HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2361City of Palo Alto (ID # 2361)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 2/6/2012
February 06, 2012 Page 1 of 8
(ID # 2361)
Summary Title: Energy/Compost Facility Recommendations
Title: Approval of Amendment No.1 to Contract C11136602 with Alternative
Resources, Inc. in the Amount of $29,700 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of
$227,758 for Assistance in Developing a Process and Timeline for
Energy/Compost Facility Consideration; Approval of Contract C12143502 with
Golder Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $193,713 for a Total Not to Exceed
Amount of $213,113 for Final Landfill Cap Design and Landfill Capping-Related
Services (CIP RF-11001); and Temporary Suspension of Landfill Capping and
Compost Termination to Allow for the Establishment of a Process and Timeline
for Consideration of an Energy/Compost Facility
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached
contract Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C11136602 (Attachment A) with
Alternative Resources Inc., (ARI) in the amount of $29,700 for assisting the City
in generating a process and timeline for considering an Energy/Compost Facility
on the 10-acre site made available by Measure E, for a total contract amount of
$227,458;
2.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached
contract (Attachment B) with Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder) in the amount of
$193,713 for the final landfill cap design and $19,400 for additional services for a
total contract amount of $213,113;
3.Direct staff to continue dialogue with regulatory agencies to obtain approval for a
postponement of final capping of the landfill for one construction season (from
2012 to 2013) so that Council can retain all options while the process and
timeline for considering an Energy/Compost Facility is developed;
4.Direct staff to continue operating the City’s existing aerobic windrow composting
operation on the landfill instead of closing the composting facility and diverting
yard trimmings to the Sunnyvale SMaRT® Station while the process and timeline
for considering an Energy/Compost Facility is developed; and
February 06, 2012 Page 2 of 8
(ID # 2361)
5.Direct staff to return to Council in approximately three months to present the
process and timeline for considering an Energy/Compost Facility and to obtain
further Council direction on the landfill closure and existing composting
operation.
Executive Summary
This staff report contains recommendations pertaining to the City’s consideration of a
potential Compost/Energy Facility, final capping and closure of the Palo Alto landfill, and
short-term continued operation of the City’s composting operation at the landfill. Final
capping and closure of the landfill, as well as closure of the composting operation, were
scheduled to occur in calendar year 2012.
The passage of Measure E in November 2011, which undedicated from parkland a 10-
acre parcel of the landfill scheduled for closure, allows the City to carefully consider an
Energy/Compost Facility on the 10-acre parcel or some portion thereof. Staff’s
recommendations are intended to preserve the City’s options and to avoid unnecessary
expenditures while a process and timeline for considering an Energy/Compost Facility
are developed.
Staff recommends that 1)a contract amendment with Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI)
be approved to assist in development of the plan and timeline for considering an
Energy/Compost Facility; 2)capping and final closure of the landfill be delayed for one
construction season; 3)a contract with Golder Associates (Golder) be approved to
complete certain closure-related tasks immediately and to allow closure to proceed in
calendar year 2012 if necessary; and 4)the existing composting operation be continued
in the short term at its current location. Staff intends to return to Council in
approximately three months to present the process and timeline developed with the
assistance of ARI and to obtain further Council direction on the landfill and closure and
existing composting operation.
Background
ARI Contract Amendment No. 1
On April 5, 2010, Council directed staff to initiate a feasibility study for an
Energy/Compost Facility in Palo Alto. Council approved a contract with ARI to conduct
the study (CMR:333:10) on August 2, 2010. In September 2011, a Final Feasibility
Report was presented to Council. The Feasibility Report recommended that if the site
at Byxbee Park becomes available through the passage of Measure E, the City should
take further actions to consider anaerobic digestion and other technologies for
managing the City’s food scraps, yard trimmings, and biosolids at the site.
In November 2011, Palo Alto voters passed Measure E, which removes a 10-acre parcel
of land adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant from dedication as parkland for the
limited use as an Energy/Compost Facility. Approximately 8 of this 10 acre parcel is
located on the Palo Alto landfill. A contract amendment with ARI is being proposed to
February 06, 2012 Page 3 of 8
(ID # 2361)
assist the City with developing a plan and timeline for consideration of an
Energy/Compost Facility on the 10-acre parcel or a portion thereof. .
Landfill Closure and Golder Associates Inc. Contract
The Palo Alto Landfill is comprised of 126-acres and is divided into four Phases –I, IIA,
IIB, and IIC. Phase I known as Byxbee Park was capped and opened to park users in
1991. Phase IIA was capped in 1992 and Phase IIB was capped in 2000. In the
summer of 2011, all of Phase IIA and a large portion of Phase IIB were opened to park
users after the environmental control systems were buried and additional clean soil was
brought in to bring the phases to final design grades. In November of 2011, an
additional 7 acres of Phase IIB was opened to park users. Approximately 2 acres of
Phase IIB is being used to stockpile a vegetative soil mixture. The remaining portion of
Phase IIB is expected to be open to the public in 2012.
Phase IIC is the final phase of the landfill to be closed. It is 51 acres in size and
includes the open windrow aerobic composting operation, Palo Alto Recycling Center
(set to close February 1, 2012), former equipment maintenance facility, and the landfill
office, scale, and tollbooth.
The last remaining section of Phase IIC accepting refuse reached capacity in July 2011
and the landfill has officially stopped accepting any more refuse. The landfill has
continued to accept yard trimmings from the contract hauler (residential curbside
collection), City crews, and City tree trimming contractors so compost could be made
and added to soil to produce a vegetative soil layer. The landfill also started accepting
clean soil to bring settled areas of Phase IIC up to the final design grades and as an
additive for the vegetative soil layer. The vegetative soil layer will be used during
capping and is being stockpiled on a small portion of Phase IIB and on Phase IIC.
Capping of Phase IIC was originally scheduled to begin during the 2012 construction
season. Once capped, all areas of Phase IIB and IIC can be opened to park users with
the exception of the 10-acre parcel described in Measure E. .
Before Phase IIC can be capped and opened to the public, final construction plans and
specifications must be prepared by an engineering firm specializing in landfill closures.
The engineering firm, Golder, was selected to prepare the final construction documents
as well as other closure activities for Phase IIC. This professional services contract
C12143502 is included as Attachment B.
Composting Operation
The City operates an open windrow aerobic composting facility at the landfill (on top of
Phase IIC). The composting facility receives yard trimmings from the City’s solid waste
hauler, from City crews generating yard trimmings, and from City tree trimming
contractors. Public self-haul yard trimmings have not been accepted since the landfill
stopped accepting refuse in July 2011. Seven to ten trucks deliver approximately 70
tons of compostable material five days per week. The yard trimmings are ground and
February 06, 2012 Page 4 of 8
(ID # 2361)
placed into windrows, watered and turned so that aerobic digestion can be
accomplished. After approximately six weeks the compost is finished and the material
is screened. The screened finished compost is then mixed with clean soil and stockpiled
for use as the vegetative soil layer that will be used to cover the Phase IIC cap. The
composting operation had been scheduled to end in early 2012 once enough finished
compost had been generated for the vegetative layer.
Discussion
ARI Contract Amendment No. 1
Staff recommends that a contract amendment with ARI be approved to allow ARI to
assist the City in developing a process and timeline following the passage of Measure E
which removes from dedication as parkland a 10-acre parcel of land located in Byxbee
Park for the exclusive purpose of building a processing facility for the City’s organic
wastes: food scraps, yard trimmings, and biosolids. The initial ARI contract funding of
$197,758 was used to complete the Energy/Compost Feasibility Study. The next step in
considering an Energy/Compost Facility is to develop a detailed plan and timeline for
evaluating the technologies, environmental impacts, funding mechanisms and
technology providers associated with the potential project. The process and timeline
will then serve as a roadmap throughout the evaluation process. This ARI contract
amendment in the amount of $29,700 will enable ARI to assist the City in preparing the
plan and timeline. This contract amendment also provides funding for the consultant to
answer some remaining questions and concerns about the Feasibility Study. The funds
budgeted for this purpose in the initial contract were used earlier in the process to
answer concerns and make revisions precipitated by the extraordinary amount of public
comment received. If all of the contract amendment money is not needed, it will not
be spent. It is anticipated that development of the process and timeline will take
approximately three months. Staff intends to return to Council at that time to review
the plan and timeline and to obtain further Council direction before beginning
implementation of the plan.
Landfill Closure and Golder Associates Inc. Contract
The remaining uncapped 51 acres of the landfill had been scheduled to be graded and
capped during the 2012 construction season, which extends through the Fall of 2012.
In accordance with the Measure E amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and
Baylands Master Plan, staff is recommending that Council direct staff to contact
regulatory agencies to apply for the postponement of the capping for one construction
season. A postponement for one construction season allows time for staff to develop
and begin implementing the process and timeline for considering an Energy/Compost
Facility. Installing the cap while still considering options for an Energy/Compost Facility
would substantially increase the future cost to build the Facility. Refuse excavated from
the 10-acre site to create a usable pad for the Facility would need to be relocated to the
remaining 41 acres of Phase IIC of the landfill or exported to an off-site landfill.
Relocation of refuse to the remainder of Phase IIC would require that those areas be
regraded and have a new cap installed, in addition to changes to the leachate and
February 06, 2012 Page 5 of 8
(ID # 2361)
landfill gas collection systems. Exporting the excavated refuse to another landfill would
involve significant transportation and tip fee costs. Staff is developing cost estimates
for several different potential Energy/Compost Facility pad sizes and configurations.
Preliminary estimates indicate that the increased cost to build an Energy/Compost
Facility after the landfill had already been capped could be several million dollars.
Postponement of the landfill closure can be allowed if all three of the oversight agencies
with jurisdiction over the landfill closure approve the City’s request. These three
agencies are the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), and the
County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health (Local Enforcement Agency
or “LEA”). Preliminary conversations between City staff and the agencies indicate that
postponement could be acceptable. The State Lands Commission may also need to be
consulted.
In the event the RWQCB, CalRecycle or the LEA does not approve postponing the
closure of the landfill, a professional services contract would be needed immediately to
provide final construction plans and specifications for the landfill closure. Certain tasks
in such a contract can be performed now, regardless of when capping occurs.
