HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-10 City CouncilTO:
City of Palo AltoCity Manager’s Re t
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:JULY 10, 2000 CMR: 290:00
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT WITH RAINES,
MELTON & CARELLA, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,000 FOR
THE PREPARATION OF A LONG TERM GOALS STUDY FOR
THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the attached contract with Raines,
Melton & Carella, Inc. in the amount of $70,000 for the preparation of a Long
Term Goals Study for the RWQCP.
Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more
change orders to the contract with Raines, Melton & Carella, Inc. for related,
additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total
value of which shall not exceed $7,000.
DISCUSSION
The work to be performed under the contract is to solicit public input and identify long-
term goals for the RWQCP in an open forum. The long-term goals will be used by the
RWQCP to guide the long-range plan for environmental management of wastewater
within the RWQCP service area.
The Policy and Services Committee identified the project .as one for which it wanted to
review the draft scope of work prior to the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP). The
Committee approved the scope of work on February 8, 2000 (CMR:440:99).
Selection Process
Staff sent a request for proposals to eight consulting firms on April 10, 2000. Firms were
given 32 days to respond to the request. A total of four firms submitted proposals~
Proposals ranged from $96,700 to $67,950. Those firms not responding indicated that
they did not submit a proposal because their firms are busy with prior commitments.
CMR:290:00 Page 1 of 2
A selection advisory committee consisting of six representatives of the partner c’ities, the
RWQCP, and community groups reviewed the proposals, and four firms were invited to
participate in oral interviews on May 24, 2000. The committee carefully reviewed each
firm’s qualifications and submittal in response to the RFP relative to the following
criteria:
¯Understanding of the project
¯Approach to the project
¯Ability to communicate and work with public
¯Experience and qualifications of project team
¯Familiarity with issues associated with the project
¯Availability of resources to support the project
¯Ability to organize and present materials
Raines, Melton & Carella, Inc. was selected because it has a clear understanding and a
sound approach to the project.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for the contract have been appropriated in the FY 2000-2001 Wastewater
Treatment Fund.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Recommendations of this staff report are consistent with existing City policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This study to establish long-term goals is statutorily exempt from CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract
Attachment B: CMR:440:99
PREPARED BY: Bill Miks, Manager RWQCP
DEPARTMENT HEAD:, ~
bBER SGLENN S.
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:290:00 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
CONTRACT NO.
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
RAINES, MELTON & CARELLA, INC.
FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
This Contract No. is entered into
, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered
city and a municipal corporation of the State of California
("CITY"), and RAINES, MELTON & CARELLA, INC., a. California
corporation, located at 3650 Mt. Diablo Blvd.,Suite 200,
Lafayette, California 94549 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY desires certain professional consulting
services (."Services") and the preparation and delivery of, without
limitation, one or more sets of documents, drawings, maps, plans,
designs, data, calculations, surveys, specifications, schedules or
other writings (~Deliverables") (Services and Deliverables are,
collectively, the ~Project"), as more fully described in Exhibit
~A"; and
WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage CONSULTANT, including its
employees, if any, in providing the Services by reason of its
qualifications and experience in performing the Services, and
CONSULTANT has offered to complete, the Project .on the terms and in
the manner set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms,
conditions, and provisions of this Contract, the parties agree:
SECTION I. TERM
I.I This Contract will commence on the date of its
execution by CITY, and will terminate upon the completion of the
Project, unless this Contract is earlier terminated by CITY. Upon
the receipt of CITY’s notice to proceed, CONSULTANT will commence
work on the ihitial-and subsequent Project tasks in accordance with
the tine schedule set forth in Exhibit "A". Time is of the essence
of this Contract. In the event that the Project is.not completed
within the time required through any fault of CONSULTANT, CITY’s
city manager will have the option of extending the time schedule
for any. period of time. This provision will not preclude the
recovery of damages for delay caused by CONSULTANT.
SECTION 2.SCOPE OF PROJECT; CHANGES & CORRECTIONS
2.1 The scope of Services and Deliverables constituting
the Project will be performed, delivered or executed by CONSULTANT
under the phases of the Basic Services as described below.
10677~0000%612099.1 1
2.2 CITY may order substantial changes in the scope or
character of the Basic Services, the Deliverables, or the Project,
either decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of
CONSULTANT. In the event that such changes are ordered, subject to
the approval of CITY’s City Council, as may be required, CONSULTANT
will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior
to CONSULTANT’s receipt of the notice of change and further will be
.entitled to an extension of the time schedule. Any increase in
compensation for substantial changel will be determined in
accordance with the provisions of this Contract. CITY will not be
liable for the cost or payment of any change in work, unless the
amount of additional compensationattributable to the change in
work is agreed to, in writing, by CITY before CONSULTANT commences
the performance of any such change in work.
2.3 Where the Project entails the drafting and
submission of Deliverables, for example, construction .plans,
drawings, and specifications, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the Deliverables, which are discovered by CITY
before invitations to bid on a construction project (for which the
Deliverables are required) are distributed by CITY, will be
corrected by CONSULTANT at no cost to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to CONSULTANT.
2.4 Any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the
Deliverables, which are discovered by CITY after the .construction
contract is.awarded by CITY, will be performed by CONSULTANT, as
follows: (a) at no cost to CITY insofar as those Services,
including the Basic Services or the Additional Services, as
described.below, or both, will result in minor or nonbeneficial
changes in the construction work required of the construction
contractor; or (b) at CITY’s cost insofar as those Services,
including the Basic Services or the Additional Services, or both,
will add a.direct and substantial benefit to the construction work
required of the construction contractor. The project manager in the
reasonable exercise of his or her discretion will determine whether
the Basic Services or the Additional Services, or both, will
contribute minor or substantial benefit to the construction work.
SECTION
CONSULTANT
3.QUALIFICATIONS, STATUS, AND DUTIES OF
3.1 CONSULTANT represents and warrants that it has the
expertise and professional qualifications to furnish or cause to be
furnished the Services and Deliverables. CONSULTANT further
represents and warrants that the project director and every
individual, including any consultant (or contractors)~ charged with
the performance of the Services are duly licensed or certified by
the State of California, to the extent such licensing or
certification is required by law to perform the Services, and that
the Project will be executed by them or under their supervision.
CONSULTANT will furnish to CITY for approval, prior to execution of
1067%0006X612099.1 "2
this Contract, a list of all individuals and the names of their
employers or principals to be employed as consultants.
3.2 In reliance on the representations and warranties
set forth in this. Contract, CITY hires CONSULTANT to execute, and
CONSULTANT covenants and agrees that it will execute or cause to be
executed, the Project.
3.3 CONSULTANT will assign Randy Raines as the project
director to have supervisory responsibility for the performance,
progress, and execution of the Project. Tom Richardson will be
assigned as the project coordinator who will represent CONSULTANT
during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances or
conditions subsequent to the execution of this Contract cause the
substitution of the project director or project coordinator for any
reason, the appointment of a substitute project director or
substitute project coordinator will be subject to the prior written
approval of the project manager.
3.4 CONSULTANT represents and warrants that it will:
3.4.1 Procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices which may be necessary and
incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the Project;
3.4.2 Keep itself fully informed of all
existing and future Federal, State of California, and local laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those
engaged or employed under this Contract and any materials used in
CONSULTANT’s performance of the Services;
3.4.3 At all times observe, and comply with, and
cause its employees and consultants, if any, who are assigned to
the performance of this Contract to observe and comply with, the
laws, ordinances, regulations,.orders and decrees mentioned above;
and
3.4.4 Will report immediately to the project
manager, in writing, any discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers
in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned
above in relation to the Deliverables.
3.5 Any Deliverables given to, or prepared or assembled
by, CONSULTANT or its consultants, if any, under this Contract will
become the property of CITY and will not be made available to any
individual or organization by CONSULTANT or its consultants, if
any, without the prior written approvalof the citymanager.
3.6 CONSULTANT will provide CITY with twenty (20) copies
of any documents which are a part of the Deliverables upon their
completion and acceptance by CITY.
10677~0006~612099.1
3.7 If CITY requests additional copies of any documents
which are a part of the Deliverables, CONSULTANT will provide such
additional copies and CITY will compensate CONSULTANT for its
duplicating costs.-
3.8 CONSULTANT will be responsible for employing or
engaging all persons necessary to execute the Project. All
consultants of CONSULTANT will be deemed.to be directly control2ed
and supervised by CONSULTANT, which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or consultant of CONSULTANT fails or
.refuses tocarry out the provisions of this Contract or appears to
be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, the
employee or consultant will be discharged immediately, from further
performance under this Contract on demand of the project manager.
3.9 In the execution of the Project, CONSULTANT and its
consultants, if any, will at all times be considered independent
contractors and not agents or employees of CITY.
3110 CONSULTANT will perform or obtain or cause to be
performed or obtained any and all of the following Additional
Services, not included under the Basic Services, if so authorized,
in writing, by CITY:
3.10.1 Providing services as an expert witness in
connection with any public hearing or meeting, arbitration
proceeding, .or proceeding of a court of record;
3.10.2 Incurring travel and subsistence expenses
for CONSULTANT and its staff beyond those normally required under
the Basic Services;
3.10.3 Performing any other Additional Services
that may be agreed upon by the parties subsequent to the execution
of this Contract; and
3.10.4 Other Additional Services
hereafter described in Exhibit "A" to this Contract.
now or
3~ii CONSULTANT will be responsible for employing all
consultants deemed necessary to assist CONSULTANT in the
performance of the Services. The appointment of consultants must be
approved, in advance, by CITY, in writing, and must remain
acceptable to CITY during the term of thisContract.
SECTION 4. DUTIES OF CITY
4.1 CITY will furnish or cause to be furnished the
services listed in Exhibit ~A" and such information regarding its
requirements applicable to the Project as may be reasonably
requested by CONSULTANT.
10677~00062612099.1 4
4.2 CITY will review and approve, as necessary, in a
timely manner the Deliverables and each phase of work performed by
CONSULTANT. CITY’s estimated time of review and approval will be
furnished to CONSULTANT at the time of submission of each phase of
work. CONSULTANT acknowledges and understands that the interrelated
exchange of information among CITY’s various departments makes it
extremely difficult for CITY to firmly establish the time of each
review and approval task. CITY’s failure to review and approve
within the estimated time schedule will not constitute a default
under this Contract.
4.3 The city manager will represent CITY for all
purposes under this Contract. Daisy Stark is designated as the
project manager for the city manager. The project manager will
supervise the performance, progress, and execution of the Project.
4.4 If CITY observes or otherwise, becomes aware of any
default in the performance of CONSULTANT, CITY will use reasonable
efforts togive written notice thereof to CONSULTANT in a timely
manner.
