto alternatives could include the following: Reduced Development Alternative: a)Build a Reduced-Scale ESC - This scenario (see Figure 3) would require approximately 6 acres of land on the landfill footprint and would include all of the components of the comprehensive ESC (as described above), except for the inert solid and composting operations. The facility components of this option are: a recycling center, a HHW facility, self-haul disposal, and a "chip and ship" facility for yard waste in lieu of a composting area. The recycling center would allow for curbside and drop-off processing of recyclables. A reduced-scale ESC would accommodate self-haul waste for residents, City crews, businesses, and institutions/organizations. b)Build a Recycling and HHW Area This scenario (see Figure 4) would encompass approximately 3 to 3.5 acres of land that is not currently within the landfill footprint and would only include the curbside and drop-off recycling processing and HHW collection programs. All other materials and waste, including self-haul solid waste destined for landfill by residents and businesses or yard waste for composting, would need to be taken to the SMART Station or other regional waste disposal facilities. 2. Location Alternative: Use the former.Los Altos Treatment Plant Site for a Recycling and HHW Area - The former Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP) site at the east end of San Antonio Road consists of 13.26 acres that is contiguous with the Baylands. Palo Alto currently owns one-half of the property, with the town of Los Altos owning the remaining half. This scenario would entail constructing the facility described in alternative l b above at the LATP site and would only include the curbside and drop-off recycling processing and HHW collection programs, Palo Alto would have to. purchase the remaining half of the property from Los Altos to construct this facility. 3. No Project Alternative: All waste/recyclables to SMART Station - No development of ESC facility or any facilities in Palo Alto to accommodate solid waste or recycling programs when the landfill reaches capacity and closes in 2011. All solid waste collection and recycling will take place at the SMART station. All solid waste collected by PASCO and self-haul waste in Palo Alto would be transported to the SMART station for sorting and ultimate disposal at Kirby Canyon Landfill. All curbside and self-haul recyclable materials would be transported to the SMART for processing. The Palo Alto Landfill (and Recycling Center) will be closed as scheduled.and the landfill area will be converted into passive parkland for use by the public. PART II - SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto B. Scope of Work In general, the work of this project consists of the following tasks: Task 1 Consultant shall review and evaluate all information, data, and drawings in the following reports, including, but not limited to: Environmental Services Center at the Palo Alto Landfill Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Initial Study, Final Draft, May 31, 2002 State Agency Comments on the Environmental Services Center MND described above after circulation Recycling Center and Transfer Station Conceptual Design and Cost Benefit Analysis, April 8, 1999. The Baylands Master Plan and EIR, May, 1978 Byxbee Landfill Park, Palo Alto Baylands, Park Conversion Plan and Program, Phase I, Design Development, December 1980 Byxbee Park Palo Alto Baylands Update, December, 1989 Byxbee Park Palo Alto Baylands Update, December, 1991 The Palo Alto Landfill Joint Technical Document, April, 2004 The Report of Composting Site Information, August, 3, 2000 Palo Alto ESC, Conceptual Layout Plan, June, 2001 CMR:176:04, May, 2004 Solid Waste Refuse Fund .Budget Document for 2002-03, 2003- 04 Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Household Hazardous Waste tonnage for 2002-03, 2003-04 Renderings and layouts of the comprehensive ESC facility and alternative facility options. Task 2 Consultant shal prepare a Project EIR for the comprehensive ESC facility (see Figure 2) which shall include the following subtasks (please note: the City shall prepare the Notice of Preparation and Notice of Determination): Subtask 2.1 Subtask 2.2 Subtask 2.3 Subtask 2.4 Subtask 2.5 Subtask 2.6 Revise Project Description, Refine Site Plans, and Define Alternatives Prepare Responses to Comments on the Circulated Notice of Preparation (the Notice of Preparation will be prepared and submitted by the City) Conduct Environmental Impact Analyses Prepare Administrative Draft EIR Prepare Screen Check Draft EIR Prepare Draft EIR PART ~! SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Subtask 2.7 Subtask 2.8 Subtask 2.9 Prepare Administrative Final EIR/Responses to Comments Prepare Screen Check Final EIR Prepare Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Report and Resolution of Findings including Overriding Considerations if required (City will prepare Notice of Determination) Consultant shall attend six (6) meetings, one kick-off meeting and five (5) additional meetings during the course of this project as determined by City’s staff. Consultant shall prepare a cost benefit analysis, for each of the alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, based on the conceptual layout drawings and the conceptual facility designs discussed in the BVA report entitled "Recycling Center and Transfer Station Conceptual Design and Cost Benefit Analysis". The cost benefit analyses shall include: Facility Throughput Capital costs Annual costs Annual revenues Net annual costs, and Net costs per ton Consultant shall reproduce and prepare the number and type of har~t copy deliverables as indicated below and one copy in digitized form for each document, spreadsheet or drawing (for documents and spreadsheets, Microsoft Word and Excel 2000 9.0.4402 SR-! file format or compatible and for drawings, AutoCAD Map 2000 Release 4 file format or compatible): Task/Subtask Type of Deliverable Number of Copies Subtask 2.1 Subtask 2.2 Subtask 2.4 Subtask 2.5 Subtask 2.6 Subtask 2.7 Subtask 2.8 Subtask 2.9 Project Description, Refine Site Plans, and Alternatives 5 Responses to Comments on the Circulated Notice of Preparation 1 Administrative Draft EIR !0 Screen Check Draft EIR 1 Draft EIR and Notice of Completion 100 Administrative Final EIR 10 Screen Check Final EIR I Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Report and Resolution of Findings PART II -SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto including Overriding Considerations if required 50 1 Camera-ready original 1 Task 4 Cost Benefit Analyses - Project & Alternatives: 60% complete 5 95% complete 5 Final 5 Task 6 Optional Task(s): Consultant shall, if necessary and at the discretion of the City, prepare amendment(s) to the Project EIR as required, if during the CEQA process significant modifications are made to the project. Optional tasks may include brainstorming with environmental advocacy groups to develop a concept of a visitor’s or interpretive center that could be used for educational purposes. Because it may be difficult for the consultant to calculate a cost estimate for this task, for budgetary purposes the City will allow for a $10,000 cost estimate for this task in the bid schedule that will be renegotiated and approved at a later date. Examination of Existinq Documents The Consultant shall carefully examine existing documents and records and shall be satisfied as to the conditions encountered, as to the character, quality, and quantities of work to be performed, as to the requirements of the Request for Proposals, and as to .the standard agreement terms and conditions. It is mutually agreed that submission of a proposal shall be considered prima facie evidence that the consultant has made such an investigation. Schedule Work under this request for proposal shall be completed within 240 calendar days of the Notice to Proceed for Task 1 through Task 5. A Notice to Proceed "NTP" is anticipated to be transmitted by July 30, 2004. The project shall be completed by March 27, 2005. Consultant shall submit a detailed schedule for the complete project consistent with the key milestones listed below. Milestones Completion Number of Days From NTP 1.Kick off meeting .... 2.Complete Review Information (Task 1) 3.Prepare Reponses to Comments on the Circulated Notice of Preparation (Subtask 2.2) 4. Complete Administrative Draft EIR (Subtask 2.4) 7 days 14 days 21 days 111 days PART I~ - SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto 5.City Review (Administrative Draft EIR) 6.Complete Draft EIR (Subtask 2.6) 7.45 Day Circulation/Receive Comments 8.Complete Administrative Final (Subtask 2.7) EIR/Responses To Comments 9. City Review (Responses to Comments) Complete Final FIR and Mitigation Monitoring Report and Resolution of Findings including Overriding Considerations if required (Subtask 2.9) 10.City Council Certification of Final EIR 132 days 146 days 191 days 205 days 219 days 226 days 240 days Proiect Administration This project shall be administered by the City of Paio Alto, Public Works Operations Division, Technical Services Section. All questions and matters related to the Project shall be brought to the attention of the Project Manager. Information tobe Provided by the City The City of Palo Alto will provide a topographic map and all relevant and readily available reports, data, and information as requested by the successful bidder, especially information for completion of the cost benefit analysis. Payment Invoices will be paid monthly based on the work completed to date of an itemized invoice. PART I~ - SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Palo Alto TABLE 1 LIST OF RECYCLABLE I~iATERIALS ACCEPTED AT PALO ALTO’S RECYCLING CENTER Paper Cardboard Newspaper White Paper Computer Paper Mixed Paper Magazines Phone Books Blueprint Glass Metals (Ferrous and Non-Ferrous) Scrap Metal Tin Cans Aluminum Cans Scrap Aluminum Electric Motors Plastic High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Polyethylene Terephthalates (PET) Polystyrene Household Hazardous Wastes Auto Batteries Household Batteries Used Oil Filters Waste Motor Oil Antifreeze W L oz z 0 Form A Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, PO Be× 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 916/445-0613 SCH # Project Title: Environmental Services Center Lead Agency: Cit~ of Pale Alto Street Address: P.O. Box 10250 " City: Pale Alto, CA Zip: 94303 Contact Person: Jt~lie C______~apor.qno Phone: 650,329-2679 County: Santa Clara project Location: County: Santa Clara Cross Streets: E. Bavshore/Embarcadero Assessor’s Pared No. 008-05-01,4 Within 2 Mites: State Hwy #: 101 Airports: Pale Alto Municipal Airport City/Nearest Community: Pale Alto Zip Code: 94303 Section: Twp. Waterways: Bavlands; San Francisco Bay Railways:Schools: Total Acres: 16.75 Range:Base: Document Type: CEQA:[] HOP [] Supplement/Subsequent EIR [] Early Cons (Prior SCH No.). [] Neg Dec [] Other , [] Draft EIR NEPA:[] NOI Other:[] Joint Document [] EA [] Final Document [] Draft EIS [] Other [] FONSI Local Action T~/pe: []General Plan Update []General Plan Amendment []General Plan Element ~]Community Plan []Specific Plan []Master Plan []Planned Unit Development []Site Plan Development Type: [] Residential:Units Acres [~] Office:Sq.ft,__ Acres []Coramercial: Sq,fl. __ Acres []Indus.triah Sq.ft.__ Acres.~ []Educational []Recreational __ Smployees.