The scope of the Golder contract includes investigating and characterizing the extent
and quality of the low-permeability soil in the 0.1 acre former landfill gas-to-energy
(Cogeneration) Facility, located on the North-Western corner of the landfill. The
Cogeneration Facility closed in 2004 and has been used to store equipment, an oil lube
shed, and has acted as a maintenance bay to service landfill heavy equipment. The
Golder contract scope also includes, assisting the City by answering technical questions
and/or design conflicts, performing a CEQA analysis of the closure construction impacts,
performing facility closure sampling and analytical testing of soils at the Cogeneration
and Recycling Center, providing construction quality assurance (CQA) oversight, and
preparing a CQA Summary Report.
If closure of the landfill is postponed, staff will only proceed with those portions of the
scope of work that need to take place in the same manner regardless of whether a
Compost/Energy Facility is built, while delaying the scope of work components for which
funds would not be needed if a Facility is built.
A summary of the consultant solicitation process is provided below.
Summary of Solicitation Process
Description Number
Proposed Length of Project:70 weeks
Number of Proposals Mailed:6
Total Days to Respond to Proposal:37
Number of Proposals Received:3
February 06, 2012 Page 6 of 8
(ID # 2361)
Company Name Location (City, State)
1. SCS Engineers Pleasanton, CA
2. Golder Associates, Inc.Roseville, CA
3. EBA Santa Rosa, CA
Range of Proposal Amounts Submitted $329,760 to $421,725
The Request for Proposals (RFP) was sent to six engineering firms and was obtained by
others after being published on the City web site. The response period was 37 days.
Proposals were received from three firms. The proposal amount ranged from a high of
$421,725 to a low of $329,760. The firms not proposing indicated that they did not
think they could be competitive, were too busy, and the work did not fit into their
schedule. The RFP process allows the City to negotiate the price of the work upon
selection of the successful firm.An evaluation committee consisting of Public Works
Department Engineering Services and Environmental Services staff reviewed the
proposals. The committee carefully reviewed each firm's qualifications and submittal in
response to the criteria identified in the RFP. The criteria used to evaluate the
proposing firms included: quality and completeness of proposal; quality, performance,
and effectiveness of the solutions; proposer's experience; cost; proposer's financial
stability; proposer's ability to perform the work within the time specified; proposer's
prior record of performance with the City; and proposer's compliance with applicable
laws and regulations. Golder was selected because of its understanding of the needed
design services, the inclusion of Hargreaves Associates as a subconsultant, its
experience in dealing with regulatory agencies, and past professional experience of the
key team members. Following the consultantant selection process and the passage of
Measure E, the scope of work of the contract was reduced. Therefore the final Contract
amount is lower than the amounts in any of the proposals.
Composting Operations
Prior to the passage of Measure E, staff had planned to begin sending curbside
collected yard trimmings, as well as yard trimmings generated by City crews and
contractors, to the Sunnyvale SMaRT® Station in early 2012. This transfer was
scheduled to occur once the City’s existing composting operation had generated a
sufficient volume of finished compost to complete the stockpile of vegetative soil
needed for closure of the landfill. Yard trimmings delivered to the SMaRT® Station are
trucked to the Z-Best facility in Gilroy for aerobic windrow composting, the same
composting method used at the City’s composting operation.
If the City is granted permission from the regulatory agencies to postpone the closure
of the landfill then the City has the option of continuing the composting operation at the
landfill instead of sending the yard trimmings to the SMaRT® Station. Staff has had
several outreach meetings to discuss these options with stakeholders. Measure E
proponents are in favor of retaining the City’s composting operation while the potential
Energy/Compost Facility is considered, while Measure E opponents want the composting
operation to end as originally scheduled.
February 06, 2012 Page 7 of 8
(ID # 2361)
Staff has completed estimates of the short-term costs for continuing the City’s
composting operation at its current location and for sending the City’s yard trimmings to
the SMaRT Station®.The estimates are provided in Attachment C.Staff’s estimates
conclude that the costs for both options in the short term are about $45,000 per
month.It is important to note that the City’s composting operation cost estimate only
includes the out-of-pocket costs for the City to continue composting over the next
several months without considering land rent or vehicle replacement contributions.This
cost estimate also does not include one-time large equipment repair costs and
overhauls that may or may not be needed in the short term.Conversely, the cost
estimate for delivering yard trimmings to the SMaRT Station assumes that the cost per
ton of yard trimmings paid by the City for materials delivered to the SMaRT Station
during FY 2011 will remain unchanged.However, the contract with the operator of the
SMaRT Station includes provisions that could result in a significantly reduced cost per
ton for yard trimmings if additional diversion from refuse is achieved. Improvements to
the quality of the “fines” generated through the sorting process are needed in order to
meet market specifications for composting, and thus additional diversion from the
landfill. Potential solutions for improvements are being investigated, but there is no
scheduled date for implementing a solution.
Given the relatively nominal price differential in the two options, Staff recommends that
the City’s existing composting operation be continued at its current location while the
process and timeline for considering a Compost/Energy Facility is developed over the
next several months. Staff intends to return to Council in approximately three months
to present the process and timeline, and to obtain further Council direction on the
composting operation. Staff will also return to Council before incurring any significant
expenses from the composting operation in the event of equipment failures or other
factors, or if changes occur at the SMaRT® Station that significantly reduce the cost of
sending the City’s yard trimmings there.
Resource Impact
ARI Contract Amendment No. 1
The $29,700 for this amendment is available from existing funds in the FY 2012
Wastewater Treatment Fund operating budget. The original $197,758 came from three
sources: Wastewater Treatment Fund, the Electric Fund Calaveras Reserve, and the
Refuse Fund. The Wastewater Treatment Fund is being used for this amendment
because the recent questions and concerns have focused on the relationship between
the potential Energy/Compost Facility and the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Landfill Closure and Golder Associates Inc. Contract
Funds for this project/contract are available in the FY 2011-2012 Refuse Fund Capital
Improvement Program project (RF-11001 Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure).
Policy Implications
February 06, 2012 Page 8 of 8
(ID # 2361)
Recommendations of this staff report are consistent with existing City policies including
the Baylands Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan as amended by Measure E on
November 8, 2011.
Environmental Review
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in connection with the 1978
Baylands Master Plan. The Golder professional services contract implements the final
portion of the landfill closure and will cover any additional environmental assessment
required for full landfill closure. Any variations to the approved closure plan will be
subject to an additional environmental assessment under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Likewise any construction of a new Energy/Compost Facility will be
subject to additional environmental review.
Attachments:
·A -ARI Contract C11136602 Amendment No. 1 (PDF)
·B -Golder Associates Inc. Contract C12143502 (PDF)
·C -Composting Cost Analysis (PDF)
·D -Public Letters to Council (PDF)
Prepared By:Charles Muir,
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
AMENDMENT NO.1 TO CONTRACT NO.C11136602
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES, INC.
This Amendment No.1 to contract No. Cl1136602
("Contract") is entered into , 2011, by and between
the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a charter city and a municipal corporation
of the State of California ("CITY"), and Al ternati ve Resources,
Inc., a corporation in the State of Massachusetts, located at 1732
Main Street, Concord, Massachusetts, 01742-3837 ("CONTRACTOR").
R E CIT A L S:
WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the
parties for the provision of preparation of a Feasibility Study for
a Dry Anaerobic Digestion Facility; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms,
conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section 4 of the Contract is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"Section 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The
compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of
the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both
payment for professional services and reimbursable
expenses, shall not exceed two hundred twenty-seven
thousand four hundred fifty-eight dollars ($227,458)."
SECTION 2. The following exhibit to the Contract is
hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment to this
Amendment, which is incorporated in full by this reference:
a. Exhibit "A" entitled "Scope of Services".
b. Exhibit "B" entitled "Schedule of Performance".
c. Exhibit "C" entitles "Compensation".
SECTION 3. Except as herein modified, all other
provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent
amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
II
II
II
Amendment 1 to Cll136602
1
111215smOl0
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly
authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date
first above written.
APPROVED: Alternative Resourc ,Inc.
City Manager
By: ---7~-+~--F-~-----------
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A":
EXHIBIT "B":
EXHIBIT "c":
110906 Sill 010
SCOPE OF SERVICES
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
COMPENSATION
2
,CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The project is to prepare a Feasibility Study for a Dry Anaerobic
Energy/Compost Facility in the City of Palo alto, California.
The facility would recover energy from methane derived from dry
anaerobic digestion of food scraps, yard trimmings, and, possibly
wastewater biosolids. The chief residual from the processes
would be compost. The Feasibility Study would include an
economic, greenhouse gas, and environmental impact analysis. An
Initial Study (CEQA Checklist) pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act will also be prepared. (Further
California Environmental Quality Act work may be performed
through a Contract Amendment.) Several suboptions will be
studied. The costs, impacts, and benefits will be compared to a
"no action" alternative and to the alternative of a similar
processing facility located outside of Palo Alto, but within 20
miles. The location of the Palo Alto facility would be
immediately southeast of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant on an 8-9 acre site.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto currently handles organic residuals in the
following ways:
1. Yard trimmings are composted at the Palo Alto landfill site
in uncovered windrows;
2. Residential food scraps are disposed of with the garbage and
landfilled in South San Jose;
3. Commercial food scraps are increasingly being source
separated and composted near Gilroy, CA, with the remainder
being landfilled in South San Jose; and
4. Wastewater Biosolids are dewatered and incinerated at the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant in Palo Alto.
The 8-9 acre site described above is currently on dedicated
Parkland. The site would have to be undedicated by a vote of the
residents before an Energy/Compost Facility could be constructed.
A number of other approvals and permits would also be needed.
However, this Scope of Services does not include working on these
approval processes. The City already operates its own gas and
electric utilities, which are potential users of gas or energy
generated by an anaerobic digestion facility. The electric
enterprise fund has been directed to procure 33% of its electric
supply from renewable sources by 2015. The gas enterprise fund
Amendment 1 to C11136602
3
111215 sm 010
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cll136602
is investigating opportunities to supply some load using biogas.
The City also fuels a portion of its vehicle fleet with
compressed natural gas, which is another potential use for biogas
generated by the facility.
PROJECT APPROACH
The Consultant will evaluate and compare three basic
alternatives:
Alternative 1: A new dry anaerobic digestion facility adjacent
to the Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Alternative 2: A similar Regional Facility adjacent to the San
Jose Wastewater Treatment Plant
Alternative 3: The current facilities and plans which Palo Alto
has arranged for its organics residuals following closure of the
Palo Alto Landfill.