SECTION 5. COMPENSATION
5.1 CITY will compensate CONSULTANT for the following
services and wo.rk:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance
of the Basic Services, including any authorized reimbursable
expenses, CITY will pay CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed Seventy
Thousand dollars ($70,000). The amount of compensation will be
calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule set forth in
Exhibit "B", at a time and materials basis., up to the maximum
amount set forth in this Section. The fees of the consultants, who
have direct cohtractual ~relationships with CONSULTANT, will be
approved, in advance, by CITY. CITY reserves the right to refuse
payment of such fees, if such prior approval is not obtained by
CONSULTANT.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance
of Additional Services, the amount of compensation set forth in
Exhibit "B" will not exceed seven thousand dollars ($7,000). The
rate schedules may be updated by CONSULTANT only once each calendar
year, and the rate schedules will not become effective for purposes
of this Contract, unless and until CONSULTANT gives CITY thirty
(30) days’ prior written notice of the effective, date of any
revised rate schedule.
5.1.3 The full payment of charges for extra work
or changes, or both, in the execution of the Project willbe made,
provided such request for payment is initiated by-CONSULTANT and
authorized, in writing, by the project manager. Payment will be
made within thirty (30) days of submission by CONSULTANT of a
statement, in triplicate, of itemized costs covering such work or
1067~000~612099.1 5
changes, or both. Prior to commencing such extra work or changes,
or both, the parties will agree upon an.estimated maximum cost for
such extra work or changes. CONSULTANT will not be paid for extra
work or changes, including, without limitation, any design work or
change order preparation, which is made necessary on account of
CONSULTANT’s errors, omissions, or oversights.
5.1.4 Direct personnel expense of employees
assigned to the execution of the Project by CONSULTANT will include
only the work of architects, engineers, designers, job captains,
surveyors, draftspersons, specification writers and typists, in
consultation, research and design, work in producing drawings,
specifications and other documents pertaining to the Project, and
in services rendered during construction at the site, to the extent
such services are expressly contemplated under this Contract.
Included in the cost of direct personnel expense ofthese employees
are salaries and mandatory and customary benefits such as statutory
employee benefits, insurance, sick leave, holidays and vacations,
pensions and similar benefits..
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
5.2.1 Payment of the Basic Services will be made
in monthly progress payments in proportion to the quantum .of
services performed, or in accordance with any other schedule of
payment mutually agreed upon by the parties, as set forth in
Exhibit "B", or within thirty (30) days of submission, in
triplicate, of such requests if a schedule of payment is not
specified.. Final payment will be made by CITY after CONSULTANT has
submitted all Deliverables, including, without limitation, reports
which have been approved by the project manager.
5.2.2 Payment of the Additional Services will
be made in monthly progress payments for services rendered, within
thirty (30) days of submission, in triplicate, of such requests.
5.2.3 No deductions will be made from CONSULTANT’s
compensation on account of penalties, liquidated damages, or other
sums withheld by CITY from payments to general contractors.
SECTION 6. ACCOUNTING, AUDITS, OWNERSHIPOF RECORDS
6.1 Records of the direct personnel expenses and
expenses incurred in connection with the performance of Basic
Services and Additional Services pertaining to the Project willbe
prepared, maintained, and retained by CONSULTANT in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles and will be made available
to 7115 for auditing purposes at mutually convenient times during
the term of this Contract and for three (3)-years following the
expiration or earlier termination of this Contract.
6.2 The originals of the Deliverables prepared by or
under the direction of CONSULTANT in the performance of this
106.77~0006k612099.1 6
Contract will become the property of CITY irrespective of whether
the Project is completed upon CITY’s payment of the amounts
required to be paid to CONSULTANT. These originals will be
delivered to CITY without additional compensation. CITY will have
the right to utilize any final and incomplete drawings, estimates,
specifications, and any other documents prepared hereunder by
CONSULTANT, but CONSULTANT disclaims any responsibility or
liability for any alterations or modifications of such documents.
SECTION 7. INDEMNITY
7,1 CONSULTANT agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and
hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of any
nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or
any other loss, caused by or arising out of CONSULTANT’s, its
officers’, agents’, consultants’ or employees’ negligent acts,
errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which
applicable law may impose strict liability on CONSULTANT in the
performance of or failure to perform its obligations under this
Contract.
SECTION 8. WAIVERS
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or
violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this
Contract or of the provlsions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition~
provision, ordinance, or law or of any subsequent breach or
violation of the same or of any other covenant, term, condition,
provision, ordinance or law. Thesubsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder will
not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation
by the other party of any covenant, term, condition or provision of
this Contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or parti~l
acceptahce by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of
any of its rights under this Contract.
SECTION 9.INSURANCE
9.1 CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, will
obtain.and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of
this Contract, the insurance.coverage described in Exhibit "Ce,
including not only CONSULTANT and its consultants, if any, but
also, with the exception of workers’ compensation, employer’s
liability and professional liability insurance, naming CITY as an
additional insured concerning CONSULTANT’s performance under this
Contract.
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be
provided through carriers with Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of
A-:VII or higher which are admitted to transact insurance business
10677~0006~612099.1
in the State of California. Any and all consultants of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Contract will obtain and
maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this
Contract, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an
additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance, preferably on the
forms provided by CITY~ will be filed with CITY concurrently with
the execution of this Contract. The certificates will be subject to
the approval of CITY’s risk manager and will contain an endorsement
stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be
canceled or altered by the insurer except after filing with the
CITY’s city clerk thirty (30) days’ prior written notice of such
cancellation or alteration, and that the City of Palo Alto is named
as an additional insured except in. policies of workers’
compensation, employer’s liability, and professional liability
insurance. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on
file at all times during the term of this Contract with the city
clerk.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of
insurance .will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT’s liability
hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this
Contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance,
CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any
damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result
of the Services performed under this Contract, including such
damage, injury, or loss arising after the Contract is terminated or
the term has expired.
SECTION I0. WORKERS’. COMPENSATION
10oi CONSULTANT, by executing this Contract, certifies
that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State
of California which require every employer to be insured against
liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance
in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that
it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before
commencing the performanc4 of the Project.
PROJECT
SECTION Ii. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF CONTRACT OR
II.I The city manager may suspend the execution of the
Project, in whole or in part, or terminate this Contract, with or
without cause, by giving thirty’ (30) days’ prior written notice
thereof to CONSULTANT, or immediately after submission to CITY by
CONSULTANT of any completed item of Basic Services. Upon receipt of
such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its
performance under this Contract.
11.2 CONSULTANT may terminate this Contract orsuspend
its execution of the Project by giving thirty (30) days’ prior
10677X0006\612099.1 8
written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a
substantial failure of performance by CITY or in the event CITY
indefinitely withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation
or continuation of Basic Services or the execution of the Project.
-11.3 Upon .such @uspension or termination by CITY,
CONSULTANT will be compensated for the Basic Services and
Additional Services performed and Deliverables received and
approved prior to receipt of written notice from CITY of such
suspension or abandonment, together with authorized additional and
~reimbursable expenses then due. If the Project is resumed after it
has been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in
CONSULTANT’s compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if
necessary, approval of CITY’s City Council. .If this Contract is
suspended or terminated on account of a default by .CONSULTANT, CITY
will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of
CONSULTANT’s services which are of directand immediatebenefit to
CITY, as such determination may be made by the city manager in the
reasonable exercise of her discretion.
11.4 In the event of termination of this Contract or
suspension of work on the Project by CITY where CONSULTANT is not
in default, CONSULTANT will receive compensation as follows:
Ii..4~I For approved items of services, CONSULTANT
will be compensated for each item of service fully performed in the
amounts authorized under this Contract.
11.4.2 For approved items of services on which a
notice to proceed is. issued by CITY, but which are not fully
performed, CONSULTANT will be compensated for each item of service
in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fee otherwise
payable for the performance of the service as the quantum of
service actually rendered bears to the services necessary for the
full performance of that item. of service.
11.4.3 The total compensation payable under the
preceding paragraphs of this Section will not exceed the payment
specified under Section 5 for the respectiveitems of service to be
furnished by CONSULTANT.
11.5 Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will
deliver to the city manager immediately any and all .copies ofthe
Deliverables, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or
its consultants, if. any, or given to CONSULTANT or its consultants,
if any, in connection with this Contract. Such materials will
become the property of CITY.
11.6 The failure of CITY to agree with CONSULTANT’s
independent findings, conclusions, or recommendations, if the same
are called for under this Contract, on the basis of differences in
matters of judgment, will not be construed as a failure on the part
of CONSULTANT to fulfill itsobligations under this Contract.
1067"A0006~612099. I 9
SECTION 12. ASSIGNMENT
12.1 This Contract is for the personal services of
CONSULTANT, therefore, CONSULTANT will not assign, transfer,
convey, or otherwisedispose of this Contract or any right, .title
.or interest in or tothe same or any part thereof without the prior
written consent of CITY. A consent to one assignment will not be
deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment
made without the approval of CITY will be void and, at the option
of the city manager, this Contract may be terminated. This Contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
SECTION 13. NOTICES
13.1 All notices hereunder will be given, in writing, and
mailed, postage prepaid, by.certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY~Office of the City clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
To Project Manager: RwQcP, D. Stark
2501 Embarcadero Way
Palo.Alto, CA 94303
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the .project director at the
address of CONSULTANT recited above.
SECTION 14.CONFLICT OF INTEREST
14.1 In accepting this Contract, CONSULTANT covenants
that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any.
interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in~ any manner or .degree with the performance of the
Services.
14.2 CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the
performance of this Contract, it will not employ contractors or
Persons having such an interest mentioned above, coNSULTANT
certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest
under this Contract is an officer or employee of CITY; this
provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code
of the State of California.
SECTION 15. NONDISCRIMINATION
15.1 As set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, no
discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this
Contract because of the age, race, color, national origin,
ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender ofsuch
person. If the value of this Contract is, or may be, five thousand
10677~0006~612099.1 ~- 0
dollars ($5,000) or more, CONSULTANT agrees to meet all
requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code pertaining to
nondiscrimination in employment~ including completing the requisite
form furnished by CITY and set forth in Exhibit ~D".
15.2 CONSULTANT agrees that each contract for services
from independent providers will contain a provision substantially
as follows:
"[Name of Provider] will provide CONSULTANT with a
certificate stating that [Name of Provider] is
currently in compliance with all Federal and State
of California laws covering nondiscrimination in
employment; and that [Name of Provider] Will not.
discriminate in the employment of any person under
this contract because of the age, race, color,
national origin, ancestry, religion, disability,
sexual preference or gender of such person."
15.3 If CONSULTANT is found in violation of the
nondiscrimination provisions of the State of California Fair
Employment Practices Act or similar provisions of Federal law or
executive order in the performance of this Contract, it will be in
default of this Contract. Thereupon, CITY will have the power to
cancel or suspend this Contract, in whole or in part, or to deduct
the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each person for each
calendar day during which such person was subjected to
discrimination, as damages for breach of contract, or both. Only a
finding of the State of California Fair Employment Practices
Commission or the equivalent federal agency or officer will
constitute evidence of a breach of this Contract.
SECTION 16. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
16.1 CONSULTANT represents and warrants that it has
knowledge of the requirements of the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and the Health
and Safety Code of the State of California, relating to access to
public buildings and accommodations for disabled persons., and
relating to facilities for disabled persons. CONSULTANT will.comply
with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such provisions
Will be effected pursuant to the terms of this Contract.
