HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-15 City Council (3)TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
5c
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
NOVEMBER 15, 2004 CMR:471:04
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH EIP ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT
OF $368,257 FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND COST
BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES CENTER FACILITY OPTIONS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the attached agreement with EIP Associates, in
an amount not to exceed $368,257, for basic services to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) and Cost Benefit Analysis for the various facility options of the proposed
Environmental Services Center (ESC).
Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and authorize EIP Associates to
perform additional services related to preparation of the EIR and Cost Benefit Analysis, the
total value of which shall not exceed 20% of the basic services contract amount ($73,652).
DISCUSSION
Proiect Description
On August 2, 2004, Council approved the draft Scope of Services to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report and cost benefit analysis for the proposed Environmental Services Center (ESC) and a
range of various facility options and alternatives.
In order to provide continuity for waste diversion activities and solid waste services currently in
operation under the City’s many solid waste programs, staff has proposed development of a
comprehensive ESC project (CMR: 176:04).
The concept of the proposed comprehensive ESC is an integrated multi-functional solid waste
facility that would house a recycling center; a permanent household hazardous waste facility (only
household hazardous waste from residents and small businesses, will be accepted; no hazardous
waste from businesses in the category of "generators" or "large quantity generators" will be
accepted); a material recovery facility/transfer station; a composting facility; an inert solids storage
facility; and an area for drop box/bin storage, all within the landfill boundary immediately adjacent to
the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP). The comprehensive 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 could be set aside for public
education purposes for solid waste and environmental concerns.
CMR:471:04 Page 1 of 6
The proposed comprehensive ESC would require approximately 19 acres at the landfill. Staff
believes that the comprehensive Esc facility provides many long-term benefits and is the most
complete solution to the future solid waste needs of the community. The facility would allow for the
seamless continuance of current programs, and also provide the necessary infrastructure and
resources to develop and implement future programs. Voter approval will be required to change the
land use designation of these 19 acres from dedicated parkland, if the landfill is approved as the site
for the ESC.
EIR Scope of Services
The EIR will evaluate the environmental impacts and the policy issues of locating the comprehensive
ESC and its various facility options, which includes two reduced-size options, at the closed landfill
and feasible alternative sites. The EIR will evaluate potential environmental impacts of the facility
options on existing physical conditions as baseline for project-induced changes and their consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan. The EIR will also provide an analysis and discussion of impacts of
the proposed comprehensive ESC using the future "as planned" condition as envisioned in the
Baylands Master Plan.
In addition to the proposed comprehensive ESC facility project, five alternatives have been
identified. At its May 19, meeting, Council directed staff to consider all feasible alternatives,
including a no project alternative, in addition to those already identified in the original scope of work
for the EIR. Council also directed staff to develop and investigate feasible alternatives for review as
appropriate, including facility sites not in the Baylands and not on dedicated parkland. The
following alternatives will be fully developed and analyzed in the EIR and Cost Benefit Analysis:
No Proiect Alternative
Once the landfill is closed, the landfill would be converted to a passive recreational parkland
in accordance with the Baylands Master Plan. In this eventuality, recyclable materials and
garbage that is collected curbside, drop-offrecycling 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. The EIR will fully
evaluate the environmental impacts of this alternative.
Reduced-Scale ESC Alternative
The reduced scale ESC 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, and a mini "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. This option would
also require voter approval to undedicate six acres of parkland.
Recycling Center and HHW Facility Alternative
The Recycling Center with HHW facility would encompass approximately 3 to 3.5 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. All other materials and waste,
CMR:471:04 Page 2 of 6
including self-haul by residents and businesses, would need to be taken to the SMART
Station or other regional waste disposal facilities. This alternative would not include a
transfer station or composting facility. It would also require voter approval to undedicate
parkland. This alternative is mentioned for future program expansion in the Byxbee Park
Master Plan.
Location and Split-Site Altematives
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. This alternative would require all waste be
sent to the SMART Station since the site could only accommodate a 4.5-acre drop-off
recycling and HHW facility. The City would also have to purchase the remaining one-half
interest in the property from Los Altos. In addition to the LATP location alternative, the
consultant will review other feasible split-site alternatives during the EIR process.
Non-Baylands/Parkland Alternatives
Also included in the EIR and cost benefit analysis will be a thorough review of feasible sites
not in the Baylands and not on dedicated parkland as directed by Council. Any feasible sites
meeting these criteria will be fully developed.
Staffalso recommends including a 20% contingency, to be used for additional related servicesin the
event another alternative(s) is identified in future Council or EIR scoping meetings. This
contingency would also be used if major revisions to the administrative draft EIR are needed, for
additional mitigation plans, or for responses to questions and comments if they exceed the proposal
limit of 160.
Consultant Selection
Proposal Description/Number
Summary of Solicitation Process
EIR for Proposed Environmental Services Center RFP
Proposed Length of Project
Number of Proposals Mailed
Total Days to Respond to Proposal
Pre-proposal Meeting Date
Number of Company Attendees at
Pre-proposal Meeting
Number of Proposals Received:
Company Name
No. 106508
24 months
13
22
September 29, 2004
9
4
Location (City, State)
Thomas Reed Associates
RBF Consulting
EIP Associates
J. D. Powers Associates
Selected
interview?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
for oral
1. Company A
2. Company B
3. Company C
4. Company D
Staff sent a request for proposals (RFP) to thirteen (13) consulting firms and posted the RFP at City
Hall on September 14, 2004. A mandatory pre-proposal meeting was held on September 29, 2004.
Firms were given twenty-two days to respond to the request. A total of four firms submitted
CMR:471:04 Page 3 of 6
proposals on October 5, 2004. A selection advisory committee of Public Works and Planning
Department staff experienced with the CEQA process, EIR and cost benefit analysis preparation
reviewed the proposals. The selection committee individually interviewed the four proposing firms
on October 13-14, 2004. The committee carefully reviewed each firm’ s qualifications and submittal
in response to the RFP relative to the following criteria:
Attendance at the pre-proposal conference;
Response to questions on proposed approach to the preparation of the ESC EIR during the
interview meeting,
Understanding of the RFP and the proposed project;
Evaluation of experience and qualifications of the company and the proposed project team;
Verification of client references for experience in EIR and cost benefit analysis especially as it
relates to solid waste facility projects;
Examination of each firm’s previous work on EIR and cost benefit analysis preparation; and
Overall proposal quality and completeness.
EIP Associates was selected because of its high quality work, professional manner, impartial
approach to the project, and its experience facilitating public informational and scoping meetings. In
addition, staffbelieves that EIP’s EIR, solid waste facility, and cost benefit analysis experience, its
ability to meet the criteria established in the RFP, and the reasonableness of its proposed fees relative
to the services provided were superior to the three other firms proposing on the project.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for this project are included in the FY 2004-05 Refuse Fund Budget.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The City’s Sustainability Policy and Comprehensive Plan contain many programs and policy
statements that are consistent with the long-term solid waste planning goals and objectives of the
ESC. A summary of the programs and policies of the Sustainability Policy and Comprehensive
Plans, and local, state, and federal mandates are listed below.
The Palo Alto Sustainability Policy contains the following elements:
Palo Alto Sustainability Policy
The Palo Alto Sustainability Policy mission is "To meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The goal of the
Sustainability Policy is to reduce the amount of solid waste generated and ensure that which is
generated is recycled or efficiently disposed in an environmentally safe manner.
Solid and hazardous waste objectives:
®
®
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.
Purchase products, if practical and feasible, which have been made with recycled content.
Manage hazardous waste in a safe manner with a priority of using recycling and energy
extraction methods first and landfilling methods last.
CMR:471:04 Page 4 of 6
¯Eliminate, if practical and feasible, waste generated within the community.
o Eliminate, if practical and feasible, the use of hazardous or toxic materials that, when used,
generate hazardous waste.
Economic Vitality
Work to maintain diversity in economic sectors to weather economic fluctuations and
provide needed goods and services required to meet community needs.
Energy
¯To maintain health and safety for residents and City staff.
Land Use
¯Encourage sustainable development.
¯Require sustainable development.
¯A process to create sustainable development balanced with open space goals.
Transportation
To provide accessible, attractive, and economically viable and environmentalist sound
transportation options that meets the needs of residents, employers, employees and visitors
for safe, convenient and efficient travel by a variety of methods.
Reduce vehicle trips.
In addition to the Sustainability Policy, the City’s Comprehensive contains the following policies:
Comprehensive Plan Policies
Natural Environment-Solid and Hazardous Waste
N-34: Reduce the amount of solid 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.
N-37: Ensure the environmentally sound disposal of solid waste.
N-52 Improve City composting practices and continue promoting a household composting
program.
N-53 Continue to develop source separation programs for recyclable solid waste materials for all
waste generators.
N-54 Continue to develop long-term solid waste management programs that include safe and
environmentally sound disposal methods such as the SMART Station.
N-55 Maintain and expand the use of the Recycling Center at the City’s refuse disposal area.
N-48 Continue sponsoring a regular household hazardous waste collection event.
N-50:Continue the program that allows small quantity generators to dispose of hazardous waste at
cost.
Land Use & Community Design
L-57: Encourage salvage of discarded historic building materials.
L-74: Use the work of artists, craftspeople, architects, and landscape architects in the design and
improvement of public spaces.
Transportation-Reducing Auto Use
T-3’Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto
use at both local and regional levels.
CMR:471:04 Page 5 of 6
T-40:Evaluate the feasibility of changes to Palo alto’s through truck routes and weight limits to
consider such issues as relationship to neighboring jurisdictions, lower weight limits,’
increased number of routes, and economic and environmental impacts.
Community Services & Facilities
C-22: Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure
adaptability to the changing needs of the community.
Explore ways to expand the space available in the community for art exhibits, classes and
other cultural activities.
Strategically locate public facilities and parks to serve all neighborhoods in the City.
The following local, state, and federal mandates that are consistent with the objectives of the ESC
are listed below.
Palo Alto Municipal Code (5.20.270)
The City will maintain within the City’s territorial limits a recycling center that accepts from
residents .and non-residents the delivery of recyclable materials.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of a contract to prepare an EIR and cost benefit analysis is exempt from review under CEQA
as information gathering pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15306.
Planning and Community Environment Staff has developed an informational CMR that provides
context for the some of the land use issues surrounding the proposed comprehensive ESC. That
CMR presents comparisons of the Baylands Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan Policies in a
matrix table format.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
SEfi’N KENNEDtg /) ,
GLI~NN S. ROBERTS
Assist~t ~iW Manager
CMR:471:04 Page 6 of 6
CONTRACT NO.