The City will provide much of the d~ta for the analysis of
Alternatives 2 and 3. The majority of the Consultants work will
be on Alternative1. There are two sites involved in Alternative
1, the 8-9 acre Landfill site just Southeast of the Wastewater
Treatment Plant, and the Wastewater
Treatment Plant itself. Therefore, there will be subalternatives
to Alternative 1 as follows:
SUb-options to Alternative1:
1a) A new dry anaerobic digestion for yard, food and biosolids
on the landfill site (biosolids in separate cells).
lb.) Dry anaerobic digestion for yard, food and wet anaerobic
digestion for biosolids on the landfill site.
1c.) Dry anaerobic digestion for yard and food on the landfill
site and wet anaerobic digestion for biosolids on the
Wastewater Plant site.
1d.) Dry anaerobic digestion for yard and food waste and no
methane production from the biosoids.
The analysis of all four sub-options of Alternative 1 will assume
that a common methane energy recovery facility will be located on
the Landfill site. The analysis of all main options and sub
options will include:
1. A financial analysis;
2. A life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions; and
Amendment 1 to Cl1136602
4
111215 sm 010
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602
3. An analysis of environmental and other impacts.
The analysis of the wastewater anaerobic digestion process in
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 will be performed through a
separate, parallel study: The Wastewater Long Range Planning
process. The firm selected for that study will provide the
evaluation of wet anaerobic digestion to the Consultant.
Following submittal of Preliminary Analysis (Task 4), City will
consider whether other alternatives should be considered as well.
For example, it may become apparent that an alternative of a
somewhat larger or smaller site would better accommodate a cost
effective option, and be within the intent of the Council April
5, 2010 Directive to staff.
CONSULTANT SERVICES
TASK 1: Development of Detailed Workplan
The Consultant will develop a draft detailed Workplan and attend
a kickcoff meeting in Palo Alto with City representatives. The
draft Workplan will be available for review prior to the meeting.
Other goals of the kick-off meeting will be to review the draft
Workplan and schedule, to establish the City's goals, objectives
and expectations for the Feasibility Study and Environmental
Impact Initial Study, and to estab'lish lines of communication.
TASK 2: Community Scoping for Feasibility Study and for
Environmental Review
The Consultant will attend a community meeting arranged by the
City to solicit input on the Feasibility Study and Environment
Impact Initial Study. In addition to gathering information from
the public on the Feasibility Study, a primary purpose of the
community scoping meeting will be to identify key community
concerns regarding the project's potential environmental effects.
The CEQA environmental review process will be described, as
necessary, and the opportunities for the public to participate in
the environmental review process will be identified. Following
the meeting, City comments will be incorporated into and a final
Workplan will be issued.
TASK 3: Preparation of Draft Preliminary Financial and
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
The Consultant will develop a financial model to evaluate each of
the four (4) sUb-options of Alternative 1. Using budgetary cost
estimates supplemented with additional information such as
estimated financing costs, the Consultant will calculate annual
costs per ton and the total present value cost over the life
cycle for each sub-option. The economic model will be
constructed to enable the analysis of alternative project
Amendment 1 to C11136602
5
111215 sm 010
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cll136602
development scenarios (for example, private ownership and
operation compared to publically-financed design/build/operate
implementation), as well as the impact of potential grant and
funding sources. In addition, the economic model will provide
for consideration of the potential cost-savings associated with
the prevailing tax exempt market should the City own the
energy/compost facility. The preliminary financial model will be
submitted to the City for review.
Key environmental parameters will be considered in preparing the
draft preliminary evaluation. The key environmental parameters
will be identified through consultation with the City, through
the community scoping meeting input, and based on the
professional experience of the project team. The key
environmental parameters will be presented in a data management
system format.
The greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis will discuss the current state
of the science .(e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on Cli~ate Change's
[IPCC] Fourth Assessment Report) along with applicable regulatory
framework and relevant guidance (e.g., Assembly Bill [AB] 32,
recently adopted CEQA Guideline amendments and Bay Area Air
Quality Management District's [BAAQMD] Air quality Guidance and
GHG Thresholds of Significance). Specifically, as required by
Senate Bill 97, the CEQA Guidelines were revised on December 30,
2009, to address GHG emissions under CEQA; this analysis will
comply with these newly adopted guidelines along with those
adopted by BAAQMD on June 2, 2010. The following analysis will
be conducted for all alternatives and SUb-options.
For project-generated construction-related emissions, the Urban
Emissions Model (URBEMIS) will be used to estimate increases in
GHGs (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment exhaust). This
modeling will be based on BAAQMD-recommended input parameters,
project-specific construction data (e.g., size of disturbed
ground area, construction phasing schedule), and URBEMIS default
settings.
URBEMIS, the BAAQMD GHG Model (BGM) , and methods from the
California air Resources Board (ARB) will be used to estimate
direct project-generated operational-related emissions of GHGs
for mobile, stationary, and area source types (e.g., vehicle
trips associated with facility employees and material collection
and delivery). This modeling will be based on BAAQMD-recommended
input parameters, project-specific operational data (e.g., type
and size of the proposed facility, operational schedule), default
settings, and project specific traffic data (e.g., overall trip
generation and vehicle miles traveled [VMT]). Other applicable
quantification methods, emissions factors, and assumptions
protocols from, but not limited to, the Western Climate
Amendment 1 to Cl1136602
6
111215 sm 010
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cll136602
Initiative, IPCC, California Climate Action Registry's General
Reporting Protocol, and ARB will be used to estimate long-term
operational-related indirect source emissions. These types of
facilities are not a covered sector under ARB regulation for the
mandatory_reporting of GHG emissions; however, aspects of the
digester offset quantification protocol may apply.
Additionally, though mandatory reporting would not be required or
utilization of the digester offset protocol, quantification
methods selected for this project will rely on ARB requirements
and default emission factors, where applicable to this exact
facility type, as stated in the regulation for usability in the
future and substantiation of approach for legal defensibility.
This analysis will also address the GHG emissions (e.g.,
lifecycle) from the alternate fates (e.g., composting, land
filling, and incinerating) of the wastes by virtue of the
collection of these wastes for use with regards to the proposed
project.
Increases in GHGs wil~ be compared to applicable thresholds and
mitigation measures prepared as needed that clearly identify
timing, responsibility, and performance standards. A two-tiered
approach will be used to assess the project's potential
generation of GHGs and its incremental contribution to the
cumulative effect resulting from emission of the GHGs as follows:
(1) the potential for project-generated GHG emissions to have a
significant impact on the environment and (2) the potential for
the project to conflict with applicable plans, policies, or
regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
The amount of GHGs determined in this analysis (and associated
impacts) will be presented in a data management system.
TASK 4: Preparation of Final Preliminary Financial and
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Based on the City's comments from review of the preliminary
financial and greenhouse analysis, a final preliminary analysis
will be submitted to the City. This will include a working model
in Excel format that will allow the City to test a change in
clearly identified variables to assess the impact on life-cycle
cost and greenhouse gas emissions.
TASK 5: Preparation of Draft Feasibility Study and California
Environmental Quality Act Checklist
The Consultant will assist the City in presenting the preliminary
financial analysis to the Community and City Council. In
consultation with the City, comments and suggestions received
from these presentations will be incorporated into a draft
feasibility report which will be prepared to succinctly compile
the results of the work performed. The report will include an
Amendment 1 to Cll136602
7
111215 sm 010
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cll136602
overview, introduction, waste analysis, conversion technology
facility description, and economic analysis. The introduction
will include a description of the project planning and history,
system elements, and participants. The waste analysis section of
the report will include an overview of the existing solid waste
management system in the City as well as summarizing available
information on waste generation, composition of yard trimmings,
food scraps, and biosolids, and waste flow control provisions.
Site regulatory. and permitting considerations will be included
with descriptions of the technologies responding to the request
for-information described in Task 8. The economic analysis
section of the report will include a discussion of scope and
methods, capital and operation and maintenance costs estimates
(including staffing estimates), financing considerations, and
life-cycle cost analysis with sensitivities.
Following presentation of the Preliminary Analysis to the
community and the City Council, the Consultant will prepare a
Draft CEQA Initial Study (CEQA Checklist). The Consultant will
coordinate with City of Palo Alto staff and the project team
members to identify the elements to be included in the Initial
Study project description. The project description will focus on
the changes anticipated with implementation of the Feasibility
Study. Depending upon the alternative approach selected by the
City, the key considerations will likely include the odor and
traffic generating potential of the proposed Dry Anaerobic
Energy/Compost Facility and its compatibility with Byxbee Park
users, biological resources, and the nearby municipal airport.
The Environmental Checklist Form will be completed with
explanations for each response for the proposed project. The
level of analysis and degree of impact will vary depending on the
environmental impacts anticipated from the proposed project. An
administrative draft Initial Study will be prepared for review by
City staff and the project team members. The Initial Study will
be revised based on the comments received on the administrative
draft documents. The completed document will be presented to the
City for public distribution.
TASK 6: Preparation of Final Feasibility Study, California
Environmental Quality Act Checklist, and Workplan for Completion
of California Environmental Quality Act Analysis.
The Consultant will assist the City in presenting the draft
Feasibility Study to the Community and to City Council. Comments
and suggestions received from these presentations will be
incorporated, in consultation with the City, into a final
Feasibility Study. Feedback gathered during the City Council
meeting will be used to finalize the Initial Study including any
information presented regarding potential environmental effects
Amendment 1 to C11136602
8
111215smOl0
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cll136602
or suggested mitigation strategies. The administrative draft
Initial Study will be revised based on the comments received
during the City Council meeting. The completed document will be
submitted to the City.
TASK 7: Preparation of Workplan for Complete California
Environmental Quality Act Analysis.
Following completion of the Initial Study, the Consultant. will
confer with the City and the project team regarding the
appropriate level of CEQA review for the Feasibility Study (i.e.,
Program EIR, Project-level EIR, or Focused EIR). Based on the
direction provided by the City, the Consultant will prepare a
work plan for the preparation of the environmental review
document identified by the City as being appropriate for the
Feasibility Plan.
TASK 8: Analysis of Energy Generation from Methane.
Four (4) SUb-options for Alternative 1 will be evaluated for anew
dry anaerobic facility at the landfill site. These options are
in the following matrix:
Anaerobic
Sub-Digestion Yard Food
option System Trimmings Scraps Biosolids
Dry X X X
1 a) (separate cell)
Wet --- -- -
Dry X X - -
lb)
Wet --- -X
Dry X X --
----X
lc) (wastewater Wet treatment plant
site)
X X --
ld) Dry
------
Wet
The Consultant will prepare a request-for-information (RFI)
document for selected technology companies, requesting cost and
performance data for each of the sub-options identified above.
