HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4347
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4347)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/16/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Landfill Closure Contract and Resolution for Landfill Lease
Amendment
Title: Approval of Contract Number C14152214 in the Amount of $2,000,000
with Toubar Equipment Company Inc. for Soil Brokering and Closure
Maintenance Assistance Services at the Palo Alto Landfill and Adoption of a
Resolution Approving the Third Amendment of Lease PRC 7348.9 with the
California State Lands Commission for Additional Use of Lands Claimed by the
State
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve Contract No. S14152214 for a total not to exceed amount of
$2,000,000 with Toubar Equipment Company, Inc. for Landfill Closure
Maintenance Services and Phase IIC landfill cap installation (Attachment A);
and
2. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee
to execute the Third Amendment of Lease PRC 7348.9 with the California
State Lands Commission (SLC) for additional use of lands claimed by the
State (Attachment B).
Executive Summary
Council inquired about the regulatory approval status of the closure plan and why
the City is moving forward with the contract without having all of the final
approvals from the State.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The City has obtained written regulatory agency approvals to change the Palo Alto
Landfill Phase IIC cap design from a geosynthetic (plastic) cap to a 4-foot thick soil
cap known as an evapo-transpirative (ET) cap. The agencies have also approved
the City to begin receiving and stockpiling soils on the landfill in preparation for
the soil cap installation. Staff documented this change in a revised closure plan
that was submitted for approval on September 15th. By regulation, this revised
closure plan will be approved 120 days after submittal, or on January 15, 2014.
The City is under a stipulated order with a tight schedule to get the landfill capped
and Staff recommends approving of the contract as soon as possible to be able to
stockpile soils after the City’s current soil broker contract expires which on
December 31, 2013.
This new design is expected to save the City $3 million in cap construction costs
and also make it much less costly to build an Energy/Compost Facility on the
former Landfill, should the City ultimately decide to do so.
Staff recommends that Council take the next step toward the soil cap installation
and approve a $2M contract with a soil broker/closure maintenance contractor to
supply the specified soils and construct the cap.
Staff also requests Council’s approval of an amendment to the City’s lease with
the State Lands Commission concerning the site, which is needed to move
forward with the soil cap installation
Background
The 126-acre Palo Alto Landfill has been filled to capacity and ceased waste
acceptance in July, 2011. The final phase of the landfill, a 51-acre section
designated as “Phase IIC”, is the only section not yet capped. The Phase IIC cap
construction was originally designed to be a geosynthetic (plastic) cap estimated
to cost approximately $6 Million and scheduled to be constructed during the 2012
calendar year. Due to the possible development of an Energy/Compost Facility on
a portion of Phase IIC and the potential cost of having to remove a portion of the
cap, staff proposed a less costly alternative cap design known as an evapo-
transpirative (ET) cap. The ET cap is an engineered designed soil cap that acts like
City of Palo Alto Page 3
a sponge to absorb water then release it back into the air or provide moisture for
plants to uptake.
Landfill Lease Amendment
In December 1989, during the site and design review process for Byxbee Park, the
State Lands Commission (SLC) and the City entered into Lease PRC 7348.9,
whereby the SLC entered into a lease with the City regarding land in the vicinity of
Mayfield Slough in Palo Alto. The lease allows the City to construct the
improvements contained in the Byxbee Park Master Plan. On May 5, 1992, the
lease was amended for the first time prior to the closure of the Phase IIA section
of the landfill. On May 2, 2000, the lease was amended (CMR:229:00) for the
second time prior to the closure of Phase IIB section of the landfill. The attached
resolution authorizes the City Manager or his designee to approve an amendment
to the lease (Attachment C) for a third time prior to the closure of Phase IIC
section of the landfill.
Discussion
The work to be performed under this contract consists of providing approximately
250,000 cubic yards of soil that meets physical and geotechnical specifications for
the ET Cap. The soils will be hauled into the landfill by commercial trucking firms
and the City will receive a fee for the soils deposited at the landfill. Closure tasks
will be discounted to some degree with offsets in the soil revenues (i.e. through
discounts in soil fees to the soil broker/contractor). The work associated with the
two types of activities (providing soils and construction services) will be
completed by the same contractor.
In addition to the supply of the soil, this contract’s scope of work requires the
contractor to provide equipment and staff to place and compact the ET soil to
proper specifications. The contractor is required to test the soils for both
chemical contaminants and geotechnical qualities and all soil borrow sources will
be approved by the City prior to the installation of the soil. Soil that does not
meet the geotechnical requirements may be screened by the contractor to meet
the physical and geotechnical specifications. To ensure conformance a third party
construction quality assurance (CQA) firm will provide all compaction testing
(under contract C12143502). The closure contractor will be responsible for
providing all soil management activities including, but not limited to, traffic
control at the landfill, dust control, street sweeping, documentation and load
City of Palo Alto Page 4
checking. In addition, the contractor shall provide on-call services as requested
and as directed by the City. On-call services include, but are not limited to,
repositioning, burying, and raising the landfill’s environmental control piping
systems; excavating and removing or recompacting non-specified soils; installing
drainage features; and installing post-closure maintenance pathways. The
contractor also will be responsible for hydro-seeding Phase IIC after the cap has
been installed. This is a two-year contract with the work scheduled to be
completed by the end of December, 2015. If rainfall amounts and soil availability
allow, it may be possible to complete the capping of Phase IIC by the end of
December 2014.
Evaluation of Proposals
On October 21, 2013, a notice inviting formal proposals (RFP) for the Closure
Maintenance Assistance Services for Palo Alto Landfill was posted on the City’s
public website, and was sent to 12 Builder’s Exchanges and 4 Contractors. The
proposal period was for 14 calendar days. Proposals were received from 1 (one)
contractor on November 5, 2013.
Summary of Solicitation Process
Request for Proposals (RFP) Published 10/21/13
Number of Proposals Received 1
Proposal Opening Date 11/5/13
Proposal Range Not To Exceed $2,000,000
The proposal was reviewed by staff based on the following criteria: 1) Quality and
completeness or proposal; 2) Quality, performance and effectiveness of the
solution, goods and/or services to be provided by the Proposer; 3) Proposers
experience, including the experience of staff to be assigned to the project, the
engagements of similar scope and complexity; 4) Cost to the City; 5) Proposers’
financial stability; 6) Proposer’s ability to perform the work within the time
specified; 7) Proposer’s prior record of performance with city or others;
8) Proposer’s ability to provide future maintenance, repairs, parts and/or services
and; 9) Proposer’s compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies
(including Palo Alto City Council policies), guidelines and orders governing prior to
existing contracts peformed by the contractor.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The Toubar Equipment Company, Inc. was selected because:
1. The proposal was complete.
2. The solutions proposed meet the expectations of the City.
3. Toubar has experience in performing similar work.
4. The soil fee and unit costs proposed by Toubar was in the range expected
by City Staff.
5. Toubar has adequate finacial stability.
6. Toubar can perform the work in the time specified in the contract.
7. The City has had good experience with Toubar.
8. Toubar has the ability to provide future maintenance, repairs, and services.
9. Toubar has shown the ability to stay in compliance with applicable laws.
Toubar has been the City’s soil broker for the last two years and has performed
satisfactorily.
Lease Agreement
In September 2013, the SLC was contacted during the State Clearinghouse review
of a Negative Declaration for the Palo Alto landfill partial closure, Phase IIC. The
SLC determined that an amendment of Lease PRC 7348.9 is required to add the
Phase IIC area to the leased premises. The SLC has prepared the attached
amendment number three for the landfill site.
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the format and content of
the proposed Third Amendment (Attachment B) which contains the following
terms:
The revised land description, including a new parcel identified as Phase IIC.
The City is allowed to construct the improvements on Phase IIC area,
including construction of the ET cap as well as Park improvements such as
pathways and other amenities.
Resource Impact
Funding for the ET cap installation and closure maintenance expense is included
in Capital Improvement Plan project RF-11001, Landfill Closure which was
established as part of the FY 2011 budget process. After approval of this $2
million contract, the available budget (amount remaining) of the project will be
City of Palo Alto Page 6
$3.0 million. Additional work required by the City will be paid for through the off-
set of soil revenue and will be directed by the City. It is estimated that soil
revenue could potentially total $500,000 to offset expenses.
The City is expected to save $3 Million by utilizing the ET cap design. The City,
through its financial assurance mechanism with CalRecycle, originally estimated
the remaining closure work to cost $5.8 Million and was required to set aside
these funds. Staff will request that CalRecycle authorize the release of all of these
funds when the ET cap is constructed. Therefore, once completed, staff expects
that $3.8 Million in savings from the Financial Assurance Reserve will be released
and added to the Rate Stabilization Reserve which will bring the current Refuse
Fund Rate Stablilization Reserve balance from a negative balance to a positve
balance on an accounting basis.
There are no fees associated with the lease amendment and therefore, no
impacts on Refuse Fund resources.
Policy Implications
There are no new policy implications with the recommended actions in the
report.
Environmental Review
An Intial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was completed in
August 2013 (Attachment D) by TRA Environmental Services. The City found that
the proposed project would have some effects on the environment, the City will
use mitigation measures to minimize the effects. A Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (August 13, 2013) was prepared for the project and will be
implemented by the City prior to beginning any ET cap installation work.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Contract S14152214 Phase IIC Closure Maintenance Services (PDF)
Attachment B - Council Resolution Approving and Authorizing Amendment of Lease PRC
7348.9. (PDF)
Attachment C - Amendment to Lease PRC 7348.9. (PDF)
Attachment D - Mitigated Negative Declaration Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure.
(PDF)
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
1
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. S14152214
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
TOUBAR EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this 8th day of November, 2013, (“Agreement”)
by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation
(“CITY”), and TOUBAR EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation, located at
2535 Pulgas Ave., East Palo Alto, CA, 94303 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to perform Closure Maintenance Assistance Services (“Project”) and desires
to engage a consultant to provide closure services including managing the importation of soil,
grading and placing the soil as well as performing modifications to the environmental systems
required for closure in connection with the Project (“Services”).
B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the
Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in
this Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in
Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call
agreements.)
Services will be authorized by the City, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by the
City’s Project Manager. Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1.
Each Task Order shall designate a City Project Manager and shall contain a specific scope of work, a
specific schedule of performance and a specific compensation amount. The total price of all Task
Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Compensation set forth in
Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for work performed under
an authorized Task Order and the City may elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the
maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4.
performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT
represents that it possesses the professional and the technical personnel necessary to perform the
services required.
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 2
SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31, 2015
unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this
Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part
of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this
Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and
timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT.
CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of
damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two-million Dollars
($2,000,000). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services
and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00).
The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY
RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is
determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and
reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”).
If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The
information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY.
CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in
Section 13 below. The City shall generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of
receipt.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
3
by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services
assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted,
have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications,
insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar
circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and
in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may
affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and
all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design
documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors,
omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project.
This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of
design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%)
of the CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the
CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved
recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing
the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with
CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or
transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations
hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not
be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval
of the city manager will be void.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
Option A: No Sub-Contractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to
be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
designee.
X Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that
subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY
to perform work on this Project are:
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of
the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign CHARLIE
TOUCHATT as the PROJECT DIRECTOR to have supervisory responsibility for the performance,
progress, and execution of the Services and CHARLIE TOUCHATT as the project MANAGER to
represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the
substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason,
the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement
personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager.
CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not
perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate
or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property.
The City’s project manager is CHUCK MUIR, PUBLIC WORKS Department, ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES Division, P.O. BOX 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:(650) 496-6979. The
project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress
and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to
time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees
that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested
in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual
property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make
any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval
of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the
work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work.
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
5
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time
during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records
pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and
retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
[Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section
2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed
professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall
protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all
costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or
willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
[Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined
in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall
protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all
costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or
nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to
require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active
negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not
operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive
the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not
be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of
any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision,
ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
6
force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D".
CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an
additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers
with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to
transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect
during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional
insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently
with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk
Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the
Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the
insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to
CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the
cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such
notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the
insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement.
18.4. 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 Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be
obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss
arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or
in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written
notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately
discontinue its performance of the Services.
19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of
the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of
a substantial failure of performance by CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and
other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given
to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will
become the property of CITY.
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
7
19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid
for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on
or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided,
however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT,
CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s
services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by
the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will
survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25.
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULTANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement,
it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT
certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer
or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California.
21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as
that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT
shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status,
weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
9
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE
REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred
Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by
reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero
Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third,
recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste
requirements:
All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal
computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices,
reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a
minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved
by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional
printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and
printed with vegetable based inks.
Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in
accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not
limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.
Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional
cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from
the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.
SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION
24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a)
at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,
or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of
the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take
precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this
Agreement.
SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action
will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of
legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third
parties.
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
10
\\
25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply
to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the
parties.
25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any
duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be
deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with
CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d)
about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and
appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City
immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the
security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct
marketing purposes without City’s express written consent.
25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
11
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Closure Maintenance Assistance Services
City of Palo Alto Landfill
Background
The City of Palo Alto has selected Toubar Equipment Company Inc. to provide a large amount
of suitable soils for the landfill cover project and to provide on-call construction services
including earthwork and grading, raising gas and leachate wells, providing and installing
drainage features and other maintenance services related to the City of Palo Alto’s final landfill
closure.
The Palo Alto Landfill began formal refuse filling in the 1950s. The City of Palo Alto (City) has
been closing and capping this landfill in phases since 1991. In 2010, the City began performing
large scale settlement repair due to subsidence within closed sections of the landfill. In July
2011, the landfill reached final capacity and closed to the public. Since then, the City has been
importing a large amount of soil into the landfill in order to prepare the last phase (Phase IIC) for
final capping. In addition, there may be need for ancillary repair of settlement in the previously
closed area of the Park.
This agreement is for closure maintenance services to assist the City in the importation and
management of the large amount of required soils. The City’s schedule is to have all soils
delivered, placed and compacted before the rainy season of 2014 starts. This agreement shall
also fund other tasks related to landfill maintenance as described below. These tasks shall be
performed on a time and materials not to exceed. Construction work shall be directed by the
City and the specifications confirmed by City’s Construction Quality Control Firm.
Hydroseeding of bare slopes and top-decks shall be performed by Toubar or an approved sub-
contractor before the onset of the rainy season 2014 as part of this agreement. This agreement
involves both fees paid by Toubar to the City for the acceptance and disposal of clean soils at the
landfill and costs paid to Toubar by the City as described below.
Scope of Work
Before any onsite work proceeds, Toubar shall prepare and submit for City approval a site
specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP). As work commences, Toubar shall have onsite a full-
time designated safety officer to monitor all activities for adherence to the HASP. Toubar shall
also delegate a site specific Supervisor onsite at all times. The Health and Safety Officer and
Supervisor can be the same personnel if qualified and authorized by Toubar.
Toubar shall provide clean soils from regional grading projects and manage the soils at the
landfill for the purpose of settlement repair and capping. Toubar shall also provide equipment
and staff necessary for other maintenance related tasks at the landfill as described below.
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
12
Toubar shall provide, import and properly manage approximately 300,000 cubic yards of
suitable soils for placement at the landfill as directed by the City. The City at its sole discretion
shall approve all soil borrow sources prior to acceptance based on the criteria listed below:
Soil Requirements/Preconstruction Testing (Borrow Source) – Required to be performed
and submitted by Toubar before approval by the City
Chemical Contamination
a)The soils to be provided by Toubar shall not contain any chemical contaminants.
Sampling and analytical testing shall be provided by Toubar and official lab results and
chain of custody documentation must be submitted to the City and approved before soil
can be delivered to the landfill.
Minimum Sampling Frequency – A minimum of one sample for each (original)
location of soil larger than 500 cubic yards. A minimum of one sample per 5,000
cubic yards of soil originating at any one location. For soil stockpiles of 500 CY
or greater four (4) discrete samples shall be taken and submitted as one
composite sample.
Minimum Testing Required – CAM 17 Metals TTLC, TPH (Oil, diesel and
gasoline) by EPA 8015. Additional analyses could be required by the City
depending on the risk level of the borrow source. For example, the City may
require pesticide analyses if the borrow source has been farmland for a long
period of time.
City approval criteria shall be the Shallow Soil Screening Levels for Residential Land
Use Table B-1 of the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board
Final Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). Exceptions shall be made for metals
where background levels are higher than the ESLs in the Bay Area.
b) The soils shall not be approved if contamination is suspected;
c) The soils shall originate from residential or low risk commercial properties such as
schools, office locations or previously undeveloped properties where no contamination
source(s) are suspected;
d) A certification form shall be signed by the generator (or generator’s agent) of each
commercial borrow source larger than 1,000 cubic yards certifying that the soil meets the
City’s requirements;
Physical/Geotechnical Requirements
The soils shall be suitable for the ET cover as defined below. Non-compatible soils that contain
sand, gravel, or other materials (e.g., asphalt mix/chunks, concrete chunks/ready mix, mulch, or
wood chips) or overly saturated soils shall not be accepted. The following grain size distribution
Task 1 Provide, Import and Manage Clean Soils
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
13
criteria shall be used for approval of borrow sources. Toubar shall sample, test and submit
results to City for consideration. Toubar shall not transport any soils onto the site unless the
borrow source is approved in writing by the City before importation. The sampling and testing
criteria is a minimum of one representative sample per borrow source, and one additional sample
for every 5,000 cubic yards or as directed by the City.
1)The ET Cover soils shall meet the following gradation requirements:
A maximum particle size of 3 inches provided no more than 2 percent of the
material by dry weight is between 1-inch and 3 inches in diameter;
No less than 98 percent finer than the 1-inch sieve (by dry weight);
No less than 75 percent finer than the No. 4 sieve (by dry weight);
No less than 30 percent finer than the U.S. No. 200 sieve (by dry weight).
2) The ET Cover Soil shall have a plastic index (PI) of 25 or less using ASTM D 4318.
Construction Testing (by others)
Toubar shall place and compact imported soils to the placement specifications listed below.
Owner shall contract with a quality control firm to verify conformance. Toubar is solely
responsible for placing the soils to the specifications listed below:
The ET Cover Soil shall be tested (by others) for compaction characteristics at a frequency of
one sample per 10,000 cubic yards using ASTM D 1557 and confirmed in the field by ASTM
D6938 (Nuclear methods). Rocks of between 3 and 5 inches in diameter shall be considered
insignificant if they comprise less than 1 percent of the total material by dry weight. However,
Toubar shall make reasonable efforts to remove any rocks larger than 3-inches in diameter,
including removal by hand.
Placement and compaction
Toubar shall provide equipment and staff to place and compact this soil in accordance with the
specifications below. City shall set grade for Toubar.
a)The ET Cover Soil shall be placed in maximum 8”-inch loose lifts and compacted to
approximately 6”-inch.
b)The ET Cover Soil shall be moisture conditioned to within -3% to +4% of optimum as
determined by ASTM 1557.
c)The ET Cover Soil shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction as
determined by ASTM 1557. If the soils meet the definition of “Fine Gradation”, the soils
shall be compacted to a minimum 87% relative compaction.
At a minimum, Toubar must provide the following equipment to place and compact the soils.
Equivalent equipment must be approved by the City.
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
14
An 815 Compactor;
A D-6 bulldozer
A Motor Grader.
Full time water truck.
City shall provide grade control and Toubar shall fine grade the soil to its intended surface
elevations as directed by the City. Toubar shall at no additional fee accept and properly manage
all City generated soils hauled by City staffs. The City’s Construction Quality Assurance (CQA)
firm shall provide all compaction testing.
Material Screening and Processing: If Toubar would like to process or otherwise screen borrow
source soils to meet the City’s criteria, and if the City allows this option, then Toubar shall
provide a suitable shaker deck or other suitable screener and screen the soil to the required
particle sizes and shall meet any requirements of the City such as schedule. Toubar shall dispose
of spoils onsite as directed by the City. Incoming soil stockpiles and the mixing and screening
area may be limited to a maximum area of one acre due to above-ground gas and leachate wells
throughout the site. Toubar shall move the screened soils to construct the cap directed by the
City. Toubar shall be required to control dust through the processing City shall supply water
source near the site for Toubar’s usage. Toubar shall provide a water truck and staff for dust
suppression.
Other Onsite Soils Management (Related to Task 1):
The following tasks are related to the soil management operation and shall be provided at no
additional cost to the City. All of this work in this section shall be paid through the Task 1 fee
schedule.
1)Toubar shall provide a full time staff near the entrance to the landfill to control and verify
trucks. Toubar shall ensure that all trucks originate from City approved soil borrow
sources.
2)Toubar shall record and provide soils documentation to the City each week submitted by
the following Wednesday as well as a monthly summary submitted within 7 days of the
end of each month. This documentation shall include at a minimum:
The job address of where the soil originated;
The Company that hauled the soil into the Landfill;
The number of trucks and the size of each truckload in cubic yards;
The total number of cubic yards per borrow source;
The total fee calculation to be paid to the City per borrow source; and
The grand totals of each category.
3)Toubar shall provide two water trucks (and drivers) on site at all times that shall be used
to suppress dust caused by the soil management operation. Normally one water truck is
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
15
expected to be sufficient, however at times a second water truck may be needed. City
shall provide a nearby location for the water truck to fill with reclaimed water.
4)Toubar shall provide at no cost to the City all traffic control flagmen as needed to control
their traffic and to show the truck drivers where to dump their soil loads. Toubar shall
use this staff or others to review each load for unacceptable large rocks or other debris
and extract the rocks and debris before spreading the load.
5)Street Sweeping Services – Toubar shall also provide at no additional cost to the City
adequate street sweeper to sweep and remove soil from the paved Harbor and
Embarcadero roadways twice a day or until the soil is clear. Toubar shall sweep a
minimum of two hours per day or as directed by the City.
Task 2 – Additional Onsite Services
Toubar shall supply labor, materials and equipment in order to complete the work that shall be
identified by City. City shall direct Toubar on the tasks to be completed and Toubar shall
provide the resources needed in accordance with the fee schedule listed below.
a) Labor – Toubar shall provide laborers to perform the following tasks as directed by the City:
Raise wellheads, vaults or other piping components;
Cut and remove piping, replace and weld HDPE piping once filling has occurred;
Clean soil out of drainage ditches;
Install stormwater controls – silt fencing, waddles, rip rap etc. and
Toubar shall have onsite at all times (during construction) three (3) staff certified to weld
HDPE pipe in accordance with heat fusion requirements and procedures, Title 49 of the
DOT, CFR 192.283, as needed;
Toubar shall supply heat fusion welding equipment and piping as needed;
Toubar shall supply at least two portable toilet facilities;
Other tasks as directed by the City.
b) Materials Purchase – Toubar shall purchase rock, piping, geotextiles or other materials as
directed by the City. Toubar may apply their markup listed in the fee schedule to each purchase.
c) Path Construction – Toubar shall construct pathways as directed by the City. Toubar shall
provide and use all equipment needed such as 613 scraper to dig out the path and haul and
compact baserock using a motor grader, skip loader, water truck and vibratory smooth drum
roller as directed by City.
d) Drainage Projects – Toubar shall provide labor, materials and equipment to install onsite
drainage features as directed by the City. Tasks may include providing an excavator or backhoe,
along with laborers to install piping or rip rap drainage features. Toubar shall also purchase and
supply rip rap or other materials as directed by the City.
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
16
e) Removal of soils – This task involves the removal and hauling of unspecified soils to locations
on the landfill as directed by the City. Equipment may include a large excavator, several 10
wheel truck(s) and a compactor to haul, place and compact the soils.
Equipment Availability - Toubar shall have the following equipment (and operators) available
onsite within 24 hours of request by the City. Alternate equipment must be approved by the City
to be equivalent.
A second CAT 815 compactor;
A second D-6 or larger bulldozer
Large excavator (CAT 350 or equivalent);
Backhoe.
48” pad drum compactor
84” smooth drum roller
613 or better paddle wheel scraper
210 john Deere skip loader
At least a 9500 watt generator and PE welding machines from 1” to 8” in size; and
Two portable toilet facilities at a minimum.
Toubar shall supply any tools and personal protective equipment necessary to perform and
complete the work. Toubar shall include the above equipment on a rate sheet to be submitted
with their proposal.
Toubar shall hydroseed bare slopes and decks with the mixes of native grasses, mulches and
fertilizer as directed by the City. Toubar shall perform this work within 3 days after the first rain
event after October 15, 2014 or when directed by the City. The City shall direct Toubar which
sub-Contractor and which seed/fertilizer mixture to use for the hydroseeding task. Toubar shall
invoice the City for the cost of hydroseeding plus the contract mark-up listed in the fee schedule.
Other Terms and Conditions
Guarantee of Work and Termination
The City’s goal is to have Toubar provide all of this scope as described in Tasks 1-2 above.
However, the City does not guarantee that the amount of work listed in this Agreement shall be
completed by Toubar. The City still needs regulatory approval for the Phase IIC capping
project. This agreement may be terminated if the following occurs:
If Toubar gets behind schedule with the importation or processing of the soil (as
determined by the City);
If Toubar falsifies any sampling or analytical data;
If Toubar truck drivers report transporting soil from one address and the City confirms
another address;
If Toubar violates any compliance issues such as dust generation, stormwater
contamination, hazardous materials or other related issues;
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
17
If the City decides to install another type of cap over part of the acreage;
If the City Management or City Council decides to cancel this agreement.