16.2 Upon the agreement of the parties, any controversy
or claim arising out of or relating to this Contract may be settled
by arbitration .in accordance with the Rules of the American
Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by
the Arbitrators mai be entered in any Court having jurisdiction
thereof.
16.3 This Contract will be governed by the laws of the
State of California, excluding its conflicts of law.
10677~0006~612099.1 11
16.4 In the event that an action is brought, the parties
agree that trial, of such action will be vested exclusively in the
state courts of California or in the United States District Cou~t
for the Northern District of California in the County of Santa
Clara, State of California.
16.5 The prevailing party in any .action brought to
enforce the terms of this Contract or arising out of this Contract
may recover its reasonable Costs and attorneys’ fees expended in
connection with that action.
16.6 This document represents the entire and. integrated
Contract between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations,
representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This
document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is
signed by the parties.
16.7 AI.I provisions of this Contract, whether covenants
or conditions, will be deemed to be both covenants and conditions.
16.8 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of
this Contract.will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors,
executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the case
may be, of the parties.
16.9 If a court of competent jurisdiction~finds or rules
that any provision of this Contract or any amendment thereto is
void and unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Contract
and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.10 All exhibits referred to in this Contract and
any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules which, from
time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment
hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Contract and will
be deemed to be a part of this Contract.
16.11 This Contract may be executed inany number of
counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which
together will constitute one and the same instrument.
.16.12 This Contract is subject to the-fiscal
provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. This Contract will terminate without any
penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year ~in the event that funds
are not appropriated for the.following fiscal year, or (b) at any
time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only
appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this
Contract .are no longer available. This Section 16.12 will take
precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant,
term, condition, or provision of this Contract.
I0677\0006k612099. I t 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly
authorized representatives executed this Contract on the date first
above written.
ATTEST:CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED:
Assistant City Manager
Mayor
RAINES, MELTON & CARELLA, INC.
By:
Director of Administrative
Services
Director of Public Works
Risk Manager
Name :
Title:
Taxpayer Identification No.
(Compliance with Corp. Code § 313 is
required if the ,entity on whose behalf
this contract is signed is a corporation.
In the alternative, a certified corporate
resolution attesting to the signatory
authority of the individuals signing in
their respective capacities is
acceptable)
Attachments:
EXHIBIT ’~A":
EXHIBIT.~B":
EXHIBIT ~C":
EXHIBIT "D":
SCOPE OF PROJECT &TIME SCHEDULE
RATE SCHEDULE
INSURANCE
NONDISCRIMINATION COMPLIANCE FORM
10677\000o2612099.1 13
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code ~ 1189)
) ss.
On " ~y ,2000, before me, the undersigned, a
hoary public in~nd for said County and state, personally appeared
me-m~ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(~) whose name(~ is/~m subscmibed to the within-instrument
and acknowledged to me that he~ executed the same in
his~ authorized capacity~i~m~), and that-by his~
signature(~ on the instrument the person(~, or the entity.upon
behalf of which the person(~ acted, executed.the instrument.
WITNESS-my hand and Official seal.
S~i gn a t.u~~r
DOROTHY SUE KIBBY
COMM, #1193084
NOTARY PUI3LIC - ~ALIFORNIA.OgNTm. COSTA
10677\0006\612099.1
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
On ~7 ,2000, before me, the undersigned,, a
notary public_~in and for said County and state, personally appeared
, i~=~s~nail¥~ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
-person(~) whose name(~) is/~ subscr.ibed to the within.instrument
and acknowledged to me that he/~D~h~ executed the same in
his/q%e~/~ authorized capacity(-i~_s), and that-by his~
signature(~ on the instrument the person(s~ or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(~ acted, executed £he instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ° of Nota~lic
.DOROTHY SUE KIBBY Z
COMM. #1193084 <! NOTARY Pt.~LIC - CAt.IFORNIA TI
My Comm. ~PimS AUG 21, 2002 "~
10677\0006\612099.1
EXHIBIT A
LONG TERM GOALS STUDY -RWQCP
SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE
INTRODUCTION
The RWQCP, constructed in 1969, is planned to operate under its current design through the year
2020. At that time the existing treamaent system will be updated or replaced. The RWQCP envisions
that the wastewater system of the future .must respond to the environmental and socioeconomic
concerns of its service area. In effect, the system will become consistent with the concept of
sustainability in the future. The RWQCP is starting to plan for its future system.
The first step of the RWQCP’s planning effort is to develop long term goals. From these long term
goals can flow an examination of alternatives and selections of programs and facilities.
This study shall provide .an open forum for the development of the long term goals. The long-term
goals need to be responsive to the concerns of the communities, and attainable within the bounds of
technologies and regulations. The Long-term Goals Study will assist the RWQCP in two ways:
When tackling problems at hand, the RWQCP will look to the Goals Study to align short
term with long-term objectives so that each step will be in the right direction.
When designing the future plant, the RWQCP will look to the Goals Study to develop the
appropriate strategies and programs for a sustainable treatment system.
RWQCP SERVICE AREA
The RWQCP provides treatment for the sewage from the Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los
Altos, East Palo Alto, the Town of Los Altos Hills, and Stanford University. The RWQCP was
constructed under the partnership of the cities of Mountain View, Los Altos, and Palo Alto
(Partners). The city of Palo Alto is the operator of the RWQCP.
CONSULTANT SERVICES
The Consultant’s scope of work shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
Task 1: Establish the Process
The process shall provide leadership, establish authority and roles, and obtain commitments.
1.1 Identify Stakeholders
Work with RWQCP staff and Partners to identify potentially impacted entities and other interested
parties. It is expected that additional stakeholders will be identified once the initial set of
stakeholders is engaged and issues are identified. Work with RWQCP staff to engage a
representative breadth of stakeholders.
10677\0006~612099.1 "l Z~
1.2 Develop Preliminary Process
IdentifY alternative goal-setting strategies and discuss with RWQCP staff. Develop a preliminary
process strategy or alternative strategies for discussion with stakeholders.
1.3 Conduct Process Development Workshop
Conduct a workshop with stakeholders so stakeholders can understand the purpose of the study.
Assist the RWQCP to engage the. stakeholders in developing and adoptinga goal setting process that
builds confidence in the results.
1.4 Doeurnent the adopted process.
Task 2 -- identify the Issues
2.1 Stakeholder Interviews
Conduct interviews with selected stakeholders to identify issues and increase engagement in the
process. An appropriate cross-section of stakeholders will be interviewed, including representatives
from RWQCP and Partners’ staff, regulatory agencies, environmental community, business
community, and selected concerned citizens. It is expected that no more than six interviews with
stakeholders or stakeholder groups will be conducted.
2.2 Conduct Issues Identification Workshop
Conduct a workshop with all stakeholders in attendance to review preliminary list of issues,
supplement with additional issues as identified, and screen and group issues by topic.
Task 3 -- Evaluate Issues and Develop Goals
3.1 Prepare Fact Sheets
Prepare Fact Sheets on key issues to develop facts behind the issues. Fact Sheets may address
regulatory trends and constraints, new technologies, or environmental consequences of specific
actions. It is anticipated that up to six fact sheets will be prepared.
3.2 Develop Preliminary Statement of Goals
A preliminary statement of goals will be developed based on the stakeholder discussions and the
more in depth evaluation of issues gained through the preparation of fact sheets.
3.3 Conduct Goal-Setting Workshop
Conduct a workshop with all stakeholders to review Fact Sheets and discuss the preliminary
statement of goals, Goals will be revised and expanded based on stakeholder input. Stakeholder
discussions will be facilitated toward an initial prioritization of goals. It is expected that a relatively
simple, graphic-based tool will be used to assist in the prioritization of the goals. The tool shall
10677~0006~612099.1 "1 5
document the results of the goal-setting on-line during the workshops so the stakeholders can
immediately see the results of theirinput.
Task 4 - Obtain Stakeholder Acceptance
4.1 Prepare Draft Goals Report
Based on stakeholder discussions, ref’mement and further evaluation of goals will be conducted. A
draft Goals Report will be prepared. The report shall document the process, and summarize the
issues and discussions held, along with the proposed wording and prioritization of goals.
4.2 Conduct Stakeholder Workshop
Conduct a workshop with stakeholders to review findings of the process and revised wording on the
goals. The primary goal of this workshop will be to obtain buy-in from the stakeholders regarding
the final priority and wording of goals.
4.3 Prepare Final Goals Report
The Goals Report will be revised to reflect the comments from the participants and stakeholders and
the Final Report will be prepared.
Task 5 -- Prqiect Management
5.1 Budget and Schedule Tracking
Provide budget and schedule tracking of this study. Provide summaries of project status, and budget
and schedule status on a monthly basis.
5.2 Project Meetings
Project management shall be an integral part of the Consultant services. The Consultant shall
monitor all activities, schedule, and budgets of the project. All activities shall be coordinated through
the City Project Manager. Coordinate and attend four project meetings to update RWQCP staffon
schedule and budget status.
DELIVERABLES
Consultant shall prepare and deliver twenty (20) copies of the draft Goals Report to City for review
and "comments. Consultant shall respond to all review comments, incorporate comments as
appropriate, and submit twenty (20) copies of the final report to City for distribution by City.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Consultant may be required to perform additional services listed below. Consultant Shall perform
the additional services upon written authorization by the City. Payment for the additional services
shall be time and expense based on the schedule of charges but not to exceed a negotiated maximum.
The maximum limit for each additional task shall be negotiated and agreed upon prior to providing
10677~0006~612099.1 "] 6
the service. Consultant shall provide a schedule of charges with the fee information. Additional
services may include:
A1.Prepare environmental studies
A2. Attend/conduct additional meetings or workshops
SUBSEQUENT CONSULTANT SERVICES
Upon completion of the study, the City will review the time sehedule and the tasks, for the
development of the long-range plan, and may determine to proceed with the preparation of the long
range plan. City may issue a request for proposal for the subsequent consultant services, or request
the Consultant to perform the subsequent services. The detailed Consultant services for the long-
range plan will be established at such time. In general, Consul~xnt services for the long-range plan
may include the following tasks:
S1.Develop alternatives encompassing both programmatic and engineering concepts in source
control, retise, treatment, and solids management
Perform environmental and economic studies
$3. Organize and conduct pilot tests
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The schedule of the Goals Study shall be staged to accommodate the public and is anticipated to be
a relatively long process. The City envisions the study to take as long as one year to complete. The
Consultant shall establish a detailed schedule showing the critical path and time line for each task
at the beginning of the project. The Consultant shall update and maintain the schedule throughout
the project.
10677~00061612099.
ATTACHMENT B
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTN:POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FEBRUARY 8, 2000 CMR:440:99
SCOPE OF SERVICES REVIEW OF A REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO PERFORM A
STUDY TO DEVELOP THE LONG TERM GOALS FOR THE
PALO ALTO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee review, comment, and direct
staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services to perform a study to
develop the long term goals for the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
(RWQCP).
BACKGROUND
In February 1998, Council directed staff to establish, a process for develo ing-the long
term goals for the RWQCP, CMR: 141:98. The long term goals will be used by the
RWQCP to guide the long range plan for environmental management of wastewater
within the RWQCP service area. This RFP is for consultant services to assist the
RWQCP in a process that would establish a set of sustainable long term goals.