The Consultant understands that cost and performance data for the
wet anaerobic digestion or biosolids will be provided by another
Amendment 1 to C11136602
9
111215smOl0
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cll136602
firm selected by the City for the facility planning process
associated with the wastewater treatment facility (i.e., the Long
Range ~acilities Plan) .
The RFI will include an introduction, discussion of general
conditions, schedule, submission of information requirements, and
qualification information. The RFI approach will enable the
Consultant to solicit project-specific information and will
en,able the responding companies to incorporate thei,r current
thinking regarding both technology and business postures in their
responses. The Consultant's database will also be used to
compare the cost and. performance data received from the
technology companies through the RFI process for reasonableness.
Adjustments will be made to cost and performance data input to
the economic model, as deemed necessary.
Based on the response to the RFI and the Consultant's experience
and judgment, the quantity of biogas generated in each of the
four (<j,) sUb-options will be estimated. The. quantity of landfill
gas available from the Palo Alto landfill will be considered in a
separate sensitivity analysis and a recommendation made as to
whether landfill gas should be incorporated into the sUb-options.
The methane-rich gas produced from the dry anaerobic digestion
proces's can be used in a variety of electrical generation
equipment including: internal combustion en,gines, gas turbines,
gas turbines in a combined cycle configuration, or fuel cells.
The methane-rich gas can also be upgraded for production of
compressed natural gas or pipeline quality natural gas. A common
methane energy recovery system will be adopted by the Consultant
for the analysis of the four (4) sUb-options. This selection
will be made based on the Consultant's experience and the
responses to the RFI received from technology companies.
The Consultant will also investigate grant and funding
opportunities that could result in either a lower overall amount
of borrowing or a lower cost of capital. These include, among
others, Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS), Qualified Energy
Conservation Bonds (QECBs), Tax Credit Bonds, United States
Department of Energy (USDOE) grants, and loan guarantees.
Additional funding opportunities may be available through various
State-administered programs.
In addition, the Consultant will analyze the advantages and
disadvantages of public and private models for project delivery,
considering ownership, risk sharing for performance and cost,
financing options and opportunities for grants and low interest
loans available on a State and Federal basis for different
methods of project delivery; These methods include both public
and private models; design-build (DB), design-build-operate (DBO)
Amendment 1 to Cll136602
10
111215smOlO
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cll136602
and design-build-own-operate-transfer (DBOOT).
A preliminary site engineering analysis will be conducted for the
landfill site including consideration of access, space
requirements, rough grading requirements, foundation
considerations, and interconnection of utilities. The City will
provide the Consultant with a quantity estimate of cubic yards of
in-place refuse that will need to be relocated from the site.
The City wil'l also provide the Consultant copies of previous
geotechnical investigations performed on and adjacent to the
landfill site. A conceptual site layout drawing will be
prepared indicating the arrangement and location of the facility
on the site. The drawing will be compatible with the City's GIS
system. If facility information is available in sufficient
detail to depict plan and side views, additional drawings will be
prepared depicting a three dimensional view of the facility.
TASK 9: Proj eC.t Management
The Consultant will meet with the City monthly to review progress
and establish priorities for work to be conducted the following
month. It is anticipated that these meetings will be conducted
both in person, as needed, and by teleconference.
TASK 10: Additional Services
Ascent Environmental-GHG Model: Additional runs of the GHG model
to accommodate: transport and processing of yard trimmings at
the Z-Best compost facility in Gilroy instead of the AD facility
in San Jose; eliminating biosolids from consideration thereby
anaerobically digesting food scraps and yard trimmings only; and
additional model adjustments and runs to account for changes in
the assumptions for wet anaerobic digestion of biosolids,
production of pipeline quality gas and site preparation.
Attendance at an additional meeting with City Council, not
anticipated in the original scope.
Alternative Resources Inc.-Additional runs of the Economic Model
to address: eliminating biosolids from consideration thereby
anaerobically digesting food scraps and yard trimmings only;
increasing future costs for continued incineration of bisosolids;
applying a contingency for export options for Alternatives 2 and
3; and to include up to two other sensitivity analyses as may
result from public review and comment on the draft economic
analyses.
TASK 11: RESPOND TO PUBLIC QUESTIONS ON FINAL FEASIBILITY REPORT.
In Task 11, the Consultant will respond to public questions
regarding the Final Feasibility Report (dated 9/20/11) and in doing
Amendment 1 to C11136602
11
111215 sm 010
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602
so provide one set of revisions to the Final Feasibility Report and
June 2011 Power Point Presentation to City Council.
TASK 12: ASSIST CITY IN DETERMINING AN ACTION PLAN FOLLOWING THE
PASSAGE OF MEASURE E.
In Task 12, the Consultant shall, assist the City in determining
an action plan for the 10 acre site undedicated by the passage of
Measure E during the November 2011 elections. Work shall
include:
Participating in a meeting with City staff to review the
recommendations and approach for next steps made in the Final
Feasibility Report, to discuss how these recommendations are
impacted by passage of Measure E, to identify other City actions
(such as landfill closure and the development of the Long Range
Facilities Plan for biosolids management for the RWQCP) which
will impact or be impacted by next steps regarding the
Energy/Compost Facility or export options, and to discuss ,an
integrated approach for an action plan;
Conducting a half day "workshop" with appropriate City officials
and staff to review an approach for soliciting firm technical and
cost proposals for an Energy/Compo~t Facility and for export
options, such approa'ch to consider City preferences for
technology, site development, type of materials to be processed,
energy generation/use, facility ownership, financing, project
delivery method/risk allocation, scope of services, performance,
environmental mitigation, and business terms;
In conjunction with City staff, developing a draft action plan,
identifying an approach, next steps and schedule;
Participating in a public meeting with City staff and interested
public groups to discuss the draft action plan, and responding to
comments from these parties, prepare a final draft action plan
for presentation to City Council; and
Assisting City staff to prepare a final action plan based on
direction from City Council.
Amendment 1 to C11136602
12
111215 sm 010
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE FOR RESPONDING TO PUBLIC
QUESTIONS/INQUIRIES ON FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY; ASSISTING CITY IN
DETERMINING AN ACTION PLAN FOR AN AD FACILITY FOLLOWING THE
PASSAGE OF MEASURE E
Respond to public
comments from final
11 feasibility study 10 and revise
PowerPoint
Presentation.
Meet with City to
12-A1 develop an action 15
an.
Half-day workshop
12-A2 for City officials 20
and Ci staff.
12-A3 Develop 30 an.
Discuss action plan
and respond to
comments from the
12-A4 public; prepare 60
final draft action
plan for City
Council.
12-A5 based on 90
from Council.
Amendment 1 to C11136602
13
111215 sm 010
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cll136602
EXHIBIT "C" (Page 1 of 2)
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for
professional services performed in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the
budget schedule below. Compensation shall be paid to the
CONSULTANT on a Not To Exceed basis for responding to public
questions/inquiries on final feasibility study including
updating PowerPoint Presentation to Council Task 12A and
assisting City in determining an action plan for an AD
facility following the passage of Measure E Tasks 12Bl-5.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this
Agreement for all services described in Exhibit "AU
including the reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$27,000. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Tasks, including
reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY
authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation
shall not exceed $29,700 or ten percent (10%) of the total
contract amount. 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.
Amendment 1 to Cll136602
111215 sm 010
14
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cll136602
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as
outlined and budgeted below. The CITY's project manager may
approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between
any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the
total compensation for the tasks, including reimbursable
expenses and add alternates, does not exceed $27,000 and the
total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed
$29,700.
Amendment 1 to C11136602
111215 sm 010
15
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: Cll136602
EXHIBIT "C" (Page 2 of 2)
FEES
RESPOND TO PUBLIC QUESTIONS/INQUIRIES ON FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY;
ASSIST CITY IN DETERMINING AN ACTION PLAN FOR AN AD FACILITY
FOLLOWING THE PASSAGE OF MEASURE E
1 - 9
10
Feasibility Study,
Environmental
Review, Project
ces
(Not to Exceed)
TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED FEE -
CONTRACT
c
comments from final
11 feasibility study
and revise
PowerPoint
Presentation.
Meet ty to
12-A1 develop an action
an.
12-A2 for
12-A3 an.
scuss act on p
and respond to
comments from the
12-A4 public; prepare
final draft action
plan for City
Council.
an
12-A5 based on direction
Council.
Amendment 1 to C11136602
16
111215smOlO
$171,858
$18,000
$197,758
$2,410
$3,660
$6,360
$3,320
$3,500
$3,500
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C11136602
Amendment No.1 $29,700
TO FEE -ORIGINAL
Additional Services -ORIGINAL $197,758
Amendment 1 to C11136602
17
11'1215 sm 010
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C12143502
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
GOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this _ day ofJanuary, 2012, ("Agreement") by
and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"),
and GOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC, a U.S. corporation in the State of Georgia with offices located,
located at 1000 Enterprise Way, Suite 190, Roseville, CA 95678 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive pOilion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to install a closure cap upon Phase IIC of the Palo Alto Landfill ("Project")
and desires to engage a consultant to provide services for design, California Environmental Qnality
Act (CEQA) compliance, permitting, and Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) in connection with
the Project ("Services").
B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expeltise,
qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses andlor certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to eng~ge CONSULTANT to provide the
Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part ofthis Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions,
contained in this Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in
Exhibit "A" in. accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be fi'om the date of its full execution
through completion of the services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as
Exhibit "B" unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is ofthe essence in the performance of
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term ofthis
Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "BOO, attached to and made a pall
of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this
Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and
timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT.
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
CITY's agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of
damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed one hundred ninety-three
thousand seven hundred thiJteen dollars ($193,713). In the event Additional Services are authorized,
the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed two hundred thhteen
thousand one hundred thirteen dollars ($213,113). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are
set out in Exhibit "C", entitled "COMPENSATION," which is attached to and made a part of this
. Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit "C". CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is
determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A".
SECTION 5. INVOICES .. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and
reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C"). If
. applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The
information in CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY.
CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in
Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of
receipt.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
perfOlmed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents
that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required
by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services
assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted,
have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications,
insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar
circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itselfinformed of and
in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may
affect in any manner the Project or the performance ofthe Services or those engaged to perform
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the perfonnance of the Services.