Schedule
Toubar shall begin importing and processing or grading soils on either January 1, 2014 (as
weather allows) or 15 days after a notice to proceed from the City and place and grade the soils
by December 31, 2014. The City recognizes that these goals are weather dependent and
dependent on regulatory agency approval. The term of this agreement is through December 31,
2015.
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
18
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or
decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY
so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt
of the notice to proceed.
Milestones Completion
No. of Days/Weeks
From NTP
1.Import and place soils in accordance with Closure Plan 730 days
2.Additional work as required by the City 730 days
EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
16
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule
attached as Exhibit C-1.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$2,000,000. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the
maximum compensation shall not exceed $2,000,000. Any work performed or expenses
incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of
compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: (Included in the basic services).
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, shall be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel
and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
information. Any expense anticipated to be more than N/A shall be approved in advance by
the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written
authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request,
shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services,
schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including
reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The
additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and
agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to
commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements
and restrictions in this Agreement.
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
17
[OPTIONAL] Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are
exceeded shall be considered as Additional Services:
BUDGET SCHEDULE
Budget Schedule Amount
Task 1 (Fees paid to the City) - Supply and
manage 300,000 cubic yards of suitable
soils. Includes all associated work described
in Task 1 above, including optional price to
deliver and screen soil
Estimated -$750,000 (Actual cost will be based
on the City’s need and type of work requested of
the Contractor. Work associated with Task 1
shall be paid through soil-revenue offsets).
Task 2 (Fees paid to Toubar) – On call
maintenance or other work described in Task
2 to be completed as directed by City on a
Time and Materials basis
Toubar Rate Sheet (attached)
Toubar Markup 10%
Estimated Net Total $2,000,000
The fees paid to the City shall be based on the following unit prices:
Category Rate
Import soils in accordance with Task 1- Full Load, end
dump, bottom dump, or super 10 (cost per load)
$50.00
Import soils in accordance with Task 1 - 10 Wheeler
(cost per load)
$25.00
Import and screen soils (if approved by City) – Full
Load, end dump, bottom dump, or super 10 (cost per
load)
$25.00
Import and screen soils (if approved by City) – 10
Wheeler (cost per load)
$15.00
Professional Services
Rev Nov. 1, 2011
EXHIBIT “C-1”
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
Professional Services
Rev Nov. 1, 2011
Professional Services
Rev Nov. 1, 2011
20
EXHIBIT “D”
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
TOUBARS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND
MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM
BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES
YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
STATUTORY
STATUTORY
YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL
LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE
COMBINED.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY
- EACH PERSON
- EACH OCCURRENCE
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE),
AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: TOUBAR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL
OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE
INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY TOUBAR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO,
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS
ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
TOUBAR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II.CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III.ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS”
A.PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER
INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
Professional Services
Rev Nov. 1, 2011
21
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL
NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS
ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF
THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER
THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY
AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
CANCELLATION.
2.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT
OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY
WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
RESOLUTION NO._______________
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT OF LEASE PRC 7348.9 WITH THE
STATE LANDS COMMISSION REGARDING THE PALO ALTO LANDFILL CLOSURE
PHASE IIC PROJECT
WHEREAS, the State of California, acting through the State Lands Commission
(the "State"), and the City of Palo Alto (the "City") have entered into Lease PRC 7348.9,
effective September 27, 1989, whereby the State granted to the City a lease in the
vicinity of Mayfield Slough within the City; and
WHEREAS, because resolution of the respective rights of the State and the City
could have been costly and time consuming, the State agreed to modify its general
lease agreement to acknowledge that its rights to the property subject to the lease have
not been legally confirmed, and to refrain from enforcing the lease except only as to
lands which may be "ultimately confirmed into State ownership"; and
WHEREAS, the City continues to dispute the State's asserted jurisdiction and
believes that the lands in the vicinity of Mayfield Slough are the sole property of the City;
and
WHEREAS, Paragraph 16(e) of Section 4 of lease PRC 7348.9 provides that the
lease may be changed, altered or amended by mutual consent of the parties; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously planned for the conversion of the closed
Baylands Sanitary Landfill into a pastoral, passive park; and
WHEREAS, said plans include the land area described as Parcel I, which was
heretofore included in lease PRC 7348.9 between the State and the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has asked for the State’s consent to the City’s use of
additional land, for whatever interest the State may have therein, shown as Phase IIC
on the drawing entitle "Revised Final Grading Plan Palo Alto Landfill," dated 2008, in
order to proceed with the Landfill Final Closure, Phase IIC (the "Project") without undue
and costly delay; and
WHEREAS, The City Council therefore desires to amend Lease PRC 7348.9 to
include the additional land for the Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The Acting Director of the Planning and Community Environment
Department of the City, on September 21, 2013, approved a mitigated negative
declaration for the Project and the City Council hereby finds that no further
environmental assessment is required. There have been no substantial changes in the
project or the circumstances under which it will be undertaken, and there is no new
information of the type identified in the CEQA guidelines 15162 (a) (3).
SECTION 2. That certain Third Amendment of Lease PRC 7348.9, by and
between the City and the State, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved, and the City Manager is
hereby authorized to execute said Third Amendment for and on behalf of the City.
SECTION 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any other
permits and agreements with the State that may become necessary in connection with
implementation of the Project.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ ________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________
City Manager
______________________________ ________________________________
Assistant City Attorney Director of Finance
________________________________
Director of Public Works
RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
State Lands Commission
Attn: Title Unit
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Document entitled to free recordation
pursuant to Government Code Section 27383
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
A.P.N.
County: Santa Clara
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
AMENDMENT OF LEASE NO. PRC 7348.9
WHEREAS, the State of California, acting through the State Lands Commission, hereinafter called
Lessor, and, City of Palo Alto, hereinafter called the Lessee, have heretofore entered into an agreement
designated as Lease No. PRC 7348.9 (Lease), authorized by the State Lands Commission on September 27,
1989 and executed by the State Lands Commission on September 27, 1989, and as amended on May 5,
1992 and May 2, 2000, whereby Lessor granted to Lessee a General Permit – Public Agency Use covering
certain State lands situated in Santa Clara County; and
WHEREAS, Section 4, Paragraph 16(e) provides that the Lease may be terminated and its terms,
covenants and conditions amended, revised or supplemented only by mutual written agreement of the
Lessor and the Lessee (hereinafter referred to as the Parties); and
WHEREAS, the Lessee has previously planned for the conversion of the closed Baylands Sanitary
Landfill into a passive park; and
WHEREAS, said plans include the land area described as Parcel I, IIA and IIB which was included
in lease No PRC 7348.9 between the Lessor and the Lessee; and
WHEREAS, by reason of the foregoing, it is now the desire of the Parties to amend the Lease.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
Exhibit A Land Description Revised April 2000 is hereby deleted from Lease No. PRC 7348.9
Exhibit A Land Description Revised October 2013 is hereby added to Lease No. PRC 7348.9 to
include parcels identified as Phase I, Phase IIA, Phase IIB and Phase IIC.
The existing Authorized Improvements under Section 1 of the Lease and Amendments to PRC
7348.9 are hereby amended to also include the following work and activities authorized in and on Parcel
IIC:
1. Cleaning of native vegetation and stripping approximately one (1_ to two (2) inches of
existing foundation layer soil;
2. Fine grading and re-compacting the soil; in addition, supplemental fill material shall be
placed and compacted to raise low areas to meet final design grades;
3. Placement of up to 4-foot thick evapotranspiration soil layer which will include a top layer
mixed with compost to enhance vegetative growth;
4. Hydro-seeding the top layer with native grasses;
5. Construction of perimeter drainage features;
6. Raising and securing existing environmental control systems (leachate and landfill gas
collection systems);
7. Construction of hiking trails and other park recreational features
The effective date of this Amendment to the Lease shall be, December 2, 2013.
This Amendment is a portion of Lease No. PRC 7348.9, with a beginning date of September 27,
1989, consisting of four (4) sections with a total of eight (8) pages.
All other terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect.
This Amendment will become binding on the Lessor only when duly executed on behalf of the State
Lands Commission of the State of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the dates
hereafter affixed.
LESSEE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA
City of Palo Alto STATE LANDS COMMISSION
By: __________________________ By: ____________________________
Title: _________________________ Title: ___________________________
Date: __________________________ Date: ___________________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This lease was authorized by the
California State Lands Commission on
_______________________________________
(Month Day Year)
Palo Alto Landfill
Phase IIC Closure Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
August 2013
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS .......................................... 13
A. AESTHETICS.................................................................................................................. 14
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ......................................................... 15
C. AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................ 17
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 22
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 35
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY ........................................................................ 36
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................ 40
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................... 43
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ..................................................................... 45
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................................... 50
K. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 54
L. NOISE .............................................................................................................................. 54
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................... 57
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................... 58
O. RECREATION ................................................................................................................ 59
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ........................................................................... 59
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 62
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................... 63
SOURCE REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 65
DETERMINATION ............................................................................................................................. 68
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page ii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP...................................................................................................... 2
FIGURE 2. SITE FACILITY PLAN PALO ALTO LANDFILL .......................................................... 5
FIGURE 3. FINAL GRADING PLAN PALO ALTO LANDFILL ....................................................... 7
FIGURE 4. GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND LEACHATE MONITORING AND
EXTRACTION NETWORK .................................................................................................................. 8
FIGURE 5. LANDFILL GAS MONITORING PLAN .......................................................................... 9
FIGURE 6. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS .......................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 7. SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMALS ....................................................................................... 25
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. CLOSURE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR PHASE IIC ........................................ 10
TABLE 2. EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROJECT EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 20
TABLE 3. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY PHASE IIC
CLOSURE ............................................................................................................................................ 26
TABLE 4. SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMALS WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR AT THE
PROJECT SITE .................................................................................................................................... 27
TABLE 5. PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ........................ 42
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Ron Arp
Manager, Solid Waste Public Works Department, Operations Division
City of Palo Alto
650-496-5930
4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto
Public Works
PO Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-329-2151
5. PROJECT LOCATION
The Palo Alto Landfill (the landfill) is located in the Palo Alto Baylands at 2380 Embarcadero Road
on a 1,100-acre parcel owned by the City of Palo Alto (City) in Santa Clara County, California. It is approximately one-half mile northeast of U.S. Highway 101 and one mile south of the Santa Clara/San
Mateo County line in the Palo Alto Baylands adjacent to San Francisco Bay (Figure 1 Site Location
Map). Adjacent land uses include the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) to
the northwest, a saltwater marsh area (generally identified as the Emily Renzel Marsh) to the west, the
Palo Alto flood basin and wetlands to the east and south, and a reclaimed marsh (old yacht harbor) to the north.
Page 2
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The project area is in the 2,100-acre Palo Alto Baylands area. The landfill is designated as Public Park
in the Palo Alto 1998 – 2010 Comprehensive Plan, and is also included in the Palo Alto Baylands
Master Plan. After closure, the Phase IIA, IIB and IIC areas of the landfill will be converted to
parkland and will be part of Byxbee Park. However, a citizen’s group (Palo Alto Green Energy) organized the initiative that put Measure E on the November 8, 2011 ballot. The measure passed and
made available 8 acres of the landfill and 2 acres of City property for the consideration of a green
energy/compost facility. This means that 10 acres of parkland was undedicated and is currently being
evaluated for this purpose. If an energy/compost facility is developed on the 10 acres, then the facility
impacts would be addressed under a separate environmental study.
7. ZONING
The project site is zoned PF(D) – Public Facilities District, Site and Design Review Combining
District. The public facilities district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility,
educational, and community service or recreational facilities. The end use of the landfill, including Phase IIC, is passive open space/park, developed in a way that does not conflict with the water quality
protections required for the underlying landfill.
8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Landfill is a Class III refuse disposal site with a permitted footprint of 137 acres, of which 126 acres have been used for refuse disposal operations. The remaining 11 acres in the Mayfield Slough
area were not developed for refuse disposal. Landfill closure and final land use were addressed in the
Baylands Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report, and subsequent Initial Study’s (IS)/Mitigated
Negative Declarations (MND)s were completed for Phases IIA and IIB because the landfill had been capped in phases as refuse disposal capacity was reached. Phases I, IIA and IIB of the Landfill have been completed and were closed in accordance with permit requirements. The closure plan for the
remaining 51 acres (Phase IIC) and postclosure maintenance activities are the subject of this Initial
Study. Phase IIC will be closed per requirements set forth in Title 27 of the California Code of
Regulation (CCR). Final closure of Phase IIC and the necessary postclosure maintenance for the entire landfill will be detailed in the Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan that will be finalized in the fall of 2013.