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
EIP ASSOCIATES
FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
This Contract No.is entered into
, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered
City and a municipal corporation of the State of California
("CITY"), and EIP Associates, a California corporation, located at
353 Sacramento Street, Ste. i000,San Francisco,CA 94111
("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS~
WHEREAS, CITY desires certain professional services
("Services") in connection with the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report and Cost Benefit Analysis for the Proposed
Environment Services Center Facility Options at the Palo Alto
Landfill and Alternatives ("Project"), as more fully described in
Exhibit ~A"; and
WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage CONSULTANT, including its
employees, if any, in providing the Services by reason of its
qualifications and experience in performing the Services, and
CONSULTANT has offered to complete the Project on the terms and in
the manner set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms,
conditions, and provisions of this Contract, the parties agree:
SECTION i. TERM
i.i This Contract will commence on the date of its
execution by CITY; and will terminate upon the completion of the
Project, unless this Contract is earlier terminated by CITY. Upon
the receipt of CITY’s notice to proceed, CONSULTANT will commence
work on the initial and subsequent Project tasks in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibit ~B". Time is of the essence
of this Contract. In the event that the Project is not completed
within the time required through any fault of CONSULTANT, CITY’s
city manager will have the option of extending the time schedule
for any period of time. CONSULTANT shall not be responsible.for
delays arising from circumstances beyond its control. ~his
provision will not preclude the recovery of damages for delay
caused by CONSULTANT.
SECTION 2.SCOPE OF PROJECT; CHANGES & CORRECTIONS
2.1 CONSULTANT shall perform the Services in accordance
with the scope of work attached as Exhibit ~A" ("Basic Services").
041109 sm 0100312
2.2 CITY may order substantial changes in the scope or
character of the Project, either decreasing or increasing the
amount of work required of CONSULTANT. In the event that such
changes are ordered, subject to the approval of CITY’s City
Council, as may be required, CONSULTANT will be entitled to full
compensation for all work performed prior to CONSULTANT’s receipt
of the notice of change and further will be entitled to an
extension of the time schedule. Any increase in compensation for
substantial changes will be determined in accordance with the
additional services provisions of this Contract. CITY will not be
liable for the cost or payment of any change in work, unless the
amount of additional compensation attributable to the change in
work is agreed to, in writing, by CITY before CONSULTANT commences
the performance of any such change in work.
2.3 Any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in
the Project documentation prepared by CONSULTANT, which are
discovered by CITY will be corrected by CONSULTANT at no cost to
CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT.
SECTION 3. QUALIFICATIONS, STATUS, AND DUTIES OF
CONSULTANT
3.1 CONSULTANT represents andwarrants that it has the
expertise and professional qualifications to furnish or cause to be
furnished the Services. CONSULTANT further represents and warrants
that the project director and every individual, including any
consultant (or contractors), charged with the performance of the
Services are duly licensed or certified by the State of California,
to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law to
perform the Services, and that the Project will be executed by them
or under their supervision. CONSULTANT will furnish to CITY for
approval, prior to execution of this Contract, a list of all
individuals and the names of their employers or principals to be
employed as consultants.
3.2 In reliance on the representations and warranties
set forth in this Contract, CITY hires CONSULTANT to execute, and
CONSULTANT covenants and agrees that it will execute or cause to be
executed, the Project.
3.3 CONSULTANT will assign Rodney Jeung as the project
director to have supervisory responsibility for the performance,
progress, and execution of the Project. Trixie Martelino will be
assigned as the project coordinator who will represent CONSULTANT
during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances or
conditions subsequent to the execution of this Contract cause the
substitution of the project director or project coordinator for any
reason, the appointment of a substitute project director or
substitute project coordinator will be subject to the prior written
approval of the project manager.
041109 sm 0100312
2
3.4 CONSULTANT represents and warrants that it will:
3.4.1 Procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices which may be necessary and
incident to the due and lawful prosecution of the Project;
3.4.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and
future Federal, State of California, and local laws, ordinances,
regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those engaged or
employed under this Contract and any materials used in CONSULTANT’s
performance of the Services;
3.4.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause
its employees and consultants, if any, who are assigned to the
performance of this Contract to observe and comply with, the laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees mentioned above; and
3.4.4 Will report immediately to the project manager,
in writing, any discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in the
laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above
in relation to the Deliverableso
3.5 Any deliverables given to, or prepared or assembled
by, CONSULTANT or its consultants, if any, under this Contract will
become the property of CITY and will not be made available to any
individual or organization by CONSULTANT or its consultants, if
any, without the prior written approval of the city manager.
3.6 CONSULTANT will provide CITY with the number of
copies, of the Project documents in accordance with the provisions
of Exhibit ~A".
3.7 If CITY requests additional copies of any documents
CONSULTANT will provide such additional copies and CITY will
compensate CONSULTANT for its duplicating costs.
3.8 CONSULTANT will be responsible for employing or
engaging all persons necessary to execute the Project. All
consultants of CONSULTANT wili be deemed to be directly controlled
and supervised by CONSULTANT, which will be responsible for their
performance: If any employee or consultant of CONSULTANT fails or
refuses to carry out the provisions of this Contract or appears to
be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, the
employee or consultant will be discharged immediately from further
performance under this Contract on demand of the project manager.
3.9 In the execution of the Project, CONSULTANT and its
consultants, if any, will at all times be considered independent
contractors and not agents or employees of CITY.
041109 sm 0100312
3.10 CONSULTANT will perform or obtain or cause to be
performed or obtained any and all of the following Additional
Services, not included as Basic Services in the scope of work
attached as Exhibit "A", if so authorized, in advance and in
writing, by CITY:
3.10.1 Providing services as an expert witness in
connection with any public hearing or meeting, arbitration
proceeding,or proceeding of a court of record;
3.10.2 Incurring travel and subsistence expenses for
CONSULTANT and its staff beyond those normally required under the
Services;
3.10.3 Performing any other Additional Services that
may be agreed upon by the parties subsequent to the execution of
this Contract; and
3.10.4 Other Additional Services as described in
Exhibit ~C" to this Contract.
3.11 CONSULTANT will be responsible for employing
all consultants deemed necessary to assist CONSULTANT in the
performance of the Services. The appointment of consultants must
be approved, in advance, by CITY, in writing, and must remain
acceptable to CITY during the term of this Contract.
SECTION 4. DUTIES OF CITY
4.1 CITY will furnish or cause to be furnished the
services listed in Exhibit ~A" and such information regarding its
requirements applicable to the Project as may be reasonably
requested by CONSULTANT.
4.2 CITY will review and approve, as necessary, in a
timely manner the deliverables and each phase of work performed by
CONSULTANT. CITY’s estimated time of review and approval will be
furnished to CONSULTANT at the time of submission of each phase of
work. CONSULTANT acknowledges and understands that the
interrelated exchange of information among CITY’s various
departments makes it extremely difficult for CITY to firmly
establish the time of each review and approval task. CITY’s
failure to review and approve within the estimated time schedule
will not constitute a default under this Contract.
4.3 The city manager will represent CITY for all
purposes under this Contract. Sean Kennedy is designated as the
project manager for the city manager. The project manager will
supervise the performance, progress, and execution of the Project,
and will be assisted by Ron Arp, the project coordinator.
041109 sm 0100312
4
4.4 If CITY observes or otherwise becomes aware of any
default in the performance of CONSULTANT, CITY will use reasonable
efforts to give written notice thereof to CONSULTANT in a timely
manner.
SECTION 5.COMPENSATION
5.1 CITY will compensate CONSULTANT for the following
services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the
Basic Services as described in Exhibit ~A", CITY will pay
CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed Three Hundred Sixty Four Thousand
Six Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars ($364,677). The amount of
compensation will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate
and budget per task schedules set forth in Exhibit "C", up to the
maximum amount set forth in this Section. the fees of the
consultants, who have direct contractual relationships with
CONSULTANT, will be approved, in advance, by CITY. CITY reserves
the right to refuse payment of such fees, if such prior approval is
not obtained by CONSULTANT.
5.1.2. CONSULTANT’s compensation for reimbursable
expenses shall not exceed Three Thousand Five Hundred Eighty
Dollars ($3,580).
5.1.3. CONSULTANT’s compensation for any authorized
Additional Services shall not exceed Seventy Three Thousand Six
Hundred Fifty Two Dollars ($73,652). city’s city manager shall
not authorize and CONSULTANT shall not perform any Additional
Services that would result in a cost exceeding such amount. Prior
to commencing any Additional Services, CITY through the city
manager or designee, and CONSULTANT shall agree in writing upon the
scope of work, schedule and maximum compensation for such services.
Compensation shall, be based on the rates set forth in Exhibit "C".
In no event shall CONSULTANT work, which is necessary due to
CONSULTANT’s errors or oversights, be authorized or paid for as an
Additional Service.
5.1.4. The maximum compensation for this Contract
shall not exceed Four Hundred Forty One Thousand Nine Hundred Nine
Dollars ($441,909).
5.1.5. Only the direct personnel expense of employees
assigned to the execution of the Project by CONSULTANT shall be
compensated. Included in the cost of direct personnel expense of
these employees are salaries and mandatory and customary benefits
such as statutory employee benefits, insurance, sick leave,
holidays and vacations, pensions and similar benefits.
041109 sm 0100312
5.1.6. The rate schedule may be updated by CONSULTANT
only once each calendar year, and the rate schedules will not
become effective for purposes of this Contract, unless and until
CONSULTANT gives CITY thirty (30) days’ prior written notice of the
effective date of any revised rate schedule.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
5.2.1 Payment of the Basic Services will be made in
monthly progress payments in proportion to the quantum of services
performed, or in accordance with any other schedule of payment
mutually agreed upon by the parties, as set forth in Exhibit "C",
or within thirty (30) days of submission, in triplicate, of such
requests if a schedule of payment is not specified. Final payment
will be made by CITY after CONSULTANT has submitted all
Deliverables, including, without limitation, reports which have
been approved by the project manager.
5.2.2 Payment of the Additional Services will be
made in monthly progress payments for services rendered, within
thirty (30) days of submission, in triplicate, of such requests.
SECTION 6.ACCOUNTING, AUDITS, OWNERSHIP OF RECORDS
6.1 Records of the direct personnel expenses and
expenses incurred in connection with the performance of Basic
Services and Additional Services pertaining to the Project will be
prepared, maintained, and retained by CONSULTANT in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles and will be made available
to CITY for auditing purposes at mutually convenient times during
the term of this Contract and for three (3) years following the
expiration or earlier termination of this Contract.
6.2 The originals of the deliverables prepared by or
under the direction of CONSULTANT in the performance of this
Contract will become the property of CITY irrespective of whether
the Project is completed upon CITY’s payment of the amounts
required to be paid to CONSULTANT. These originals will be
delivered to CITY without additional compensation. CITY will have
the right to utilize any final and incomplete drawings, estimates,
specifications, and any other documents prepared hereunder by
CONSULTANT, but CONSULTANT disclaims any responsibility or
liabilityfor any alterations or modifications of such documents.