2
C12143502_ GOLDER * PROF SERVICES Contract * 12.08.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev, Jtme 2, 2010
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall COI1"ect, at no cost to CITY, any and
all enors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSUL TANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design
documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors,
omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction ofthe Project.
This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of
design submittal. Ifthe total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%)
of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the
CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved
recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing
the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with
CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The pmties agree that the expeltise and experience of
CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or
transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSUL TANT's obligations
hereunder without the prior written consent ofthe city manager. Consent to one assignment will not
be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval
of the city manager will be void.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section I I above, CITY agrees that
subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to
perform work on this Project are:
1. Hargreaves Associates
2. TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsnItants only with the prior approval of
the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANTwiIlassignRandall Wall as the
project director to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of
the Services and Ken Haskell as the project manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to
day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project
manager, or any other key persollllel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director
and the assignment of any key new or replacement persormel will be subject to the prior written
approval of the CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly
3
C12143502_GOLDER ~ PROF SERVICES Contract -12.08.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
remove personnel who CITY finds do not perfonn the Services in an acceptable manner, are
uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to
the safety of persons or property.
The City's project manager is Ron Arp, Public Works Department, Environmental Services
Division, P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: 650-496-5930. The project manager
will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of
the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSUL TANTagrees
that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested
in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual
property rights in favor ofthe CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make
any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval
of the City Manager or designee. CITY acknowledges that its use of the work product is limited
to the purposes contemplated by the scope of work and that the CONSULTANT makes no
representation ofthe suitability ofthe work product for use in or application to circumstances not
contemplated by the scope of work.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time
during the term of this Agreement and for tln'ee (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records
pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and
retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect,
indemnity, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents
(each an "Indemnified Party") fi'om and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any
nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all
costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disbursements ("Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or
willful misconduct ofthe CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in patt by an Indemnified Patty.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to
require CONSULTANT to indemnity an Indemnified Patty fi'om Claims arising fi'om the
negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not
operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive
the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
4
C12143502~GOLDER-PROF SERVICES Contract -12.0S.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,
term, condition or provision ofthis Agreement, or ofthe provisions of any ordinance or law, wiII not
be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of
any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision,
ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shaIl obtain and maintain, in fuIl
force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D".
CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an
additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies.
18.2. AIl insurance coverage required hereunder shaIl be provided through carriers
with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to
transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect
during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional
insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shaIl be filed with CITY concurrently
with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk
Manager and wiII contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage, to the
extent any covered losses are caused by CONSULTANT's negligence and will not be canceled by
the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of
the cancellation, CONSULTANT shaIl be responsible for ensuring that current celiificates
evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term ofthis
Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance wiII not be
construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions
of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be
obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss
arising after the Agreement is tenninated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or
in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written
notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT wiII immediately
discontinue its performance of the Services.
19 .2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its perfOlmance of
the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of
a substantial failure of performance by CITY.
5
C12143502_GOLDER -PROF SERVICES Contract -12.08.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and
other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, ifany, or given
to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will
become the property of CITY.
19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSUL TANTwill be paid
for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on
or before the effective date (Le., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided,
however, if this Agreement is suspended or tenninated on account ofa 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 detelmination may be made by
the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion. The following Sections will
survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4,20, and 25.
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager and the Project Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention ofthe project director
at the address of CONSULTANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial 01' otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2 . CONSULTANT fiuther covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement,
it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT
certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer
or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California.
21.3. Ifthe Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as
that tel'ln is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices COllllnission, CONSULTANT
6
C12143502_GOLDER-PROF SERVICES Contract-12.08.12,doc
Professional Services
Rev, June 2, 2010
shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Refornl Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth iu Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because ofthe race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status,
weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penal,ties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section '
2.3 0.51 0 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE
REOUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City's Environmentally Preferred
Purchasing policies which are available at the City's Purchasing Department, incorporated by
reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City's Zero Waste Program, Zero
Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third,
recycling or composting waste, In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste
requirements:
• All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal
computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices,
reports, and public education materials, shaH be double-sided and printed on a
mininlUm oDO% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved
by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional
printing company shall be a minimum oDO% or greater post-consumer material and
printed with vegetable based inks,
• Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in
accordance with the City's Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not
limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
packaging, A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.
• Reusable/returnable pallets shaH be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional
cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation ii'om
the facility accepting the pallets to verifY that paHets are not being disposed.
SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION
24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions ofthe Chmiel' ofthe City of
Palo Alto aIld the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a)
at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,
or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a pOliion of
the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shaH take
precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision ofthis
Agreement.
SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
7
C12143502~GOLDER ~ PROF SERVICES COl1tract~ 12.08.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action
will be vested exclusively in the state courts of Califomia in the County of Santa Clara, State of
Califomia.
25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of
legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third
parties.
25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the patties.
25.5. The covenants, telms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply
to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants ofthe
parties.
25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments theryto will remain in full force and effect.
25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, fi'om time to time, may be referred to in any
duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be
deemed to be a palt of this Agreement.
25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with
CONSULTANT personal infOlmation as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d)
about a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and
appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City
immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the
security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct
marketing plllposes without City's express written consent.
1/
II
1/
25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
25.1 0 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they
have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf oftheir respective legal entities.
8
C12143502_GOLDER-PROF SERVICES Contract-12.08.l2.doc
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized
representatives executed this Agreement on the date fITst above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO GOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC.
City Manager BY:6~
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Name: ){,(l1tte"A r: A.SlteJ/
Title: Dbnqa/,&ee -/1y~-j
Senior Ass!. City Attorney
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A":
EXHIBIT "B":
EXHIBIT "C":
EXIDBIT "C-I":
EXIDBIT "D":
SCOPE OF WORK
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
COMPENSATION
SCHEDULE OF RATES
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
9
C12143502_GOLDER-PROF SERVICES COlltract-12.0S,]2,doc
Professiona1 Services
Rev. June 2,2010
BACKGROUND
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Palo Alto Landfill (P ALF) is an unlined, Class III municipal solid waste landfill. The
landfill is approximately 126 acres, of which approximately 76 acres have been filled to grade
and closed in accordance with the relevant closure regulations. Closure activities to date
occUlTed in three construction phases (Phases I, IIA, and IIB) between 1991 and 2000. Closure
construction for the remaining approximately 50 acres (phase IIC) is scheduled for 2012.
After closure, the landfill is being developed as a public park, which is referred to as Byxbee
Park. The initial phase of Byxbee Park, encompassing the 29-acre Phase I closure area, was
completed in 1991. The Phase lIA and IIB portions of the park were opened to public access in
2011.
The City has been accepting clean fill soil and stockpiling these soils for use in the final closure
covel'. These soils are being stockpiled on a portion of Phase lIC and along the western pOltion
of Phase lIB. The City anticipates that all soil required for closure will be imported by the stmi
of closure construction.
The scope of work for this Phase lIC closure project involves the preparation of construction
plans and specifications for the closure cap, geotechnical and enviromnental investigation ofthe
former cogeneration facility area (Coge,n Area), environmental review in conformance with the
California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA), construction and bid support, and construction
quality assurance (CQA) monitoring. Golder Associates, Inc. previously prepared the recent '
Facility Closure and Post-closure Monitoring Plan (FCPMP) that addressed the design and
construction ofthe closure cover and improvements to the landfill gas (LFG) and leachate
controls. The LFG and leachate control improvements have since been completed as a sepm'ate
project in 2011.
WORK PLAN SUMMARY
The major components of the project include:
• Preparation of the final construction plans and specifications for Phase lIC closure will
include updating the existing site topography and final grades for closure, updating the
plans to show the location ofthe soil stockpile locations, revising the Phase lICIIIB
closure tie-in to reflect the cUlTent Phase IIB grades that are several feet higher than when
the FCPMP was prepared in 2008, and updating the plans to reflect the LFG and leachate
system improvements that have already been completed.
• The site air compressor is currently located in the Cogen Area, which is sUlTounded by
screening berms. The City believes that a low-permeability soil cover was constructed
underneath the Cogen Area based on construction plans that were prepared at the time of
construction. The intent was to construct the cogeneration facility on a closed portion of
the landfill. However, the City does not have any documentation for the low
penneability soil layer construction, and the regulatory agencies likely have not reviewed
10
C12143502_GOLDER ~ PROF SERVICES Contract-12.0S.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
nor provided approval ofthis small closure area. A pOltion of this project involves
investigating and characterizing the extent and quality of the low-pelmeability soil to see
ifit can be ceJtified as closed in compliance with applicable regulations and the FCPMP.
• Support will be provided during bidding and construction to address bidder and
contractor's technical questions and/or design conflicts that may arise during
construction.
• The consultant will provide construction quality assurance oversight and prepare a CQA
RepOlt to gain regulatory approval of the Phase IICc!osure.
The Golder Project Team will apply its extensive site knowledge to cost-effectively prepare the
Phase lIC Closme Design and Documentation.
TASK DETAILS
TASK 1-COGEN AREA CAP CERTIFICATION
Task I consists ofthe investigation ofthe existing final cover under the Cogen Area, and
assuming favorable cap conditions are confirmed, preparing a letter celtifYing that the existing
cap complies with applicable requirements of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations.
The focus ofthis task will be to identifY the thickness and extent ofthe various soil types, and to
assess the permeability ofthe low-permeability soil cover. Specifically, certification requires
confirmation of the following:
• The existence of a minimum 2-foot thick foundation layer
• The foundation layer is compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent
• The existence of a minimum I-foot thick low-permeability soil layer with a permeability
less than or equal to 1 x10-6 centimeters per second (om/s)
• The low-permeability layer is compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90
percent
We propose excavating a series of6 to 8 test pits to define the lateral extent and thickness of the
various soil types. The City will provide a backhoe and operator for the test pits.