~ __ Employee~__ Employees_~ [] Rezone [] Annexation [] Prezone [] Redevdopment [] Use Permit [] Coastal Permit [] Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) [] Other [] Water Facilities:Type.MGD [] Transportation:Type. [] Mining:Mineral [] Power:Type_Watts____ [] Waste Treatment:Type- [] Hazardous Waste:Type. recycling] household hazardous waste [] Other: Funding (approx.):Federal State Total Project Issues Discussed in Document: []Aesthetic/Visual []Agricultural Land [~]Air Quality []Archeological/Historic al []Coastal Zone []Drainage/Absorption ~Economic/Jobs []Fiscal [] Flood Plain/Flooding ~ Forest Land]Fire Hazard [] Geologic/Seismic [] Minerals [] Noise [] Population/Housing Balance -[’-I Public Services/Facilities [] Recreation/Parks []Schools/Universities []Septic Systems []Sewer Capacity []Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading []Solid Waste [~ToxicPrtazardous []TrafficlCirculation []Vegetation []Water Quality []Water SupplytG~’oundwater []Wetland/Riparian []Wildlife []Growth Inducing []Landnse []Cumulative Effects []Other Present Land Use/ZoninglGeneral Plan Designation: Landfill/PublicFacilities DistrictJMajor lnstituti0n/Special Facilities Project Description: See project description attached Revised 3-31-99 23 Reviewing Agencies Checklist Resources Agency Boating &: Waterways Coastal Commission Coastal Conser#ancy ~Colorado River Board Conservation Fish& Game Forestry & Fire Protection Office of Historic Preservation Parks & Recreation Reclamation Board KEY S = Document sent by lead ag.ency X Form A, continued S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation & Housing Aeronautics California Highway Patrol’ CALTRANS District # Department of Transportation Planning (headquarters) Housing & Community Development Food & Agriculture Health & Welfare Health Services State & Consumer Services General Services OLA (Schools) =Document sent by SCH = Suggested distribution Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources 7Board California Waste Management Board SWRCB: Clean Water Grants SWRCB: Delta Unit SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB: Water Rights __.Regional WQCB # Youth & Adult Corrections __.Correcti ons Independent Commissions & Offices Energy Commission Native American Hedtage Commission Public Utilities Commission Santa Monies Movtntains Conservancy State Lands Commission Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Other Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Signature ~..j~-----~. ~._3~---’-L~_~=3.,r __ Ending Date July 1, 2002 Date May 30, 02 Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: Address: City/State/Zip: Contact: Phone: (___.) Applicant: City of Palo Alto Address: P.O. Box 10250 City/State/Zip: Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: (650) 329-2679 For SCH Llse Only: Date Received at SCH Date Review Starts Date to Agencies Date to SCH Clearance Date Notes: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Cafifornia Environmental Quality Act MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECIARA TION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Mitigated .Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment .for the project listed below. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, this document is available for review and comment during a 30-day inspection period beginning May 31, 2002 and ending on July 1, 2002, Written comments may be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Environment during the .hours of 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM in the Planning Division, Civic Center, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth floor, Palo Alto, California or FAX 650-329-2154. The Initial Study prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration is also available for review at the Department of Planning and Community Environment I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: May 31, 2002 Address of Project: 2380 Embarcardero Road Applicant.:City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Pal0 Alto, CA 94301 Attention: Julie Caporgno, Department of Planning and Community Environment (650- 329-2679) Property Owner:City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Description and Location: 1). Revision to the Baylands Master PlantByxbee Park Master Plan to change the configuration and contours of the Park and 2). all subsequent local and outside agency .development approvals to allow the construction of an integrated and multifunctional Environmental Services Center, consisting of a compost facility, a recycling drop-offlprocessing center, a permanent household hazardous waste facility, a material recovery facitityltransfer station, a bin storage area, and an inert solids storage area for On or off-Site recycling. The City curre.ntly operates a compost facility, a drop-off/recycling center, inert storage area, and a bin storage area at the project site. 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 at 3700 and 3800 Middlefield Road may have a significant effect, on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: 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 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~ In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proiect: HM-1) All hazardous material storage and use areas shall be maintained and operated to minimize the possibility of fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release ef hazardous materials.or wastes to air, soil, or surface water that Could threaten human health or the environment. Measures taken shall include but not be limited to: Use, accumulation, packaging and storage of hazardous materialsand wastes in designated areas only; Handling of hazardous materials and wastes in the prescribed manner only; Use of personal protective equipment appropriate to the materials and wastes being handled; Maintaining all emergency response equipment in usable condition; Maintaining access to emergency.response equipment at all times; Use of only authorized personnel trained to handle specific hazardous materials and wastes; and .... Conducting weekly inspections of hazardous waste storage and accumulation areas. ¯ ~ager Date INITIAL STUDY Environmental Services Center at the Palo Alto Landfill Prepared for the City of Palo Alto by: RBF Consulting 111 W. St. John Street, Ste. 850 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 993-9224 Contact: Mike Campbell, AICP April 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .................................................17 DETERMINATION ’18 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ’19 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 17. Aesthetics .........................................................................................................................19 Agricultural Resources .....................................................................................................19 Air Quality ................: .......................................................................................................20 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................21 Cultural Resources ..................................................................: ........................................: 22’ Geology and Soils .............: ...................: ............................ ................................................23 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................24 Hydrology and Water Quality ..........................................................................................25 Land Use .............................: .............................................................................................26 Mineral Resources ......................." .....................................................................................26 Noise............................................................................................, .....................................27 Population and Housing .........................................................................................~ ..........27 Public Services ..................................................................................................................28 Recreation .........................................................................................:..~ ..............: .............2.8 Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................~ ..........................29 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................29 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................31 Source References ........................." ......................................................................, .....: ....................32 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES ....................................................................33 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Aesthetics .........................................................................................................................33 Agricultural Resources .........................................................................: ...........................34 Air Quality ........................................................ ..................................................i ..............34 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................37 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................37 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................38 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................39 Hydrology and Water Quality ..........................................................................................40 Land Use .......................... ........................................................... ......................................42 Mineral Resources ...............................................~ .............................................. ..............43 Noise............................................................................................" ............, ........................43 Population and Housing ..................................................................: .................................44 Public Services ..................................................................................................................44 Recreation ......: ..................................................................................................................44 Transportation/Traffic .......................................................................................................44 16. 17. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................45 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................: ...................................... ...... .............46 REPORT AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS .............................................................................47 LIST OF lgXl:IIBrrs 1 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 Regional Location ..................: .......................................................................................~ ....9 Vicinity Map ............................................................., .......................................’ ................10 Aerial Photo .....................................................................................: ................................11 Site Photos .............................................................................. ..........................................12 Site Photos ........................................................................................................................13 Site Photos ........................................................................: ...............................................14 Conceptual Final Landfill Site Plan ..................................................................................15 Proposed ESC Site Plan ................................................