DISCUSSION
The RWQCP, constructed in 1969, is planned to operate under its current design
through the year 2020. At that time the existing treatment system will be updated or
replaced. The RWQCP envisions that the wastewater system of the future must
respond to the environmental and socioeconomic concerns of its service area. In effect,
the system will become consistent with the concept of sustainability in the future. The
RWQCP is starting to plan for its future system. The first step of the RWQCP’s
planning effort is to develop long term goals. The scope of the consultant services
includes:
CMR:440:99 Page 1 of 2
¯Identify regulatory requirements and uncertainties
¯Assist the City in public meet’.mgs and workshops, and document issues and concerns
(e.g. chlorine, incineration, etc.)
¯Evaluat~e, develop, and assist the City to prioritize goals
¯Assist the City to obtain supports from stakeholders
¯Prepare a "Goals Report"
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for this project is included in the RWQCp FY 1999-FY2000 operating funds.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations of this. staff report are consistent with City policies.
may lead to the development of new policies for the City.
The study
TIMELINE
¯ It is anticipated that the study will take one year to complete in order to accommodate
public inputs and inter-department participation.
ATTACIIMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Request for Proposal
Attachment B: CMR: 141.’98
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Bill Miks, Manager RWQCP
Phil Bobel, Manager ECD
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:440:99 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A .
PALO ALTO
A STUDY
to develop
TI-~ LONG. TERM GOALS
for the
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
INTRODUCTION
In February 1998, Council directed staff to establish a process for developing the long
term goals for the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The long
term goals will be used by the RWQCP to guide the long range plan for .environmental
management of wastewater within the RWQCP service area. This Request for Proposal
(RFP) is.issued by the RWQCP for consultant services to assist the City in a process that
would provide the RWQCP a set of sustainable long term goals.
The RwQcP, constructed in 1969, is planned to operate under its current design through
the year 2020. At that time the existing treatment system will be updated or -replaced. The
RWQCP envisions that the wastewater system of. the future must respond to the
environmental and socioeconomic concerns of its service area. In effect, the system will
become consistent with the concept of sustainability in the future. The RWQCP is starting
to plan for its future system.
The first step of the RWQCP’s planning effort is to develop long term goals. From-these
long term goals can flow an examination of alternatives and selections of programs and
facilities. This study willprovide an open forum for the development of the long term
goals. The final report from the study will serve as a guide for selections and decisions
on alternatives for the long range plan by describing the long term goals.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
RWQCP SERVICE AREA
The RWQCP provides treatment for the sewage from the Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain
View, Los Altos, East Palo Alto, the Town of Los Altos Hills, and Stanford University.
EXISTING TREATMENT SYSTEM
The RWQCP is a tertiary treatment facility with an average dry weather flow. (ADWF)
design capacity of 38 million gallons per day (mgd). The current ADWF is about 25 mgd;
The attached schematic depicts the plant’s processes. The main treatment process consists
of bar screens, primary sedimentation, fixed film reactors, activated sludge, secondary
sedimentation, and filtration. The filtered effluent is Chlorinated, and then dechlorinated
with sulfur dioxide prior to discharge to the Bay. A portion of the treated final effluent
is diverted to the reclamation facility for reuse. Additional information about the RWQCP
.can be found on the web site www.PARWQCP.org.
CONSULTANT SERVICES
APPROACH
The long range goals will need to address a broad range of issues, gain the support from
stakeholders with opposing viewpoints, and withstand the test of time and uncertainties.
The goals need to be comprehensive in order to guide the long range plan...The goal
development process shall take a participatory and collaborative approach, involving, all
stakeholders and identifying their concerns. The tools used to prioritize the issues.shall be
simplistic, user friendly, and graphic in nature. The f~nal decision analysis shall provide
a balanced picture that has gone through the reality check against sound technologies. I~o
integrate the environmental values, socioeconomic ~’alues, and evolving regulations:...< --
CONSULTANT RESPONSIBILITIES
The Consultant’s scope of work shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
Task 1: Establish the Process
The process shall provide leadership, establish authority and roles, and obtain
commitments. Consultant shall assist the City to identify the stakeholders and adopt a
process that encourages inputs in an open forum. A "Goals Report" shall be developed
which shall document and adhere to the adopted process.
Task 2: Document Regulatory Requirements and Identify. Elements of Uncertainties
Consultant shall research, illuminate, and document all appropriate current regulations, and
potential future regulations. Consultant shall discuss the trend and the uncertainties of
those regulations that are changing or likely to change. Discussion shall include the
2
impacts of changes in the regulations and recommendations on goal setting to encompass
the uncertainties.
Task 3: Identify. Issues and Concerns
Consultant shall assist the City .in organizing .and conducting meetings and workshops with
the stakeholders to identify the concerns. Consultant shall evaluate all issues that are
raised, highlight the real issues that need to be. addressed, and explain or qualify the "non-
issues".
Task 4: Evaluate Issues. Develop and Prioritize Goals
Consultant shall utilize an effective and friendly tool to accomplish this .task. Consultant
shall evaluate and identify the drivers and the impacts of the. issues of concern as directed
by the City.. The evaluation of impacts shall include all factors such as. environment,
regulations, economics, technologies, land :use. Consultant shall assist the City in
conducting workshops to develop the goals that are responsive. Consultant shall prioritize
the. goals in context with the. "big picture" that would enable the RWQCP to achieve the
best overall environmental management of wastewater.
Task 5: Obtain Buy-in and Prepare Rep0rl; _ . ...
¯Consultant shall assist the City in obtaining support from the stakeholders,, prepare, the
Goals.Report which documents the study, and enumerate the long term goals.that will be¯the guide for long range planning......, - .... ....
DELIVERABLES
Consultant shall prepare and deliver twenty (20) copies of the draft Goals Report to City
for review and comments. Consultant shall respond to all review comments, incorporate
comments as appropriate, and submit twenty (20)copies of the final report to City for
distribution by City. ....
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Project management shall be an integral part of the Consultant services. The Consultant
shall monitor all activities, schedule, and budgets of the project. Consultant shall keep the
City informed of the project schedule, budget, and progress on a periodic basis. All
activities shall be coordinated through the City Project Manager.
MEETINGS, AND WORKSHOPS
Consultant shall assist the City in meetings and workshops as requested by the City Project
3
Manager. Meetings and workshops will most likely-be held in the evenings to
accommodate the public and/or council and the city commissions. Sufficient funds shall
be included in the Consultant’s proposal, for inclusion in the contract if awarded, for the
Consultant’s team to attend and participate in four meetings and four workshops.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Consultant may be required to perform additional services listed below. Additional
services shall be performed only upon written authorization by the City. Payment for the
additional, services shall be time and expense based on the schedule of charges but not to
exceed a negotiated maximum. The maximum limit for each additional task shall be
negotiated and agreed upon prior to providing the service. Consultant shall provide a
schedule of charges with the fee information. Additional services may include:
Prepare environmental studies
Attend/conduct additional meetings or workshops
SUBSEQUENT. CONSULTANT SERVICES
Upon completion of the study, the City will re~,iew..the time .schedule and the tasks for the
.development of the long range plan, and may determine, to proceed with the preparation
of the .long range plan. City may issue a request.:for proposal for the subsequent
consultant services, or request the Consultant to perform the subsequent services. The
detailed Consultant services for the long range plan will be established at such time. In
general, Consultant services for the long range plan may include the following tasks:
Develop alternatives encompassing both programmatic and .engineering concepts in
source control, reuse, treatment, and solids management
Perform environmental and economic studies
¯Organize and conduct pilot tests
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The schedule of the study shall-be staged to accommodate the public and is anticipated to
be a relatively long process. The City envisions the study to take as long as one year to
complete. The Consultant shall establish a detailed schedule showing the critical path and
time line for each task. The Consultant shall update and maintain the schedule throughout
the project. ’
4
PAYMENT
Progress payments for Consultant services shall reflect the amount of effort and percent
completion. The cumulative payment shall not exceed the completed percent of the total
project fee based on the completed tasks or deliverables.
PROPOSAL
The Consultant shall submit ten (10) copies of the proposal. The proposal shall provide
sufficient information on the Consultant’s experience, knowledge, ability, approach, and
understanding of the project. Consultant shall include a-statement of qualification and
project references vcith names and phone numbers of the contacts.
The proposal shall identify the key members of the project team, The role and the resume
of each key member shall be included in the proposal. The proposal shall state the amount
of involvement and availability of each .key member.
The Consultant shall provide one copy of the fee.information for the basic services, and..
the schedule of charges for the additional services. The fee information and schedule of
..:.charges.shall be submitted separately with the proposals " "
¯SELECTION PROCEDURES.
The City’s selection committee will evaluate all consultant proposals. Interviews will be
¯ scheduled for those consultants who are selected by the committee upon completionof the
proposal evaluation. Key members of the selected consultant team will be required at the¯
interview to present their proposal, and answer questions.-.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The proposals will be evaluated, in no special order of preference, based on the following
criteria:
1.-Specialized experience in the type¯ of work.
Past performance and record of the firm and the proposed project team on similar
projects.
3. Familiarity with issues associated with the project.
5
4.Qualifications of the project manager and team.
5.Ability to organize and present material.
o Good understanding of the objectives as evidenced by the completeness and clarity
of the proposal, and the inclusion of specifics and details that are essential for
proposal evaluation,
7. The team’s approach to the project.
*** END **’~
ATTACHMENT B
City of palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
6
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:FEBRUARY 23, 1998 CMR:141:98
SUBJECT:ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION - REGIONAL
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT, AND APPROVAL OF THE
SOLIDS. FACILITY PLAN’S RECOMMENDATION TO
REHABILITATE THE INCINERATORS
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Solids Facility Plan evaluates options and recommends a plan to manage the solid
residue at the Regional Water.Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The RWQCP currently uses
two incinerators to burn and reduce the sludge to a manageable amount of ash product for
beneficial reuse. After 26 years of continuous operation, the incinerators have deteriorated
significantly prompting the preparation of the Plan. -The Plan examines the environmental,
economic, and operational impact of sludge treatment options and recommends rehabilitation
of the two incinerators immediately, with the addition of a sludge dryer in the future, if
needed.
Certain environmental advocacy groups have serious reservations about the continuation of
sewage sludge incineration. However, following extensive discussions with such groups and
further data gathering, staff was unable to conclude that other options are environmentally
better.
Staff believes the RWQCP should continue to analyze future options, ’ reevaluate and adopt
a set of long range goals that are responsive to the communities and in context with future
regulations. Major changes in plant design and policy should not be made until long range
goals are complete.
CMR: 141:98 Page 1 of 8
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Council:
Approve the recommendations of the Solids Facility Plan to rehabilitate the sewage
¯ sludge incinerators at the RWQCP immediately, and add a thermal dryer when peak
loading capacity is required, or if pilot testing of a sludge dryer is desired.
Adopt the negative, declaration for the recommended project to rehabilitate the
incinerators at the RWQCP immediately, and add a thermal dryer, if needed.
o Direct staff to forward the amendments to the Partners’ Agreements to Partner
agencies for approval.