Based on the size of the Cogen Area, we anticipate that the volumes ofthe foundation layer and
the low-permeability soil layer are each less than 1,000 cubic yards (cy). In accordance with the
CQA plan prepared by Golder for Phase lIC and testing frequencies typicallY accepted by Cal
Recycle and the R WQCB, we propose to obtain samples using Shelby tubes and drive samples in
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method D2937 (ASTM
D2937) and to perform the following tests:
• Up to four samples of the foundation layer tomeasme in-situ density per ASTM D2937
and moisture (minimum frequency of I test per 250 cy)
• One Modified Proctor test each per ASTM DI557 for the foundation layer and low-
11
C12143502_GOLDER-PROF SERVICES Contract-12.0S.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
'"'::
permeability soil layer
• Up to four samples of the low-permeability soil layer to measure in-situ density per
ASTM D2937 and moisture (minimum frequency of 1 test per 250 cy)
• One sample of the low-permeability soil layer to measure permeability per ASTM D5084
• Up to four samples of the low-permeability soil layer to measure Atterberg Limits per
ASTM D4318 and grain-size distribution per ASTM D422
Although Atterberg Limits and grain-size distribution tests are typically performed at a
fi'equency of 1 test per 1,500 cy for the low-permeability soil layer, we propose four samples to
demonstrate consistency of material properties and to assist with cOlTelation of the soil
permeability to the in-situ material properties.
Before proceeding with the field investigation and testing, we will submit the proposed sampling
and testing plan to the R WQCB for review and approval.
Following completion ofthe field investigation and testing, Golder will provide a draft
certification letter electronically (PDF format) for the City's review. Following receipt of any
City comments, Golder will finalize the certification letter. The final celtification letter will be
submitted to the RWQCB.
For cost estimating purposes, we have assumed the RWQCB will approved the field
investigation and testing program, described above, and that the final cover in the Cogen Area
will be detelTllined to be consistent with Title 27 requirements.
TASK 2 -PREPARE FINAL CLOSURE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Golder will update the final closure plans, specifications, CQA Plan, bid schedule, and
engineer's cost estimate under Task 2. The latest version of the FCPMP shows a geomembrane
cover as an engineered alternative design to the prescriptive final cover, but includes language to
allow the use of the prescriptive cover in the event an economical source of suitable low
permeability soil is identified for the Phase lIC closure. Golder will revisit this aspect of the
design with the City to determine the best approach for the final cover.
Assuming that a geomembrane final cover is the preferred approach, we will contact
geomembrane manufacturers to determine the approximate lead time for geomembrane
manufacture and delivery. We will also outline the advantages and disadvantages of the City
pre-ordering the geomembrane and providing the geomembrane to the closure contractor. If it is
determined that pre-ordering the geomembrane is the best approach to meeting the time schedule
presented in the RFP, Golder will prepare separate geomembrane material specifications and
provide the City the estimated quantity of geomembrane required for closure.
For cost estimating purposes, we have assumed that the City will not pre-order the
geomembrane.
As requested in the RFP, we will prepare a remote monitoring plan for the LFG and leachate
wells. The remote monitoring plan will include:
• Site plan(s) showing the installation of the required power wiring and signal cables from
Professional Services
Rev. JtUle 2, 2010
12
C12143502_GOLDER * PROF SERVICES Contract * 12.0S.12.doc
each monitoring location to the Cogen Area
• A conceptnal design of the required remote monitoring instrumentation and central
SCADA processor hardware and software for the City-requested monitoring parameters
and locations
• Preliminary budgetmy cost estimates for implementing and operating the complete
remote monitoring system as presented in the City-approved conceptnal design
The following elements are assumed to be included in the remote monitoring plan:
• Methane concentration and pressure (vacuum) for LFG wells
• Water level and pump discharge flow metering for leachate wells
• Integration of LFG flow, system vacuum, and blower speed data from the LFG flare
station (expected to be rebid in spring 2012)
At a minimum, the site electrical and communication network plan will be included as an add
alternate bid item for the closure construction.
For the final closure plans, the drawings prepared as part of the FCPMP will be updated to
address the following:
• Updated topography (using the latest site topographic map)
• Show the location ofthe City's stockpiled soils
• Cover system tie-in at the Phase IICIIIB boundary. The Phase IIC grades are now several
feet higher than the Phase lID low-permeability soil layer. We propose to show a
minimum horizontal overlap between the Phase IIC geomembrane and Phase lID low
permeability soil liner, but not requiring the geomembrane to directly contact the low
permeability soil, which would otherwise require expensive soil excavation.
• Include rip-rap erosion control where stonnwater is concentrated on the south side of the
landfill
• Incorporation of the existing Cogen Area Cap as appropriate per the results of Task 1
• Show the updated leachate and landfill gas control system that are currently in place
• Show the general arrangement with remote monitoring stations, wiring requirements,
communications network diagram, and one-line power diagram
The technical specifications and CQA Plan will be updated to address the following:
• Updated specifications to address stormwater and erosion controls
• Revisit the maximum particle size and screening requirements for the foundation layer
and vegetative soil cover. Soil that the City has imported contains rocks and other debris
that could damage the geomembrane, and therefore it is expected to require some level of
screening. Soil screening adds cost to the project and the requirements need to be
carefully considered.
• Construction sequencing including specifYing limits for the time and number of leachate
and landfill gas wells that can be temporarily taken out of service to facilitate
construction of the cover.
• Performance specification for selected remote monitoring system
13
C12143502_GOLDER-PROF SERVICES Contract-12.08.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev. Jlll1e 2, 2010
• Update the CQA Plan to reflect our proposed CQA approach discussed in Task 6.
As part of this task, Golder will also complete the following:
• Prepare a written scope of work for the contractor that describes the work necessary for
the construction project
• Update bid quantities and prepare a detailed bid schedule
• Prepare an updated engineer's cost estimate
Golder will provide a draft copy each of the deliverable work products electronically (PDF
format) for the City's review. Following receipt of any City comments, Golder wiII finalize the
various deliverables and issue one hard copy and one electronic copy. The deliverables for this
task consist of the following:
• Construction plans (34"x22")
• Remote Monitoring Plan
• Technical Specifications
• CQAPlan
• Contractor Scope of Work
• Bid Schedule and Quantities
• Engineer's Cost Estimate
TASK 3 -FACILITY CLOSURE SAMPLING AND ANALYSES
Task 3 consists of verifYing whether a hazardous-materials release has occurred at the Recycling
Center or the Cogen Area, and if so, determining the nature and extent of the release so that
appropriate corrective action can be taken by the City before the site is capped. Golder
performed a Phase IlPhase II enviromnental site assessment at the Cogen Area in late 2002 and
submitted the report in 2003. We concluded that less than 20 square feet of shallow soils were
impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons and metals. In 2009, Golder performed an enviromnental
assessment at the Recycling Center for soil impacts that may have resulted from temporary
storage of recycled hazardous and universal wastes. We concluded that impacts were limited to
petroleum hydrocarbons in two small areas where used motor oil had been stored.
Based on Golder's knowledge of site conditions at the Recycl ing Center and Cogen Area, we
believe that a limited assessment of the nature and extent of soil impacts is appropriate to
confiml conditions and develop cost-efficient corrective action. After reviewing available
documents, Golder will prepare a sampling and analysis plan for each facility, seek City
approval, implement the plan, and prepare cleanup recommendations that are appropriate for the
protection of human health and the environment. The recommendations may vary from no
action to removal of contaminated soils. Appropriate cleanup goals wiII be based on regulatory
criteria such as Enviromncntal Screening Levels (ESLs) established by the San Francisco
RWQCB or Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) established by the US Environmental Protection
Agency. After corrective actions are complete, Golder will prepare a summary repOlt suitable
for submittal to regulatory agencies to support the implemented corrective action.
14
C12143502~GOLDER-PROF SERVICES Contract-12.0S.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
TASK 4 -ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
During this task, TRA Environmental Services (TRA) will prepare an Initial Study (IS) Checklist
according to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Section 15000 et seq of the
California Code of Regulations) to assess the potential environmental effects of constructing the
closure cap. The IS will follow the format specified in the CEQA Guidelines, which includes a
detailed project description with suppOlting maps, photos, and figures, a description ofthe
envirorunental setting ofthe proposed site, complete responses to each Initial Study Checklist
question with a clear statement as to the level of impact (less than significant or significant) and,
where necessary, measures to mitigate potentially significant effects.
Construction of the closure cap involves the spreading and compacting ofsoi!, geomembrane,
and vegetative soil over the surface of the landfill. The ISIMND will reference appropriate
infOlmation fi'om the FCPMP, Bay lands Master Plan, and Byxbee Park Master Plan. The closure
of Phase lIC of the landfiIl is guided by a number of permit and regulatory documents, as well as
the Baylands Master Plan and Byxbee Park Master Plan. The landfill is the focus of a host of
complex land use issues, which will be thoroughly described in the ISIMND. The closure of
Phase HC of the landfill and its conversion to non-irrigated pastoral park is consistent with
existing land use plans for the area.
The anticipated impacts of these proposed activities are related to aesthetics, temporary air
quality/greenhouse gas emissions during construction, and water quality impacts. These impacts
are considered minor and can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, therefore the
anticipated level of CEQA documentation would be a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
TRA will conduct a kick-off meeting with City staff and conduct a site visit to evaluate the on
site conditions and take representative site photos to develop a detailed project description. Any
remaining questions wiII be posed through a data request to the City. Once all the questions are
answered, a complete project description will be prepared then reviewed for technical accuracy
with the City. TRA wiII then proceed with responding to the Checklist questions. Once
completed, the entire document wiII be submitted to the City for administrative review. Any
comments or edits will be incorporated into a public review ISIMND and then circulated to the
public for 30 days. As a cost saving measure, we assume that TRA wiII provide the City with an
electronic version of the administrative draft and public review version of the IS/MND and that
the City will make any paper copies of the public review version of the document.
It is TRA's understanding that the traffic associated with the closure construction wiII not exceed
the traffic levels currently allowed under the existing solid waste facility permit, which is 475
trips per day. If, at a later date, a traffic study does become necessary, TRA wiII contract with
Hexagon Transportation Consultants (San Jose) to prepare a traffic repOlt.
Mitigation Monitoring and RepOlting Plan
After closure of the public review period for the CEQA document, TRA wiII provide the City
with an electronic version of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP).
CEQA Notices and Public Noticing
C12143502_GOLDER-PROF SERVICES Contract-12.0S.12.doc
15
Professional Services
Rev. J1U1e 2, 2010
TRA will prepare a Notice of Completion and Notice of Determination and provide the City with
an electronic version of each notice. TRA assumes that the City will conduct the legal noticing
required under CEQA and mail the required number of documents to the State Clearinghouse.
Meetings and Hearings
For cost estimating purposes, we have assumed attendance by the TRA Project Manager and
Senior Analyst at one meeting with City staff (2 hours), one Planning and Transportation
Commission meeting (4 hours for each staff person) and one City Council meeting (4 hours for
each staff person). We can attend additional meetings at the request of the City on a time and
materials basis.