Background Information
The landfill began receiving waste in the early 1930s and operated as a Class III non-hazardous waste landfill. In 1978, the Palo Alto City Council (Council) approved the Baylands Master Plan and
adopted the Environmental Impact Report, which included a principal element of converting the
Landfill to a pastoral park after closure (City of Palo Alto, 1999). In 1989, the Council approved the
Byxbee Landfill Park Master Plan and Phase I Park development. The park has been developed and opened to the public in phases. Phase I contains 29 acres located in the northeastern part of the Landfill, and it is currently developed as a passive park with trails, restrooms, and art features (see
“Byxbee Recreation Area” on Figure 1). Phase IIA and IIB covers 46 acres immediately to the south
of Phase I and have been capped and opened to the public. Phase IIC park development (51 acres) will
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
start after all landfill capping activities are completed at the site. As noted above, this Initial Study addresses the closure of Phase IIC and the postclosure maintenance activities for the entire site. The
Phases are shown on Figure 2 (Site Facility Plan Palo Alto Landfill). A Final Closure and Postclosure
Maintenance Plan for each phased closure of Phases IIA, IIB and IIC were approved by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), and the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA, which is the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health). A Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan was approved in 2009.
[Note: The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), now
administers the programs formerly managed by the California Integrated Waste Management Board.]
The landfill reached refuse capacity in late July 2011 and is now in the process of closure. During the
first six months of 2012, the former Co-Gen Plant and the Recycling Center areas (see Figure 5) at the
landfill were prepared for closure, and a number of facilities and structures were decommissioned at
these areas. All hazardous wastes were removed from both areas. An existing control room building
and an air compressor unit (that operates a system of pneumatic submersible leachate pumps) will remain on site at the former Co-Gen Plant site. In addition, this area has been outfitted with post-
closure maintenance buildings which include a new air compressor shed, office trailer, and storage
bins. All temporary and permanent structures at the Recycling Center were demolished and disposed
of.
Existing Activities
Landfill activities have been on-going for decades, including soil import, stockpiling, and waste
disposal activities. Traffic and equipment are associated with those ongoing activities. About 100
loads of soil are delivered to the site per day from area-wide borrow sources, primarily on the peninsula from Redwood City to Sunnyvale. Historically, the City-operated composting facility at the
site produced 12,000 to 16,000 cubic yards (CY) of compost per year, primarily for use on site to
amend the final cover during closure. Both compost and soil are currently stockpiled at the landfill.
The City of Palo Alto (City) has been implementing postclosure maintenance activities at the landfill since the closure of Phase I (1991), Phase IIA (1992), and Phase IIB (2001) and will continue to
maintain the landfill for a period of not less than 30 years after final closure of Phase IIC. The existing
monitoring systems, including landfill gas monitoring and collection systems, leachate monitoring and
collection systems, and the groundwater monitoring system will be protected during Phase IIC closure
construction, and will be maintained as part of the postclosure maintenance activities. The final cover in the closed phases is regularly inspected for settlement and subsidence, erosion, cracking or other
indications that the integrity of the final cover is compromised. It is repaired as necessary, including
grading or filling and reseeding of erosion rills, and grading to repair subsidence.
As recently as July 2011 (before the landfill closed) mobile equipment use at the landfill included one bulldozer, one compactor, two front loaders, and two water trucks. This equipment, most of which was
newer equipment (model year 2008 engines), was operated approximately 120 hours per month or 4 to
8 hours per day on average throughout the year. Following landfill closure, the specific equipment
used at the site changed slightly, however, overall mobile equipment operations continued to average 4
to 8 hours per day.
Page 5
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Phase IIC Final Closure
Closure activities in the Phase IIC area will include the placement of final cover, construction of
perimeter drainage features, removal of the scales, and fencing, and provisions for site security and
monitoring. The final grades are shown in Figure 3 (Final Grading Plan Palo Alto Landfill), and the monitoring systems are shown in Figures 4 (Groundwater Monitoring and Leachate Monitoring and Extraction Network) and 5 (Landfill Gas Monitoring Plan) The monitoring and control systems and
postclosure maintenance facility will remain in place/operation during the closure and postclosure
maintenance periods until it is demonstrated the landfill no longer poses a threat to the environment
and regulatory agency approval to decommission the systems is obtained. Phase IIC closure activities include pre-closure planning (completed), closure preparation, and construction of the final cover system and drainage facilities.
Closure Preparation
Closure preparation will include the following remaining activities:
• Soil testing and modeling to refine final cover design
• Importation of additional final cover soils. It is anticipated that up to approximately 410,000 CY of final cover soils may be needed to supplement the existing soils currently stockpiled at
the site. It is anticipated that the remaining final cover soils can be imported over a 12 to 18-
month period, and that final closure construction will begin once the updated Closure Post-
Closure Plan is approved. Engineered Cover System
The landfill does not have a clay soil borrow source and the previous landfill closure phases have
relied upon importation of clay cap material. There are no longer reliable and cost-effective regional
borrow sources of suitable clay that can be imported for the cover construction that were implemented in the past for Phase I, IIA, and IIB. Therefore, the City proposes to implement an engineered alternative final cover design, as allowed by Title 27 CCR. The proposed engineered alternative final
cover design is an evapotranspiration (ET) final cover. ET final covers are increasingly being
considered for use at waste disposal sites when equivalent performance to conventional final cover
systems can be demonstrated. Unlike conventional cover system designs that use materials with low hydraulic permeability (barrier layers) to minimize the downward migration of water from the cover to the waste (percolation), ET final cover systems rely on the soil mass to retain and store water during
wet periods and then remove the stored water through evapotranspiration. The design of ET final
cover systems takes into account the moisture storage capacity of the final cover soil and site-specific
weather conditions. The proposed ET final cover will be a monolithic soil layer having a minimum thickness of 4 feet. Soil
testing and modeling determined the proposed ET final cover constructed with the appropriate soil
types would perform equivalent to or better than a prescriptive standard final cover.
Page 7
GROUNDWATER MONITORING ANDLEACHATE MONITORING ANDEXTRACTION NETWORK
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PALO ALTO LANDFILL
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 4
TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO BY 3Di WEST
GEO TERRA MAPPING GROUP USING PHOTOGRAMMETRIC TECHNIQUES.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: MAY 9, 2012.EXPLANATION
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
LEACHATE PIEZOMETER
LEACHATE EXTRACTION WELL
Page 8
Page 9
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(For CEQA study purposes, a 5-foot thick monolithic soil layer is being assumed. The final soil thickness will be determined based on additional soil testing and modeling.) At completion, the ET
final cover will be vegetated with plant species that are consistent with the baylands environment and
that promote the removal of water from the final cover soil through transpiration.
A report documenting the soil testing and modeling performed to date for the proposed ET final cover was submitted to the RWQCB. The RWQCB has preliminarily approved the proposed ET final cover
design.
Final construction documents will be prepared and submitted to the LEA, the RWQCB and CalRecycle for review and approval. The construction documents will include final construction drawings, specifications, and a construction quality assurance plan, which will be prepared under the
supervision of a Registered Civil Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist in the State of
California.
Schedule
The proposed implementation schedule is presented in Table 1 below. The schedule will be updated
upon completion of bid processes and prior to execution of construction contract. The updated
schedule will be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for informational purposes. Table 1. Closure Construction Schedule For Phase IIC
Milestone Description Date
Submit Final Closure Construction Documents for Regulatory Agency Approval September 2013
Regulatory Agency Approval October 2013
Begin Final Closure Construction November 2013
Complete Final Closure Construction December 2014*
Submit Final Construction Quality Assurance Report December 2014
*In case of any unforeseen delays Section B.3 in Stipulated Order No. LEA-2013-01 allows the City to request additional time.
Final Postclosure Maintenance Plan
The Final Postclosure Maintenance Plan complies with the requirements set forth in Sections
21769(c)(2) and 21830 of Title 27 CCR. It includes the responsible parties, and emergency response
plan, inspection and monitoring activities, cover system repair, periodic surveys, and a cost estimate. The inspection and monitoring and cover repair activities are described below since these could have a
physical effect on the environment.
The final cover is designed to limit water infiltration, minimize leachate generation (leachate is liquid
that has come into contact with the refuse), prevent exposure of people and wildlife to the buried refuse, limit landfill gas emissions, minimize odor, control fires and provide for a pleasant experience
in the park end use.
Postclosure Inspection Activities
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Postclosure inspection activities include the periodic inspection of the final cover, the site drainage
system, environmental monitoring and control systems, and security system. These inspections involve
driving or walking over the landfill, and already occur for Phases I, IIA, and IIB. They will be
extended into the Phase IIC area. Final cover settlement will be inspected twice a year for the first 5 years and once a year after for a
minimum of 30 years. The purpose is to ensure that the final cover continues to limit infiltration, since
the infiltration of water into the refuse can result in leachate, which can in turn impact groundwater
quality. The final cover will also be inspected for areas that lack sufficient vegetative cover. The inspection will identify areas where vegetation is showing stress, stunted growth, wilting, color changes, and bare spots.
The surface drainage controls will be inspected twice a year for damage, erosion, settlement and
obstruction. The leachate monitoring wells are inspected biweekly for signs of failure or deterioration. The leachate collection piping system and individual well pump controls are inspected biweekly.
Postclosure Monitoring Activities
Postclosure monitoring includes the following:
• Continued monitoring of leachate within the landfill in accordance with the site’s Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDRs);
• Continued monitoring of groundwater in accordance with the site’s WDRs;
• Continued monitoring of the perimeter landfill gas probes in accordance with the site’s WDRs;
• Continued monitoring of the landfill surface for gas;
• Continued monitoring of the landfill gas control system.
These activities require minimal equipment use and are already occurring in adjacent areas of the
landfill.
Postclosure Final Cover System Repairs
The final cover system is designed to minimize the need for maintenance and repair (Golder 2009).
However, it anticipated that erosion rills and subsidence will continue to occur and that occasional
maintenance and repair will be required.
Erosion rills will be graded smooth and/or filled with soil, lightly compacted, reseeded, and covered
with mulch. This repair would be completed with a small backhoe or small, low ground-pressure
bulldozer.
Localized areas of differential settlement (subsidence) that require repair will be regraded and final cover will be re-installed.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
These activities require minimal equipment use and are already occurring in adjacent areas of the landfill.
9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The landfill is situated in an area dominated by open space and recreational land uses, but that also includes industrial and office park land uses.
The area north of the landfill includes the former Palo Alto Yacht harbor (reclaimed to wetland), the
duck pond, the old Seas Scout/new Environmental Volunteers building, the Palo Alto Baylands nature
interpretive center and a natural tidal marsh that edges San Francisco Bay (see Figure 1).
The area east and south of the landfill contains the Palo Alto Flood Basin, which is a stormwater
retention facility that receives surface and stormwater runoff from the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain
View, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. The flood basin is located near the mouths of Mayfield Slough
and Matadero Creek where they enter the bay.
The area west of the landfill is an open space area called the Emily Renzel Marsh. This property is
owned by the City. Further west of the Emily Renzel Marsh, general office and commercial uses are
located along the frontage road to Highway 101.
The area northwest of the landfill is bounded by the PARWQCP. The PARWQCP treats wastewater
from the communities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Stanford, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los
Altos Hills. The treated wastewater is discharged into San Francisco Bay. Land uses located further
west and north of the landfill include the Palo Alto Airport and Municipal Golf Course.
10. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board – Review and approval of the Final Closure
and Postclosure Maintenance Plan
CalRecycle – Review and approval of the Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan
County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health – Review and approval of the Final
Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan; acting as the Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency
(LEA)
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites 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).]
2) 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.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or
less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 17, “Earlier
Analysis,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis 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). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures 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.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general 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.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 14 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. Each checklist question indicates the significance criteria or threshold. The
next column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer are provided after the checklist for each
discipline. The column labeled “Potentially Significant Impacts” is checked if the project will result in an
impact that would exceed the significance criteria or threshold (a significant impact) and there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant. If that is the case, the project likely requires an
Environmental Impact Report. If the column labeled “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” is checked, the project could have an impact that exceeds the significance criteria or threshold, but the impact can be reduced to less than significant by incorporating certain measures. The mitigation measures are included at
the end of the discussion. These must be incorporated into the project before the project qualifies for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the column labeled “Less than Significant Impact” is checked, the project
will have an effect related to the question, but the significance criteria or threshold will not be exceeded. A No
Impact response means that the project has no effects related to the question.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Impacts
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
1 X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public
view or view corridor?
1 X
c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
3 X
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources?
4, 5 X
e) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1 X
f) Substantially shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
from September 21 to March 21?
1 X
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 15 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
(a) Phase IIC of the Palo Alto Landfill is an existing landform that is subject to CCR Title 27 regulations and
will allow it to be converted in the future to park use as planned. The closure activities will not significantly
alter the landform or result in new structures that will affect views. The existing postclosure maintenance structures in the Co-gen area are within a 12-foot tall soil berm on three sides of the structures. These structures
have limited visibility except from the fenced Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant from the north.