Direct staff to develop policies for reducing environmental releases of mercury,
dioxins, polychlorinated biphenols.
Direct staffto establish a process for developing long term goals for the RWQCP, and
then return to Council for approval of the process.
BACKGROUND
The RWQCI~ is required to continuously process all incoming sewage. It currently operates
two incinerators to treat the solid residue (sludge) of the sewage. The sludge is bumed and
reduced to a manageable amount of ash suitable for beneficial reuse. The sludge, before
burning, is unsuitable for disposal in landfills. The incinerators are the RWQCP’s only
means to treat and prepare the sludge for proper disposal. The reliability and redundancy of
these incinerators are extremely important to the RWQCP. Concerns with the incinerators
were discussed in earlier staffreports, (CMR.~278:96 and CMR:236:97), and are summarized
below.
The first concern is reliability: The incinerators were constructed in 1971 and have become
more and more difficult to keep in operating condition. Large cracks have developed in the
half-inch steel shell, and the chances of both incinerators being down at the same time have
increased to a point of very serious concern. Given the 24-hour per day, 365 day per year
nature of the operation, inability to operate the incinerators would present immediate
emergency conditions and,-within 24 hours, human health concerns.
The second concern is redundancy: The wastewater flow going into the RWQCP varies daily
and seasonally. While the .two existing incinerators are permitted to operate concurrently to
meet varying fiow requirements, this operating mode does not allow for emergencies or
repairs. Currently, one of the incinerators is so frequently under repair that a back-up almost
never exists. The RWQCP is required to provide reliable, uninterrupted service.
CMR: 141:98 Page 2 of 8
The third concern is pollutant releases: The RWQCP incinerators are in compliance with
current regulations. However, the existing emission control devices on the incinerators are
outdated and. therefore, maximum reduction of pollutants cannot be achieved. The solids
treatment and disposal options are currently heavily regulated, and future regulations are
uncertain. The issues associated with the pollutant releases to air, land, and water from
sludge treatment and disposal continue to bea concern with.the public and regulatory
agencies.
These concerns prompted the preparation of the Solids Facility Plan(Plan). The Plan
examines the current and future potential regulations, and evaluates the environmental and
economic impact of several options.
DISCUSSION
RWQCP staffand staff from Partner agencies worked as technical advisors in preparing the
Plan. The Plan was developed through two studies, which have been under way since 1994:
The first study evaluated the feasibility of the full realm of technologies for handling the
sludge, and reduced down the number of feasible options. The recommendation of the
feasibility study formed the basis of the second study, the Plan. Two technologies are
considered feasible options besides incineration: sludge digestion and sludge drying. Sludge
digestion is the anaerobic breakdown of sludge in large holding tanks over long periods. The
end product is digested, sludge, commonly called bi0solids. Sludge drying uses low heat to
evaporate the water out of the sludge without burning the organics. The residue from the
dryer is in the form of pellets. The residue from both processes are typically used on
agricultural land as soil supplement.
Virtually all sewage treatment plants the size of the RWQCP use incineration, digestion, or
drying. In the West, almost all plants use digestion, with land application of the digested
sludge. The RWQCP chose incineration 27 years ago because incineration takes less land
and produces less odor and i’esidue. Recent studies demonstrate that another advantage of
incineration is that pathogens, and most organic pollutants in the sludge such as
polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides (e.g. DDT), are destroyed
in the incinerators. Thus, when the ash from the incinerators is applied to land, it contains
less pollutants than the residue from digestion or drying.
It is difficult to compare the environmental effects of the three options. Staffwas unable to
conclude that one technology is "better" for the environment than another. All options have
certain negative environmental impacts. Each releases, different pollutants to different media
- air, land or water. Incineration produces air pollutants, consumes energy, and does not
preserve the organic material for sludge reuse. Digestion does not destroy organic pollutants,
ordioxin. Dryers consume even more energy and apparently have never been tested for
dioxin air emissions. The inability to draw conclusions is also due to the difficulty of
comparing different types of environmental releases. The pathways for the final impact
CMR: 141:98 .Page 3 of 8
resulting fi’om initial pollutant releases are numerous and difficult to trace. All three options
can meet all current environmental, health and safety requirements Therefore, staff focussed
on the following criteria in comparing the options:
Cost
Land use
Visual impact
Potential odor
The table below is the comparison of the three options:
Options I Total~Cost. ’~1 ....F, ootprint,
Incinerator Rehab,
. Odor
Plus Dryer
Digesters
Dryers
$11.4 million
$29.7 million
t
$17.2 million
800 sf> existing
45,000 sf> existing
1500 sf> existing
Low
High
Low
Low
High
Medium
The incinerator rehabilitation, plus dryer option, will meet the current and the known future
regulations; it is the lowest cost, has the smallest footprint, least visual impact, and least
odor. Staff, therefore, recommends the project to rehabilitate the incinerators immediately,
and to add the dryer if needed. The project will include three major elements:
1.Repair the existing incinerators to ensuresafe and reliable operation.
Relocate the emission control device to outside of the incinerator to allow full
utilization of the entire incinerator for combustion. The improved efficiency will
enable a single incinerator to take care of the varying fl0w most of the time, leaving
one incinerator as a reliable standby. A dryer may be installed, if the City decides to
pilot test the dryer, or when it is needed to help treat the solids.
Replace the existing emission control .devices with new state-of-the-art devices to
improve the emission.
The Partners’ staff support City staff’s recommendation and have agreed to participate in a
joint financial plan entailing debt financing. City staffis presently working with the Partners
on the amendment to finance the project. Palo Alto would issue the debt, and Partner
agencies would pay Palo Alto in accordance with the amendment to the Partners’
CMR: 141:98 Page 4 of 8
agreements, which is consistent with past capital f’mancing. Tile draft amendment was
¯ preparedjointlyby Palo Alto’s City Attorney’s office and outside counsel at Jones, Hall; Hill
& White. It incorporates comments from the City’s fmancial advisor, Stone & Youngberg.
The amendment will be presented to the Council in March 1998.
Many environmental advocacy groups (EAGs) raised the concern that a non’incineration
option may be better for the environment (CMR:356:97). In response to their concerns,
additional data was collected and a Response Study was prepared. -Many of the EAGs made
the point that, if the sludge were made substantially.cleaner by keeping pollutants out of the
wastewater, non-incineration technologies (principally sludge digestion or sludge drying)
would bebetter for the environment. The non,incineration option uses less energy, produces
less air emission, and would allow reuse of the organic matter as a soil supplement without
the current negative side-effect of putting pollutants on the soil as well, if the wastewater is
"cleaner."
While this logic is sound,-it depends upon making the sludge cleaner through source control.
Staff investigated the potential for source control of key. pollutants (dioxins, mercury,
organochlorine pesticides, p01ychlorinated biphenols - PCB ) and found that there was-no
reason to assume that major reductions would occur quickly. Action items for
implementation by Palo Alto were developed, but it is not anticipated that those reductions
will be greater than approximately 20 percent, Thus, non-incineration options will continue
to have the draw-back of placing the pollutants on the soil.
For this and other reasons described in the Response Study; staffs recommendation has not
been changed. Given currently available data, the current pollutant levels in sludge, and the
current ability to evaluate impact on the environment, staff believes this recommendation to
be the appropriate one. However, it is not at all certain that incineration should be the long
term technology of choice for the RWQCP. Air emissions, high energy use, and failure to
reuse organic matter are features of incineration that raise significant concerns about its long
term use. Therefore, staff is also recommending the development of long term goals to guide
future design work at the RWQCP. Staff is also recommending the development of specific
policies to achieve reductions of releases of mercury, dioxins, and organochlorine pesticides
to the environment. These policies will also assist staff in the long term planning that must
be accomplished for the RWQCP.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
If Council does not adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the recommendations, the
RWQCP would continue to attempt to keep the incinerators in operation. Downtime, repair
costs, and safety issues would continue to escalate. Should an incinerator fail, the RWQCP
is required by law to repair the incinerator immediately. At that time, the cost of the repair
would almost certainly be higher than the planned repair, and any work to improve the air
emissions would most likely not be implemented because of the urgency of the situation.
CMR: 141:98 Page 5 of 8
With respect to the altematives to incineration, ’ both digestion and drying options would
have a significant affect on the environment, odor control, and visual impact. Without full
environmental review by the public, these options cannot be Considered as an alternate
project. Therefore, siaffwould be required to restart data gathering, conceptual design and
environmental review. It would be several years before staff could return to Council with
an alternative digestion or drying option.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The capital project is estimated to cost approximately $6.2 million for the rehabilitation of
the incinerators, and $5.2 million for the dryer (in 1998 dollars). The attached cash flow
analysis (Attachment B) shows the Partners’ share of a twenty-year bond funding for the
project.
If the rehabilitation is constructed in 1999 it is estimated that the sewer rate impact to the
Palo Alto rate payers will be an increase of less than three percent.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommended project is consistent with City policies. The recommendation to establish
a process for determining long term goals will lead to the adoption of new policies.
TIMELINE
If approved, the.rehabilitation of the incinerators will proceed immediately at the following
schedule:
Final design starts
Permitting
Debt financing
Bid
Construction starts
Bond Sale
May 1998
February 1999
May 1999
May 1999
August 1999
Fall 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental check list was prepared for the recommended project (Project). Compared
to the existing incinerators, the check list showed that the Project has no major increase in
impact. The Project will result in better emissions compared to the existing facility. There
will be some temporary impact due to construction activities that will be mitigated. A
Negative Declaration (N.D.) has, therefore, been prepared for the Project.
The N.D. (Attachment A) was distributed and notice was given to the public for review and
comments. The.review period started on January 16, 1998 and ended on February 14, 1998.
Staff received some questions related to the details of the design and repair. A pre-design
was performed on the Project prior to the preparation of the N.D. Final design will be
CMR:141:98 Page 6 of 8
performed upon Council approval of the Project. The final design will include all the details
for the repair and the construction.
A letter was received from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. The letter stated that
the incinerator.rehabilitation project is probably the appropriate solution at the present time,
and urged the RWQCP to continue to evaluate other options and work on the long range
plan. A copy of the letter is attached (Attachment C). A second letter (Attachment D) was
received from Bay Area Action with the following five suggestions:
1.Develop dioxin reduction policy for. the City of Palo Alto, and request neighboring cities
to do the same.
2.Build a solids thermal dryer to pilot test a non-dioxin creating alternative to handling
sewage sludge.
3. Explore alternatives to safely dispose of sludge or ash which contains dioxins..
4.Educate other public agencies and the public about dioxins and provide information on
how to reduce them.
5. Continue to monitor the influent and effluent from the RWQCP for dioxins.
Staff believes that these suggestions can be addressed in the long-term goals and policy
development process described in staff recommendations 4 and 5.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Initial Study/Negative Declaration
B - 20 year cash flow analysis
C - Letter from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
D - Letter from Bay Area Action
E - November informational booklet
Response Study - A copy is available for review at the Public Works Engineering, 6th floor
counter
PREPARED BY: Bill Miks, Manager Regional Water Quality Control Plant
Phil Bobel, Manager Environmental Compliance Division
CMR: 141:98 Page 7 of 8
REVIEWED BY:
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:_.