TASK 5 -CONSTRUCTION AND BID SUPPORT
Golder will provide construction and bid support as follows:
• Attend one Pre-Bid Meeting. Our design Engineer-of-Record and CQA Engineer-of
Record will attend this meeting. Golder will record the meeting minutes and transmit the
minutes to the City for review.
• Attend one Pre-Construction Meeting. Our CQA Engineer-of-Record will attend this
meeting and record the meeting minutes. The minutes will be transmitted to the City for
review.
• Attend weekly Construction Meetings. Our CQA Engineer-of-Record will attend up to
12 weekly construction meetings. For each meeting, we will record the meeting minutes,
which will be transmitted to the City for review.
• Provide responses to technical Requests for Information (RFI's) and contractor
submittals. Based on our experience with similar projects, we have budgeted 40 hours of
staff time to review contractor submittals and address technical issues in RFI' s submitted
by the contractor.
TASK 6 -CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
Task 6 consists of providing CQA oversight and preparation ofa CQA Report at the completion
of the Phase HC closure construction. We have outlined our general approach and specific task
elements below.
General Approach
For past closure projects, the City has had the construction contractors hire a firm to complete
the construction quality assurance testing and then the City compiled the testing and observation
data and prepared a CQA Report.
The City's past approach to CQA follows what Golder refers to as the "Federal Approach," in
which most of the field and laboratory testing and observations are completed by the contractor's
subcontracted testing firm. The CQA Engineer-of-Record's role is then to provide oversight to
check that the tests are being completed correctly, including completing side-by-side test
comparisons, verifying the minimum testing frequencies are being met, and the observation and
documentation requirements ofthe CQA Plan are being fulfilled.
16
C12143502_GOLDER· PROF SERVICES Contract-12.0S.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
In contrast, "Owner Retained QC/QA Approach" differs in that the majority ofthe field and
laboratory CQA testing is completed by a firm retained by the owner. This approach is more
commonly used for landfills that are constructed or closed in California. This approach puts
more distance and independence between the firm performing the field and laboratory testing
and the contractor.
Golder has extensive experience in providing CQA services under both approaches. In fact, this
past summer, Golder provided CQA services for closures at the Pacheco Pass Landfill (Gilroy)
and Pescadero Landfill (San Mateo County) using the Owner Retained QC/QA Approach. We
were also the CQA Engineer-of-Record using the Federal Approach for a closure located on U.S.
Forest Service lands in Tuolumne County, California. We also provided CQA field testing and
observation service to a general contractor for a project that involved capping waste materials
with a geomembrane cover on a Superfund site near Redding, California.
The advantage of the "Federal Approach" is that it can be cost-effective and provides fewer
potential conflicts between the firm providing the CQA testing and the contractor. The
disadvantage is that the contractors solicit bids for CQA testing firms and typically select one on
the basis of cost and not qualifications. Therefore, the CQA testing film sometimes has marginal
qualifications to perform the work. For these cases, the CQA Engineer-of-Record often needs to
increase on-site oversight, which can offset any cost savings provided by having the contractor
retain the CQA testing firm.
For this project, Golder proposes using a "modified Federal Approach" in which the contractor
retains a CQA testing firm to perform the routine soils testing and observation. There are
numerous local firms that are qualified to do this work. Golder will then provide testing and
observation services for specialized items, such as the geomembrane cover. As part ofthe CQA
Plan, Golder will include minimum experience requirements for the CQA testing finn and
clearly define the roles ofthe CQA Engineer and CQA testing firm. We believe this will
approach provide the City with the optimum balance between cost effectiveness and quality.
CQA Oversight
Golder proposes to implement the above "Federal Approach" for the routine earthworks QAlQC
inspection and testing to ensure that the City gets the most cost-effective QAlQC services.
Golder wiII provide field QAlQC inspection and testing for the geomembrane and geocomposite,
which involves a specialty inspection service that is provided by only a limited number of
companies in the Bay Area. All QAlQC inspection and testing wiII be completed under the
oversight by Golder's CQA Engineer-of-Record to confirm that inspection and testing protocols
are being properly implemented including verification of test methods and test frequencies.
Golder anticipates that the closure construction will take approxinmtely 12 to 16 weeks to
complete. We anticipate that Golder's active involvement, using the QAlQC approach described
above, wiII be 12 weeks. We anticipate that the geomembrane and geocomposite will take
approximately 6 weeks to complete assuming the geosynthetics installer works 6 days per week.
Golder's CQA Engineer-of-Record wiII coordinate with the contractor's QAlQC testing firm and
Golder's field technician to ensure that the following data is recorded:
17
C12143502_GOLDER-PROF SERVICES Contract-12.08.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev, June 2, 2010
• A daily field report describing the work completed and any construction conflicts or non
compliance issues and their status and/or resolution
• Weather conditions including impacts to construction progress (i.e. high winds dming
geomembrane deployment or precipitation)
• Document that the contractor's construction methods comply with the plans and
specifications including construction sequencing for the landfill gas and leachate controls
• Document that the materials used comply with the plans and specifications
• The location and results of all field and laboratOlY testing
• Representative construction photographs
At the completion of the construction project, Golder will prepare a CQA Celiification RepOli
that summarizes the following:
• Summarize the work performed by the prime contractor and its subcontractors, including
the dates that various components of the closure was completed
• Summarize the roles of the contractor's firm and Golder's CQA team in providing overall
QNQC services.
• Docnment design changes or clarifications
• Document the location and results of all field and laboratory testing
• Document the construction methods and materials used by the Contractor
• Provide representative construction photographs
• Provide a certification statement that closure construction was completed in accordance
with the plans, specifications, CQA Plan and applicable requirements of Title 27 of the
California Code of Regulations.
Golder will provide a draft CQA Report electronically (PDF format) for the City's review.
Following receipt of any City connnents, Golder will finalize the report and issue four hard
copies and one electronic copy.
PROPOSED INNOVATIONS
For this project, Golder offers the City a number of innovations and unique knowledge that we
believe will result in cost savings. Specific innovations include:
• Our CQA approach provides the best combination of using a "Federal Approach" and
"Owner Retained Approach" to ensure the City gets the best combination of value and
quality of construction
• Om involvement in the sampling and testing for the closure of the Recycling Center area
and Cogen Area ensures that we can complete this work cost effectively and provide the
City with substantial cost savings. We anticipate that this work can be completed
significantly less than $20,000 budget specified in the RFP.
18
C12143502_ GOLDER-PROF SERVICES Contract -12.08.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev. JWle2, 2010
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or
decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY
so long as all work is completed within the term ofthe Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt
ofthe notice to proceed.
Milestones
1. TASK 1 -Cogen Area Cap Certification
2. TASK 2 -Prepare Final Closure Plan & Specifications
3. TASK 3 -Facility Closure Sampling & Analysis
4. TASK 4 -Environmental Review
5. TASK 5 -Construction & Bid Support
6. TASK 6 -Construction Quality Assurance
19
C12143502_GOLDER-PROF SERVICES Contract-12.08.12.doc
Completion
No. of Days
FromNTP
90
75
90
160
220
400
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the telms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget
schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as
exhibit C-l up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described
in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $371,289.
CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within
this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation
shall not exceed $408,389. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would
result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set f0l1h 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's Project Manager 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,
including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $371,289 and the total compensation for
Additional Services does not exceed $37,100.
BUDGET SCHEDULE
Task 1
(Cogen Area Cap Certification)
Task 2
(prepare Final Closure Plans & Specifications)
Task 3
(Facility Closure Sampling & Analysis)
Task 4
(Environmental Review)
Task 5
(Construction & Bid Supp0l1)
Task 6
(Construction Quality Assurance)
Sub-total Basic Services:
Reimbursable Expenses:
NOT TO EXCEED
AMOUNT
$7,253
$40,312
$20,000
$2,111
$21,745
$63,833
$155,254
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses: $193,713
$19,400 Additional Services (Not to Exceed):
Maximum Total Compensation: $213,113
21
C12143502_GOLDER-PROF SERVICES Contract-J2.0S.12.rloc
REIMBURSABLES
$2,619
$400
$0
$20,950
$200
$14,290
$38,459
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
REUWBURSABLEEXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time 01' secretarial oveltime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinaIY business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses.
CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost plus
10% and as budgeted in the table above:
A. Subconsultant fees.
B. LaboratOlY testing
Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed at cost are:
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto's policy for reimbursement oftravel
and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
infOimation. Any expense anticipated to be more than budgeted 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 project manager's request,
shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services,
schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including
reimbnrsable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-l. The
additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and
agreed to in writing by the CITY's project manager and CONSULTANT prior to
commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subjectto all requirements
and restrictions in this Agreement
Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be
considered as additional services:
• Additional testing requirements for the existing clay cap material under the Cogen
Area.
e Design and phasing for a cap beneath the Cogen Area if the existing clay material
beneath it cannot be certified as described under Task I.
• Assistance with a separate procurement for geomebrane material if necessmy due to
manufacturer's availability.
• A traffic study for CEQA Environmental Review.
21
C12143502_GOLDER* PROF SERVICES Contract * 12.08.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev. June 2, 2010
EXHIBIT "C-I"
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
Labor
Category
Sr. Executive
2011 Fee Schedule
Golder Associates Inc.
Sr. Practice/Program Leader
Practice/Program Leader
Senior Consultant
Senior Engineer/Scientist
Sr. Project Engineer/Scientist
Project Engineer/Scientist
Staff Engineer/Scientist
Engineer/Scientist
Senior Technician
Staff Technician
Technician
Senior Drafter/CADD Technician
Staff Drafter/CADD Technician
Drafter/CADD Technician
Senior Admin Support
Staff Admin Support
Admin Support
Notes:
Level
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
LT3
LT2
LT1
LD3
LD2
LS1
LA3
LA2
LA1
1 _ Standard rates are increased by 1.5 times for legal services and
by
2.0 times for depositions, testimony, and court time.