~ ...................................................16 Mitigation Monitoring Plan Introduction City of Pato Alto INTRODUCTION This Initial Study .has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute as amended January 1, 2001 and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Adminis~:ative Code 15000 et seq.), as amended February 1, 2001. According to Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines, "A proposed Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either: (a) (b) The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: 1) 2) Revisions inthe project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and There is no substantial evidence before the agency that ~he project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment." The CEQA Guidelines section 15382 defines "significant effect on the environment" as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water; mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and an object of historic or aesthetic significance. This document has been prepared as an objective, full-disclosure document to inform agency decision makers and the general public of the direct and indirect physical environmental effects of the proposed action and any measures to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts. The document includes a project description of the Palo Alto Landfill Environmental Services Center, the City ofPalo Alto’s Environmental Checklist, revised from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, source references, explanations for answers provided on the Checklist, and a list of the report authors and consultants involved in preparing the document. Project Description City of t’alo Alto PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.Project Title:Environmental Services Center Facility Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Commm~ity Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Contact Person and Phone Number:Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager (650) 329-2679 Project Location:2380 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, California w Property Owner:City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 6.General Plan Designation:Public Parks 7.Zoning:PF(D) - Public Facilities District, Site and Design Review Combining District Description of the Project:1.) Revision to the Baylands Master Plan/Byxbee Park MasterPlan to change the configuration and contours of the Park and 2.) all subsequent local and outside agency. development approvals to allow the construction of an integrated and multi- functional Environmental Services Center, consisting of a compost facility, a recycling drop-off/processing center, a permanent household hazardous waste facility, a material recovery facility/transfer station, a bin storage area, and an inert solids storage area for on or off-site recycling. Project Description City of Palo Alto Background The City owns and operates a. 137-acre munic.ipal solid waste landfill, 126 acres of which are permitted for waste disposal. The landfill includes a compost facility (CF), a recycling drop- off/processing center (RC) and an inert solids storage area (IS) located within the property boundary. The landfill site has historically been used for the disposal of solid waste since the 1930’s, although the more sophisticated fill and cover type of operation was not instituted at the facility until the mid 1950’s. Permitting of the landfill began in the 1960’s. The existing compost facility and the inert solids storage area are currently located within the interior of the landfall and the recycling drop-off/processing center is located at the landfill entrance. Approximately 76- acres of the 126-acre area permitted for refuse filling has undergone final closure with approximately 50 acres yet to be filled or closed. After the entire landfill is filled and undergoes ~nal closure, the City’s Baylands Master Plan provides for re-establishing the RC on the landfill footprint. The solid waste services industry and regulatory environment has changed dramatically since the Baylands Master Plan was developed. In addition, three approaching events will significantly impact Palo Alto’s solid waste disposal in the future. They are: Palo Alto recently revised its landfitt closure plan. New calculations in the closure plan indicate the landfill will reach capacity by August 2011. Palo Alto’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Stmnyvale and Mountain View to use the SMART station will terminate on Octob.er 15,2021 (if the parties cannot agree on an extension). Extension of the MOU and continued operation of the SMART station is subject to the sole discretion of Sunnyvale. Palo Alto’s agreement with W.aste Management to use Kirby Canyon Landfill will terminate on October 7, 2021. At that time, the City will have the option to extend the term for an additional 10 years. Given the dynamically :changing environment and to plan for these future events, the City wishes to expand solid waste Services beyond what was previously envisioned in the Baylands Master Plan by developing and constructing an Environmental Services Center (ESC); an integrated, mult.i-fimctional, solid-waste facility. The proposed ESC will be developed in phases after final closure of the landfill, Phasing will allow the City to defer construction costs, increase solid waste management options, complete the landfill closure, and construct the ESC, without an interruption in service to the public. Some of the long-term benefits and solutions to future solid waste needs-secured by the ESC project are: To provide City residents and commercial enterprises with a convenient and cost-effective location to drop off their soiid, hazardous wastes and recyclable materials in anticipation of the imminent closure of the Palo Alto landfill in 2011; Project Description City of Palo Alto To provide to the City control over its long term integrated solid waste management alternatives, particularly to take advantage of cost savings options under the Sunnyvale Material Recovery and Transfer (SMART) Station and Kirby Canyon Landfill agreements; To enable the City to continue to provide a .place for and expand the existing waste management and recycling facilities so that increased diversion (from landfilling) can take place, in accordance with state mandates (AB 939), Comprehensive Plan Policies and the sustainability goals of the City; and To provide a permanent Household Hazardous Waste facility in accordance with the City’s Household Hazardous Waste Element and Comprehensive Plan Policies in order to take advantage of cost savings and increased service for City residents. In preparation for this project, the City has prepared this initial study of environmental impacts of the ESC. Information regarding the City’s current solid waste activities and operations and proposed ESC description are provided below. Existing Solid Waste Tonnage and Facilities In the year 2000, in accordance with AB 939 mandatess Palo Alto diverted approximately 127,000 tons of its waste stream through source reduction, recycling, and comp0sting activities and disposed of approximately 90,000 tons of waste at the Palo Alto, Kirby Canyon, and other landfills around the Bay Area. Approximately 36,000 tons per year of the refuse generated by the City are transported to the Palo Alto Landfill. Waste streams going to the Landfill are typically grouped into three categories: waste from drop-box tracks and front loaders deposited by the City’s refuse collection contractor, Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO); waste generated and deposited by City crews and contractors; and self-haul waste generated and deposited by residents. The remaining refuse (approximately 54,000 tons per year) collected by PASCO istransported to the SMART station where the recyclable portions are recovered. The remaining waste residue (approximately 50,000 tons per year) is transported to Kirby Canyon Landfill in San Jose for disposal. The City and PASCO currently operate the following solid waste facilities: The 7.5-acre compost facility operates under a Standardized Permit issued by the California Integrated Waste Management Board in October 2000 accepts approximately 17,000 tons of green waste per year for processing with an average throughput of 47 tons per day. The materials managed at the facility include source separated yard wastes such as grass clippings, plant trimmings, leaves, tree parts, shrubs, ivy, succulents and other vegetative matter generated by landscape maintenance. The faciiity also accepts and processes leaves and clean trunk/limb wood grindings accumulated through the City’s street sweeping operations. The compost produced at the facility is sold to landscapers and nurseries (wholesale), to residents in bags and is used for City projects when needed. Project Description City of Palo Alto The 1.6-acre public drop-off/recycling center accepts recyclable materials (paper, mixed and newspaper), cardboard, glass, metals (tin, steel, and aluminum), plastic, and some household hazardous wastes motor oil, oil filters, antifreeze, batteries (household and lead-acid) and Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) from City residents and businesses. The Recycling Center processes approximately 15,000 tons per year of material. An area of approximately 1.5-acre at the Palo Alto Landfill is used for inert solids (concrete and asphalt debris) storage until the material can be recycled on or off-site. A PASCO bin storage area of approximately 1.25-acres and an area which includes the existing toll booth, roads, landscaping, and parking totaling approximately 2-acres. The City’s collects about 125 tons per year of household hazardous waste (HHW) in its I-IHW Collection Program which operates at its Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) under a temporary HHW Facility Permit. The HHW collection events are held once a month. Proposed Facilities In 1999, the City contracted with Brown, Vence, and Associates (BVA) to develop a conceptual feasibility study to locate a material recovery facility/transfer station, a small composting facility, a small wood-chip processing area, and a HHW facility at the landfill after closure. BVA developed the preliminary site plan that will house these facilities in a 6.2-acre area. However, the site plan did not include aftill 7.5aacre composting facility or an inert solids storage area. The study also did not evaluate landfill grading plan options and airspace volume loss calculations for the landfill in order to develop the facility? The City has identified an area at the landfill that could house the footprints of the facilities in the BVA plans, but would also include the additional proposed waste handling facilities. In 2001, the City contracted with Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, Inc. to develop grading plan options at the landfill that would accommodate the proposed ESC while losing minimal waste fill airspace. The City estimates that a I6.752acre pad is required to house a full service ESC with individual facility sizes as shown below (see Exhibit 5, Conceptual Final Grading Plan Map). The original intention for post-Closure land use calls for the landfill to be converted to a passive park with an approximate 3.5-acre area that would consist of a sma!l recycling drop-off center, parking, .and other existing facilities (landfill gas co-generation plant and storm water de- watering bays). The expansion of the recycling drop-off center (at the northern border of the landfill) into the ESC facility is consistent, with the Baylands Master Plan’s land use and is also consistent with the City’s goal of sustainability by maintaining a balance between waste management and the environment. The expansion of the ESC will result in reconfiguration of the park area and change the landfill closure grading plan..It also may require revision to the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan that describes and delineates the park conversion program. As stated above, the City has already completed a preliminary feasibility study for developing a RC, a permanent HHW facility, and a MRF/TS within the landfill boundary. Re-grading of the Project Description City of Palo Alto landfill to provide enough flat land available for the ESC would lose approximately one year of refuse airspace. The proposed individual ESC facility sizes are: aeiii Wype Composting Facility Inert Storage Area (IS) PASC0 Bin Storage Area (BS) Material Recovery ]Facility/ Transfer Station (MRF/TS) ¯ Public Drop-off/Recycling Center (RC) Household Hazardous Waste Facility (~W~) Roads, toll booth, landscaping, park_ing, etc. Existing Size Proposed Size 7.5 acres 7.5 acres 1.5 acre 2.2 acres 1.25 acre 1.25 acres no existing MRF/TS 1.58 acres 1.6 acre .5 acre no existing Ht-IWF .64 acre 2.0 acres 3.08 acres 15.10 acres 16.75 acres The proposed individual ESC facility descriptions are: The proposed RC and MRF/TS will both be housed in a single, prefabricated metal building with a floor area of approximately 55,000 square feet initially (will be eventually expanded to. 