(b) The closure activities involve grading, applying final cover soils, and modifications to the leachate and
landfill gas monitoring and control systems. All of these activities are at or near ground level and will not
significantly change the current landfill shape. None of the closure activities will change existing views. The ET soil layer may initially be placed an average of 2 to 3 feet higher than the final grading plan contours in some
areas. However, this cover is expected to settle to the lower grading plan elevation within 5 years (as was seen after the Phase IIB closure in 2001).
Limited elevated mounds that will be considered “habitat islands” have been proposed to be designed into areas of the entire closed landfill. These habitat islands if approved may include small trees and native shrubs. A root barrier would be added above the clay cap in the Phase I, IIA and IIB areas. Additional landfill gas monitoring
would be conducted quarterly in areas that would include trees. Drip irrigation would be developed and used for a limited term.
(c) The landfill is visible from US Highway 101, however the highway is not designated as scenic in this location (Caltrans information http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm
Viewed 7/3/2013). The only portion of US Highway 101 that is currently designated as a scenic highway by the
State is in Del Norte County.
(d) The closure of Phase II C is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Palo Alto Baylands
Master Plan which identify the end use as parkland. The closure activities facilitate the conversion to parkland.
(e) The project does not include any lighting.
(f) The project does not include any structures that will shadow public open space.
Mitigation Measures: There are no potentially significant aesthetic impacts and no mitigation measures are required.
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 16 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
6 X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 7 X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)1) or
timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 45262
8, 9
)?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
1 X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1 X
DISCUSSION:
(a) The project site is a closed landfill and is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” on the Santa Clara
County Important Farmlands 2010 map produced by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department of Conservation 2011). As the project area is not part of the current inventory of agricultural land resources, planned activities will not convert Farmland to a non-agricultural use.
(b) The project site is zoned PF(D) - Public Facility (Site and Design Review Combining District). The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, as it is designed as “Urban and Built-Up Land” according to the Santa
Clara County Williamson Act FY 2012/2013 map (California Department of Conservation 2012). Thus, the project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
(c), (d), and (e) The Palo Alto Baylands is not a forested area. Neither the project site nor the surrounding area is zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned-timberland production. Therefore, the project would not
conflict with zoning for, result in rezoning of forest land or timberland, result in the loss of forest land, or result
in the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use.
1 PRC 12220(g): "Forest land" is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods,
under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber,
aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. 2 PRC 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used
to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and others.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 17 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures: The project will not affect farmland or timberland and no mitigation measures are required.
C. AIR QUALITY
Environmental and Regulatory Setting
Air quality is a function of pollutant emissions and topographic and meteorological influences. The physical
features and atmospheric conditions of a landscape interact to affect the movement and dispersion of pollutants
and determine its air quality.
The federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for “criteria” pollutants
considered harmful to the environment and public health. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), “fine”
particulate matter (particles 2.5 microns in diameter and smaller, or PM2.5), “inhalable coarse” particulate
matter (particles between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter, or PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are more stringent than the national standards and include the
following additional pollutants: hydrogen sulfide (H2S), sulfates (SOX), and vinyl chloride. In addition to these
criteria pollutants, the federal and state governments have classified certain pollutants as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or toxic air contaminants (TACs). The City of Palo Alto Landfill is located in the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, an area of non-attainment for national and state ozone, state PM10, and national and state PM2.5 air quality standards (U.S. EPA 2012 and BAAQMD 2013).
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for maintaining air quality and regulating emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The
BAAQMD carries out this responsibility by preparing, adopting, and implementing plans, regulations, and rules
that are designed to achieve attainment of state and national air quality standards. The BAAQMD currently has 12 regulations containing more than 100 rules that control and limit emissions from sources of air pollutants,
including the City of Palo Alto Landfill, which the City operates in accordance with the requirements and
conditions set forth in its Title V and BAAQMD Permit to Operate issued to the City by the BAAQMD in June 2012 (BAAQMD 2012). The Title V program is intended to enhance compliance with the Clean Air Act and
include federally enforceable requirements that apply to the facility. The most recent applicable air quality plan
prepared by the BAAQMD is the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. This plan updates the District’s 2005 Ozone Strategy, addresses ozone, PM, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gas emissions in a single, integrated
document, and contains 55 control strategies that describe specific measures and actions that the District and its
partners will implement to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect our climate. These measures focus on stationary and area sources, mobile sources, transportation control measures, land use, and energy and
climate measures (BAAQMD 2010). The California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles Regulation (13 CCR §2449 – 2449.3),
adopted in 2007 and amended in 2010, aims to reduce emissions of NOx and PM from in-use off-road (i.e., non-highway) diesel vehicles. The regulation 1) imposed limits on engine idling and limits on adding older (typically pre-1996) off-road diesel vehicles to fleets beginning in 2009; 2) required all vehicles to be reported
to CARB and labeled in 2009; and 3) required gradual fleet clean up, including replacement of older engines with newer engines and the installation of exhaust retrofits on existing equipment beginning in 2010.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan does not include any policies that specifically apply to landfill closure activities, however, the Natural Environment Element, Program N-39, requires the City to assist the BAAQMD
in its efforts to achieve compliance with existing air quality regulations (City of Palo Alto 2007).
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 18 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Existing Landfill Emission Sources
As described in the Project Description, landfill activities have been occurring at the project site for decades.
These existing activities include stationary and mobile equipment operations.
Stationary equipment includes the inactive landfill (which closed in July 2011), and its landfill gas collection system, wood grinder, trommel screen, and landfill gas flare. This equipment is permitted and operated in accordance with a Permit to Operate from the BAAQMD (Facility #A2721). The wood grinder and trommel
screen were removed from service in 2012.
Mobile equipment operations include the use of backhoes, compactors, and a front loader to stockpile soil and
perform remedial grading activities. These heavy equipment operations, as well as the use of water trucks, occur approximately 120 hours per month or 4 – 6 hours per day on average.
In addition to heavy equipment operated by the City, the facility accepts truck loads of soil that are hauled away from active construction sites throughout the Bay Area. These soil hauling activities, which average
approximately 100 truck loads per day, are independent activities that are not related to the project. The export
and disposal of soil from active construction sites is a common practice during site development, and the potential effects of soil export operations are subject to environmental review and analysis by the lead agency
considering the project that causes the trips.
Proposed Closure Activities Emission Sources
The proposed closure activities would require heavy equipment operations to stockpile and grade the approximately 410,000 cubic yards of soil necessary to construct the engineered, ET cover, construct perimeter
drainage features, and maintain the engineered, ET cover. The City would perform the initial stockpiling and grading associated with the closure activities and would contract to perform the final closure activities. The City anticipates a 12 – 24 month period to stockpile and construct the cover. During this time the amount of heavy
equipment at the site may increase slightly for several months in order to compact and grade the ET cover. Heavy equipment, however, would continue to be operated at current activity levels for the majority of the
construction period (i.e., several pieces of equipment operating approximately 4 – 8 hours per day).
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant
Issues
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
10, 11,15,
22
X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10);
1, 2, 10, 13, 14 X
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 19 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)?
2, 10, 13,
14 X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
2, 10, 13,
14, 19 X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels
of toxic air contaminants?
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)
exceeds 10 in one million
2, 10, 13, 14 X
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEI
2, 10, 13, 14 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
2, 10, 13, X
f) Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines?
1, 2, 10, 13, 14 X
DISCUSSION:
(a) The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan. The 2010 Clean Air Plan includes particulate matter and ozone pre-cursor pollutant emissions of reactive
organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) generated from construction equipment and mobile source
activities throughout the BAAQMD in its emissions inventories and plans for achieving attainment of air quality standards. In addition, the City would continue to operate and maintain emissions control equipment in
accordance with all applicable BAAQMD permit conditions, which are designed to ensure the facility would not result in significant air quality impacts or conflict with the goals of the 2010 Clean Air Plan.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 20 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(b) The project would not result in a substantial incremental increase in heavy equipment operations and would not result in a net change in emissions from this or any other emissions source that exceeds BAAQMD
significance thresholds. Table 2 summarizes the existing and proposed project levels of construction equipment
activity and the corresponding emissions that occur under these two scenarios.
Table 2. Existing and Proposed Project Emissions From Construction Equipment(A)
Scenario/Equipment Model Year Horse-power Annual Hours
Pollutant Emissions
(tons per year)
Existing Conditions NOx PM2.5 / PM10 ROG
Crawler Tractor 1980 250 1000 1.22 0.07 0.10
Crawler Tractor 1984 250 1600 2.03 0.07 0.10
Loader/Backhoe 1997 250 800 0.48 0.01 0.02
Rubber Tired Loader 2011 250 1400 0.16 0.00 0.01
Subtotal 4,800 3.88 0.15 0.23
Project Conditions(B) NOx PM2.5 / PM10 ROG
Crawler Tractor 2003 250 1760 0.87 0.02 0.04
Motor Grader 2003 250 880 0.46 0.01 0.02
Rubber Tire Loader 2003 250 800 0.37 0.01 0.02
Mini Excavator 2003 175 440 0.15 0.01 0.01
2 Excavators 2003 250 880 0.43 0.01 0.02
Drum Roller 2003 175 320 0.10 0.00 0.01
Drum Roller 2003 250 320 0.14 0.00 0.01
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2003 120 330 0.08 0.01 0.01
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2003 250 660 0.28 0.01 0.01
Subtotal 6,390 2.89 0.08 0.15
Net Change, tons per year -0.99 -0.07 -0.08
Net Change, pounds per day -8.96 -0.64 -0.74
BAAQMD Threshold (lbs/day) 80 80(C) 80
Significant Impact? No No No
Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, 2013 (A) Emissions estimated using OFFROAD 2011. (B) Project conditions are an estimate. All equipment was assumed to be approximately 10 years old and either 120, 175, or 250
horsepower. (C) The BAAQMD maintains a daily significance threshold for construction emission of 80 lbs/day for lbs/day for PM10 (BAAQMD 1999). OFFROAD 2011 outputs PM10 emissions only, however, all PM10 may conservatively be assumed to PM2.5for the
purposes of this analysis. The BAAQMD adopted a threshold of 54 lbs/day for PM2.5 construction exhaust emissions in 2011, which the BAAQMD subsequently set aside.
As Table 2 shows, the proposed project would result in a net reduction in heavy-duty equipment emissions as a
result of the use of cleaner, more efficient equipment. In addition to heavy-duty off-road equipment, the project would result in on-road emissions during construction, primarily from water trucks and pick-up trucks traveling
on site, as well as worker commute trips. When combined, project on- and off-road equipment activity may
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 21 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
result in a small net increase in emissions above existing levels, but would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for exhaust emissions.
The proposed project also would not increase or modify any stationary source operations at the inactive landfill site. Thus, the proposed project would not result in an incremental increase in emissions that would violate any
air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The review and analysis of emissions associated with trucks hauling soil to the landfill that the City would
subsequently stockpile and use to construct the engineered, ET cover is not within the scope of this IS since these activities and their potential effects are considered during the CEQA review by the lead agency approving
the project that causes these trips (i.e. attributing emissions to this project would be “double counting”
emissions). The City notes these soil export and disposal activities would occur with or without the proposed project, and would terminate at one of several landfills that accept clean soil such as the Newby Island facilities
in Milpitas, or Zanker Road Landfill or Guadalupe Landfill in San Jose. Thus, the disposal of soil at Palo Alto
landfill instead of facilities located further south (e.g. Zanker Road) is likely to result in less vehicle miles travelled and associated emissions for trips originating from Palo Alto and northern vicinities.
(c) As discussed in a) and b) above, the project would not result in an incremental increase in short- or long-term emissions that conflict with the BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan or City of Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, violate any air quality standard, or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, the BAAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s individual emissions would be a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality in the San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (BAAQMD 1999, 2011). The BAAQMD considers projects that result in
emissions that exceed its CEQA significance thresholds to result in individual impacts that are cumulatively considerable and significant. Since the proposed project would not result in an incremental increase in short- or
long-term emissions that exceed any significance thresholds it would not result in any cumulative air quality impacts.
(d) A sensitive receptor is generically defined as a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are located where there is reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to air pollutants. These typically include residences, hospitals, and schools. As described in the Project Description,
land uses surrounding the landfill include open space, recreation, and industrial and office park land uses. Thus, there are no sensitive receptors are located within 1,000 feet of the project area.
(e) As discussed in d) above, there are no sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of the project area. The proposed project involves landfill closure activities that do not involve handling of waste and would not create
odors that affect a substantial amount of people.
(f) The Permit to Operate the landfill facility issued by the BAAQMD requires the City to water and/or apply
dust suppressants to all unpaved roadways and active soil removal and fill areas associated with the landfill as
necessary to prevent visible particulate emissions that persist for longer than 3 minutes in any hour. In addition, the permit to operate requires the City to keep paved roadways at the facility sufficiently clear of dirt and debris
as necessary to prevent visible particulate emissions (that persist for longer than 3 minutes in any hour) from
vehicle traffic.