Expenses
Category
Subconsultants
Other Indirect Costs
C12143502_ GOLDER -PROF SERVICES Contract H 12.08.12.doc
24
Rate
$275
$240
$230
$200
$182
$149
$125
$98
$89
$104
$98
$69
$95
$83
$72
$95
$78
$69
Fee
Cost + 10%
Cost + 10%
Professional Services
Rev June 2, 2010
EXHIBIT "D"
INSURANCE REQIDREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT
OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES
WITHAM BEST'S KEY UATING OF A-: VII, OUlIlGHER, LICENSED OUAUTHOruzEDTO TnANSACTINSUUANCE BUSINESS IN
TIlE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
A WARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW,
MINIMUr-t LIMITS
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
YES
YES
YES
YEO
YES
YES
EACH AGGREGATE OCCURRENCE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 11,000,000
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 11,000,000
LIABILITY COMBINED,
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
-EACH PERSON $1,000,000 11,000,000
-EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, lllRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
DAMAGE, COMBINED
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WIlEN APPLICABLE),
AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED, CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE,
SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGEOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT
AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURlNGNOT ONLY CONTRACTORAND ITS SUB CONSULT ANTS,
IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL
INSUUANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, rrs COUNCIL ME~mEUS, OFFICEUS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES,
l. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A, A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CANCELLATION;
AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT ON THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
POLICY PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY
CITY,
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIPICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE,
m. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSU!<ANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAl.
INSUREDSH
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE CONSULTANT'S
NEGLIGENCE AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS,
25
C12143502_ GOLDER -PROF SERVICES Contract· 12.0S.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev June 2, 2010
B. CROSS LIABILITY (APPLIES TO COMMERICAL GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY ONLY)
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL
NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS
ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF
THE COMFANYUNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
I. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FORANYREASON OTHER
THAN THE NON·PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THEISSUINGCOMFANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY
AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON·PA YMENT
OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMFANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY
WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTNE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
26
C12143502_GOLDER ~ PROF SERVICES Contract~ 12.0S.12.doc
Professional Services
Rev June2, 2010
City of Palo Alto Composting Facility
Short Term Estimated Cost For Managing Palo Alto Yard Trimmings During 2012
Equipment Costs
Equipment
ID
Model
Year Description Meter
(11 months)
Meter
Annualized Meter Units
Parts and
Labor 11
months
Parts and
Labor
Annualized
Sublet 11
months
Sublet
Annualized
Fuel 11
months
Fuel
Annualized
Combined
Annualized Total
1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09
4218 2000 Freightliner FL80 Fuel Truck 392 428 miles $6,165.56 $6,726.07 $448.42 $489.19 $775.15 $845.62 $8,060.87
4225 2005 Peterbilt 365 Water Truck 2841 3,099 miles $8,256.87 $9,007.49 $2,482.42 $2,708.09 $4,960.35 $5,411.29 $17,126.88
4229 1992 Ford LNT-8000 Water Truck 208 227 miles $2,383.88 $2,600.60 $155.55 $169.69 $120.01 $130.92 $2,901.21
4304 2001 Morbark 5600 Wood Grinder *386 545 hours $79,796.27 $79,796.27 $6,124.89 $8,646.90 $26,586.14 $37,533.37 $125,976.55
4305 2007 Phoenix Powerscreen 732 799 hours $11,346.15 $12,377.62 $1,356.05 $1,479.33 $12,109.54 $13,210.41 $27,067.35
4324 2006 Caterpillar 966G Loader 1030 1,124 hours $25,469.31 $27,784.70 $7,388.29 $8,059.95 $18,694.84 $20,394.37 $56,239.03
4326 2008 Caterpillar 950H Loader 732 799 hours $11,346.15 $12,377.62 $1,356.15 $1,479.44 $12,109.54 $13,210.41 $27,067.46
$150,670.36 $23,032.59 $90,736.39 $264,439.34
Notes
Sublet costs are commercial charges. These costs include commercial tire service, machine shop work, hydraulic cylinder rebuilding, fire suppression system service, etc
*Grinder Operated 8.5 months. All annualized grinder costs except Parts and Labor are based on 12/8.5. Conducted major repair on bell housing in early 2011.
Grinder Rental Costs
Rental Grinder Number of
events
Mobilization
Costs per event
Annual Total
Mobilization
Number of
Days Onsite Hours Per Day Rental Cost per
hour
Annual
Operating
Costs
Fuel Costs per
Hour Annual Fuel Costs Total Annual Costs
Contract #S11137500 4 800.00$ 3,200.00$ 16 8 300.00$ 38,400.00$ $68.88 $8,816.13 50,416.13$
Labor Costs
Class.
Number
Number of
Staff Description Hourly Wage Annual
Salary
Benefits @
60.03%
Combined
Salary and
Benefits
Overtime Total Annual
Salary & OT Total Staff
0.603
390 2 Heavy Equipment Operator 33.05$ 68,744.00$ 41,452.63$ 110,196.63$ 9,915.00$ 120,111.63$ 240,223.26$
Hourly 1 Maintenance Assistant 18.72$ 7,787.52$ 4,695.87$ 12,483.39$ N/A N/A 12,483.39$
Notes 252,706.66$
Assume 8 hours per week picking litter
Lab Tests 7 per year 200.00$ 1,400.00$ Annual Cost
Reclaimed Water 1,000.00$ Annual Cost
Trash Bin 2 cy bin serviced weekly 4,132.00$ Annual Cost
Solid Waste Facility Permit 13,722.00$ Annual Cost
20,254.00$
Compost Sales Assume Broker 50,000.00$ Annual Revenue
Total Cost Per Month $48,984.68
Revenue Per Month (4,166.67)$
Net Cost Per Month $44,818.01
Sunnyvale SMaRT Station
Short Term Estimated Cost for Managing Palo Alto Yard Trimmings During 2012
FY 2011 SMaRT Station Tip Fee per ton:$30.23
Tons Yard Trimmings FY 2011 FY 2010
GreenWaste Yard Trimmings to PA Landfill 12,800 12,185
GreenWaste Yard Trimmings to SMaRT Station 1,105 391
City Crews Yard Trimmings to PA Landfill 2,461 2,700
City Contractors Yard Trimmings to PA Landfill 1,394 1,450
Total Tons Yard Trimmings:17,760 16,726
Total Tip Fee Costs Per Month at FY 2011 Tip Fee:$44,740 $42,136
ClIY OF PALO ALTt),CA
CITY CLERK'S @FftGE
Mayor Yeh and Members of the Oty Council: February 1, 2012
12 fEB -I AM 8: 3 ~
I have not yet seen the staff report for the Measure E follow-up item on your agenda
Monday. I understand, however, that Staff is recommending continuing the windrow
composting for some indefinite period.
It is unlawful to continue this non-park use. Windrow Composting is not a permitted
park use and was only ancillary to the landfilling that was justified as II shaping the
park". There is no justification for continuing the windrow composting operation on
Byxbee Park. The windrow compost operation is not shaping the park and ample
compost has been stockpiled for the vegetative cover.
Windrow compost:i.1:Jg may not continue on the 10 acre site by the very terms of thg
Initiative. Measure E did not in any way speak to windrow composting, but rather only
facilities that would convert organics to compost AND green energy and specifically
Dry Anaerobic Digestion. Windrow composting does not create any green energy.
Nor is windrow composting "fully enclosed" as proponents assured voters. Measure
E proponents repeatedly assured the voting public that the 10-acre site was
"exclusively" for a facility to convert organics to green energy. (?ee attachment A)
Continuing the windrow composting is costly. Staff has ignored capital costs and rent
in their most recent cost calculations. They "say" that if any machinery breaks down,
they will return to Council for spending guidance. That's a false assurance, since most
of the equipment repairs have been done within the City Manager's authorization.
Sooner or later, the cost will be borne by the ratepayers.
None of the 51 remaining unopened acres of Byxbee Park have been capped, so
continuing the windrow composting will interfere with the serious matter of final
closure of the landfill and necessitate expensive migration of the windrows from one
area to another in order to complete the capping.
Continuing windrow composting has no justification, is illegal and costly.
Sincerely,
6/;;/·~
Emily M. Renzel, Coordinator
Baylands Conservation Committee
1056 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attachment A
Measure E Proponents' Own Interpretation of Measure E
Page 1 of1
Gonsalves, Ronna
From: Bigbillcutler@aol.com (2JAN31 AM 8:01
Sent: Monday, January 30,2012 12:26 PM
To: Council, City
Subject: Green Energy and Compost Facility
I plan to be at the City Council meeting on February 6, and if public comments on the issue are to be
accepted, I will make the following statement regarding the upcoming study on the baylands compost
facility.
The study for the green energy and compost facility should address the following questions.
-Who are the stakeholders and what are their interests, concerns, values and priorities?
-How will solution options be created?
-How will the best option be selected? What are the selection criteria and what are the methods of
analysis to be applied in evaluating options against criteria?
I strongly recommend that a formal study structure be set up to document answers to these questions
and to verify substantial stakeholder agreement with the answers before proceeding to create and
examine solution options. The benefits of this approach are twofold.
-It draws upon the collective knowledge and expertise of the community to create a better answer.
-It establishes community buy-in by a process of incremental consensus-building that will largely avoid
serious disagreement with the final answer, marginalizing any die-hard critics who remain unconvinced.
Bill Cutler
1131/2012
February 1,2012
Re: Staff Report re Byxbee Park/Measure E
Mayor Yeh and Members of the City Council:
Even though Measure E passed, the AD project is still one of the most expensive and
probably least environmental projects ever thrust on a city as small as Palo Alto.
Having said that, and with Measure E' s future still uncertain, there are actions regarding
Byxbee Park that must occur now.
Staff alone cannot (or will not) devote the time to unravel the huge mess that E has
generated. Therefore, more money is being asked to throw at these problems to just
figure out how to -proceed. So, it is probably the best direction to hire ARI to try to
develop an action time line.
There are three actions that MUST be taken regardless of what ARI sets forth. ,
1. The Park, including the 51 acres, must be completed and the 10 acres must not be
left out. Reconfiguration can occur when and if an AD project proceeds.
2. The windrow compost operation must cease. It is not legal to continue windrow
activity on the park since it was only done as part of the active landfill. Staff has stated
that enough dirt and compost has been acquired for the final vegetative cover.
3. A lot of noise and dust is being generated to keep the windrow compost operation
going. The windrows were NEVER part of E. The proposed anaerobic digestion was
presented to the public as an EXCLUSIVE use for th~ 10 acres. Windrow composting is
not allowed by the Initiative to be placed on the 10 acres. Further, it is probably illegal to
put the windrow operation anywhere else on the whole Byxbee Park.
I urge you to complete Byxbee Park as has been planned for decades.
Enid Pearson, Chair, Save the Baylands Committee
1019 Forest Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301