SECTION 7.INDEMNITY
7.1 CONSULTANT agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and
hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of any
nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or
any other loss, caused by or arising out of CONSULTANT’s, its
041109 sm 0100312
6
officers’, agents’, consultants’ or employees’ negligent acts,
errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which
applicable law may impose strict liability on CONSULTANT in the
performance of or failure to perform its obligations under this
Contract.
SECTION 8.WAIVERS
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or
violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this
Contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition,
provision, ordinance, or law or of any subsequent breach or
violation of the same or of any other covenant, term, condition,
provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder will
not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation
by the other party of any covenant, term, condition or provision of
this Contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial
acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of
any of its rights under this Contract.
SECTION 9.INSURANCE
9.1 CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, will
obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of
this Contract, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D",
insuring not only CONSULTANT and its consultants, if any, but also,
with the exception of workers’ compensation, employer’s liability
and professional liability insurance, naming CITY as an additional
insured concerning CONSULTANT’s performance under this Contract.
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be
provided through carriers with Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of
A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact insurance business
in the State of California. Any and all consultants of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Contract will obtain and
maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this
Contract, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY. as an
additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance, preferably on the
forms provided by CITY, wil! be filed with CITY concurrently with
the execution of this Contract. The certificates will be subject
to the approval of CITY’s risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will
not be canceled or altered by the insurer except after filing with
the CITY’s city clerk thirty (30) days’ prior written notice of
such cancellation or alteration, and that the City of Palo Alto is
041109 sm 0100312
7
named as an additional insured except in policies of workers’
compensation, employer’s liability, and professional liability
insurance. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on
file at all times during the term of this Contract with the city
clerk.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies
of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT’s liability
hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this
Contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance,
CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any
damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result
of the Services performed under this Contract, including such
damage, injury, or loss arising after the Contract is terminated or
the term has expired.
SECTION i0.WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
i0.i CONSULTANT, by executing this Contract, certifies
that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State
of California which require every employer to be insured against
liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance
in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that
it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before
commencing the performance of the Project.
PROJECT
SECTION ii.TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF CONTRACT OR
i!.i The city manager may suspend the execution of the
Project, in whole or in part, or terminate this Contract,~with or
without cause, by giving thirty (30) days’ prior written notice
thereof to CONSULTANT, or immediately after submission to CITY by
CONSULTANT of any completed item of Basic Services. Upon receipt
of such notice, ’CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its
performance under this Contract.
11.2 CONSULTANT may terminate this Contract or suspend
its execution of the Project by giving thirty (30) days’ prior.
written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a
substantial failure of performance by CITY or in the event CITY
indefinitely withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation
or continuation of Basic Services or the execution of the Project.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by CITY,
CONSULTANT will be compensated for the Basic Services and
Additional Services performed and Deliverables received and
approved prior to receipt of written notice from CITY of such
suspension or abandonment, together with authorized additional and
reimbursable expenses then due. If the Project is resumed after it
has been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in
041109 sm 0100312
8
CONSULTANT’s compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if
necessary, approval of CITY’s City Council. If this Contract is
suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY
will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of
CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to
CITY, as such determination may be made by the city manager in the
reasonable exercise of her discretion.
11.4 In the event of termination of this Contract or
suspension of work on the Project by CITY where CONSULTANT is not
in default, CONSULTANT will receive compensation as follows:
11.4.1 For approved items of services, CONSULTANT will
be compensated for each item of service fully performed in the
amounts authorized under this Contract.
11.4.2 For approved items of services on which a
notice to proceed is issued by CITY, but which are not fully
performed, CONSULTANT will be compensated for each item of service
in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fee otherwise
payable for the performance of the service as the quantum of
service actually rendered bears to the services necessary for the
full performance of that item of service.
11.4.3 The total compensation payable under the
preceding paragraphs of this Section will not exceed the payment
specified under Section 5 for the respective items of service to be
furnished by CONSULTANT.
11.5 Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT
will deliver to the city manager immediately any and all copies of
the Deliverables, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT
or its consultants, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its
consultants, if any, in connection with this Contract. Such
materials will become the property of CITY.
11.6 The failure of CITY to agree with CONSULTANT’s
independent findings, conclusions, or recommendations, if the same
are called for under this Contract, on the basis of differences in
matters of judgment, will not be construed as a failure on the part
of CONSULTANT to fulfill its obligations under this Contract.
SECTION 12.ASSIGNMENT
12.1 This Contract is for the personal services of
CONSULTANT, therefore, CONSULTANT will not assign, transfer,
convey, or otherwise dispose of this Contract or any right, title
or interest in or to the same or any part thereof without the prior
written consent of CITY. A consent to one assignment will not be
deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of CITY will be void and, at
041109 sm 0100312
9
the option of the city manager, this Contract may be terminated.
This Contract will not be assignable by operation of law.
SECTION 13.NOTICES
13.1 All notices hereunder will be given, in writing,
and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as
follows:
To CITY:Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULTANT recited above
SECTION 14.CONFLICT OF INTEREST
14.1 In accepting this Contract, CONSULTANT covenants
that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any
interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the
Services.
14.2 CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the
performance of this Contract, it will not employ contractors or
persons having such an interest mentioned above. CONSULTANT
certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest
under this Contract is an officer or employee of CITY; this
provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code
of the State of California.
SECTION’15.NONDISCRIMINATION
15.1 As set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, no
discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this
Contract because of race, skin color, gender, age,. religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing
status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such
person. If the value of this Contract is, or may be, five thousand
dollars ($5,000) or more, CONSULTANT agrees to meet all
requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code pertaining to
nondiscrimination in employment, including completing the requisite
form furnished by CITY and set forth in Exhibit "E".
15.2 CONSULTANT agrees that each contract for services
from independent providers will contain a provision substantially
as follows:
041109 sm 0100312
10
"[Name of Provider] will provide CONSULTANT
with a certificate stating that [Name of
Provider] is currently in compliance with all
Federal and State of California laws covering
nondiscrimination in employment; and that
[Name of Provider] will not discriminate in
the employment of any person under this
contract because of the age, race, color,
national origin, ancestry, religion,
disability, sexual preference or gender of
such person."
15.3 If CONSULTANT is found in violation of the
nondiscrimination provisions of the State of California Fair
Employment Practices Act or similar provisions of Federal law or
executive order in the performance of this Contract, it will be in
default of this Contract. Thereupon, CITY will have the power to
cancel or suspend this Contract, in whole or in part, or to deduct
the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each person for each
calendar day during which such person was subjected to
discrimination, as damages for breach of contract, or both. Only a
finding of the State of California Fair Employment Practices
Commission or the equivalent federal agency or officer will
constitute evidence of a breach of this Contract.
SECTION 16.MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
16.1 CONSULTANT represents and warrants that it has
knowledge of the requirements of the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and the Health
and Safety Code of the State of California, relating to access to
public buildings and accommodations for disabled persons, and
relating to facilities for disabled persons. CONSULTANT will
comply with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such
provisions will be effected pursuant to the terms of this Contract.
16.2 Upon the agreement of the parties, any controversy
or claim arising out of or relating to this Contract may be settled
by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of the American
Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by
the Arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction
thereof.
16.3 This Contract will be governed by the laws of the
State of California, excluding its conflicts of law.
16.4 In the event that an action is brought, the parties
agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the
state courts of California or in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California’ in the County of Santa
Clara, State of California.
041109 sm 0100312
11
16.5 The prevailing party in any action brought to
enforce the terms of this Contract or arising out of this Contract
may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees expended in
connection with that action.
16.6 This.document represents the entire and integrated
Contract between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations,
representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This
document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is
signed by the parties.
16.7 All provisions of this Contract, whether covenants
or conditions, will be deemed to be both covenants and conditions.
16.8 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of
this Contract will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors,
executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the case
may be, of the parties.
16.9 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules
that any provision of this Contract or any amendment thereto is
void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Contract
and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.10 All exhibits referred to in this Contract and any
addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules which, from time
to time,~ may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto
are by such reference incorporated in this Contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this Contract.
16.11 This Contract may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which
together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.12 This Contract is subject to the fiscal provisions
of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal
Code. This Contract will terminate without any penalty (a) at the
end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated
for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal
year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of
the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer
available. This Section 16.12 will take precedence in the event of
a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision
of this Contract.
//
//
//
041109 sm 0100312
12
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly
authorized representatives executed this Contract on the date first
above written.
ATTEST:CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
Assistant City Manager
Director of Administrative
Services
Director of Public Works
Mayor
EIP ASSOCIATES
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
Taxpayer Identification No.
Risk Manager
(Compliance with Corp. Code § 313 is
required if the entity on whose behalf
this contract is signed is a corporation.
In the alternative, a certified corporate
resolution attesting to the signatory
authority of the individuals signing in
their respective capacities is acceptable)
Attachments :
EXHIBIT "A" :
EXHIBIT "B" :
EXHIBIT "C" :
EXHIBIT "D" :
EXHIBIT "E" :
SCOPE OF PROJECT
TIME SCHEDULE
COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
NONDISCRIMINATION COMPLIANCE FORM
041109 sm 0100312
13
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
On 2004, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared
, personally known to
me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument
and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the ~ame in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary Public
041109 sm 0100312
14
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
On 2004, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared
, personally known to
me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument
and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary Public
041109 sm 0100312
15
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF WORK AND APPROACH
This scope of work presents the work tasks that EIP shall perform for the Environmental Services Center
Environmental Impact Report (ESC EIR) and cost benefit analysis. Responsibilities of the City are also noted
where applicable.
WORK TASKS
The scope of work is organized into the following six work tasks:
Task 1: Review and Evaluate Reports
Task 2: Prepare EIR
Task 3: Attend Meetings
Task 4: Prepare Cost Benefit Analysis
Task 5: Produce Deliverables
Task 6: Optional Tasks
Task 1: Review and Evaluate Reports
Objective. Become familiar with baseline conditions, including the physical surroundings of the site, the regulatory
framework affecting the project, the project history, and public concerns.
Dispassion: The City has identified various documents that shall be useful for the analysis. These documents shall
be obtained during the project kick-off meeting and reviewed by EIP team members. Upon reviewing the
background materials, the EIP Project Manager will distribute pertinent information to key team members, who
will review the information to determine if further data are required for the EIR. In addition to collecting the
relevant reports and studies, during the kick-off meeting, EIP shall consult with the City on:
identification of base map requirements,
procedures for contacting other public agencies (particularly, Santa Clara County Department of
Environmental Health, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Local Enforcement Agency, and the
California Integrated Waste Management Control Board),
identification of public advocacy groups and other organizations that should participate in the process,
logistics and support for the scoping meetings, and
further ideas on project alternatives.
Deliverable: Additional data needs, as necessary, will be submitted electronically.
Meeting: One meeting with staff to kick-off the project and visit the project study area.
City Involvement: Provide background materials, base maps, and applicable planning and regulatory documents as
needed.