In addition to these permit requirements, the BAAQMD recommends all projects implement a series of basic
measures to control fugitive dust emissions (BAAQMD 2011). Accordingly, the City shall implement and/or require contractors to incorporate the following standard dust control measures into the proposed closure
activities, which are consistent with BAAQMD recommendations:
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 22 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) two
times per day during active landfill closure activities;
• Hydroseed or provide other ground cover/soil binders in disturbed and inactive construction areas as soon as possible.
• Use wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day to remove all visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads (dry power sweeping is prohibited);
• Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall not exceed 15 miles per hour;
• Minimize idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes and post signs
reminding workers of this idling restriction at project access points and equipment staging areas.
• Require a certified mechanic to check and determine that all equipment is running in proper condition
prior to construction operations and properly maintain and tune all construction equipment in accordance with manufacturer's specifications;
Mitigation Measures: The project will not result in significant air quality impacts and no mitigation measures are required.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Vegetation
The Phase IIC closure area is mostly disturbed by construction activities and unvegetated, except for areas of
erosion-control grasses that were seeded on the outer slopes. The surrounding areas include diked and tidal salt marsh, and upland areas adjacent to salt marsh. The dominant species in both marshes are cordgrass (Spartina
foliosa) and common pickleweed (Salicornia virginica). Upland species include marsh gumplant (Grindelia camporum), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and non-native annual grasses (Avena, Lolium spp.)
Wildlife
The Palo Alto baylands provide habitat for a wide variety of common birds, including both aquatic and upland
species such as ducks, herons, sparrows, and blackbirds. Common mammal species include mice (Mus sp.; Peromyscus sp.), vole (Microtus sp.), ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus
bachmani), black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), among others Special status species are discussed below.
Special Status Species
Special-status species are defined as:
• Species listed as threatened, endangered or candidate for listing under the Federal Endangered Species
Act;
• Species listed as threatened, endangered or candidate for listing under the California Endangered
Species Act;
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 23 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Species listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as a Fully Protected species
or a California species of special concern and species on the CDFW Watch List; and
• Species listed on Lists 1A, 1B or 2 the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.
A nine quad search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and a one quad search of the CNPS
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants were done to determine the special-status plant and animal species
that have been observed in the project area (Figures 6 and 7). The list was reviewed and both prior location records and habitat requirements of the special status species were compared to conditions at the Phase IIC site
and the area immediately around it. The list was refined to include the species of concern relative to the Phase
IIC closure project (Tables 3 and 4).
Congdon’s tarplant. This tarplant is an annual plant that grows in grassland and alkaline soils. It grows in
association with the weedy grassland species found adjacent to the salt marsh in association with mustard (Brassica sp.), rattlesnake grass (Briza minor), thistles (Centaurea sp., Cirsium sp.), and horseweed (Conyza
canadensis). It is known to occur near Cooley Landing north of the project site and at the mouth of Steven’s
creek south of the project site. Due to past disturbance this plant does not occur in the area that will be affected by the Phase IIC closure project.
Point Reyes bird’s beak. The Point Reyes bird’s beak is a hemiparasitic flowering plant that grows in coastal salt marsh. The plant’s distribution is restricted to the upper portion of salt marshes typically eight feet above
the mean height of water at the lowest of the daily low tide (Oregon Department of Agriculture 2013). Marsh plants such as common pickleweed (S. virginica), serve as a host plant for the bird’s beak. The main threat to
the persistence of the species is land conversion and development. Historical populations within the San
Francisco Bay salt marshes in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have not been found in many years and they are assumed to no longer exist (Corelli, 1995). The Phase IIC area of the landfill does not support suitable
habitat for this plant.
California sea blight. The sea blight is in the goosefoot family and grows in the upper intertidal zone of coastal
salt marshes along with pickleweed, alkali heath (Frankenia salina), and salt grass (Distichlis spicata). It no
longer occurs in the San Francisco Bay Area (Corelli, 1995).
Double-crested cormorant. The double-crested cormorant has recently become a regular breeder in Santa
Clara County. It is a colonial nester, and in the south bay the nesting sites are on structures such as bridges or transmission towers. The Phase IIC project site does not provide suitable nesting habitat for the double-breasted
cormorant.
White-tailed kite, Northern harrier, golden eagle, American peregrine falcon. These birds of prey require
trees for nesting, and grassland and marshes for forage. They may occur in the project area and forage in areas adjacent to the project site.
California clapper rail, California black rail. Both rail species are restricted to marshes, and are known to occur in areas adjacent to the landfill. The Phase IIC area does not contain suitable habitat for rails.
Western snowy plover. Plovers typically breed on sandy beaches. In Santa Clara County this bird species is found in the salt evaporators and impoundments along San Francisco Bay, using dried-out pond bottoms and
levees that have similar characteristics to sandy beaches. It is known to breed near the Dumbarton Bridge north
of the site and near Moffet Field to the south, but the area around the project site consists of salt marsh, heavily-vegetated flood-control basin, and recreational areas that do not provide breeding habitat for Western snowy
plover. It is not expected to occur in the Phase IIC area.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1987
198X
1949
1971
1914
2002
2001
!
!
!Project Site
County Lines
Major Roads
CNDDB Flora (within 5 mi of Project)
California seablite
Congdon's tarplant
Franciscan onion
Point Reyes bird's-beak
T:\C
A
S
E
\
E
n
v
\
E
L
C
P
-
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
\
G
I
S
_
G
P
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
N
D
D
B
_
P
l
a
n
t
s
.
m
x
d
7
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
Sources: California Natural Diversity Database (2013), ESRI (2013).
Palo Alto Landfill Closure
0 1 20.5 Miles K
Figure 6 Special-status Plants
§¨¦280
|ÿ82
£¤101
|ÿ85 |ÿ237
Page 24
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1933
1893
1900
1938
1908
1894
1914
1984
2009
1946
2006 1985
2009
1976
1993
1991
2001
1997
1985
1993
2006
2006
XXXX
2002
XXXX
2006
2001
1979
2005
1971
1986
2008
2004
2004
2005
2004
1975
1975
2004
1991
2009
19471975
1987
1987
1975
1983
1985
1985
2008
20042004 1975
2003
1975
2002
1971
2004
1990
1919
1988
2004
2001
1981
XXXX
1985
1990
1990
1985
1985
19902003
1983
2004
1998
1988
1990 2004
2004
2002
2005
|ÿ82
£¤101
|ÿ85 |ÿ237
§¨¦280
|ÿ84
XXXX
!
!
!Project Site
County Lines
Major Roads
black-crowned night heron breeding rookeryCNDDB Fauna (within 5 mi of Project)
Alameda song sparrow
American badger
California black rail
California clapper rail
California least tern
California red-legged frog
California tiger salamander
Santa Cruz kangaroo rat
burrowing owl
mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail)
northern harrier
salt-marsh harvest mouse
salt-marsh wandering shrew
saltmarsh common yellowthroat
snowy egret
western pond turtle
western snowy plover
T:\C
A
S
E
\
E
n
v
\
E
L
C
P
-
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
\
G
I
S
_
G
P
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
N
D
D
B
_
A
n
i
m
a
l
s
.
m
x
d
7
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
Sources: California Natural Diversity Database (2013), ESRI (2013), San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory (2013).
Palo Alto Landfill Closure
0 1 20.5 Miles K
Figure 7Special-status Animals
Page 25
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 26 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 3. Special-status Plant Species Potentially Affected by Phase IIC Closure
Species Listing Status Range in California Habitat Life Form/Blooming
Season
Potential to Occur
Congdon's tarplant
Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
CRPR 1B.2 Throughout western
California from San
Luis Obispo to Solano
County.
Valley and foothill
grasslands with alkaline or clay
soils; 0-230 m.
Annual herb, May -
November
Low. The Phase IIC closure area is previously disturbed and
does not provide suitable grassland habitat for this
species. The closest known occurrence of this species is at
the mouth of Steven’s Creek, approximately 3 miles south of
the site.
Point Reyes bird’s beak
Chloropyron maritimum ssp.
palustre
CRPR 1B.2 Extant occurrences
in Humboldt, Marin, San
Francisco and Sonoma
Counties.
Marshes and swamps (coastal
salt); 0-10 m.
Annual herb (hemiparasitic),
June-October
Low. The Phase IIC closure area is previously disturbed and
does not provide suitable marsh habitat for this species,
although surrounding marshes may provide suitable habitat.
Bayland populations in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties
have not been found in many years.
California
seablite
Suaeda
californica
FE, CRPR 1B.1 Endemic to
Alameda, Contra
Costa, Santa Clara, San
Francisco and San Luis
Obispo Counties.
Marshes and
swamps (coastal salt); 0-15 m.
Perennial
evergreen shrub, July-October
Low. This species has been
recorded in the project area at the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor,
however it is currently only known to occur in Morro Bay.
The site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.
Federal
Endangered Species Act
FE= federally endangered
FT= federally threatened
California
Endangered Species Act
ST= state threatened
SE= state endangered
California Rare Plant Rank
1B= Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere
2= Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere
0.1-Seriously threatened in California
0.2-Fairly threatened in California
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 27 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 4. Special-status Animals with the Potential to Occur at the Project Site
Species Listing Status Range in California Habitat Potential to Occur
Birds
double-crested
cormorant
Phalacrocorax
auritus
(nesting colony)
WL
(nesting colony)
Year-round resident along the
north and central coast and central California south of
the San Francisco Bay Area, winter resident along the
south coast.
Colonial nester on
coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along lake
margins in the interior of the state. Nests along
coast in sequestered islets, usually on
ground with sloping surface, or in tall trees
along lake margins.
Low. This species occurs in
the project area, but only nesting colonies are special-
status. There is no suitable nesting habitat on the project
site; the closest known nesting colony is on the San Mateo
Bridge, more than 10 miles north of the site.
white-tailed kite
Elanus lecurus
CFP Year-round resident in lowland areas west of Sierra
Nevada from head of Sacramento Valley south,
including coastal valleys and foothills, to western San
Diego County at Mexico border.
Inhabits low foothills or valley areas with valley
or live oaks, riparian areas, and marshes near
open grasslands are used for foraging.
Low. The site lacks oak trees and riparian areas for nesting.
This species may forage in surrounding grassland and
marsh habitats, but probably does not nest in the area.
Northern harrier
Circus cyaneus
CSSC Occurs throughout lowland
California; has been recorded in fall at high elevations.
Inhabits grasslands,
meadows, marshes, and seasonal and
agricultural wetlands.
Low. The site lacks suitable
nesting and contains minimal foraging habitat for this
species. Northern harrier occurs in the project area and
may forage or even nest in marshes and grasslands
surrounding the site.
golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
CFP Foothills and mountains throughout California. Nests on cliffs and escarpments or in tall
trees overlooking open country; forages in
annual grasslands, chaparral, and oak
woodlands with plentiful medium and
large-sized mammals.
Low. There is no suitable nesting habitat on or near the
project site, and minimal foraging habitat on the site.
Golden eagle occurs in the region and may forage in the
marshes and grasslands surrounding the site.
American peregrine falcon
Falco peregrine anatus
CFP Occurs throughout the Central Valley, coastal areas
and northern mountains of California.
Riparian areas, wetlands, lakes and
other aquatic features provide important
breeding and foraging habitat for this species.
Nests on cliffs or man-made structures such as
buildings and bridges; feeds on birds.
Low. There is no suitable nesting habitat on or near the
project site, and minimal foraging habitat on the site.
Peregrine falcon occurs in the region and may forage in the
marshes and grasslands surrounding the site.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 28 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Species Listing
Status
Range in California Habitat Potential to Occur
California clapper rail
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
FE
SE
This California endemic inhabits salt water and
brackish marshes traversed by tidal sloughs in the
vicinity of the San Francisco Bay.
Associated with abundant growths of
pickleweed, but feeds away from cover on
invertebrates from mud-bottomed sloughs.
Low. This species is known from the project area from a
2006 record from the Palo Alto Baylands, including
Byxbee Park. However, the site does not contain suitable
marsh habitat for this species.
California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. coturniculus
ST This California endemic subspecies of the black rail
(Laterallus jamaicensis) occurs in the San Francisco
Bay region, parts of the Central Valley and at the
southeastern border of the State.
Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet meadows
and shallow margins of saltwater marshes
bordering larger bays. It needs water depths of
about 1 inch that do not fluctuate during the
year and dense vegetation for nesting
habitat.
Low. The site does not provide suitable marsh habitat
for this species; although the marshes surrounding the site
do provide suitable habitat. The closest known occurrence
is near the Palo Alto Airport, approximately 0.5 mile north
of the site.