.~/EFLEMING ~.~. ~ ~
~ity Manager
CMR: 141:98 Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A
Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/N’D)
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Solids Facility Plan
City of Palo Alto
Project Title: Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) Solids
Facility Plan
Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto
Public Works Department
Regional Water Quality Control Plant
2501 Embarcadero Way
Palo Alto, California 94303
Contact Person and Phone Number: Daisy Stark, PARWQCP Engineer,
650-329-2598
Project Location: 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, California
Application Number(s): Not Applicable
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department,
Regional Water Quality Control Plant, 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, California,
94303
General Plan Designation: Major Institution/Special Facilities
Zoning: Public Facilities with Site Design overlay (PF(D))
Description of Project:
PARWQCP Background
The Palo Alto Regional WaterQuality Control Plant (PARWQCP) provides advanced
wastewater treatment for Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Stanford University, Los
Altos Hills, and much of East Palo Alto (Figure 1). The Project is located atthe PARWQCP
in the City of Palo Alto at the east end of Embarcadero Way, east of Highway 101 (Figure 2).
The PARWQCP separates the solid substances from the incoming wastewater (influent)
EAST PALO ALTO
SANITARY DIST.
To San FrancLsco
WATER QUALITY.CONTROL PLANT
San Francisco Bay
PALO
ALTO
PALO ALTO¯
Figure 1
Service Area
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
Not To Scale
To San Jose
CH2MHILL
(see Figure 3). The .liquid and solid portions are then treated. The treated wastewater is
discharged via. anoutfall to the San Francisco Bay. The solid substance removed from the
wastewater is called sewage sludge and is treated in .the solids facility of the PARWQCP.The
solids facility includes gravity thickeners and belt presses which remove more of the water
from the sludge, two existing incinerators which bum the sludge to an ash product, and an
ash storage silo and bagging system. The ash product is trucked to the Central Valley and
applied to agricultural lands as a soil amendment.
Figure 3
Simplified PARWQCP Schematic
PARWQCP.
Wastewater
Wastewater
Treatment
Processes
Solids
Incineration
Treated San Francisco
Wastewater %ay
--Ash ~ Farmland
A more detailed discussion of the incineration process and the need for the Project is
provided in the following sections of this IS/ND.
4
The Incineration Process and the Need for Project
. The Incineration Process
Figure 4 shows the location of the incineration building at the PARWQCP. The incineration
process, depicted graphically in Figure 5, consists of two multiple-hearth incinerators, each.
with two air pollution control devices to minimize emissions into the atmosphere. The two
incinerators each consist of six hearths (separate chambers) in a vertical column where
natural gas can be used in v.arying amounts to ignite the residual solids. Currently, the top
hearth in each incinerator is used as an afterburner to burn organic molecules in the stack gas.
and prevent their release into the environment. In addition, each incinerator has a wet
scrubber that removes pollutants from the incinerator stack gases.
Need for the Proiect
The PARWQCP incinerators, which have been in service since 1971, have become more and
more difficult to maintain in recent years and require frequent, costly repairs. Equipment
downtime has increased dramatically because of the frequent repairs. The chance of both
incinerators being out of service at the same time has increased to the point of causing
concerns about safe operations of the plant. The wastewater treatment plant must be able to
continuously process all incoming, sewage. Given the 24-hour-per-day, 365-day-per-year
nature of the operation, the inability to operate the incinerators would present immediate
emergency conditions and, within 24 hours, human health concerns.
Project Goals
The proposed Project involves improvements to the solids facility, and is designed to meet
the followin’g goals:
o
Repair the two existing incinerators to ensure a safe operating environment.
Improve the efficiency of the incinerators so that only one incinerator needs to operate
at a time, leaving one incinerator as a firm, ¯reliable standby.
Upgrade the air pollution control devices to improve the emissions of the incinerators.
5
o
Figure 5
Curmn! /ncinerator Process
Atmosphere
Air Scrubber
StacIGas
Afterburner
Residual
Solids-~
///~’~-~ Cooling Hearth
Incinerator
Residual
Solids
Air Scrubber
Afterburner
Cooling Hearth
Ash
Farmland
Burning
Hearths
Incinerator
The first goal of the proposed Project is to make repairs to the two incinerators that will
eliminate the frequent and costly short-term repairs, greatly reduce equipmem downtime,
and insure a safe operating environment for plant personnel. This will include repair of crocks
that have developed in the half-inch steel shell of the incinerators.
The second goal of the proposed Project is to provide redundancy in the incineration process,
allowing one of the incinerators to be held in reserve as a back up to deal with emergency
situations. The wastewater flow going into the PARWQCP varies daily and .seasonally.
While the two existing incinerators are permitted to operate concurrently to meet the varying
7
flow requirements, this operating mode does not allow for emergencies or repairs.- Currently,
one of the incinerators is under such frequent .repair that a back-up incinerator almost never
exists and urgent conditions are the norm.
To relieve these urgent conditions, two Project components are proposed. The first
component, a.true (separate) afterburner, will be constructed to allow the top hearth to be
used to bum the solids. This will increase the throughput (the mount of solids that can be
handled by one incinerator) and will .also reduce the need to run both incinerators
simultaneously. The second component, a solids thermal dryer, will be added if the City
decides to pilot test the dryer or when it is needed to help treat the solids from anticipated
population growth in the PARWQCP service area. The dryer will further reduce the water
¯ content of some of the solids before feeding the solids to the incinerators. The drier solids are
much easier for the incinerator to handle and further decrease the likelihood that both
incinerators would have to be operated simultaneously.
The third goal of the proposed Project is to upgrade the solids facility’s air pollution control
equipment. This goal will be met with two Project components for each incinerator. First, the
new afterburners, which will help to meet the second goal, will be more efficient than the
current afterburner and will operate at a higher temperature to completely oxidize the
organics in the stack gas. Second, new two-stage wet scrubbers will be installed that capture
substantially more gases and particulate matter than the current scrubbers. Figure 6 shows the
improved’incineration system, upon completion of the Project.
Impact of the Proposed Proiect on PARWQCP Treatment Capacity
The proposed project will not increase the PARWQCP’s treatment capacity. The incineration
system is a component of the PARWQCP, and a modification to the incineration system
would only cause an increase in the PARWQCP capacity if it were currently the only limiting
component of the plant. The average dry weather flow to the PARWQCP in 1996 was 24
million gallons per day (MGD) from the PARWQCP’s service area of approximate 220,000
8
Figure 6
Proposed Incinerat~bn System
Residual
Solids
Incinerator-
2-Stage Scrubber
Stack Gas
Cooling Hearth
Atmosphere
Residual
Solids ~
¯ [ 2-Stage Scrubber
[Afterburner
Stack Gas
Cooling Hearth
Burning
Hearths
Ash Incinerator
Farmland
people. The wastewater treatment processes (as distinguished from the incineration system
shown in Figure 3) have a design capacity of 38 MGD average dry weather flow, which
could serve a population of approximately 350,000.
By contrast, the incineration system has a current approved maximum capacity of 60 dry tons
per day (DT/D) (30 DT/D per incinerator), with a 1996 usage of approximately 17 DT/D to
serve 220,000 people. The proposed Project will increase the peak capacity of one incinerator
to .32 DT/D. While it could be argued that the capacity of incinerator system would then be
64 DT/D (.32 X 2 incinerators), this is not the case for two reasons. First, only one incinerator
would be operated at a time. The purpose of the project components is to insure a back-up
incinerator is ready at all times. Second, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) Permit to Operate for the PARWQCP limits maximum throughput to 60 DT/D.
No modification to that permit is being sought. Therefore, the .incinerator system capacity
would remain at 60 DT/D. This system could serve a population as great as approximately
410,000.
The incinerator capacity can support a larger additional population than the available capacity
¯ in the wastewater treatment processes. The incineration .system could serve a population as
great as approximately 410,000, while the wastewater treatment process could only serve a
population of approximately 350,000 (see Table 1). Therefore, it is the wastewater treatment
Table 1
Current Throughput and Maximum Capacity
Wastewater Treatment
Processes
Incineration System
1996 VALUES
Throughput
Average
24 MGD
17 DTD
CURRENT MAXIMUM
CAPACITY
Population Throughput
Capacity
220,000 38 MGD*
220,000 60 DTD**
Approximate
Population
Equivalency
350,000
410,000
*Average
**60 DTD = Maximum Peak Daily Capacity. Average capacity associated
with this peak capacity used to determine Population Equivalency
10
processes, not the incineration system, that limit the PARWQCP’s capacity. The proposed
Project does not increase the capacity of the PARWQCP. A major capitol improvement
project for the wastewater treatment processes and regulatory agency approval would both be
required to increase the capacity of the wastewater.treatment processes and thus increase the
capacity of the PARWQCP. Such a project is unlikely within the next several decades
because the current PARWQCP capacity exceeds current demand by almost 100%, while the
anticipated growth in the service area during the 20-year life of the proposed Project isless
than I0%.
Project Approach
Following are additional details on the proposed Project components.
Repair of Existing Incinerators
The two incinerators are 18.75 foot diameter, 6-hearth furnaces. The interior of each
incinerator is lined with refi’actories of firebrick and insulation material. Dewatered solids are
inu’oduced into the furnace for combustion. An ash handling system conveys the ash to a
storage silo. The repair of the incinerators, all taking place within the existing building, will
consist of the following measures:
*Identify hot spots on the steel shell and flaws in the refractory and insulation
¯Add steel plate patches on the shell
¯Replace hearths (including flattened hearth) as needed
¯Repairer incinerator steel shells
¯Replace fans and ducting to the stack, incinerator control systems, and furnace draft
control system
¯Add new sludge feed conveyor
II
Modification of Incineration System
The modification will increase the efficiency of the existing incinerators and improve air
emissions..It will consist of the following:
Construction of a new structure (possible location shown on Figure 4) immediately
adjacent to the existing, building to house the new air pollution control equipment,
including an external afterburner, Venturi-Pak scrubber, and exhaust dueting. The new
structure will be an 800 square foot addition to the existing .5,300 square foot incinerator
building. It will be about the same .height as the existing building (46 feet), and will be
sheltered from the street and the public by other treatment plant structures and trees
surrounding the plant. The new air pollution control equipment.will provide significant
reductions in emissions compared to curreiat emissions.
Operational Changes to use the top hearth as a burning hearth.
Installation of an equalization storage tank. The quantity of dewatered sludge to be
incinerated will vary hourly. The ability to temporarily store, or equalize, these variations
will enhance Operating results, particularly at peak conditions. A new equalization storage
tank will be constructed adjacent to the south side of the incinerator building, as shown on
Figure 4. It will consist of a steel storage tank with a closed top and mixers. It will be 25
feet in diameter and 30 feet tall, providing 100,000 gallons of storage. It will be sized for
the projected average annual day’s sludge production of 18.5 DT/D. The tank will be
vented to the incinerator inlet combustion air to make use of the incinerators’ new air
pollution control equipment. The height of the .tank is lower than the existing incinerator
building and the surrounding structures. It will not be visible from the street or by the
public.