041109 sm 0100312
Task 2: Prepare EIR
Objective: Prepare an Administrative Draft EIR for City staff review, a Draft EIR for pubfic review, a Final EIR for
certification, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for project implementation, and draft findings
(including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, if necessary) for City staff review and use.
Discussion: Task 2 is divided into 11 subtasks described below.
Subtask 2.i Revise Project Description, Refine Site Plans, and Define Alternatives. Information for the
project description will be obtained from materials provided by the City and previously developed by BVA under a
prior City contract. Key elements of the project include final closure of the 19-acre portion of the landfill that
would be occupied by the ESC, development of the ESC, and revisions to the Bay/andr Master P!an. Development
of the Project Description would largely be based on documents obtained in Task 1. EIP understands that current
site plans would be subject to further modification, such as revised site layouts, building floor area, and circulation
and material flow. These internal on-site changes will be important to an efficient and cost effective operation of
the ESC. Provided that the proposed facilities remain within the same 19-acre footprint, there is likely to be litde
environmental difference in terms of off-site impacts. EIP will work in close cooperation with the City to develop
the most efficient site plan that would not compromise the City’s objectives for the project and its environmental
implicadons.
Site plans that have recently been developed by BVA for the proposed project and the two reduced development
alternatives that have been identified would be used as a basis for refinement. If the City would prefer, site plans
from Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates, Inc. (contracted by the City to prepare grading plan options for the site) or
other sources would be used. ’%Vorking drawings" for the three site plans would be prepared, and key EIP team
members would meet with City staff and manually make modifications to the drawings at the meeting. Once
modifications are agreed upon, the modifications will be inserted in the Auto-CAD base site plans and sent to the
City for review and comment. The three site plans will then be incorporated and finalized. It is assumed that the
number and scope of refinements and modifications can be accommodated within the budget allocated in our cost
spreadsheet.
Upon submittal of three site plans, EIP will provide the City a preliminary project description that will include:
*project location, including regional and vicinity maps
e a general overview to the project describing its overall intent and history
*project objectives as defined by the City and the community
*finished elevations and grading plans
,site plan and description of major features, including:
-general devdopment areas, proposed uses, and acreage
-access and onsite circulation proposals
-parking areas and acreage
-key infrastructure improvements and locations/alignment of utilities
-landscaping and signage concepts
-lighting concepts
anticipated utilization of the ESC, including:
-hours of operation
-number of employees
041109 sm 0100312
-initial and future volume or weight of various waste streams per day
-anticipated number and size of trucks per day
the landfill closure process and activities, including:
-the water budget
-gas migration and water quality monitoring
-the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
amendments to the Bay/ands Master P/an, and possible amendments to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
list of public agencies with review/approval authority over the project.
The EIP team will also work in close cooperation with the City in developing feasible alternatives for the project.
The EIR shall consider a range of project alternatives that includes alternative locations. The EIP team will start
with a wide array of other potential options such as:
Other available sites within the City - based on a set of agreed upon locational criteria, such as industrial
zones within a certain distance of a freeway, containing a certain minimum acreage, and beyond a certain
distance from residential zones, the City’s GIS could be used to identify potential sites;
Split site alternatives - portions of the waste materials such as inerts, green waste, or compost can be
direct-hauled to separate sites reducing the waste and traffic impacts to the ESC; and
Other mixes of functions at the ESC site - such as a smaller consolidated public waste and recyclables
drop-off.
Working with the City and the public during the scoping meetings, a set of evaluation criteria will be applied to
screen this wide range of alternatives to a narrower set of viable alternatives that will be carried forward in the EIR
and cost-benefit analysis. These criteria could include some or all of the project objectives identified, for the
project, engineering and environmental "fatal flaws," land availability, operational costs, and opportunity costs.
Deliverable: Five hard copies of the Project Description, site plans, and alternative site plans. One copy of the
Project Description will be provided in electronic form. Any electronic spreadsheets will be formatted in
Microsoft Word or Excel 2000, 9.0.4402 SR-1 or compatible software. For site plans, digitized drawings will be
provided in AutoCAD Map 2000 Release 4 or a compatible format.
Meeting: Meetings with City as determined by City staff and EIP team.
City Involvement: Input in project refinement and determination of alternatives; if possible, use of the City’s GIS
capabilities to identify potential alternative locations.
Subtask 2.2 Special Focus Meetings. Prior to the public scoping meetings for the EIR (see Subtask 2.3 below),
EIP and its subconsultant BVA will attend two separate meeting with interest groups identified by the City. The
meetings will be held as informal sessions to describe the EIR process, identify ways for the interest groups to
participate constructively in the environmental review process, and obtain early input on the interests and
expectations of these groups. EIP’s Principal in Charge and Project Manager and BVA’s Project Manager will
participate in the interest group meetings.
EIP and BVA will also attend and help facilitate up to three meetings with environmental groups who would have
input on the conceptual design and theme of the proposed visitor/public education center within the ESC. EIP
and BVA will solicit input from the environmental groups for consideration in designing the functions of the
proposed visitor/public education center. The meetings will be held as informal sessions: the first meeting would
be to solicit suggestions for the conceptual design and theme of the visitor/public education center; the second
meeting would be to discuss the feasible suggestions and to solicit further ideas; the third meeting, if necessary,
041109 sm 0100312
would present the preferred conceptual design and theme for the center. BVA will serve as the primary facilitator
in the meetings. EIP’s Principal in Charge and Project Manager and BVA’s Project Manager will also particiPate in
each of the visitor/public education center design meetings.
Deliverable: Materials and handouts for the EIR interest group meetings; minutes from the EIR interest group
meeting. Presentation materials for use during the visitors/educational center meetings (to be prepared by BVA).
Meeting: Two EIR interest group meetings; up to three meetings with interest groups to solicit input for proposed
visitors/educational center.
City Involvement: Participation in EIR interest group meeting and visitors/educational center meetings.
Subtask 2.3 Prepare Responses to Comments on Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Hold S¢oping
Meetings. The City will prepare and submit to the State Clearinghouse the NOP for the project EIR. EIP shall
prepare a table for inclusion in the Draft EIR that would list the comment letters and idendfy where in the
document those coffLments have been addressed or acknowledged. A separate submittal for the responses to
NOP comments is not required.
EIP will attend three public scoping meetings to assist in the preparation of the EIR. EIP will coordinate with the
City in developing an agenda for these meetings, and help facilitate the meetings. The meetings will be held as
informational sessions: the first would provide an overview to the program, be organized around various work
stations (e.g., current waste handling, proposed project, environmental issues, etc.), and be used to solicit
community input on criteria to evaluate the alternatives, as well as suggestions for possible alternatives; the second
would report back to the community the criteria that will be used to screen the alternatives and the range of
alternatives, and ask for further input; and the third would describe the evaluation process and the alternatives that
will be carried forward in the EIR. EIP’s Principal in Charge and Project Manager will participate in each of these
scoping meetings. In keeping with past scoping meetings in Palo Alto, it is expected that the meetings will be held
before the Planning and Transportation Commission, City staff will prepare meeting summaries, and members of
the EIP team will be available to respond to questions as necessary. If additional tasks are desired of EIP or BVA,
they can be performed as optional tasks.
Deliverable~. Electronic c6pies of minutes/notes from the public scoping meeting summarizing the comments and
their disposition to supplement or augment staff’s report. Files will be submitted in Microsoft Word format.
Meeting: Three scoping meetings.
City Involvement: Prepare NOP, review table of NOP comments and responses in the Administrative Draft EIR.
Set up, advertise, and prepare materials and presentation for the scoping process; prepare scoping process
summary; coordinate with EIP on revised work scope, as necessary.
Subtask 2.4 Conduct Environmental Impact Analysis. For this subtask, there are two principal activities to be
carried out for each environmental topic that would be discussed in the EIR. These are to:
Establish baseline conditions; and
Perform impact assessment, using the City’s adopted standards of significance, and recommend mitigation
measures for impacts identified to be significant or potentially significant.
EIP will collect the information necessary to define baseline conditions in the project area. Documentation
regarding the project site and vicinity will incorporate information from the Baylandr Master Plan (collectively
comprised of four documents adopted between 1978 and 1991), site visits, site plans for the exisdng landfill
facility, and other available studies. Photographs of existing development in the project area wi~ be used to
illustrate the natural setting and character of development surrounding the ESC site.
041109 sm 0100312
The environmental analysis will be presented in 14 sections within the EIR, listed below. In analyzing each topic,
consideration will be given to concerns raised during scoping efforts for the project. Each topic will contain a
description of the existing conditions, the City-adopted significance criteria by which environmental impacts will
be classified, the impact assessment, and, for those impacts considered to be significant, recommended mitigation
measures. Impacts will be classified as significant (S), potentially significant (PS), less than significant (LTS), or
beneficial (13). Each impact will.be enumerated for easy reference by reviewers of the EIR.
The cumulative impact analysis will assess the effects of the proposed project in combination with other projects
in the project "vicinity." EIP will meet with City staff to determine whether a plan-based or project-based
cumulative assessment makes sense for the EIR.
Mitigation measure(s) will be recommended for each identified significant impact. The mitigation measure will be
presented immediately following the discussion of a significant impact, so that the reviewer will quickly grasp the
relationship between an impact and a corresponding mitigation measure. To further reinforce this linkage, each
mitigation measure will be enumerated using a numbering system that will relate it to the impact it seeks to reduce.
Mitigation measures will be explicitly defined in terms of their effectiveness when feasible (i.e., ability to reduce an
impact to less than significant), responsible agency, and whether they are measures proposed as part of the project,
measures already being implemented, or measures to be considered. If the measures would not reduce an impact
to an insignificant level, the impact would be declared a significant unavoidable impact in the EIR.
Following is a description of EIP’s approach for each of the environmental topics that will be discussed in the
EIR.
Land Use and Recreation. Based on site visits, available aerial photographs, and background reports from the City
and the consultant team, EIP will summarize the existing land uses, Comprehensive Plan policies, Baylands Master Plan
policies, and zoning regulations that affect the project site and the immediate surroundings. A general description
of uses will be presented for the project site, which is generally bounded by recreational open space and some
commercial develoPment. Detail will be provided on the existing recreational uses provided in Byxbee Park as
well as the anticipated increase in Byxbee Park lands under the Baylands Master Plan.
EIP will summarize in text, graphics, and photographs:
®Existing land uses and buildings at the project site;
Land use surrounding the project site, which consists primarily of open space and some commercial
development; and
Applicable plans and regulations from the Baylandr Master Plan, the PaloAlto Comprehensive Plan, and the
City’s Zoning Ordinance.
The impact analysis will describe:
The proposed ESC site layout and uses and its land use compatibility with surrounding landfill activities.