Western snowy plover
Charadrius alexandrinuss nivosus
(Pacific population)
FT
CSSC
In California, the Pacific population of western snowy
plover occurs along the entire coastline.
Occurs on sandy beaches, salt pond
levees and shores of large alkali lakes.
Needs sandy, gravelly or friable soils for
nesting.
Low. There is no suitable nesting or foraging habitat for
this species on or near the project site. This species is
known from the region’s salt ponds and other suitable areas;
the closest known occurrence is at San Francisquito Creek at
least 2 miles north of the site.
California least tern
Sternula antillarum
FE
SE
Nests along the coast from San Francisco Bay south to
Northern Baja California.
Colonial breeder on bare or sparsely
vegetated flat substrates, sandy
beaches, alkali flats, landfills or paved areas.
Low. This species is known from the region’s salt ponds
and other suitable areas; the closest known (non-breeding)
occurrence is at Charleston Slough approximately 0.5 mile
south of the site.
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
CSSC Year-round resident throughout much of the State,
except the coastal counties north of Marin and
mountainous areas.
Occurs in open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts and scrublands
characterized by low growing vegetation.
Nests in small mammal burrows, particularly
those of the California ground squirrel.
Low. This species is known from the project area and has
been recorded at Byxbee Park. Due to disturbance and landfill
maintenance the Phase IIC site lacks small mammal burrows.
Sparse grassland on the outer slopes of the Phase IIC area
could provide forage for this species.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 29 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Species Listing
Status
Range in California Habitat Potential to Occur
short-eared owl
Asio flammeus
CSSC Year-round resident in certain parts of California;
breeds regularly in the Great Basin region and locally in
the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, breeds
periodically in the Central Coast and San Joaquin Delta.
Found in swamp lands, both fresh and salt,
lowland meadows and agricultural fields. Tule
patches or tall grass are needed for nesting and
day time seclusion; nests on dry ground in
depression concealed in vegetation.
Low. There are no swamp lands, lowland meadows or
agricultural fields on the site, but breeding pairs have been
observed in the flood control basin south of the site in the
past.
saltmarsh common
yellow throat
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
CSSC This supspecies of the
common yellow throat (Geothlypis trichas) is
endemic to the fresh and salt water marshes of the San
Francisco Bay region.
Requires thick,
continuous cover down to water surface for
foraging; and tall grasses, tule patches
and willows for nesting.
Low. This species has been
recorded in the project area at the Mayfield and Charleston
Sloughs and east of the Palo Alto Airport. However, the
site lacks marsh habitat required by this species.
Alameda song
sparrow
Melospiza melodia pusillula
CSSC This California endemic
subspecies of song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) is a
resident of salt marshes bordering south arm of San
Francisco Bay.
Inhabits Salicornia
marshes, nests low in Grindelia bushes (high
enough to escape high tides) and in Salicornia.
Low. This species has been
recorded in the project area in the Palo Alto Baylands.
However, the site lacks salt marsh habitat required by this
species.
Mammals
saltmarsh harvest mouse
Reithrodontomys raviventris
FE
SE
This California endemic occurs only in the saline
emergent wetlands of the San Francisco Bay and its
tributaries.
Pickleweed is the primary habitat of this
non-burrowing mammal. It builds
loosely organized nests and requires higher
areas to escape flooding.
Low. This species is known from Mayfield Slough and
elsewhere in the project area. However, the site does not
support saline emergent wetlands, pickleweed. The
lower slopes of the Phase IIC area have sparse grass cover
that could be used by saltmarsh harvest mouse for
forage or cover.
saltmarsh wandering shrew
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
CSSC Endemic to the salt marshes of the south arm of the San
Francisco Bay.
Inhabits medium-high marsh 6-8 feet above
sea level where abundant driftwood is
scattered among Salicornia.
Low. There are no salt marshes on the project site,
and this species has not been recorded in the immediate
vicinity, although surrounding salt marshes may provide
suitable habitat.
Federal Endangered Species Act
FE= federally endangered
FT= federally threatened
California Endangered Species Act
ST= state threatened
SE= state endangered
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CFP= California fully protected species
CSSC= California species of special concern
WL= CDFW Watch List
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 30 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
California least tern. The closest least tern breeding site to the landfill was recorded near the Dumbarton Bridge in 1976. The Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County does not include this species as a breeding
species in Santa Clara County. Terns have been known to nest on vegetated flats, sandy beaches, alkali flats,
landfills or paved areas, however least tern is not known to occur at the Phase IIC project site.
Short-eared owl. Breeding pairs of short-eared owl have historically used the flood control basin south of the landfill. This species requires tall and dense vegetation is required for cover and nesting habitat. The Phase IIC project site does not provide suitable nesting habitat for this species.
Burrowing Owl. This small, long-legged owl that shelters underground in mammal burrows is a year-round
resident in satisfactory open, dry annual grasslands, deserts and scrublands of low-growing vegetation in
California. It has been observed in Byxbee Park. Although the Phase IIC site does not provide burrows for nesting, and burrowing owls have not been observed in adjacent areas in recent years, it is recommended that a
pre-construction survey be completed prior to the start of grading of the outer slope areas where grassland
exists.
Saltmarsh common yellow throat, Alameda song sparrow. The saltmarsh common yellow throat requires
dense vegetation at fresh and saltwater marshes for breeding; the Alameda song sparrow is resident in salt marshes. These species could occur in areas around the project site, but the Phase IIC area does not provide
marsh habitat suitable for breeding for either of these species.
Egret and Heron Rookery. An egret and heron rookery is located 0.5 mile north of the project site, near the
duck pond (City of Palo Alto 2008). The rookery provides breeding habitat for common egret (Ardea alba) and
black-crested night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax).
Salt marsh harvest mouse. The salt marsh harvest mouse is resident in the Palo Alto Baylands in areas dominated by pickleweed. Salt marsh harvest mouse also depends on upland areas adjacent to pickleweed marsh for forage and for shelter during high tide. Marsh areas that provide possible habitat for salt marsh
harvest mouse are adjacent to the west of the Phase IIC area. The outer slopes of the Phase IIC area are vegetated with erosion control grasses which could provide upland habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse. A pre-
construction survey and restricting vegetation removal to avoid high water situations is recommended for work
on the outer slopes.
Salt marsh wandering shrew. This small rodent is a resident of the medium to high salt marsh, where
driftwood collects. It occurs near the Dumbarton Bridge northeast of the baylands. The Phase IIC area does not provide habitat for this species.
Wildlife Movement
An early version of the Baylands Master Plan published in 1979 describes corridors of feeding and movement
for birds in map format. One prominent corridor lies on the western boundary of the project area, the direction of movement following a bidirectional north – south vector (City of Palo Alto 2008). Ponds and open water of
the Emily Renzel Wetlands appear to be the critical wildlife areas driving this movement. Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 USC §§ 1531 et
seq.) protects fish and wildlife species that are listed as threatened or endangered, and their habitats. “Endangered” refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments that are in danger of extinction in all
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 31 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
or a significant portion of their range. “Threatened” refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments that are considered likely to become endangered in the future.
The FESA prohibits “take” of any fish or wildlife species listed under the FESA as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined as harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or
collecting a federally endangered or threatened species, or attempting to engage in such conduct. Take may also include habitat modification that actually kills or injures listed wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering. The FESA also prohibits removing, digging up,
cutting, or maliciously damaging or destroying federally listed plants on federal land. The unvegetated portions of the Phase IIC area does not provide habitat for any federally listed species. The salt marsh harvest mouse has
a low potential to occur on grassy slopes adjacent to the salt marsh west and south of the site.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), it is unlawful to “pursue, hunt,
take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to
be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not.” In short, under the MBTA it is illegal to disturb a nest that is in active use, since this
could result in killing a bird or destroying an egg. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
oversees implementation of the MBTA. The proposed project could affect bird species protected by the MBTA.
Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has regulatory
authority over wetlands and waterways under both the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Under the CWA, the Water Board has regulatory authority over actions in waters of the United States, through the issuance of water
quality certifications (certifications) under Section 401 of the CWA.
CWA Section 404 establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the
United States, including wetlands. Responsibility for administering and enforcing Section 404 is shared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). USACE administers the day-to-day program, including individual permit decisions and jurisdictional determinations;
develops policy and guidance; and enforces Section 404 provisions. The EPA develops and interprets environmental criteria used in evaluating permit applications, identifies activities that are exempt from permitting, reviews/comments on individual permit applications, enforces Section 404 provisions, and has
authority to veto USACE permit decisions.
There are no Waters of the U.S. on the project site; therefore, the project is not subject to Clean Water Act
Sections 401 or 404.
State
California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA), which is administered
by CDFW, protects wildlife and plants listed as “threatened” or “endangered” by the California Fish and Game
Commission, as well as species identified as candidates for listing. The CESA restricts all persons from taking listed species except under certain circumstances. The state definition of take is similar to the federal definition,
except that the CESA does not prohibit indirect harm to listed species by way of habitat modification. Under the CESA, an action must have a direct, demonstrable detrimental effect on individuals of the species. Under Sections 2080 and 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW may authorize take of listed species,
except for species that are designated as fully protected. Fully protected species may not be taken except for scientific research. Various Fish and Game Code sections identify fully protected species. There are no state-listed species with the potential to occur on the project site, but the white-tailed kite and the salt marsh harvest
mouse, both Fully Protected species, have a low potential to occur.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 32 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The CDFW maintains lists of animal species of special concern (CSSC) that serve as "watch lists." A CSSC is not subject to the take prohibitions of the CESA. The CSSC are species that are declining at a rate that could
result in listing under the ESA or CESA and/or have historically occurred in low numbers, and known threats to
their persistence currently exist. This designation is intended to result in special consideration for these animals and is intended to focus attention on the species to help avert the need for costly listing under federal and state
endangered species laws. This designation also is intended to stimulate collection of additional information on the biology, distribution, and status of poorly known at-risk species, and focus research and management attention on them (CDFG 2003).
California Fish and Game Code. The California Fish and Game Code protects a variety of species, separate
from the protection afforded under the CESA. The following specific statutes afford some limits on take of
named species: Section 3503 (nests or eggs), 3503.5 (raptors and their nests and eggs), 3505 (egrets, osprey, and other specified birds), 3508 (game birds), 3511 (fully protected birds), 4700 (fully protected mammals), 4800 et
seq. (mountain lions), 5050 (fully protected reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fully protected fish).
Section 3503 simply states, “it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird,
except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” The exceptions generally
apply to species that are causing economic hardship to an industry. Section 3503.5 states that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess,
or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation
adopted.” Section 3505 prohibits taking, selling, or purchasing egrets, osprey, and other named species or any part of such birds. The project could impact birds protected by Fish and Game Code.
Certain species are also Fully Protected. This classification was the state's initial effort in the 1960's to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created
for fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most Fully Protected species have also been listed as threatened or endangered species under the more recent endangered species laws and regulations. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time, and no licenses or permits may be issued for their
take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research or for habitat restoration that will promote their survival. The white-tailed kite and salt marsh harvest mouse, both Fully Protected species, have a low potential to occur on the site.
California Native Plant Protection Act. The California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA) of 1977
preserves, protects, and enhances endangered and rare plants in California by specifically prohibiting the
importation, take, possession, or sale of any native plant designated by the California Fish and Game Commission as rare or endangered, except under specific circumstances identified in the Act. Various activities
are exempt from the CNPPA, although take as a result of these activities may require other authorization from
CDFW under the California Fish and Game Code.
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. California’s Porter Cologne Water Quality Control
Act (Porter-Cologne Act) regulates Waters of the State, which includes “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State”.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 33 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 23, 24, 25,
26 X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
1 X
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
1, 4, 5 X
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of
Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)?
27 X
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
1, 28 X
DISCUSSION:
(a) Work in the Phase IIC area mostly affects unvegetated areas that do not provide habitat for special-status or
otherwise protected species. A draft wildlife management plan prepared for Byxbee Park in 2008 included mammal trapping, and determined that the park and landfill do not provide habitat for small mammals due to
soil compaction and low plant diversity (ESA 2008). Even though the landfill does not provide habitat for small
mammals, the outer slopes that contain grassland planted for erosion control are adjacent to salt marsh, and could be used by the salt marsh harvest mouse and birds, including the burrowing owl, for forage. The harvest
mouse could also use these areas as cover when the marsh is flooded during periods of high water. Mitigation
MeasuresBIO-1 and BIO-2, listed below, would prevent impacts to special-status species and birds.
(b) The project site does not contain riparian habitat. It is adjacent to salt marsh habitat, but the project does not
extend into the marsh habitat. Closure activities are intended to provide environmental protections that will benefit the surrounding habitats.
(c) The project site is a landfill that already exists and closure activities would not block a known wildlife corridor. Equipment use at the site has been occurring for many decades, so it is assumed that wildlife
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 34 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
movement in the landfill area is compatible with the equipment use. No new or additional equipment that would disrupt wildlife movement is proposed to be used for the project.