75,000 Square feet) with buildi.ng heights up to 50 feet (below the maximum landfill contour elevation of 60 feet mean sea level)~ Roll-up doors will allow vehicular access to the interior of the MRF/TS portion of the building, where PASCO, commercial and residential self-haul vehicles will unload their materials for separating, sorting and processing for load- out. The waste transfer area will contain loading facilities and scales designed to accommodate large capacity transfer trailers. The curbside recyclables collection vehicle receiving area is located in the RC portion of the building. Contract haulers will back their vehicles into the building and maload segregated curbside collected materials onto the floor for feeding into compactors and reeyelables processing lines. Public drop-off bins with direct vehicle access will be located adjacent to the RC and MRF/TS building: Recycled hazardous and universal wastes such as household and automotive batteries, motor oil, oil filters, cathode ray robes (CRT’s) and antifreeze will also be accepted at the RC portion of the facility (seven days per week). Project Description City of Palo Alto The HHW facility building will be a ~2,400 square-foot permanent drop-off facility with ¯ canopy for collection, packaging and short term storage of household hazardous waste and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) waste. This is a fenced and gated enclosure containing a small building with a canopy, severn parking spaces and hazardous waste storage lockers. This permanent facility will replace the existing temporary operation currently open one-day per month. The permanent HHW facility will be open three to five mornings a week and will accept the following : Flammable wastes, including solvents, fuels, aerosols, and paints; Pesticides, including fungicides, insecticides and herbicides; Corrosives (acids and bases), including ammonia base cleaners, caustic sodas, oven cleaners, lye, and non-oxidizing acids; Oxidizers, including bleach, peroxides, pool chlorine and acids; Mercury wastes such as fluorescent light tubes, and thermometers/thermostats; and Other toxic and hazardous wastes including asbestos and PCB light ballasts. The IS storage facility, which accepts concrete and demolition debris for off-site recycling, will occupy approximately 2.2 acres on the southwest portion of the site, and is adjacent to the 1.25-acre PASCO bin storage area. The IS will also include an area for sale of inert materials to the public. The CF consists of windrows, finished tmscreened compost piles, finished screened compost piles, a paved processing area, and a paved green waste processing area on approximately 7.5 acres .on the easterly.portion of thesite: The CF will also include an area for sale of compost- related materials to the public. The existing landfill gas electrical g~nerating plant and the vacuum track storm drain de- watering bays both located at. the Northwest comer of the landfill are anticipated to remain intact. These two areas are approximately 2.25 acres and will be included within the ESC perimeter fence. There are no plans to change these facilities at the present time. A visitors/interpretive center with offices will be located at the main MRF/TS building for educational tours of the facilities and for explainin~ solid waste activities to the public. Proieeted Days and Hours of Operation The anticipated days and hours that the ESC will be open to the public will mirror the existing iandfill~and recycling drop-off facility days and hours. These are: 1)Public - The ESC will be open to the public 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. seven days per week. The ESC will be closed to the public on seven major holidays including New Years Day, Easter, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. 2)Contract collection Vehicles- 4:00 a.m? to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday; 3)City Utility Vehicles - 7:00 a.m~ through 5:00 p.m. seven days per week; and 4)Emergency use by City Vehicles - 24 hours per day, seven days per week (days to be opened Project Description City of Palo Alto will be determined later); 5) Household hazardous waste - 9:00 a.m. through 12:00 p,m., three to five days per week. In addition, ancillary operations such as cleaning the MRF/TS floor, preparing compost for sale, processing reeyclable, and/or moving inert material into piles may take place from the hours of 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., seven days per Week. Permits The following table summarizes the additional permits and approvals required by other agencies for the project. AGENCY California Integrated Waste Management Board and the Santa Clara County Dept. of Environmental Health (LEA) Regional Water Quality Coutrol Board Bay Area Air Quality Management District Department of Toxic Substance Control City of Palo Alto, Department of Pubtic Works City of Palo Alto, Fire Deparlment Bay Conservation and Development Commission Army Corps of Engineers PERMIT Solid Waste Facility Permit (Major Transfer Station Permit); New Standardized Compostir~g Permit; Closure Document Approvals Landfill Closure Document Approvals; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Authority To Construct, Permit To Operate; Modify existing Permit To Operate Gas Recovery System Revise Title V Permit. Household Hazardous Waste Facility Permit By Rule Grading and Drainage Review Hazardous Materials Storage Permit Letfer confm’ning no iurisdiction Letter confuming no permits required REPORTS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT Report of Facility Information (RFI), modify the Joint Technical Document Preliminary Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan Revision Revise Preliminary Landfill Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan Modify Joint Technical Document Notice 0fIntent, swPPP Preliminary Design Preliminary Design Grading and Drainage Design Drawings Hazardous Materials Management Plan Description of Palo Alto Environmental Protection Agency Palo Alto Department of Plarming & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Building Perm~t~ Approval to Modify Baylands Master Plan ARB approval ,, SPCCPI~n Preliminary Design Site Design 8 San Rafael SONOMA CO SOLANO CO Hayward ¯ Livermore i Tracy SAN MATEO CO SANTA CRUZ CO ,Santa Cruz ALAMEDA CO )itas Jose- Morgar Hill / . STANISLAUS ) co .P \ CLARA CO Gilroy B EIN =llJ LTI N B ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE5 CENTER Regional Location Exhibit I Rd 1Z-’~001 JN 40-100104 lo ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CENTER Vicinity Map Exhibit ~ 1~ rl N B I_I LTI N B ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE5 CENTER Aerial Photo Exhibit 3 nn N ~ IJLTIN ~ Existing compost screen operation. Viewing south from the project site toward the existing active landfill face. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CENTER Site Photos Exhibit 4a 11.2~11 JN 46-1~104 ~3 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CENTER Site Photos Exhibit 4b Viewiffg n~hibbrosbthe prdje~ Site from the base of the landfill. Viewing west from the project site toward the existing compost area. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CENTE ~ Site Photos 14 Exhibit 4c PALO ALTO FLOOD BASIN YACHT HARBOR EXIST PARKING EXIST TOLL EXIST MAIN BYXBEE PAR IA CLOSED PHASE IIA PALO ALTO- WATER QUALIT~. CONTROL PLANT. " SALTWATER MARSH (FORMEBLY IWI’.-PROPERTY) 13 D N S U LTIN EI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CENTER Conceptual Final Landfill Site Plan Exhibit 5 / OF SLOPE LEGEND BENCH DITCH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CENTER Proposed ESC Site Plan Exhibit 6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ’ City of PaloAlto ENVIRONNfENTAL FAcToRs POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potential.ly affected by this project, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] Aesthetics []Agridultttre [] Air Quality [] Biological Resources Resources []Cultural’[] Geology/Soils Resources Hazards & Hazardous [] Hydrology/Water[] Materials Quality [] Land Use/[]Mineral [] Noise planning Resources [] Public Services [] Recreation -[] Transportation] Traffic []Mandatory Finding of Significance [] Population]Housing []Utilities / Service Systems 17 Determination City of Palo Alto DETERMINIiTION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significanteffect on the environment a~d a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.will be prepared. X 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 ~o by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepped. I fred that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at lest one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earIier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, mid 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier.analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENV~ONMENTAL IMPACT RER_POT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to. be addressed. I find that,although the..proposed.p~gject couId have a si&~’f!~..ant effect on ._the.~nvironment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adeqnately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and .(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that eariier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing farther and ,mmunity Envirbnment Da e Datd 18 City of Palo Alto ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1.AESTttETICS Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) d) Substanffally damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings7 Create a new source Of substarttial light or glare that would adversely affect day or ni~attime views in the area? SOLU’CeS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorpo_rated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 4,5 [][][] 1,4,5 [][][][] 4,5- [][][][] 5,16 [][][][] 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts-to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With ¯ Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland~ or Farmland of Statewide Importance ~armland), 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? 2,9 [][][] [] 19 Eqvironmental Checklist Form City of Palo Alto 2. AGRICULTURAL Sources RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultura! resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Impact Would the project: c)Involve other changes in the 2, 9 [][][][] existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3.AIR QUALITY Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be. relied up on to make the following determinations. Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct - implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 4,5,8 [][][] [] b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 4, 5, 8 [][] [] 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 that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4,5,8 [] [] [] d) ~) Result in significant construction- related air quality impacts? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 4,5,8 [][][] [] 4,5,8 [][]~[] 20 Environmental Cheddist Form City of Palo Alto 3.AIR QUALITY Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Significant Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the.project: f)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 4.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated 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 1, 5 [][][][] any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the Califomia . Department offish and Game orUS Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on I, 5 [][][] 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? d) Interfere substantially with the 1, 5 [].[][] movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 21 City of Palo Alto 4.BIOLOGICAL RIgSOURCES Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Signifcant Impact Impact With . Impact Mitigation Would the project:Inco~orated e) Conflict with any local policies or I, 5 [][][][] ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an 1, 5 [][].[][] adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Nan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5.CULTURAL RESOIYR.CES Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant.Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incoi-porated a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as det-med in 15064,5? 1,5, !4 [][][][] b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological .resource pursuant to 15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1,5,14 [][][][] d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1,5,14 [][][][] Environmental Checklist Form City of Palo Alto 6.GEOLOGY AND SOILS Sources Potentially . Less Than Less q-~aan No Significant Significant .Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Would the project:Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to 1, 5, 16 potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake 1, 5, 16 fault, as delineated on the most recent Mquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?5,16 [][] iii)Seismic-related ground failure,.5,16 including liquefaction -~ iv) Landslides?5,16 [][][] b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the 1,5 loss of topsoil7 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? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 5, 14, 16 ;2_3 l~nvtronmentat ~ne~xttst ~ orm City of Pa[o Alto 7.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No IVIATERIALS Significant Significant SignifiCant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation "Would the project:Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public5, ! 5, 16 [][] or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public 5, 15 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 i, 5 hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included 1, 5 on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, ks a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport 4, 5, 16 land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [][][] [] [][][] [] [][][] [] f) For a project within the.vicinity of a 4, 5 private airstrip, would the project result in a safe~y hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [][][] [] g)Impair implementation of or physically 1, 5, 15 interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [][][] [] h) Expose people or structures to a 1, 5 ’significant. risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fares, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 24 Environmental Checklist Form CiO~ of Palo Alto 8.SourcesHYDROLO~r AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) c) e) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., fl~e production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a levelwhich would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 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 that would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute nmoffwater which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff’?. 5, 6, 10, I I, 14 ~) Potentially Significant Impact ’Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact [] [] [] [] 1,5,14 [][]. D [] 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14 4, 5, 6, I0, 11, 14 4,5,6, 10, 11, 14 [] [] Otherwise substantially degrade water 4, 5, 6, ¯ quality?! 0, ! 1, 14 [] [] [] [] [] [] 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? [] [] [] [] 1,5 [][][] [] 25 Environmental Checklist Form City of Palo Alto 8.I-IYDROLOGY AND WATER Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No QUALITY "Significant Significant Significant Impact" Impact With Impact Mitigation IncorporatedWould the project: h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 1,5 []I-1.[] [] j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 9.LAND USE AND PLANNING Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With "Impact Mitigation Would the project:Incorporated a) Physically divide an established 1, 4, 5 []D [][] community? " b) Conflict with any applicable land use I~ 2, 5,[][][] plan, policy, or regulation of an agency 13, 14 [] with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or. zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)-Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan-or natural community comervation plan? 10,MINERAL RESOURCES Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Impact Impact. Would the project: a) Result in the 10ss of’availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region ’and the residents of the state? Significant Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated 1,5= 14 [][][]~ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource ¯ recovery site delineated on a tocal general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1,5,14 [][][][] 26 City of Palo Alto 11.NOISE Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sigrtificant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Would the p roj ect result in: Incorporated Exposure of persons to or generation of 1, 3, 5,[][][][] noise levels in excess .of standards 14 established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or. groundbome noise levels? 1,5,14 [][][][] c) A substantial permanent increase in i, 3, 5,[][][][] ambient noise levels in the project 14 vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic 1, 3, 5,[][][][] increase in ambient noise levels in the 14 project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For. a project located within an airport 1, 5 [][][][] land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a 1, 5 [][][][] private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or worldng in the project area to excessive noise levels? 12.POPULATION AND HOUSING Sources ’ Potentially Less Than .Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact M2tigation Would the project:Incorporated a) Induce substantial population ~owt_h in 1, 5 [=][][][] aa area, either directly (for exampie, by proposing new homes and busbaesses) or i~directiy (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b)Displace substantial numbers ofexisling housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 27 Environmental Checldist Form City of Polo Alto POPULATION AND I-IOUSI~ Would the project: SOUTCeS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Less Than NoSignificantSignificantImpact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,5 [][][] [] 13[......PUBLIC SERVICES 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? b)Police protection? c)Schools? d)Parks? e)Other public facilities? Potentially Significant Impact Less "Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1,4,5 [][][][] 1,4,5 [][][][] 1,4,5 [][][][] 1,4,5 [][][][] 1,4,5 [][][][] 14.RECREATION Would the project: SOUrCes Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a)Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1,4,5 [][]N [] Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1,4,5 [][][] [] 28 Environmental Checklist Form City of Polo Alto 15.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic that is 4, 5, 7 [][][][] 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 4, 5, 7 UI.[][][]cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)’4, 16 [][][][]Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d)4, 16 [][][]Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,-sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate em’ergency access?I, 5 [][][][] g) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus ~mouts, bicycle racks)? 1,5 [][][][] 1,5 [][][][] 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No SYSTEMS Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment 1, 4, 5, requirements of the applicable Regional !4 Water Quality Control Board? []CI [] [] b) Require or result in the construction of 1, 4, 5 new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [] [] [] [] 29 ~’nvironmental Cl~ecklist Form City of Palo Alto 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No SYSTEMS Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Would the project: Incorporated c)1,4,5 [][][][]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 1, 4, 5,[] to serve the project from existing 14 entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? [][] [] e) Result in a determination by the 1, 4, 5,[] wastewater treatment provider that serves 14 or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? D [] [] f)Be served by a Iandfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solidwaste disposal needs? 1,4,5,[] 14 [][] [] g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid ’ waste? 1,4,5 [][][][] 3O Environmental Checklist Form City of Palo Alto 17,MANDATORY’FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE NOTE: lf there are significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated and no feasible project alternatives are available, then complete the mandatory findings of significance and attac to this initial study as an appendix. This is the first step for starting the environmental impact report (EIR) process. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impa~t With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Does the project: Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or aninaal 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? 1,4,5 [][][][] b)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)? 1,4,5 [][][] [] c)Have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1,4,5 [][][][] 31 Environmental Checklist JTorm City of Palo ,41to SOURCE REFERENCES: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 20, 1998 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning) Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 9 (Noise) Planner’s general knowledge of the project and site City of Palo Alto Public Works Department; Operations Division City of Palo Alto Public Works Department, Enviromnental Compliance Division City of Palo Alto Transportation Division BAAQMD CEQA Air Qua[ity Guidelines, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, December 1999 Santa Clara County Important Farmland 1998, California Dept. of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 1999 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Watershed Characteristics Report, Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, May 2000 Baylands Master l~lan and EIR- Pdo Alto, CaIifornic~ City of Paio Alto, May 1978 Byxbee Park, PaloAlto Baylands Update, City of Pal0 Alto, June 1991 Standardized Composting Facility Permit and Report of Composting Site Information for the Palo Alto Landfill Cbmp.osting Facility, City of Palo Alto Public Works Operations Department, August 3, 2000 Joint Technical Document, Palo Alto Landfill, Palo Alto, California, City of.Pal0 Alto Public Works Operations Department, September 1998 City of Palo Alto Recycling Center and Transfer Station Conceptual Design and Cost- . Benefit Analysis, Final Report, Brown, Vence & Associates, Inc., April 8, 1999 32 Explanation for Checklist Responses Cit~ of Palo Alto EXPLANATION FOR CHECK_LIST RESPONSES: AESTHETICS The proposed Environmental Services Center will be constructed at the existing Palo Alto Landfill site following the partial closure of the landfill. The project will be constructed in the northwest comer of the landfill, where the existing recycling center is Currently located. The project includes the relocation of the existing composting facility, which will occupy approximately half of the project site. The remaining portion will contain recycling equipment, MRF and Transfer Station buildings, containers and bins, roads and parking areas. Although the project represents a considerable expansion over the existing recycling center facility, the landfill site is not considered a scenic vista, and therefore, no impacts to scenic vistas would be created by the construction of the project, despite the inten;i:fication of use. The project site ddes not contain scenic resources, and is not visible from any designated State Scenic Highways. The proposed Environmental Services Center is consistent .with the existing recycling and composting uses at the project site. The project represents an expansion of the existing recycling activities, however, it would be located in the same general vicinity on the site as the existing recycling facility. The project would not encroach upon open space or recreational areas adjacent to the landfill site. While the project would be visible from the surrounding Byxbee .Park, the overall size of the project represents an increase of. only 1.65 acres, or approximately 11 percent from the size of the existing facility. The project includes the construction of two new buildings, however, the size of the existing ’compost facility and PASCO bin storage areas will remain the same, and the size of the existing public drop-off center will be reduced. In addition, the cessation of the curkent landfilling activities and placement of final cover over the closed landfili .modules would help offset any potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed expansion. The visual character or quality .of the site and its surroundings would therefore not be significantly diminished. The project does not propose .any substantial new sources of light orglare. The proposed Buildings will be constructed of prefabricated metal, with a non- reflective coating/painting. No nighttime operations are proposed with the project, however, any security perimeter lighting will be designed in accordance with Plannirtg Department requirements. 