The analysis will evaluate the proposed development in the context of existing landfill and park
conditions (Task 2.5 will evaluate impacts based on "as planned" conditions);
The similarity or contrast of proposed ESC activities with recreational and commerdal devdopment in the
surrounding area;
o The appropriateness of the proposed ESC within the closed landfill area; and
The consistency of the proposed waste facility with policies and directives of the Baylandr MasterPlan and
the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
041109 sm 0100312
The EIR will compare the existing and proposed land use of the site and the evaluate the appropriateness of the
proposed ESC in terms of surrounding passive recreational uses. The EIR shall also assess the consistency of the
proposed project with applicable plans and policies. EIP will describe the project-required amendments to the
Baylands Master Plan as well and any other changes to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
VisualQuali~y. The EIR discussion of existing and future aesthetics design conditions will be based on review of
aerial photographs and site visits. Features of this setting that will be documented and supplemented with
photographs include:
¯existing views of the project site from sensitive vantage points, particularly from Byxbee Park;
¯significant close-up and long-range views of the facility;
¯the development/open space pattern of adjacent uses that provide a visual context for the proposed ESC
site, which is primarily surrounded by Byxbee Park and some commercial development;
project landscaping, signage, art features, and infrastructure requirements along the surrounding roadways,
particularly Embarcadero Road and Embarcadero Way; and
any nighttime lighting at the operating and closed portions of the landfill and in the surrounding area.
The purpose of this documentation is to establish the visual character of the area around the proposed ESC site, to
identify any scenic resources and significant views, and the visual coherence or incoherence of the site with
surrounding uses.
Based on the visual documentation, EIP will assess how the proposed project relates to the existing visual setting.
More specifically, EIP will consider the project’s: .
conformance to City visual standards and guidelines for Byxbee Park, as described in the Baylands Master
Plan;
contrast and compatibility with the surrounding open space and commercial development pattern;
effect on existing scenic views (i.e., blockage versus partial obstruction) from public vantage points, particularly
from Byxbee Park; and
effect on the visual/recreational experience for Byxbee Park users; and
light and glare effects on Byxbee Park users.
EIP’s subconsultant, Square one Productions, will prepare visual simulations of the proposed structures as seen
from selected vantage points that would represent visually sensitive areas; the simulations would be used in the
EIR to support and demonstrate significance conclusions for the project visual impacts, particularly in relation to
Byxbee Park. The following tasks would be involved:
Square One Productions, under EIP’s guidance, will produce panoramic photographs (for better context),
representing views from several key vantage points. Square One Productions will provide the City with
4x8" or 4x10" check prints, respectively, and upload them on the Square One Productions website for
City review. The City, with EIP’s input, will select views for photomontaging from those viewpoints.
Square One Productions will produce a digital 3D model of the terrain and the proposed structures,
based on architectural 2D CAD files (assuming 2D CAD files are available) and grading plans. Square
One Productions will digitally input field control points and photographic view positions. Subsequently,
Square One Productions will align and combine the digital 3D images with the respective photographic
images and remove, if required, existing impediments. Lastly, Square One Productions will render the
proposed structure in a photo-realistic fashion, and add landscaping.
041109 sm 0100312
Tranaportation. Primary access to the Palo Alto Landfill is available via Embarcadero Road, which also provides
access to Byxbee Park. The project would reroute vehicular access into the site via Embarcadero Way, currendy a
dirt road on the western side of the project site. Traffic volume projections will be developed for the AM and PM
peak hour based on the project description, which will provide a detailed description of project operations on
which the project traffic will be based. These data will include the number of trucks accessing the site, volume of
private citizens accessing the site, the number of employees, and truck routing. This information will primarily be
obtained from the City. Project traffic will be assigned to the surrounding roadway network based on logical
circulation patterns. Any existing traffic volumes that currendy occur to or from the site that will be removed to
construct the proposed project will be subtracted from the trip generation totals, to arrive at the net trip generation
associated with the project. Traffic counts will be conducted to determine the existing trips to be subtracted.
The trip generation calculations will then be coordinated with City staff to determine the level of traffic analysis
necessary for the project. Because the traffic volumes will be developed from descriptions of activities and not
from standard sources, early agreement with the City on the appropriate volumes is critical to the analysis and the
EIR schedule. The amount of traffic will also influence the number of intersections to be analyzed to meet City
and its Congestion Management Agency (CMA) guidelines (i.e., the guidelines issued by the Santa Clara Vfilley
Transportation Authority for the project to conform to the Congestion Management Plan). The traffic analysis
must be consistent with the requirements of the County’s CMA.
A study area for the analysis will be established in consultation with City staff and upon review of the trip origins
and destinations. The study area for the project is assumed to encompass eight intersections. At the initial
meedng with the City of Palo Alto staff and from the trip generation analysis, the study area intersections will be
discussed and resolved. Traffic counts covering the study area are assumed to be available from the City’s
database. East of US 101 on Embarcadero Road, a limited amount of traffic data will be collected specifically for
this project. The study area will also include the US 101 and Embarcadero interchange complex. Traffic counts
will be assembled for the loop ramps.
The EIP team will conduct a field review of the project area and the surrounding transportation system. This field
review will document any recent changes in roadway geometry, traffic control, or other characteristics of the
transportation system.
The future baseline traffic volumes will be established based on a future year as established by the City. These
future volumes will take into consideration any planned development and projects in Palo Alto and the
surrounding area. The future baseline traffic volumes will form the basis for the No Project Condition. The
future projections are assumed to be developed using the growth factors from the Citywide Travel Demand
Model.
The following analysis scenarios will then be evaluated:
Existing Conditions (2004) - An analysis of the existing transportation conditions based on existing traffic
counts.
No Project (Future Year of Project Development) - An analysis of the expected transportation conditions
at the time the project will be constructed assuming that the site has been converted to parklands and that
nearly all of Palo Alto’s wastes are delivered to the SMART facility.
With Project (Future Year of Project Development) - Project traffic will be added to No Project
conditions above to detemaine the effects of implementation of the project Existing traffic volumes from uses
to be removed from the site will be subtracted in this scenario. The Project will be addressed for two
different design alternatives, considering reduced operations at the site that will affect site utilization and
configuration. The reduced scale alternatives will be compared in terms of trip generation.
Alternative Site (Future Year of Project Devdopment) - Up to three alternative.location sites and/or split
operations scenarios will be evaluated. It is assumed that alternative sites will only be evaluated in terms
of trip generation.
041109 sm 0100312
Cumulative Analysis - an analysis of the cumulative condition based on the traffic volumes from the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, including the project, as reported in the Citywide Traffic Model.
Project impacts will be determined according to the criteria established by the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara
County. Study intersections will be evaluated using the TRAFFIX software package, in accordance with City
practice. City and County standards of significance will be applied to a comparison of the No Project and With
Project scenarios.
Mitigation measures could include such items as additional intersection geometry, traffic control modifications,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, traffic control, etc. As appropriate, mitigation measures that address general travel
characteristics, such as truck routing during specific times of the day will be developed and coordinated with the
City.
Although transit use for the project is not expected, tO be consistent with CMA guidelines, the existing transit
system will be reviewed. A written and graphical description of the existing and planned transit services located
near the project will be developed. This description will include the following:
Transit route description and map;
Transit station/stop locations;
Site access to major regional transit; and
Transit schedule and headway infomaation.
Similar to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, both existing and proposed, will be described for the study area.
This component of the assessment will receive more attention than transit simply because of the heavy
recreational use of the Baylands park. Included in this description will be official bicycle and pedestrian paths and
lanes, sidewalks, and any informal routes established by uses. Each of the routes will be characterized in terms of
safety, comfort, and attractiveness.
The EIP team will also evaluate site access to determine the appropriate geometry and the ability for trucks to
access the site. The evaluation will include a qualitative assessment of on-site circulation and the interaction of
truck traffic with automobile traffic. An analysis of on-site parking will also be conducted. The parking demand
will be based on the zoning ordinance requirements of the City.
Noise. EIP will document relevant noise regulations and policies, focusing on the City’s Noise Element and noise
ordinance; the existing ambient noise environment that includes current landf~ operations; the proximity of
sensitive receptors, including park users; and noise sources. Noise measurements will be made at sensitive
receptor locations and at locations where noise increases could occur. These locations would include the ESC
site/Byxbee Park boundary and along Embarcadero Road and Embarcadero Way, where the number of truck trips
can be expected to change.
EIP will then project noise levels from both construction and operational activities. For construction noise levels,
EIP will describe the noise levels typically associated with construction projects based on the types of equipment
anticipated to be used at the project site. EIP will also describe noise levels associated with construction traffic
along designated routes. Estimates of noise exposure at the sensitive receptors will be predicted based on their
distance to the construction equipment.
Increases in traffic noise on nearby roads are one of the long-term noise impacts of the project. Future noise
levels will be determined based on standard acoustical analytical and reporting methods. The Caltrans SOUND32
noise prediction model or an equivalent program will be used to forecast future noise contours at the selected
roads and at Byxbee Park. The Ldn noise metric will be used to evaluate traffic noise impacts on the sensitive
receptors because they are sensitive to noise impacts during an entire 24-hour period. The significance of the
projected noise levels will be based on the City’s Noise Element noise exposure guidelines.
041109 sm 0100312
Solid waste service activities associated with the proposed ESC is another long-term major noise source. The EIR
will analyze the changes in operational noise emission between current landfill activities and future recycling,
storage, materials recovery, and waste transfer activities. Since the initial capacity of the ESC would be increased
in 2011, long-term operational noise sources would increase at that time. Noisd levels will likely be expressed in
terms of one-hour Leq, rather than the Ldn. EIP shall obtain future noise levels from measurements taken at
other similar solid waste facilities within the Bay Area. EIP will estimate sound levels at the sensitive receptor
measurement locations in order to quantify the potential noise impacts.
Possible mitigation measures, if needed, include alternative site planning and building location/orientation, hours
of operation, and. buffers, in addition to what is proposed under the site plan. The proposed berming along the
site boundaries to reduce line-of-sight views from park u~ers is also an effective means of reducing potential noise
transmission.
AirQuali~y. For the existing air quality setting, EIP will describe regional and local meteorological conditions,
ambient measurements from the nearest air monitoring station in Redwood City and the policy and regulatory
framework, including the current air quality attainment status for the criteria pollutants. The impact analysis will
sadsfy the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) recommendations for local and regional air
quality analysis. Much, if not all, of this documentation is readily available from other environmental
documentation prepared for the City, although additional, information will be gathered to address existing and
potential concerns over odors.
Exhausts from construction equipment; fugitive dust emissions during excavation, grading, and demolition; and
construction traffic would all contribute to localized air emissions. These effects will be qualitatively described by
EIP and standard construction practices, including those suggested by the BAAQMD, will be recommended to
lessen these effects.