Addition of a Thermal Dryer
A small thermal dryer unit would be added if the City decides to pilot test the dryer or when a
single incinerator is unable to meet peak loads during the project life (through 2020): The
purpose of the thermal dryer is to increase the dryness of sludge beyond that which can be
12
achieved with the existing beltpress dewatedng. Available incinerator capacity is greater with
drier solids..The sludge dried by the thermal dryer during peak periods would be added to the
remaining dewatered sludge before incineration. The thermal dryer is expected to be operated
only sporadically during peak loading conditions, for a total of about 4 weeks during the
year. This will typically occur during the wet weather months in the winter after periods of
particularly heavy storms.
Thermal drying involves removal of moisture from the solids to a heated air stream. There
are certain issues associated with drying that can be successfully addressed with proper
design and operational procedures. The product from the dryers is organic and very dry,
which can cause dust. Since organic dust can be a source of explosions, thereby creating a
potential safety problem, the system will be designed and constructed with dust handling
systems that bring the level of dust down below the hazardous level and that meet all
applicable safety requirements.
Also, the dried sludge product is initially hot. If it is placed directly into a storage hopper,
there is a potential for heat buildup, which may eventually cause the pellets to catch fire.Two
measures will be included to reduce the fire hazard. First, the pellets will be cooled before
being placed in storage to reduce the fire hazard. Second, nitrogen padding of the storage
hopper air space can also be implemented as. a means to reduce the fire hazard.
The proposed thermal dryer uses indirect drying, in which fuel is eombusted in a boiler to
produce steam or in a thermal oil heater to heat oil. The steam or heated oil is passed through
an indirect dryer, where hollow metal disks or paddles are heated from the inside, and conduct
heat to the solids on the outside of the paddles.
The thermal drying facility can be located inside or outside the existing sludge incinerator
building. A site just north of and adjacent to the existing incinerator building, as shown in
Figure 4, has been identified for an outside location. Conveyors will be installed to transport
13
the dewatered solids to the thermal drying system from the belt presses and to return the dried
solids to the incinerator. Also, for odor control, the foul air created during the thermal drying
process will be discharged to the incinerator inlet air stream as part of the inlet combustion
air. This air eventually flows to the incinerator air emissions control system and helps in fuel
savings in. incinerator operations since it is heated. The dryer unit includes abatement
equipment for the boiler, which bums natural gas to heat the dryer. If the outdoor location is
selected, the facility will be lower in height than the existing incineratorbuilding and other
surrounding structures. It will be sheltered from the street andthe publicby other treatment
plant Structures and trees surrounding the plant.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Requirements
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires, that potential significant
environmental effects of a project proposed .by a public agency be identified and disclosed to
the public. A significant effect on the environment is generally defined as a "substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment." "Environment" means
the physical conditions, including both natural and man-made conditions, that exist within
the area affected by a proposed project.
The environmental assessment for the proposed project has identified no significant
environmental effects. A Negative Declaration must include a written statement briefly
explaining why a proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect when
compared to the existing environment. It must include a description of the project and
location, identification of the project proponent, and proposed finding of no significant effect.
It must also include a copy of the Initial Study checklist that justifies the finding of no
significant effect. This Negative Declaration contains all of the required information.
14
11.Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
State/Regional Agencies
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board
City of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department
City of Palo Alto Department of
Planning and Community
Development
City of Pale Alto Architectural
Review Board
City of Pale Alto Fire Department
Other Local Agencies
City .of Mountain View
City of Los Altos
East Pale Alto Sanitary District
Town of L.os Altos Hills
|
.-" ~:1%";::~. " "-:--- ., ’L~,:. -!: ........:::’" :" "-~ :" ~" " " i! : ..
Authority to Construct (A/C) and Permit to
Operate(P/O) - if grandfather status is not maintained,
then will be needed (existing facility attained
grandfather status because it was constructed before
1972, and will retain this status as long as it is not
modified in a manner that results in an air emission
increase of a regulated pollutant or the repair costs are
not greater than 50% of the capital cost era new
incinerator)
Clean Water Act: 40 CFR Part 503 Rules--proposed
revisions to CWA Part 503 will be incorporated :into
the existing NPDES Permit; will require Continuous
Emissions Monitoring for CO and NOx along with
existing requirements for Total Hydrocarbons by 2000
Grading and Drainage Review
Building Use Permit
Site and Design Review
Architectural Review
Hazardous Materials Disclosure Checklist/Inspection
Approval and Funding
Approval and Funding
Approval and Funding
Approval and Funding
15
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factoi’s checked below would be potentially affected by this project as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages:
[]Land Use and Planning
[]Population and Housing
[]Geologic Problems
[] Water
[] Air Quality
[]Transportation/Circulation
[]Biological Resources
[]Energy and Mineral Resources
[]Hazards
[]Noise
[] Mandatory Findings of
Significance
[]Public Services
[]Utilities and Service Systems
[]Aesthetics
[]Cultural Resources
[]Recreation
16
Determination:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a sigrtifieant effect in this ease because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the projeet. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
¯ document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if
the effect is a "potentially significant impact, or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Project Planner
Director of Planning & Community Environment
Date
17
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1)
2)
3)
4)
6)
7)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cities in the parentheses following each question. A
"No Impact" answer is adequately-supported if the referenced information.sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well
as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-
specific screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole, action ,involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is
made, an EIR is required.
"Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section
XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an.earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. g~neml plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated. See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used
or individualscontacted should be cited in the discussion,
This is only a suggested form, andlead agencies are free to use different ones.
18
Issues (~’nd Supporting Information Sources):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
proposal:.
a)
c)
e)
a)
b)
II.
c)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
Be incompatible with. existing land use in the
vicinity?
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community?
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
II1. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal
result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic.ground shaking?
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
2, 4
2, 5
2
1,2
1,2
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigatibn
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
19
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f’) Erosion~ changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill.’?
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i)
b)
c)
d)
e)
g)
h)
Unique geologic or physical features?.
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?.
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality? 1
Sources
3
3
3
1,3
3
3
1,3
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
20
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
i) Substantialreduction in thee amount ofg~oundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies.’?
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
V. AIR QUALITY. Would thc proposal:
No
lmpac~
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate?
d) Create objectionableodors?
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would
the proposal.result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting a!ternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
1
i
1
1,2
!,2
1,2
Vil.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)?
21
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
-c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d)Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?
e)
VIII.
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOUI~CES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
IX. HAZARD~. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?
d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential’"
health hazards?
e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brusl~,
grass, or trees?
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) lncreasesin existing noise levels?
Sources
i
1
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
.Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
22
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
0 Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
Xlll. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
Sources
I
1
1
1
I
I
]
1
1
1
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impac~
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
23
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Create light or glare7
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change¯which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
~b) Affect existing recr.eational opportunities?
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population-to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Sources
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Negative ’
Declaration:
Potentially.
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
24
b)Does the project have ¢~-.~potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c)
d)
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)
Does the project have environmental effects whish
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVIL
a)
b)
c)
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tienng, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adeq uately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(C)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should
identify the following on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and.adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant tot he applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measured based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Negative Declarations: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions for the project.
XVIII. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 Paio Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, Solids Facility Plan, May 1997
2 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1980-1995
3 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, December 1996
4 Voice mail message from Jim Gilliland (City of Palo Alto) regarding zoning, on June 24, 1997
5 Voice mail message from Jim Gilliland (City of Paio Alto) regarding zoning, on June 26, 1997
25
IXX. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
la
Ib
I c The proposed project would not be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity. Modifications to PARWQCP
facilities would be limited to the existing treatment plant site.
I d The proposed project would not impact agricultural resources or operations.
I e The proposed project has no impact on the physical arrangement of any established communities.
II a The proposed project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. See discussion for
Issue IIh below.
IIb The proposed project will not induce growth directly or indirectly. See discussion on pages 5 to7 of the attached
project description.
II c The proposed project is:limited to the existing treatment plant siteand would not displace any existing housing.
llI a The proposed project is not located on a fault and would not result in or expose people to fault rupture.
Ill b The Paio Alto Comprehensive Plan designates the project area to be prone to violent shaking in the event of a major
earthquake. This shaking could cause significant damage to structures ifnot properly designed or constructed. A
geotechnical report for the project will be prepared and the recommended design measures identified in that report will
be incorporated into the project.
The prol~osed project is consistent with the existing Major Institution/Special Facilities general plan designation of the
PARWQCP and the Public Facilities with Site Design Overlay (PF(D)) zoning. The.PARWQCP site is bordered on the
west by one~ and two-story office buildings, on the south by the City landfill, on the east by the Bay and Baylands.
Nature Preserve, and on the north by the Palo Alto Airport. The Pal.o Alto Golf Course is also located just westofthe
airport. Much of the PARWQCP site is screened from these.land uses by trees along its perimeter. However, the access
road to the landfill runs directly along the east plant boundary, so some PARWQCP facilities, such as the fixed film
reactors, arc clearly visible. The proximity to the airport places height restrictions on the treatment facilities. The top
of the existing incinerators are generally considered the maximum height allowed.
The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project.
III c Liquefaction can occur when loose, saturated, relatively clean cohesionless soils are subjected to ground vibrations.
The project area is situated adjacent to the San Francisco Bay and is underlain in part by Bay mud, an organic clay
which is soft and compressible. Sand lenses are interspersed throughout the Bay mud; these-lenses carry groundwater in
the vicinity of the Bay and, during seismic events, have the potential to liquefy, According to’ the City of Paio Alto
Comprehensive Plan, the site has a high liquefaction potential. The geotechnical investigation to be prepared for the
project will identify appropriate design measures that will be incorporated into the project to address liquefaction
issues.
III d
Ill e
Ill f
II1 g
Ill h
Ill i
IVa
The proposed project would not result in or expose people to seiche, Tsunami, or volcanic hazard.
The proposed project would not result in or expose people to landslides or mudflows.
The proposed project would not result in or expose people to erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
from excavation, grading, or fill.
The proposed projec~ would not result in or expose people to subsidence of land.
The proposed project would not result in or expose people to potential impacts from expansive soils.
No unique geologic or physical features exist at the project site, so the proposed project would not result in or expose
people to potential impacts from unique geologic or physical features.
The proposed project would be constructed on currently paved ground and would not add paved area. Hence the
proposed prqiect would not result inany changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of
IXX. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
surface runoff.
IV b The treatment plant site is in a flood zone, as designated by FEMA. However, the proposed project would not result in
any additional exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. All applicable FEMA
requirements will be met.
IVc The air pollution control equipment in the proposed project would recycle trace amounts of metals from the scrubber
back to the treatment plant headworks. With the.addition of scrubber water treatment there will be no incruasc in
metals in the wastewater discharged to the Bay and the adjacent Baylands Nature Preserve The wastewater discharged
will still meet permit requirements for metals.
IV d The proposed project would not change the amount of surface water in any water body.
IV e The proposed project would not change currents or the course or direction of water movements.
IV f The proposed project would not change the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability.
IV g The proposed project would not alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater.
IV h The proposed project would not result in impacts to groundwater quality,
IV i The proposed project would not result in ~ubstantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies.