33 Explanation for Checklist Responses City of Palo Alto e) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The project is not located on lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The current zoning on the project site is PF(D), Public Facilities District/Site and Design. Review Combining District, and the site is not under a Williamson Act contract. The proposed recycling and eomposting facilities, are consistent with current zoning on the site, and does not involve any othe~ activities that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural~ use. o AIR QUALITY Landfill activities that have the potential to affect air quality are regulated and permitted by ’the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), pursuant to the adopted 1997. Bay area Clean Air Plan (CAP). ’ According to BAAQMD Guidelines, consistency with the CAP means that direct and indirect emissions associated with the project are accounted for in the CAP’s emission growth assumptions and-the project is consistent with policies adopted in the CAP. Since the proposed project would not generate growth, the project would not be subject to the CAP’s emission growth .assumptions. Additionally, the proposed project’s anticipated vehicular trip generation falls below that which would generate an impaet’under the~C~AP; The proposed project also is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which is, in turn, consistent with the 1997 CAP. As a result, the proposedproject is consistent with the 1997 CAP. No impacts would result. Applicable air quality criteria for evaluation of the project’s impacts are federal air pollutant standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and reported as National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS), and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which ar( equal to or more stringent than the federal standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) coordinates and oversees both state and federal air quality control programs ill California. Santa Clara County is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. For ozone (O3), the San Francisco Bay Air Basin is currently classified as a "n0n-attainment" by both state federal standards. For particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM~0), the San Francisco Bay Air Basin is currently designated as a "non-attainment" area by state and federal standards. State and federal standards. designate all other criteria pollutants as "attainment" or "unclassified". 34 F~planation for Checklist Responses City of Palo Alto Ozone in the lower atmosphere is one of the main components of smog. It is not directly emitted but is formed in the atmosphere over several hours from combinations of various precursors in the presence of- sunlight. Nitrogen oxides (NOx and /or NO2) are considered to be among the primary compounds, or precursors, contributing to the formation of ozone. Ozone is viewed as both a secondary pollutant and a regional pollutant. Potential sourcesof NO~ fNO2 associated with tlie project include on .and off-site mobile emissions generated by motor vehicles (cars, tracks, loaders, etc.), and on-site stationary emissions generated by operational equipment (grinder, screener, etc.). Because the activity levels of the mobile and stationary, sources of NOx/NO2 are not anticipated to increase significantly beyond the existing conditions with the project, the potential impact would not be significant. To help reduce Qn-site mobile NOx emissions, however, the site operhtor will maintain all on-site recycling, resource recove13, and composting operations mobile and stationary equipment according ’to the manufacturer’s specifications. Construction equipment and operations would emit dust fine particulate matter (PM~0) and exhaust, but the concentrations .of these emissions are rtot anticipated to be substantial, and .would be similar to existingsite grading operations at the landfill. Short-term dust emissions would result from construction and grading of the expandedrecycling center facility area. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, revised through December 1999, identify thresholds of significance for 9ons .truction-related PMl0 emissions. The threshold for PM~0 is 51 pounds per acre, per day. To reduce potentially significant PM~0 impacts related to ’the construction and on-going operations, the project will incorporate standard dust control measures such as stipulated by BAAQMD. Those-measures are shown below: . All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. The frequency shall be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure. All grading activities shall be prohibited during periods of high wind (over 25 miles per hour). All trucks hauling di~t,-sand, or loose materials on ~ublic roads shall be covered. A publicly visible sign shall be posted which specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number Of the BAAQMD shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance). Incorporation of these measures during the temporary construction!grading phase of the project will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 35 e) F_.xplanatibn for Checklist Responses Cit~ of Palo Alto Composting operations are closely monitored and regulated by the Local Enforcement Authority (LEA) and the BAAQMD for PM10. Composting activities that have the potential to generate PMm consist of feedstock grinding, windrow turning and screening. A grinder is used for feedstock grinding. BAAQMD has issued a permit .to operate the grinder that includes specific conditions to’ mitigate air quality impacts, The BAAQMD conditions are as follows: All seven water sprays shall be fully functioning and used at all times (the grinder) is operating. 2.Visible particulate emissions from (the grinder) shall not exceed Ringelmann #0.5. o Failure of (the grinder) to comply with Condition #2 shall require the installation of additional water sprays or other abatement devices, as deemed necessary by the APCO. Water is applied to the greenwaste material on an as-needed basis during the windrow turning and compost screening operations. Other composting activities do not produce appreciable amounts of dust (PMao) due to the nature and/or moisture content of the materials. The application of water during the feedstock grinding, windrow turning and screening processes will further reduce air quality impacts. Short-term PMm emissions would-result from Construction and grading of the expanded recycling center facility area. In addition, construction and operation of the proposed project would generate on-site mobile NOx emissions. However, the levels of these criteria pollutants produced are not anticipated to result in a cumulatively considerable increase. The project would generate PMm emissions during the construction and grading phases. However, the concentrations of these emissions are not anticipated to be substantial, and would be similar to existing site grading operations at the landfill. The project will incorporate standard dust control measures such as stipulated by BAAQMD,.which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. The project is located at the Palo Alto Landfill. There are no sensitive receptors (i.e. those for whom air pollutants pose health problems, including children, the elderly and the sick) located within the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest residential neighbgrhood is approximately one mile west of the site. The project could create objectionable odors associated with the proposed composting and transfer station operations, however, odors are controlled by operational procedures, which will be included in theproject These measures include processing al! incoming materials in a timely manner. Processed green 36 Explanation for Checklist Responses City of Palo Alto waste feedstock is incorporated within 48 hour~s, adequately blended and turned to ensure desired carbon to nitrogen and oxygen levels, and watered to provide sufficient moisture for decomposition, processes. In addition, good housekeeping is maintained between the windrows at all.times. The proposed transfer station facility could potentially generate o.dors, however, the facility will be enclosed within a building, and daily maintenance is expected to further reduce potential odor-related impacts. In addition, the. remote location of the compost and transfer station facilities and lack of sensitive receptors in the vicinity inhibits the exposure of objectionable odors. Therefore, less than significant impacts will result. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Palo Alto Landfill is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve. The Preserve encompasses the San Francisco Bay Shoreline areas east of US 101 between the cities of East Palo Alto and Mountain View. The City of Palo Alto has maintained and managed this open space for recreation- mad wildlife habitat preservation since the 1920s. The 2,100-acre Preserve is the largest tract of undisturbed marshiand remaining in the San Francisco Bay, and contains a unique mixture of tidal and freshwater habitats supporting a variety of plant and animal communities and a number of threatened and endangered species. The Mayfield Slough, located adjacent to the landfill site, is also included within the Preserve. Several sensitive species, including the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and the Burrowing Owl, have been identified in the areas surrounding the landfill site. The project;however, is proposed to be constructed within the existing landfill and City property boundary, on land that has been previously filled or developed for the current recycling center and drop-off area. There is no sensitive species habitat present on the project site. Therefore, the proposed expansion of uses and intensification of activity on the site will not have a substantial-adverse effect on biological resources. The project proposes the removal of several existing mature eucalyptus trees, located adjacent to the Water Quality Control Plant, along the project site’s northwestern boundary. The trees are not considered "Regulated Trees", as defined in the City’s Tree Technical Manual (Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030), and are therefore not subject to the City’s removal permit requirements. The loss of the trees will be offset by landscaping that will be installed on the site with the project. CULTURAL RESOURCES The Palo Alto Landfill is located in an area of low archaeological sensitivity, and does not contain any identified archaeological, historical or paleontological resources. The project is proposed to be constructed on previously filled or developed land within the existing landfil! and Ciff property. As there wil! be no 37 Explanation for ChecMist Responses City of Palo Alto removal of existing structures or disturbance of native soil on the site, no significant impacts to historical, archaeo!ogical, or paleontological resources will occu.r. e) GEOLOGY AND SOILS The project site lies within the City of Palo Alto in Santa Clara