Changes in trip generation and distribution to the site due to project operation and eventual expansion in 2011
would affect local and regional air quality. Localized carbon monoxide concentrations will be derived using the
CALINE-4 model at the three most congested intersections, based on LOS, overall approach volumes, and critical
turning movements from EIP’s subconsultant, KORVE. The results for the 1-hour and 8-hour averaging periods
will be compared to the state and federal ambient air quality standards. If the locations for the carbon monoxide
analysis are not predicted to result in exceedances of the carbon monoxide air quality standard, it can be
reasonably argued that the other, less congested intersections would also not cause exceedances.
For those intersections projected to exceed the state and federal carbon monoxide standards, The EIP team will
develop suitable traffic mitigation measures to reduce congestion and carbon monoxide violations.
Regional air emissions will be forecast using the traffic data, emission factors from the California Air Resources
Board, and the URBEMIS 2002 software. Emissions will be compared to the 80 pounds/day significance
threshold used by the BA_AQMD for reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, and small particulate matter.
Of particular concern will be odor issues related to the methane gas flare station, other landfill gases, and
composting and recycling activities proposed for the ESC. Past records, including quarterly reports of the landfill,
and subsequent site surveys will be reviewed for any landfall-related odors in ac, cordance with the methodology
identified by the BAAQMD. Interviews will be conducted with the City’s Public Works Department to identify
ongoing activities to control odors and to determine whether any odor complaints have been logged with the City.
Furthermore, input and recommendations will be provided to assure continued effective odor control. Any
mitigation to be developed for landfill gas control will be in accordance with BAAQMD regulations and CIWMB
Tide 27 regulations (including but not limited to 27 CCR 20933). It will be important to keep in mind that under
project conditions the landfill will be closed and thus this source of potential odors will no longer be operational;
the new activities and functions of the ESC are expected to have different odor characteristics.
HazardousMateffals. The project site is and would remain a public facility. EIP will request previous landfill plans
from the City that can be used to characterize subterranean hazards on site. In accordance with Public Resources
041109 sm 0100312
Code Section 21092.6, EIP will consult the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites Last (the Cortese
List) to determine if the project appears on the list. Also, tests and monitoring programs from portions of the
closed landfill can be summarized to identify the potential for methane gas pockets, methane gas emissions, and
water quality and waste characteristics of the leachate to create a risk to public health or to the environment.
The Hazardous Materials discussion of the EIR will concentrate on two main issues: (1) efficacy of methane gas
and leachate monitoring and control upon closure and maintenance of the 19-acre portion of the landf’dl that
would be occupied by the ESC, and (2) potential exposure to accidental releases from the proposed Household
Hazardous Waste facility. The methodology for the impact assessment will be based on the concept of a complete
exposure pathway. This doncept notes that a public health and safety concern can arise only when there is an
environmental contaminant, there is a media that enables the contaminant to be transported to a receptor, there is
a means for the receptor to be exposed to the contaminant, and there is a receptor. All four components must be
present for a "complete" pathway to exist.
The City has already identified the potential for illegal disposal of undocumented hazardous materials at the site.
The ability to control these health and safety risks lies in the adequacy of the management programs required to
maintain safe closure and development of the site. EIP will be developing this program, which will likely become
part of the MMRP for the project, in consultation with the regulatory agencies, in particular the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the BAAQMD.
Geology. Information on the existing get-seismic conditions will be obtained from readily available reference
materials such as the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Soil Conservation Survey, and studies by the U.S. Geological
Survey, and the California Division of Mines and Geology. In addition, information on ground shaking from
various magnitude earthquakes on the principal faults in the region is available from the Association of Bay Area
Governments and recently completed EIRs by EIP for the City. EIP will consult with the City on closure plans
for the site, including soil compaction plans. Based on this information, EIP will summarize:
the fdl and soil characteristics of the project site; as they relate to structural foundations, construction
techniques, runoff potential, and erodibility; and
the proximity of regionally active faults, and their associated characteristic earthquakes (formerly measured
using the Richter scale but now discussed in terms of "moment magnitudes"), recurrence intervals, and
anticipated bedrock acceleration.
Based on closure plans for the 19-acre portion of the landfill that would be covered by the ESC and on grading
and construction plans for the ESC, EIP will assess potential geologic impacts of the project in relation to baseline
conditions. EIP assumes that adequate geological information (such as a geotechnical report information) has
been included in the closure plans for the site. The impact assessment will consider whether the project would:
result in a fundamental change in the soils and surficial geologic units that would last beyond the initial
site development period;
increase exposure of people or landfdl structures such as landf’dl gas or leachate collection and removal
systems to unmitigated seismic, soil, or slope instability hazards (especially differential settlement) or to
other hazardous geotechnical conditions; and
result in substant~l erosion or sedimentation from construction-related activities, such as excavation and
grading, or from project design.
EIP will discuss the significance of these potential impacts in light of the 1995 California Building Code, Title 24,
California Code of Regulations. Existing state requirements already serve generally to mitigate potential hazards
stemming from the geologic and seismic conditions in the project vicinity and will be described in the EIR. As
necessary, EIP will suggest additional mitigation measures, tailored to the site conditions, that will conform to the
state code and these measures will be reported in the EIR.
041109 sm 0100312
Hydrology/WaterQuali~y. EIP will obtain information on existing hydrologic conditions within the project vicinity
from the PaloAlto Comprehensive Plan, 2004 Joint Technical Report, records from monitoring wells, and previously
acquired information by BVA in preparing conceptual grading and drainage plans for the site. Information for
this discussion is expected to be available from the City, the Department of Water Resources, the Santa Clara
Valley Water District, and BVA. This section of the EIR will address:
Site drainage characteristics and patterns - The project site currently drains into the San Francisco Bay
after passing through a nearby abandoned Yacht Club Harbor and Mayfield Slough.
Receiving water body water quality issues, as identified by the State and Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (e.g., TMDLs, water quality standards and criteria, beneficial uses).
Compliance with NPDES General Permit C.3. provisions and any developed Hydrograph Modification
Plan.
Potential flood hazards at the site, based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s flood maps
(the project site is located in the 100-year floodplain)
Groundwater characteristics, including groundwater recharge and groundwater quality of the underlying San
Francisco Bay Basin.
Groundwater quality data in the project area from monitoring well data and other pertinent studies or
reports.
The project’s constituent-load impacts will be evaluated qualitatively by EIP with particular regard to compliance
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Other relevant regulations
that can serve as mitigation for potential water-related impacts will be reviewed including those of the City,
County, the RWQCB, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District
EIP will obtain closure plans for the 19-acre portion of the landfill that would be occupied by the ESC, as well as
the proposed drainage and grading plans for the 19-acre ESC. EIP will discuss how the potential alteration of
surface water and groundwater hydrology would affect water quality concerns associated with final landfill closure
and ESC construction, operation, and maintenance. The analysis will address:
The location, condition, and size of proposed storm drainage conduits and retention facilities.
The adequacy of post-closure stormwater facilities to accommodate runoff during wet weather.
Management programs implemented to assure that stormwater and irrigation water do not percolate
through the landfill and runoff is conveyed off site in a safe and effective manner.
Compliance with the NPDES General Permit C.3. provisions and any Hydrograph Modification Plan
Biological Resources. The project site is close to sensitive habitat within the Palo Alto Baylands, although the site
itself has been heavily disturbed by landfill activities. An inventory of wildlife and vegetation will be included in
the EIR, based on past studies, review of an updated run of the California Natural Diversity Database, and a field
reconnaissance by EIP biologists. The purpose of this inventory and reconnaissance will be to confirm the
presence or absence of sensitive habitats and species.
This section of the EIR will:
characterize the vegetation communities on site and in the project site vicinity;
identify plant and animal species observed and expected to occur with particular attention to those species
considered sensitive by the resource agencies;
confirm the sensitivity and habitat value of the surrounding wetlands; and
041109 sm 0100312
note the presence and condition, including size, location, and health, of any significant trees within the
site and construction footprint.
The conceptual site plan and construction footprint for the project will be compared to EIP’s field notes and maps
to idendfy vegetation communities and wildlife species that might be adversely affected. The project will also be
evaluated for conformance with the City’s riparian corridor policies that recommend varying setbacks for different
uses. Indirect impacts to on-site resources and adjacent habitats resulting from the proposed project construction
will also be analyzed, including an assessment of drainage, runoff, and percolation impacts and general human
disturbance impacts such as construction traffic, invasive non-native plant species from the proposed landscape
plan, and increased human use. A discussion of compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance will be
provided by EIP’s certified arborist.
The EIR will recommend potential mitigation measures and potential permit requirements for significant impacts.
In particular, opportunities to avoid disturbance to sensitive species that are found to occur on the site, direct and
indirect impacts to surrounding wetlands, and nesdng bird and significant tree spedes on the site will be identified.
Population and Housing. EIP will describe the existing population and housing supply and demand within the City of
Palo Alto; data will be taken from the Association of Bay Area Governments Projections and from the City
Comprehensive Plan.
The manner in which public works projects such as the ESC could affect population and housing demand is by
generating additional jobs on site, thereby potentially increasing population and housing demand in the project
vicinity. The proposed project will replace exisdng landfill activities with the proposed facilities for the ESC. As
such, this section will provide a comparison between the loss of existing workers and the number of new workers
that could be needed for full ESC operations after 2011. Although it is anticipated that significant amounts of
workers would neither be displaced from nor added to the project site, the EIR will demonstrate how changes in
the number of on-site workers would affect population and housing demand. Factors that would be considered in
the analysis would include the number of workers needed for the inidal and expanded level of service provided in
the ESC, utilization of the existing local workforce for the ESC, and cost of living in the project area versus
income of the ESC workforce.
Culturaland Historic Resources. In order to present an adequate description of the existing cultural setdng, EIP will
perform a literature search and records check to include the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Archaeological Inventory, the State Office of Historic Preservation, the Native American Heritage Commission,
and local historical societies. Because the site has been highly disturbed for quite some time and the proposed
ESC will be sited on top of the sanitary landfill, an in-field walk-over to assess surface indications for prehistoric
and historic resources will not be necessary.
EIP has conducted a site visit to make preliminary assessments of the site and found no standing structures of
historic significance; therefore, impacts to standing historic objects are not anticipated.
Based on the results of the archival research and responses from the Native American Heritage Commission, EIP
will recommend mitigation measures as appropriate that will comply with the State CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5.
Utilities and Public Services. The EIR will describe current waste operations in Palo Alto and how those activities
would change in the future with the proposed ESC. The landfills and other solid waste facilities that would
receive waste diverted from the ESC will be described, including their capacities to receive the waste from the
ESC. Waste tonnage projections will be acquired from the City and from project plans from BVA, including
preliminary engineering calculations, based on generation factors. EIP will assess whether the projected demand
would impose off-site capacity or service problems.
Other than the solid waste discussion above, the EIR will discuss existing services levels for other utilities and
public services and the capacity of service providers to accommodate the ESC. Other utilities to be discussed will
041109 sm 0100312
include water supply, wastewater treatment, and energy, although future demand on these utilities is expected to be
negligible. Similarly, the EIR wilt note that the City provides a number of public services including fire protection
and police services, but that the proposed project would not be expected to increase demand to the point that new
facilities would need to be constructed.