V a Construction-related emissions, such as dust (fine particulate matter, PM~0), vehicle exhaust, and equipment exhaust.are
expected to occur at the facility for a period of up to 6 months. Minimal dust emissions are anticipated since the facility
has paved roads and controlled speed limits, and major demolition and grading would not occur. Some excavation will
be required to pour the foundation for the project facility, but minimal dust emissions are expected because the
construction area is relatively small (800 square feet for air pollution control equipment, about 500 square feet for the
equalization basin).
Basic dust control measures, such as watering active construction areas and water sweeping all paved access roads,
parking lots, and staging areas, will be required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to
reduce any potential dugt emissions. Applying effective and comprehensive control measures during project
construction would prevent violations of any air standards.
There will be no net increase in emissions as compared with current emission levels based on recent source test data.
Table 1 at the end of this checklist summarizes the current and future emissions associated with this project.
The project will be designed with a new air emi~sit~ns abatement system that will handle emissions from the
incinerator, thermal solids dryer, scum handling system, and feed sludge equalization tank. The Solids Facility Plan
describes in greater detail the air emissions abatement system. The proposed system will be more efficient and capable
of handling the projected solids increase, and will improve existing air emissions by reducing, on the average, metals
by 54 percent, criteria pollutants by 48 percent, and dioxins/furans by 99 percent from current emission levels.
The project does not require an increase in truck pick-ups for ash. Therefore, there will be no increased truck traffic
emissions beyond what is currently occurring.
With operation of the new emissions abatement technology and implementation of dust control measures during
construction, the project would meet all current and known potential future air quality requirements and no significant
a~r quality impacts would occur.
V b Because the project site is not located near Sensitive receptors and no net increases in air emissions would occur based
on current source test data and future emission estimates, there will be no pollutant exposure to sensitNe receptors.
Sensitive receptors include schools, daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. The PARWQCP staffwill adhere to
27
r
IXX. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
proper abatement equipment installation (including scheduled shutdown of incinerators during installation), testing, and
operating procedures to minimize any potential air emission impacts to workers in the light industrial businesses near
tile project site.
Vc
Vd
The project does not include the addition or modification of major heat or moisture sources and would not result in a
signifidant alteration of air movement, moisture, temperature, or other climatic changes.~
The dn!er, which would only be operated ’only occasionally (~pically maximum 4 weeks per year), is the only new
potential odor source, but is riot expected to create an impact. The project will be designed to handle odor sources (i.e.,
dr~er, scum handling, and feed tank) by venting the exhaust d!rectly to the incinerator inlet air. There it will be
combusted and then sent to the incinerator emissions abateme~ system for added destruction of combustion by-
products. Because of this configuration, the potential for odor outside ofthe abatement system will not be created.
Therefore, no additional odors will be released beyond current operating conditions. Objectionable odors are not
expected to occur. ~
Vl a Facility construction will have a less than significant impact on traffic. The number of trucks to haul solids by-products
(ash). will be the same as the Current number, which is one truck per week. Traffic related to construction activities are
expected to be similar to the traffic that occurs during annual maintenance and rehabilitation of the Plant’s existing
systems. This could include up to 8-10 workers entering the.site per day and a limited number of trucks delivering
concrete, other materials, and equipment to the site. Traffic impacts from construction would be less than significant.
V! b The proposed project does not contain any transportation design features and would not result in hazards to safety from
design features such as sharp curves o.r dangerous intersections.
VI c Project construction activities and operations at PARWQCP would not interfere with emergency access or access tO
nearby uses, nor are they expected to interfere with emergency access at the PARWQCP.
VI d PARWQCP currently has adequate parking capacity and would not add any additional employees as a result of the
project. Parking needs for construction activities would not exceed current parking needs for rehabilitation and
maintenance activities.
VIe Facilities at PARWQCp would not be expanded outside the current plant boundaries and would not be a hazard to
9edestrians or bicyclists. There are no pedestrian or bicycle paths within the PARWQCP.
(
VI f The project does not conflict with City of Palo Alto adqpted policies supporting alternative transportation,
Vi g The project would have no impacts on rail or waterborne traffic. Traffic at the adjacent airport would not be impacted
by the project construction or operation. No part of the rehabilitation or expansion would be greater in height than the
existing incinerators, which are considered the maximum height allowable to avoid impacting airport traffic.
VII a The proposed project will result in a 99.9% decrease in dioxin and furan emissions, an average 54 percent decrease in
metals air emissions, and an average 48 percent decrease in criteria pollutant emissions compared to current emissions,
resulting in a project benefit. As a result, no impacts to endangered, threatened, or rare species in the adjacent marshes
are expected.
Vll b
VII c
Vll d
The proposed project would require the removal of one or two eucalyptus trees next to the incinerator on the
PARWQCP site. However, these trees are not heritage trees and they are less than 20 years old. They will need to be
removed with or without this project, since they pose a fire hazard due to their proximity to the incinerator chimney,
and the tree roots are invasiv.e and have the potential to damage building foundations, pipes, and high voltage conduits.
The proposed project would not resUlt in impacts to locally designated natural communities such as oak forest or
coastal habitat.
The incinerator abatement air scrubber would recycle trace amounts of metals removed from the air stream bdck to the
~lant headworks. Use of scrubber water treatment.to precipitate, concentrate, and remove metals from the recycle water
will result in no increase in metals in the wastewater discharged to the Bay and the adjacent Baylands Nature Preserve.
This is a mitigation measure to prevent disc.barge of the metals to air or water: The wastewater discharged will still
IXX. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
VII e
VIII a
VIII b
meet permit requirements for metals. As a result, no impacts to wetland habitat are expected.
The ~proposed project would be located on the existing PARWQCP site and would not result in impacts to wildlife
dispersal or migration corridors.
The proposed project would not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans.
Through the rehabilitation measures, the proposed project would result in greater fuel efficiency (Le., less.fuel use per
unit of sludge processed) compared to current efficiency. The proposed project would not use non-renewable resources
in a wasteful and inefficient manner.
VIII c
IXa
The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and tO the residents of the State.
The thermal dryer may present a small risk of accidental explosion or fire. However, the proposed project would be
designed with safety measures including proper dust handling systems to reduce explosion potential, and nitrogen
padding of the storage hopper air space to reduce fire hazard. With these design measures, the potential impacts are
expected to be less than significant.
IX b The proposed project would not interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans.
IX c The proposed project will result in a.99.9% decrease in dioxin and furan emissions, an average 54 percent decrease in
metals air emissions, and an average 48 percent decrease in ~riteria pollutant emissions compared to current emissions
from the incinerators, resulting in a project benefit. As a result., the project will result in no new impacts to health. ’
IX d Neither the proposed project nor the pARWQCP create metals; any metals emissions result from m~tals in the plant
influent. However, the metals, primarily mercury, that would be removed by scrubber water treatment discussed in
Vlld may need to be recycled or handled as a hazardous waste. Amounts that would be removed would be small and
are estimated to be approximately 0.1 Ib/year for the lightest metals and approximately 30 Ib/year of the heaviest
metals. Metals resulting from scrubber water treatment would be handled properly in accordance with all applicable
and stringent local, state, and federal regulations that govern the use, storage, and disposal of such materials. As a
result, no significant impacts are expected.
IX e The proposed project area does not contain flammable brush, grass, or trees, and the proposed project would not
increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees.
X a The proposed project may result in short-term increases in existing noise levels associated with construction activities.
However, the impacts are i~xpected to be minor and not noticeably different than current noise associated with
rehabilitation and maintenance activities. No sensitive receptors are located near the project area. Therefore, impacts
to existing noise levels are expected to be less than significant,
X b The proposed project would not result in exposure of people to severe noise levels.
XI a The proposed project would not affect or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services.
Xl b The proposed project would not affect or result in a need for new or altered police protection services.
XI c The proposed project would not affect or result in a need for new or altered schools.
Xld The proposed project consists of rehabilitation and modifications to a public facility (a portion of the PARWQCP).
The rehabilitation and modifications are expected to improve the operations and reduce the maintenance needs of the
solids handling facility. As a result, the proposed project would not affect or result in a need for new or altered
maintenance of public facilities.
Xl e The proposed project would not affect or result in a need for any other new or altered governmental services,
XII a The proposed project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies of or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas utilities.
29
IXX. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
Xll b
XII c
Xll d
XII e
XII f
Xll g .
The proposed project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies of or substantial alterations to
communications systems.
The proposed project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies of or substantial alterations to local or
regional water treatment or distribution facilities.
The proposed project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies of or substantial alterations to sewer or
septic tanks.
The p~’oposed project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies of or substantial alterations to storm water
drainage.
The proposed project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies of or substantial alterations to solid waste
disposal.
The proposed project would not result in a need for new systems or supplies of or substantial alterations to local or
regional water supplies.
Xlll a The proposed project would not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway.
XIII b The proposed project would not have a demonstrable, negative aesthetic effect. The new facilities would be within the
existing plant boundaries and would not be visible to the general public. New structures would be attached or adjacent
to existing structures, would match existing exteriors, would be the same as or lower in height than the existing
structures, and would be’sheltered from view by other existing structui’es in the plant and.by trees that surround the
31ant.
XIII c The proposed project would not create light or glare.
XIV a The proposed project would be located on the existing PARWQCP site and would not disturb p.aleontological
resources.
XIV b The proposed project would be located on the existing PARWQCP site and would not disturb archaeological resources,
XIV c The proposed project would be located on the existing PARWQCP site and would not affect historical resources.
XIV d The proposed project would not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultura("
values. ..
XIV e The proposed project would not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the. potential impact area.
XV a The proposed project would not eliminate any existing parks or recreational facilities and would not induce growth in
the region. As a result, the proposed project would not increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities.
XV b The proposed project would not affect existing recreational opportunities.
30
Table 1: Current and Future Emissions, PARWQCP Incinerator Rehabilitation
¯. Pollutant Current Emissions
Criteria Pollutants
Carbon monoxide
Nitrous Oxides
Sulfur oxides
THC
Particulate matter
Volatile Organic Carbons
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Dioxin
Furans
Metals
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Mercury.
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
(Ib/day)
I ! 6.98
87.96
52.99 l
2~16
16.2
0.54
2.34 x 10-8
1.03 x 10-7.
4.51 x 10-3
4.33 x 10-6
1.53 x 10-2
2.34 x 10-3
1.23 x 10-2
,9.01 x 10-3
4.15 x 10-2
2.34 x 10-3
8.47 x 10=3
6.49 x I0"1
Emissions After Incinerator
Rehabilitation
(Ib/day)
22.64
37.07
1.55
1.45
12.95
0.53
2.17 x 10"11
9.50 x 10"11
3.4gx 10-3
3.98 x 10-6
4.i 1 x 10-3
5.37 x 10-4
1.18 x 10-2
3.52 x 10-4
4.05 x 10-2
2.96 x 10-4
3.69 x 10-4
1.64 x I0"1
Authority: Public RcsourccsCodc $cclions21083 and210ST.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c). 21080. I, 21080.3, 21082 i, 2 i 083, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21 i 5 I:
Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonoffv. Monterey Board of Supervisor~, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990)
31
ATTACHMENT B