Valley, which is transected by.the San Andreas and Calaveras fault zones. Santa Clara Valley, situated between the northwest-trending Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and the Diablo Range to the east, is in the shape of a large trough that has been filled by sediments largely shed from these adjacent mountain ranges. The Santa Clara Valley is principally underlain by stream-deposited alluvium of the Quaternary period (approximately 2 million years ago to present) consisting of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. These deposits are loose~ generally unconsolidated materials deposited by erosional processes, and extend to well below 1,000 feet ia~ the deepest areas of the valley, though are only about 200 feet deep in the vicinity of the project site. The younger alluvium primarily consists of unconsolidated sand, gravel, silt, and clay created by coalescing alluvial plains, outwash plain deposits, and fine-grained marine clays. Coarse-grained sediments were deposited by bifurcating and braided stream channels, and ale believed to comprise only 10 to 15 percent of the shallow subsurface soils. The. nearest and most dangerous active fault is the San Andreas, located approximately 8.1 miles southwest of the site. There .are no active-faults on the )roject site; however, and therefore no impacts woulffresult fxom’ofault rupture. Because o’f the proximity of the San Andreas Fault, which is believed to be capable of producing a magnitude 8.4 eai-thquake, the site is mapped as being within a zone of violent ground stiaking on Map N-10 (Ground Shaking Potential) in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed structures will be subject to current building code standards, however, that would reduce potential seismic-related impacts to a less than significant level. The project site is mapped as having a high potential for liquefaction on Map N-5 (Geotechnieal Hazards) in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. As with the seismic-induced ground shaking hazard, conformance of the proposed buildings to the Safety standards of the building code will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Potential impacts due to existing expansive soils underlying the site Will also be mitigated by conformance to building code standards. The site Contains no native topsoil, and is therefore not susceptible to erosion. There are no identified landslide hazards on the site; There are no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems proposed with the proj.’ect. 38 a-b) Explanation for ChecMist Responses City of Palo Alto HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The project includes the construction of a pemaanent Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) facility, which will accept recyclable household hazardous wastes clxopped off by the public. The permanent HttW facility has been identified in the City’s Household Hazardous Waste Element submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) as a medium-term planning alternative. Wastes accepted will include: flammable wastes (including solvents, .fuels,: aerosols, and paints); pesticides (including fungicides, insecticides and herbicides); corrosives (acids and bases, including ammonia base cleaners, caustic sodas, oven cleaners, lye, and non-oxidizing acids); oxidizers (including bleach, peroxides, pool chlorine and acids); mercury wastes (such as fluorescent light tubes, and thermometers/thermostats); other toxic and hazardous wastes (including asbestos and PCB light ballasts). Auto batteries; householA batteries, used oil filters; waste motor oil; and antifreeze will continue to be accepted at the Recycling Center. The HHW facility will consist of a building with a canbpy for additional covered working area, and will be.fenced and gated, with a driveway and parking spaces provided for vehicle access. Landscaping will separate the facility from the ESC access road. Construction of the facility will. support the Comprehensive Plan’s Hazardous Waste policies and programs, which encourage the City’s. continued sponsorship of {egular household hazardous waste collection events. The collection and storage of hazardous waste materials presents a potential danger to the health and safety of workers at the facility, as well as to the genera! .public, and poses a potential threat to the environment. Current landfill regulations governing the site allow the storage of I-IHW on the site for up to one year. However, improper storage and handling of toxic materials could result in releases into the air or nearby waterways that could be harmful to on-site personnel,- visitors to the site, users of the adjacent recreational facilities, and local fish and wildlife habitat. The City of Palo Alto estimates that.approximately 100 to 125 tons of HHW will be collected at the facility per year, with a maximum of 10 to 25 tons of being stored on the site at any one time. The waste is shipped off- site on a monthly or quarterly basis. Implementation of the tbllowing mitigation measure, which is consistent with the current operational and maintenance practices at the existing landfill, will reduce potential impacts related to public or environmental hazards to less than significant levels: ¯ RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURE HM-1) All hazardous material storage and use areas shall be maintained and operated to minimizethe possibility of fire, explosion, or any unplanned sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous materials or wastes to air, soil, or surface 39 Explanation for Checklist Responses City of.Palo Alto water that could, threaten human health or the environment. Measures taken shall include but not be limited to: Use, accumulation, packaging and storage of hazardous materials and wastes in designated areas only; Handling of hazardous materials and wastes in the prescribed manner only; Use of personal protective equipment appropriate to the materials and wastes being handled; Maintaining all emergency response equipment in usable condition; Maintaining access to emergency response equipment at all times; Use of only authorized personnel trained to handle specific hazardous materials and wastes; and Conducting weekly inspections of hazardous waste storage and accumulation areas. There are no existing or planned schools within ¼ mile of the project site, The project is not located on an identified hazardous materials site. The Palo Alto Landfill is located approximately N-mile south of the Palo Alto Municipal Airport. The project includes the erection of two prefabricated metal buildings, the largest of which, the Recycling Center/MtkF/Transfer Station building, has a maximum height, of 50 feet, which is lower than the existing landfill’s maximum height Of 60 feet. The buildings would not pose a safety hazard to aircraft approaching the airport, nor would the construction of the project create any airport-related safety hazards for on-site employees. Embarcadero Road is designated as a Primary Evacuation Route in the Comprehensive Plan, and would be the principal ingress and egress .route in the event of an emergency in the Palo Alto Baylands area: The proposed vehicle circulation for the ESC allows several access points into and out of the facility from Embarcadero Road. The proposed circulation pattern is similar to the existing configuration, and would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The project site is not located in a designated fire hazard area. tIYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY In 1987, Congress recognized the potential adverse effects of urban runoff on water quality and amended the Clean Water Act to require that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES.) permits be obtained for urban stormwater discharges.. Permits require their holders to carry out State-approved management plans, designed to control contaminants to the "maximum extent practicable’.’. The plans typically call fo~ a broad range of best management practices (BMPs), primarily 40 b) Explanation for Checklist Responses City of Palo Alto non-structural measures such as street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, litter control and public education programs.. Area-wide NPDES permits to discharge stormwater from urban areas in Santa Clara County have been issued and reissued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) since 1990. The City of Pale Alto is one of fifteen co-permittees comprising the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), to whom the general permits have been issued. The other co- permittees consist of other municipalities within the valley, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the County of Santa Clara. To fulfill its obligations under the SCVURPPP, the City of Pale Alto developed its Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, which contains implementation strategies and specific performance standards to address stormwater pollution prevention in the following areas: 1) illicit connections/illegal dumping;. 2) industrial/commercial dischargers; 3) public streets and roadways; 4) storm drain system operation and maintenance; 4) water utility operation and maintenance; 5) new development and construction controls/planning procedures; 6) pesticide, mercury and sediment control measures; and 7) corporation yards operation and maintenance. The project will be required to apply for coverage under the general permit in effect at the time the project is constructed by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Regional Board, and preparing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP is intended to identify direct or indirect stonnwater discharges to State waters, identify pollutant sources, and develop and implement BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges.The SWPPP is also a requirement for obtaining a grading permit from the City. The project has the potential to generate polluted runoff from uncovered impervi.ous Surface areas within the proposed resource recovery operations area, and from the composting .operation. The proposed uncovered grinding area and compost stockpiles could be potential sources of runoff pollution. Contaminants from residential and commercial landscaping, including fertilizer,, pesticide and herbicide residue could be present in the green waste material, and could be conveyed by stormwater to the Bay during storm events. The .implementation of stormwater BMPs identified in the SWPPP and monitoring of runoff toxicity levels, however, would i-educe the potential impacts tO less than significant levels. The project would not impact the local water supply, as the landfill site utilizes reclaimed water from the adjacent Pale Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Because the landfill is not located in an identified groundwater recharge area, construction of the project will have no impact on groundwater recharge. The existing drainage pattern on the site will not be substantially altered with the development of the project, and no substantial on-site or off-site erosion or siltation will result. The project will be constructed on top of the closed landfill, which will ’have been sequentially re-contoured as the landfill modules filled and were covered. There are no naturally occurring waterways on the site, and the project itself proposes no grading. The project would not increase the amount of impervious surface area to 41 J) Explonation for Checklist Responses City of Polo Alto the extent that it will increase on-site or off-site flooding, or generate substantial amounts ofpolluted runoff. The project does not include the construction of any housing, although the project, site is located within a 100-Year flood zone, as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map and Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed structures will be designed and constructed so as not to redirect or impede flood flows, in accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s grading ordinance and/or building permit requirements. As the site is located in a FEMA Flood Zone "AE", and would be subject to inundation if overtopping or failure of bayfront levees occurred, the proposedstructures will