Other CEQA Sections. EIP will prepare other sections required by CEQA, including a listing of unavoidable
adverse effects and significant irreversible environmental changes resulting from project implementation; growth-
inducing effects; a summary of significant cumulative impacts; a summary of effects found not to be significant; a
list of all organizations and persons consulted in preparing the EIR; and identification of the individuals involved
in preparing the EIR.
For the discussion of growth-inducing effects, 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 additional development, if any, that may be accommodated by the excess capacity.
For the summary of effects not found to be significant, discussions will be provided to explain why significant
impacts would not occur to agricultural resources and mineral resources. Based on site visits, it is clear that these
resources would not occur on site and would thus not be affected.
For the summary of cumulative impacts, EIP will assess the effects of the proposed project in combination with
other projects in the project "vicinity." EIP will meet with City staff to determine whether to conduct a plan-
based or project-based cumulative assessment.
Alternatives. After determination of feasible alternatives under Task 2.1, a description of each alternative will be
presented ina separate Alternatives section of the EIR. A ~ummary discussion of environmental impacts will be
provided for each alternative, along with the alternatives’ ability to satisfy the project objectives. As part of the
discussion, a determination as to which alternative is the environmentally-preferred alternative will be provided.
Deliverable: None.
Meeting: Meetings with City as determined by City staff and EIP team.
Ci(y Involvement: Input in approach to traffic analysis; selection of vantage points for visual simulations, if opted;
communications with EIP as needed.
Subtask 2.5 Prepare Informational Section That Analyzes Project Changes Based on the Site Being Used
For Recreation. The Bay/ands Master P/an currendy anticipates that the project site would be converted for
passive recreational use after closure of the existing landfill Under CEQA, the baseline from which project-
induced changes are determined is the exisdng physical conditions on and around the site at the time the NOP is
released. For informational purposes only, EIP will prepare an analysis of the proposed project using the planned
use under the Bay!ands Master P/an as the baseline for determining project-induced changes. Because the No
Project Alternative is anticipated to involve the conversion of the project site for passive recreational use (as
provided in the current Bay/ands MasterP/an), the informational discussion would be inserted in the Alternatives
section of the EIR, after the discussion of the No Project Alternative.
In the analysis, EIP will address all environmental parameters discussed under Task 2.4, with the exception of
Alternatives. Where impacts would not largely differ from those using existing conditions as the baseline,
references to previous discussions within the EIR would be provided. Where impacts would largely differ from
those using existing conditions as the baseline, more detailed discussions would be provided. The following topics
are anticipated to require more detailed discussions:
Land Use and Recreation
Visual Quality
041109 sm 0100312
Transportation
Noise
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Deliverable: None.
Meeting: Meetings with City as determined by City staff and EIP team.
Ci~ Involvement: Input on level of detail of analysis;.
Subtask 2.6 Prepare Administrative Draft EIR. The materials and analysis from the previous subtasks will be
compiled into a comprehensive Administrative Draft EIR for internal review by City staff. The document will
conform to the most current State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s guidelines. EIP will discuss with City staff
appropriate materials for inclusion as Appendices to be circulated with the Draft EIR. Typical appendices include
the NOP and responses to this Notice; background traffic data and analyses; literature search and archival report
from the Northwest Information Center regarding cultural resources; and biological resources printout from the
California Natural Diversity Data Base. As stated under Task 2.2, responses to the NOP would be provided
within the Administrative Draft and Draft EIR as a table listing the commentors to the NOP and the pages where
responses are addressed.
EIP has assumed the submittal of two administrative drafts. It is expected that the initial draft will be submitted
for a three-week-long review by City staff. The incorporation of staff comments into the Screencheck Draft EIR
is described below.
Deliverable: Ten hard copies of the Administrative Draft EIR. One copy of the Administrative Draft EIR will be
provided in electronic form. Any electronic spreadsheets will be formatted in Microsoft Word or Excel 2000,
9.0.4402 SR-1 or compatible software. Any electronic figures will be formatted in Microsoft Word or a compatible
software.
Meeting: Meetings with City as determined by City staff and EIP team,
Ci[y Involvement: Review and comment on the two Administrative Draft EIRs. To expedite the production process
and to ensure that EIP responds to comments appropriately, it is assumed that the City will provide EIP with a
single marked up version of each administrative draft of the report.
Subtask 2.7 Prepare Screencheck Draft EIR. EIp will incorporate City comments on the Administrative Draft
EIR and resubmit the report as a Screencheck Draft EIR for City review within approximately one week of receipt
of comments.
Deliverable: One hard copy of the Screencheck Draft EIR. One copy of the Screencheck Draft EIR will be
provided in electronic form.
Meeting: None,
Ci(y Involvement. Review and comment on the Screencheck Draft EIR after a three-day review period.
Subtask 2.8 Prepare Draft EIR. EIP will incorporate City comments on the Screencheck Draft EIR and
produce 100 copies of the Draft EIR for public review. EIP will also complete a notice of Completion 0NOC) to
accompany the EIR to the State Clearinghouse. All deliverables under this task wi~ be submitted to the City, and
it is assumed that the City will be responsible for public distribution of the Draft EIR in compliance with CEQA
requirements.
041109 sm 0100312
Deliverable: One hard copy of the Screencheck Draft EIR and NOC. One copy of the Screencheck Draft EIR and
NOC will be provided in electronic form.
Meeting: None.
City Involvement: Public distribution of the Draft EIR in compliance with CEQA requirements.
Subtask 2.9 Prepare Administrative Final EIR/Response to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan, and Draft Resolution of Findings, including Statement of Overriding Considerations. All
substantive comments for each written and oral comment received during the 45-day public review period for the
Draft EIR will be individually addressed. Prior to preparing responses, EIP will meet with staff to review the
comments and suggest strategies for preparing responses. This step is desirable to ensure that all substantive
comments are being addressed and that the appropriate level of response will be prepared. This step is especially
critical if new analysis is required or an additional alternative needs to be considered. The product of this task will
be a Responses to Comments document that:
Lists the commentors;
Presents responses to sustentative comments;
Summarizes in one section all proposed text changes to the Draft EIR; and
Reproduces the comment letters and transcripts/minutes of the public hearing.
The level of effort for this task is speculative, given the uncertainty over the number and type of comments that
might be received and over the amount of controversy that might result from the project. The estimated level of
effort assumed for this subtask would allow EIP and other members of the consultant team to respond to a
maximum of 160 discrete comments. Discrete comments beyond the assumed 160 comments can either be
addressed through an adjustment to the budget or greater staff participation in preparing the Responses to
Comments.
EIP will also prepare a MMRP and a Resolution of Findings (pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines),
including Statement of Overriding Considerations, for City review. A Draft Resolution of Findings will be
submitted for the City to revise as needed.
Deliverable: Ten hard copies of the Administrative Final EIR/Response to Comments document One copy of the
Administrative Final EIR/Response to Comments document, one copy of the MMRP, and one copy of the draft
Resolution of Findings will be provided in electronic form.
Meeting: One meeting with City as determined by City staff and EIP team.
City Involvement: Review and comment on Administrative Final EIR/Response to Comments document and
MMRP after three-day review period. The City will revise and finalize the Resolution of Findings after submittal
by EIP.
Subtask 2.10 Prepare Screencheck Final EIR/Response to Comments. Given the two-week period between
the close of review period for the Draft EIR and the submittal of the Final EIR/Response to Comments
document as outlined in the Request for P~oposals from the City, there would be little time for production and
City review of a Screencheck Final EIR/Response to Comments document. The two-week timeline is aggressively
divided into one week for EIP to prepare the Administrative Final EIR/Response to Comments document and MMRP;
three days for the City to review these submittals; and four days for EIP to incorporate City comments on the
submittals and produce 50 copies of the Final EIR/Response to Comments document. Therefore, this proposal
assumes that Subtask 2.8 as outlined in the Request for Proposals willinvolve City staff reviewing the Screencheck
Final EIR/Response to Comments document on line and providing comments within a day of being alerted that the
files are available for review.
041109 sm 0100312
Subtask 2.11 Prepare Final EIR/Response to Comments and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.
Based on comments received from City staff, the Final EIR/Response to Comments document and the MMRP
will be produced. The revised documents will be submitted to the City for discussion first by the City Planning
Commission and then certification by the City Council.
All deliverables under this task will be submitted to the City, and it is assumed that the City will be responsible for
distribution of the Final EIR/Response to Comments and the MMRP, in compliance with CEQA and local
requirements.
Deliverable: Fifty hard copies of the Final EIR/Response to Comments document, and one hard copy of the
MMRP. One copy of each of these documents will be provided in electronic form. Also, one original camera-
ready copy of the Final EIR will be provided to the City.
Meeting: None.
City Involvement: Distribution of the Final EIR/Response to Comments and the MMRP, in compliance with CEQA
and local requirements.
Task 3: Attend Meetings
Objective: To meet with City staff and members of the public for coordination throughout the CEQA process.
Discussion: As discussed under Tasks 1 and 2, the consultant team will attend ten meetings with City staff.
Meetings will include one kick-off meetings, three public scoping meetings, up to six meetings throughout the
preparation of the EIR. EIP’s Principal in Charge will attend the kick-off meeting and all public meetings; EIP’s
project manager will attend all meetings. The six meetings can address site plan modifications, review of the cost
benefit analysis at the 60% completion stage, alternatives, and review of preliminary impacts and mitigation
measures. BVA staff will attend the kick-off meeting, one scoping meeting, the site plan modification meeting, the
alternatives discussion meeting, and two other meetings as determined by the City. KORVE staff will participate
in the same meetings as BVA, except for the site plan modification meeting.
Additionally, as discussed under Task 2.2 above, the EIP team will attend two meetings with concerned
environmental advocacy groups to discuss the EIR process and three meetings with groups interestedin the design
and theme of the education center to solicit their input. Key members of the EIP team will attend these meetings.
Deliverable: Data needs and minutes, as required.
Meeting: As discussed above.
Ci~ Involvement: Provide background materials, base maps, and applicable planning and regulatory documents as
needed during project kick-off. Set up, advertise, and prepare materials and presentation for the scoping process;
prepare scoping process summary; coordinate with EIP on revised work scope, as necessary.
Task 4: Cost Benefit Analysis
Objective: To produce a cost benefit analysis for the proposed ESC and alternatives.
Discussion: EIP’s subconsultant, BVA will conduct a cost-benefit analysis for each of the alternatives described in
the City Managers Report dated May 19, 2004 (CMR:176:04), as they may be refined by the scoping process and
discussions with City staff. These alternatives at this point include:
Development of the reduced-scale 6-acre ESC (Alternative la);
Development of a recycling and HHW area (Alternative lb);
041109 sm 0100312
The No Project Alternative; and
Development of the Project at the former Los Altos Treatment Plant Site.