be constructed in conformance with FEMA standards for structures located in such areas. People working or doing business at the facility would be exposed to potential flood hazards in the event of a 100-year flood. However, as discussed in the previous paragraph, on-site structures will be donstructed in conformance with applicable . safety requirements to minimize risk to human safety. The site is not located in an. area susceptible to seiche, tsunami or mudflow hazards, LAND USE AND PLANNING The project would not physically divide an established community, as it is located within the existing Palo Alto Landfill. , ...... The project is consistent with the .current zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations for the site. The project is also consistent with the Solid Waste goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including Policy #34, which states: "Reduce the amount of waste disposed in the City’s landfill by reducing the amount of waste generated and promoting the cost-effective reuse of materials that would otherwise be placed in a landfill. "’ In addition to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, the project is consistent with the Master Plan for Byxbee Landfill Park, which anticipated the continuation of the existing recycling operation.s on the site. The ESC facility is an expansion of the Recycling Center identified in the June 1991Byxbee Park.Pdtlo Alto Baylands Update. This plan was an update to the Byxbee Landfill Park Polo Alto Bcrylands Park Conversion Plan and Program Phase One Design Element, prepared, in 1981. The original intended post-closure usage of the majority of the landfill was to convert the landfill to a passive park (expansion of Byxbee Park),. with a small (approximately 3.5 acre) recycling drop-off center located at the northern border of the landfill. Under the proposed project, .approximately. 17.5 acres is required for the ESCI This may result in revisions to the Byxbee Park PaIo Alto Baylands Update and Landfill Closure 42 Explanation for Checklist Responses City of Palo Alto Grading Plan (see Exhibit 5, Conceptual Final Landfill Site Plan). Expansion of the ESC will not result in any loss of trails or other park functions. c)The project represents an expansion of the existing resource recovery operations on the site, and would not conflict with any habitat conservation or natural communi~ conservation plans, 10.MINERAL RESOURCES a-b)There are no known mineral resources at the landfill site, which has been used for solid waste disposal since the 1930’s. The proj oct would not expand the proposed resource recovery operations beyond the boundaries of the existing landfill. 11.NOISE a-d)The City of Palo Alt~ Noise. Ordinance requires that noise levels produced on public property not exceed the local ambient noise levels by more than fifteen decibels at a distance of twenty-five feet or more. The project is not expected to exceed this threshold, as the amount of noise-generating equipment proposed with the project would not be substantially greater than the equipment currently Used at the landfill site. Existing on-site noise sources associated with .the !andfill operations include a track-type bulldozer and a paddlewheel scraper. The existing comp0sting equipment includes a grinder, wheeled loader, a windrow turner, a trommel screener and a water track. The recychng operation uses a mechanical processing line for sorting, recyclable materials, a bobcat loader and a forklift. The proposed ESC, which would be in operation following the closure of the. landfill, would use the same equipment as the current operations, without the landfill-related vehicles (bulldozer. and scraper). The composting operation would not be expanded with the project, and no additional equipment wo .uld be required. Some additional stationary equipment would be required for the operations conducted within the proposed recycling building, such as a baler, but enclosure within the building would reduce the amount of noise to the o,utside. Additional mobile equipment would include a sweeper, and possibly, a fuel truck. Traffic noise from commercial and self-haul vehicles is not expected to significantly increase beyond existing levels, as the amount ofvehicl6 traffic resulting from the project will be less than the existing condition. (see Section XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC) Because there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site, and most of the machinery would be operated intermittently, for up to a .maximum of eight hours per day, the project is not expected to violate any .established noise standards, create impacts related to ground borne vibration or noise, or create impacts related to sustained or periodic increases in the ambient noise levels. 43 Explanation for Checklist Responses City of Pa[o Alto The project site is located within ½ mile of the Palo Alto Municipal Airport. The existing noise levels are not considered excessive, however. The ambient exterior noise level at the site is approximately 60 db Ldn, which is below the land use compatibility threshold .of 70 db Ld, for industrial uses, as shown in the Comp?ehensive Plan. T1~erefore, no .significant impacts to workers at the project site will result. b-c) POPULATION AND I-IOUSING Construction of the ESC will not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth. ¯ The project site is located within the boundaries of the Palo Alto Landfill, and will not displace, any existing housing or residents, nor create the need to construct replacement housing. PUBLIC SERVICES The project will not increase, the demand for :public services such as ~re and police protection, s.chools or parks. RECREATION The project site is located within the Palo .Alto Landfill, the majority of which will be converted upon its closure to a passive recreation area, in conformance with the Master Plan for Byxbee Landfi!l Park. As discussed under Section IX.b, th~ Master Plan is anticipated to be updated to include the proposed ESC project and corresponding reduction in open space acreage from the existing Master Plan. TRANSP ORTATIONFrRAFFIC The project would not cause a substantial increase in traffic on the local roadway system, or result in an exceedance of the level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency. The project would result in a slight increase in the overall number of vehicles traveling to and from the site, as compared with existing landfill and recycling center traffic volumes. The intersection that would be the most directly affected by project traffic is the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road, located approximately 1/2-mile west of the site. As Embarcadero Road provides the only access to the site from US 101 and the rest of Palo Alto west of US 101, all 44 c-e) f-g) . Explanation for Checklist Responses City of Palo Alto project traffic would pass through the intersection. Ttie City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan identifies this intersection as a Key Intersection to be Monitored for Growth Management, in association with the East Bayshore and Edgewood Plaza Growth Monitoring Areas. Project traffic is estimated to be generated from transfer tmcks, drop-offs at the household hazardous waste facility, and the inert solids recycling facility. The site currently receives approximately. 36,000 tons of refuse per year, which equals approximately 4 transfer trucks per day, based on the truck capacity of 24 tons. The estimated peak vehicle traffic for the ESC is 430 vehicles per day, consisting of 16 public self-haul and 75 contract hauler green waste trips, 14 contract hauler curbside recyclables trips, and 325 self-haul drop-off recyclables trips (Brown, Vence & Associates, Inc.). The Palo Alto Public Works Department estimates that up to approximately 6 additional transfer trucks per day would be generated by the project, assuming the closure of the SMART station in 2021. This estimate is based on the additional .5.4,000 tons of refuse per year that would be re-routed to the proposed transfer station. The mount of traffic generated by the household hazardous waste facility is estimated to be approximately 10 to 20 vehicles per day, based on the representative amount of vehicles from the HHW Collection Program currently existing and operating at the adjacent Water Quality Control Plant. The amount of traffic generated by the proposed inert solids storage and recycling facility is not expected be .significant, as it will function primarily as a storage area, with only occasional delivery and export of material, and no actual on-site processing operations propoSed~ . The project is estimated to increase the amount of vehicles traveling to and f~om the site by approximately 6 - 8 total vehicles, including traffic from the inert materials facility. This amount of traffic is not expected to have a significant impact on the local roadway system, including the Embarcadero Road/East Bayshore Drive intersection. Theproject site is located in close proximity to the Palo Alto Municipal Airport. However, the. project does not involve any activities that would result in a change in air traffic patterns. The project does not propose any changes to existing .roadway configurations, or propose any incompatible uses. Emergency’ access will not be affected by the project. The project is designed to provide-adequate parking for ESC employees, commercial and self-haul vehicles. The proposed project would not affect existing hiking and/or bicycle trails in the vicinity of the site, or conflict with any other policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. No impacts would result. 45 Explanation for Checklist Responses City of Palo Alto UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The project would not generate the need for additi~)nal wastewater .treatment, stormwater or water facilities. Sufficient water and wastewater-treatment are available to serve the project. Sufficient landfill capacity is expected to be available for the disposal of residual amounts of Waste generated by the project. The project will Operate in conformance with the required Solid Waste Facilities Permits and Standardized Composting Permits issued by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, as well as with N-PDES Permit requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and all other applicable regu.latory agency permitting requirements. b) c). MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project site is entirely contained within the existing landfill. There will be no direct impacts to any surrounding .~ensitive habitat that could result from expansion of resource recovery activities beyond the landfill boundaries. Potential indirect impacts to plants and animals, such as noise, air quality and water quality have been determined to be less than significant, or will be reduced to less than significant through the incorporation of mitigation measures described in this report. ’, . ¯ The project would not create-cumulatively considerable impacts, as. there are no other current or platmed projects in the vicinity of the project site. The project would be operational after the closure of the existing surrounding landfill, which would revert to open space and passive recreational uses that are consistent and compatible with the surrounding Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve: The project will not create substantial adverse direct or indirect effects on human beings, for tlle reasons stated in a), above. 46 ATTACHMENT PROJECT DES CRIPTION 1). Revision to the Baylands Master Plan/Byxbee Park Master. Plan to change the configuration and contours of the Park and 2). ai1 subsequent local and outside agency development approvals to allow the construction of an integrated and multifunctional Environmental Services Center, consisting of a compost facility,, a recycling drop-off/processing center, a permanent household hazardous waste facility, a material recovery facility/trartsfer statiort, a bin storage area, and an inert solids storage area for on or off-site recycling. The City currently operates a compost facility, a drop-off/recycling center, inert storage area, and a bin storag~ area at the project site.