In addition, BVA will analyze other alternatives identified in Subtask 2.1 of the study.
To conduct the cost benefit analysis BVA will develop a new fully detailed economic model based on the format
of the previous analysis conducted for the City. BVA will compile all required base assumptions for input to the
model for each of the alternatives, such as: annual tonnage delivered to the ESC (facility throughput), types of
matetials handling/processing functions operating (i.e., full composting or chip and ship, inerts handling and
storage on-site, etc.), levels of diversion, direct-haul vs. transfer-haul of matetials, etc. BVA also understands that
the City is currently considering collection of recyclables using a single-stream approach. BVA will analyze the
equipment required for this approach, recommend and cost the appropriate equipment with size and recovery
potential considerations.
Using these base assumptions, BVA will develop capital costs and annual operating costs for each of the
alternatives. BVA will annualize the capital costs and combine these with the annual operations costs to derive
total annual costs. In addition, BVA will estimate annual revenues from sales of recycled matetials, landfill gas,
and other dividends. BVA will then be able to calculate the net annual costs and net costs per ton (by dividing
throughput tonnage assumptions).
BVA will prepare a separate report including presentation of the results in tabular form for easy review. The
table(s) will include comparisons of each alternative based on their annual system costs, costs per ton and the
benefits or lack of benefits expected by each alternative. The report will also document assumptions,
methodology, analysis and appendices with background detailed calculations. The cost modeling will include
comprehensive "top-to-bottom" analysis, incorporating the costs and revenues of the facility functions at the
landfill as well as those that affect the overall costs such as direct-haul out of City to SMART, and other facility
tipping fees such as SMART. The City will need to have the "all-in costs" for each alternative fully identified to be
able to make appropriate decisions.
Deliverable: Five hard copies of the cost-benefit analyses upon 60 percent c~mpletion and five copies of the cost-
benefit analyses upon 95 percent to full completion. One copy of the document will be provided in electronic
form for both submittals. Any electronic spreadsheets will be formatted in Microsoft Word or Excel 2000, 9.0.4402
SR-1 or compatible software. Any electronic figures will be formatted in Microsoft Word or a compatible
software.
Meeting: Meetings with City as determined by City staff and EIP team.
City Involvement: Provide updated cost information; review and comment on each submittal of the cost-benefit
analysis.
Task 5: Produce Deliverables
The production of deliverables is discussed throughout Tasks 1 through 4, above.
041109 sm 0100312
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the
number of days specified below. The number of days to complete each milestone may
be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for
CONSULTANT and CITY. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work
consistent with the schedule below within 10 days of receipt of the notice to proceed.
Milestones Completion
Number of Days
From NTP
1. Kick off meeting
2. Complete Review of Information (Task 1)
3.Prepare Reponses to Comments on the
Circulated Notice of Preparation and
Consultation Meetings (Scoping) (Subtask 2.2)
4.Complete Administrative Draft EIR (Subtask 2.6)
5.City Review (Administrative Draft EIR)
6.Complete Draft EIR (Subtask 2.8)
7.45 Day Circulation/Receive Comments
8.Complete Administrative Final (Subtask 2.9.1)
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 2.11)
10. City Council Certification of Final EIR
7 days
14 days
35 days
125 days
146 days
160 days
205 days
219 days
233 days
240 days
254 days
041109 sm 0100312
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services
performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Contract, and as
set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based
on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed
budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT under this Contract for payment for all services except additional
services ("basic services") and reimbursable expenses is $368,257.
CONSULTANT agrees to complete all basic services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional
Services, the max~imum compensation shall not exceed $441,909. Any work
performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total
exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no
cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work
as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY Public Works Director or designee
may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks
or categories listed below provided the total compensation for basic services
does not exceed $368,257 and the total compensation for additional services
does not exceed $73,652.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1
(review background materials)
$14,620
Task 2 $270,623
(project EIR)
Task 3 $26,326
(Meetings)
Task 4
(cost benefit analysis)
$43,670
Task 5
(report production, printing)
$9,438
Sub-total Basic Services
Reimbursable Expenses
(Excluding subconsultant costs, printing
administrative fee on such costs, which are
$364,677
$3,580
costs, and consultant’s 10%
included in the per task budgets
041109 sm 0100312
3_
above. Appropriate backup information shall be provided to support such costs
as required below)
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses
Additional Services (Not to Exceed)
Maximum Total Compensation
$368, 257
$73,652
$441,909
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for reimbursable expenses including,
postage, mileage and other miscellaneous costs, at cost plus 10%. All requests
for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $250.00 shall be approved
in advance by the City’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written
authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s written request,
shall submit a detailed proposal including all hours, rates, other direct costs,
overhead, and profit. The additional services fee amount shall be negotiated prior
to inclusion in this Contract. Payment for additional services is subject to all
requirements and restrictions in this Contract.
Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are
exceeded shall be considered as additional services:
NOP comments submitted as part of the Administrative Draft and Draft
EIR.
Traffic study addresses not more than eight intersections.
Traffic counts available from City’s database.
Traffic analysis of alternative sites evaluated at a single level of traffic
volume.
Landfill closure plans available to Consultant and contain geological
information adequate for CEQA analysis.
City distributes Draft EIR to public in accord with CEQA.
Response to comments does not exceed 160 responses.
City review of Screencheck Final EIR/Response to Comments online.
City distributes final EIR/Response to Comments, MMRP, Resolution
of Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations in accord with
CEQA.
The EIR analyzes not more than five alternatives following the
screening of potential alternatives per task 2.1.
041109 srn 0100312
EXHIBIT D
PRODUCER
Dealey, Renton & Associates
P. O. Box 12675
!Oakland, CA 94604-2675
15t0 465-3090
INSURED
SIP Associates
353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94111
,I
COVERAGES
Client#: t370 EIPASSOCl
CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATFER OFINFORMATIONONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTSUPON THE CERTIFICATEHOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOESNOT AMEND, EXTEND ORALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDEDBY THE POLICIES BELOW.
INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER~ Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co.
INSURER B:, United States Fidelity & Guaranty
INSURER C: St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
INSURER O: Greenwich Insurance Company
INSURER E:
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE P~.ICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS ANO CONDITIONS OF SUCH
POLICIES, AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLNMS.
I-~-~. ......i POUCY EFFEGTNE POLICY EXPIRATIONLTR"I’~P~ E OF,INSURANCE .......POLI~Y NUMBER DATE IMM/DD/Y~ DATi~ t~MM/OD/YYI UMJT8
A GENERAL LIABILITY
~’~(-- COM M ERCIAL DEN ERAL LIA8 ~L ITY
BEN’L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPt, IES PER:
.A_U.TOMOBILE LIABILITY
ANY AUTO
ALL OWNED AUTOS
SCIIEDULED AUTOS
BK01778867 06101104 06101105 EACH OCCURRENCE
This policy nRE O~MAGe
ex~lu(le~ claims .....................................................
arising out of PERSO~L & ~V INJURY
06101104
the performance
of professional
services.
BA0t873839
C
~ 06/01105
09/01105
JX HIRED AUTOS
. .X~., NON-OWNED AUTOS
GARAGE LIABIUTY
EXCESS LIABILITY
.... DEDUCTIBLE
| RETENTION $,
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND
EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY 09101104WVA7726264
OTHER Professional 06101104
~Contractors Pol-
lution Legal .L!ab
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION8iLOCATiONSNEHICLE~/EXC LUS~ONS ADDED BY ENDOR~EMENT/~PECIAL’ PROvI~IONS
06/01105PEC0016553
’GENERal. AGGREGATE
PRODUCT8 - CQMP/OP AGG
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT(Ea e~ent)
BODILY INJURY(Per prude)
BODILY INJURY{Per acddenl)
PROPERW DAMAGE(Per a~denl)
AUTO ONLY. EA ACQDENT
OTHER THAN "E.A ACC
AUTO ONLY:AGG
EACH OCCURRENCE
AGGREGATE
$I,000,000
s500,O00
!_2~0_0_0,000_____
i;1,000,000
$
;$
X JWC STATU- J OTH-
$2,000,000 ~r claim
$2,000,000 annl aggr,
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
City of Paid Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Paid Alto, CA 94301
CANCELLATION
SHOULO ANYOF THE ~BOVE D ESCRIEED POLtC~S BE CANCELLED BEFORE TH E EXPIRATION
DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING iNSURER W/LL ENDEAVOR TO M~JL30__ D AYSWRRTEN
NO71CETOTHE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TOTHE LEFT, BUTFAILURS TODOSOSHALI.
IMPOSE NO OS MGATION OR LtABILITY OF ANY ~]ND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR
REPRESENTATIVES.
DAC O ACORD CORPORATION 1988ACORD 25.S (7197)1 of t #M110833
EXHIBIT E
CERTIFICATION OF NONDISCRIMINATION SECTION 41.0
PROJECT: Consultinq Services to Develop a Proi£ct En.vii:enfhental Impact ReDort for
Proposed Envii-0nmental Servi’ces.Center.
Certification of Nondiscrimination:.
Assuppliers of.goods..orservices to the City 0f.Palo Alto’,’{he firm and itidMduals listed below
ce~tif~ that they do not discriminate in .emple.yment.with -[ega~ds to:age, raCe,,color, religion, sex,
national origin, ance&try, disability, or sexual pref.erence;-t.h.at theyare ............. with all
Federal, State, and local directives :and execstive oEders i:egatding :hbndiscrimination in
emplo.yrnent.
THE 1NEORM~TION .HEREIN:.IS.g:ERTIFIF:qD C.ORRECT:BY SIGNA:T, UREtS), BELOW.
Siguature(S) .n]~ls[ l~ the same signa~t~re(.~): as: w]:]] &._p.pear"on C0~tTac.t:
Firm:
Signature:
Name:
Signature:
Name:
Note:
William S. Ziebron, President and CEO
’ iPRIN,T. :~R T~PE NAI~IE)
:(: .P.BrNTe.R ~.PE
The City of Palo Alto,. pursuant ~o",Cali’fomia Corporations Ood~: Section 313.requires.,two
corporate off]cers to .e~e_ ~.u..t.e:,.c"o.ntr.ac..fs.
*The signatare, of ,Fir, sb.Officer~:m~st: be one"of~he foflowing~ Chairman of the
B o a rd; President; ~r V.iC e ,Predderit.
**The .signature d;:t, he.ge~.o.ndO~cer**.must.,be, on# oHhe fdl.owing:.Secretary;
Assistan tSe, dr.eta~;: Ohief’F.inahci’al.(~ffice~’i;ot:.As.di~.tbh~
( n the, altematiYe, afce~t tied (~otporate resolution atteSting.tothe .signato~
aUthority-dfthe. i~i~i.viduals sigrii~g in [heir respective :capa~:ities is acceptable)
CIT~. OF PALO,.ALTORF.P "~’06508:P:AG’E 1 OF:II1