(d) No trees are present in the Phase IIC closure area and no trees will be removed for the project.
(e) There project is not in the study area of any known habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan (USFWS, http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Habitat-Conservation-Plans/es_hcp.htm accessed 2013). Project work is in accordance with the 4th Edition of the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan (2008).
Mitigation Measures:
Impact: Although it is not considered likely due to habitat, it is possible that areas of the landfill that have been inactive pending closure could be inhabited by ground-nesting birds, including the special-status
Western burrowing owl. Closure activities could adversely impact these species if they are nesting in the
closure area when closure activities start. This would exceed the significance criteria and result in a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If feasible, project construction shall be scheduled outside of the bird nesting season. If project activities start between February 1 and August 31st, a pre-construction survey for
nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nests that may be disturbed during
project implementation. The survey shall include a 250-foot radius around the construction area. The preconstruction survey shall take place no more than 7 days prior to initiation of construction. If an active nest
is found, and project activities could cause nest abandonment by a bird protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act or California Fish and Game Code, the ornithologist shall, in consultation with the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, designate a construction-free buffer zone (typically 250 feet for raptors and 50
feet for other birds) around the nest. Impact: There is a low potential that salt marsh harvest mouse occurs on the outer slopes of the Phase
IIC closure area where erosion control grasses have been planted. Grading in this area could adversely impact salt marsh harvest mouse, which would exceed the significance criteria and result in a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The following steps shall be followed to avoid impacts to salt marsh harvest mouse:
1. Time the removal of vegetation to avoid periods of high water in the adjacent wetlands which could force salt marsh harvest mouse to higher ground. This includes the hour before and after the high tide
(typically early morning and late evening), and after a storm event that results in high water adjacent to
the site.
2. A qualified biologist shall conduct a tail-gate training session to all construction personnel regarding
protected species and habitats in the construction area, the limitations on areas that can be accessed on foot or with equipment, and the legal consequences of take of protected species or habitat. The training
shall be conducted whenever new personnel start work at the site.
3. Dogs shall be prohibited from the work site.
4. Construction equipment and materials shall be staged in unvegetated areas away from the grassland slopes.
5. A barrier fence shall be installed between the Phase IIC closure area and the adjacent salt marsh that
provides habitat for the salt marsh harvest mouse. The fence shall be designed and installed to prevent
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 35 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
any SMHM in adjacent marshes from entering the work area during project construction. The areas outside of the exclusion fencing, except for existing roads, parking and other asphalt or concrete areas,
shall be off-limits to construction activity and personnel at all times during project construction. The
fence shall remain in place until vegetation has been removed from the outer slopes, and then shall be removed by a qualified biologist approved by the USFWS. The proposed fence design is silt fence with
4 to 6-inch wide flashing at the base that is imbedded into the soil. Fence installation shall avoid pickleweed and shall be completed by a qualified biologist approved by the USFWS.
6. After exclusion fencing is installed, a qualified biological monitor shall walk all areas of vegetation immediately prior to removal. If a mouse of any species is found to occur on the project site,
construction shall not proceed pending consultation with the USFWS and CDFG. This is because it is
not feasible to identify the mouse to species without handling it. Unless otherwise authorized, the mouse shall be left alone and allowed to move out of the area on its own. Vegetation shall not be
removed when tides are high.
7. A qualified biologist shall be present onsite to monitor for salt marsh harvest mouse during vegetation
removal on the outer slopes adjacent to pickleweed marsh. The biological monitor shall have the
authority to stop work if deemed necessary to protect the salt marsh harvest mouse or other state or federally protected species, and shall work directly with the project engineer and foreman. Prior to the
start of work each day, the monitor shall thoroughly inspect the work area and adjacent habitat areas to
determine if special-status species are present and shall remain onsite throughout the day while vegetation removal activities are occurring. If a mouse of any species is observed in the work area, then
work shall stop until the mouse leaves the work area on its own, and the USFWS and CDFG shall be
notified immediately. The biological monitor onsite shall determine whether construction activities are remote enough from the animal that it will not be harmed or harassed. If the mouse does not leave the
construction zone, work shall not start again until after the USFWS and CDFG have provided guidance about how to proceed with construction activities.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Native Americans identified by the Spanish name of “Costanoan” were the first known inhabitants of the
region. The tribe expanded into 50 different groups by 1770 with a language consisting of approximately eight
dialects. The presence of freshwater, wind protection, and unimpeded access to food and fuel resources encouraged settlement primarily near the Bay. The project site is within this settlement area (San Mateo County
1986).
During the Spanish Period, the project site was a component of Rancho Riconada del Arroyo del San
Francisquito, owned by Don Rafael Soto. Soto’s embarcadero became Wilson’s Landing during the American Period and was used to ship local produce to San Francisco. Urban development intensified from the 1920s to
the 1960s, and parkland was first established in the latter decade from a changing attitude that placed greater
value on marshland (City of Palo Alto 2008).
The landfill was established in 1921 and stopped receiving waste in July 2011 (City of Palo Alto 2008).
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 36 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council resolution?
4, 5 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
4, 5 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4, 5 X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
4, 5 X
e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or
California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory?
4, 5 X
f) Eliminate important examples of major periods
of California history or prehistory?
4, 5 X
DISCUSSION: (a) The Phase IIC closure area is part of a landfill that has been present for over 90 years. There are no historic
structures in the Phase IIC closure area.
(b), (c), and (d) There are no known archaeological resources, paleontological resources, unique geologic
features or human remains on the project site. The Phase IIC closure area is part of a landfill that has been present for over 90 years. The closure and post-closure maintenance activities do not require excavation in areas that could contain archaeological, paleontological, unique geologic features, or human remains. Although the
project would involve some grading during the construction period, cultural resources are unlikely to be uncovered due to the extended past use of the site as a landfill.
Mitigation Measures: There are no potentially significant cultural resources impacts and no mitigation measures are required.
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Existing Setting
The following summary of site topography and geology is derived from the Final Closure and Post-closure Maintenance Plan for Phase IIC City of Palo Alto Landfill (Golder Associates, Inc. 2009).
Site Topography
The topography of the Palo Alto Landfill, including Phase IIC, is influenced by past landfill operations. The
topography depicts closed landfill areas, inactive or filled landfill areas, and soil stockpile areas. The maximum elevation is shown to be approximately 60 feet above mean sea level (msl) and the minimum elevation
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 37 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
approximately 10 feet msl. The current slopes are mild and sweeping, varying throughout the site from 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) to approximately 3 percent.
The general topography surrounding the site is flat with elevations at approximately 5 feet msl or less. The old Yacht Harbor to the north is open to San Francisco Bay and the water level fluctuates with the tide. The Palo
Alto Flood Basin, which includes Mayfield Slough and Matadero Creek, is on the east and south boundaries of the landfill. Elevations in proximity of the landfill are at or below sea level for most of the year. Surface water elevations in the flood basin can rise above sea level during large storms. Elevations within the saltwater marsh,
Emily Renzel Marsh and the KFS property west of the landfill range from zero to 3 feet msl. Finally, elevations in proximity of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) are at approximately 10 feet
msl.
Originally, the site was primarily a low-lying flood plain until its subsequent development for landfill
operations. Past landfill operations included excavating several feet of Bay Mud for landfill cover and capacity.
Hydrogeologic cross sections from previous studies of the site have indicated that pre-landfill elevations were approximately zero msl. These cross sections revealed that the west side of the landfill was excavated to
approximately 13 feet below msl before being filled to approximately 18 feet msl. The northeast and southwest
quadrants of the site were likewise excavated prior to the development that brought these areas to present-day elevations.
Site Geology
The landfill is situated in the northeastern part of the Santa Clara Valley adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. San
Francisco Bay is a structural depression that has gradually subsided along several parallel northwest-trending faults. The surface of the depression has been periodically inundated by water in response to global sea level
changes. The Franciscan Formation forms the bedrock beneath the landfill at an estimated depth of 1,600 feet. South of
the landfill, a boring encountered an alluvial conglomerate possibly of the regionally recognized Santa Clara Formation at a depth of approximately 1,000 feet.
Directly overlying the bedrock in the landfill area is a thick layer of alluvium. Subsurface investigations confirm that the landfill is underlain by a thick sequence of Bay Mud with interbedded alluvial deposits. The
tidal salt marsh environment on which the landfill is constructed is underlain by approximately 6 to 16 feet of
Younger Bay Mud – a very soft, unconsolidated deposit of organic-rich silt and clay with occasional lenses of sandy clay. This material is underlain by Older Bay Mud – a very stiff to firm clay, containing varying amounts
of silt and lenses of sandy clay, sand, and gravel. In the site vicinity, the Bay Mud deposits inter-finger with and
grade into fine-grained alluvial deposits that have been shed off the Santa Cruz Mountains. Physical testing on both younger and older Bay Muds indicate permeability values are less than 1 x 10-6 centimeters per second
(cm/sec).
No known faults underlie the landfill. Two minor bedrock faults near the site have been inferred from
geophysical data. One inferred fault (San Jose Fault) crosses east of the site and the other (Palo Alto Fault)
crosses approximately 2 miles west of the site. There is no historical evidence of ground movement along these faults. Accordingly, it is believed that these faults are not active.
The major active faults in the San Francisco Bay Area are the San Andreas and Hayward Faults. The San Andreas Fault, at its closest proximity to the disposal area, is 14 kilometers (10 miles) to the northeast of the site
and is the source of the largest potential ground shaking for the landfill. Permanent ground displacement resulting in surface faulting at the site is extremely unlikely.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 38 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
It is within the realm of possibility that severe earthquakes, up to a magnitude of 8.5 on the Richter scale (with surface acceleration of 0.4g), along either active fault might occur during the next 100 years. Over the past 175
years, approximately 25 major earthquakes have occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant
Issues
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
2, 29 X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? 2 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
2 X
c) Result in substantial siltation? 2 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
2 X
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
2 X
f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
1 X
g) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the
use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques?
1 X
DISCUSSION:
(a) The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Zone (San Andreas Fault) is approximately 10 miles west of the project site (ABAG
2013).
Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface from an earthquake,
and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The project site and the entire San Francisco Bay
Area are subject to strong seismic ground shaking due to numerous active faults in the region. According to the
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 39 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Shaking Potential Map (2003), the site is subject to “very violent” shaking (X on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Shaking Severity Level). However, the proposed project
does not include any structures that could be damaged in an earthquake. In addition, the project must conform to
the applicable sections of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations and the landfill cover would be designed and constructed to minimize hazards related to seismic ground shaking. Therefore, the proposed
project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse affects involving strong seismic ground shaking.
Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of a saturated granular soil layer to a liquefied state as a result of seismic ground shaking. In unique situations where this layer is at or near the surface, increased pressure from
rising groundwater may decrease the load bearing capacity of the soil to a quicksand-like consistency, causing
buildings and foundations to sink downward. According to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Hazard Maps, the liquefaction susceptibility of the project site is very high, and the site is mapped as a
Liquefaction Zone by the California Geological Survey (ABAG 2013). The project would not include any
structures that could be subject to liquefaction, and the landfill cover would be designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable sections of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations to minimize geologic
hazards including seismic-related ground failure.
The project site is in an area of “Few Landslides” according to the ABAG Existing Landslides Map, and is not
in a Landslide Zone according to the California Geologic Survey (ABAG 2013). A number of slope stability
reports for the Palo Alto Landfill indicate that final landfill slopes are stable under static loading conditions, and that the integrity of the landfill would not be jeopardized by the maximum probable earthquake (MPE) (Golder
Associates 2009). Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
affects involving landslides.
(b) and (c). The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil or siltation. According to the Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan (Golder Associates, Inc. 2009), the slope protection and erosion control procedures for Phase IIC project will comply with Title 27 Section 21150. The
requirements are as follows:
• Implement procedures to protect the integrity of the final cover and enhance its ability to minimize and prevent erosion.
• Establish vegetation in the beginning of the rainy season (if feasible).
• Establish and maintain the final cover according to the postclosure land use.
• Stabilize slopes to prevent soil erosion.
• Provide protection of slopes from the erosive effects of water and wind.
• Perform a soil loss analysis.
The surface of site will be revegetated at the time of closure in accordance with the project specifications, which
will protect the surface from erosion and loss of topsoil.
A Soil Erosion Control Program was prepared by Emcon (1991). Erosion rates were evaluated by the Universal
Soil Loss Equation developed by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. The evaluation indicates that soil loss will be limited to less than 2 tons per acre per year, the maximum allowed by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) for landfill final covers (Golder Associates, Inc.
2009).
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 40 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(d) As stated above, the project site is unlikely to be subject to landslides (see response a.iv above). Although the liquefaction susceptibility of the project site is very high, potential impacts related to liquefaction are less
than significant (see response a.iii above). Lateral spreading is the finite, lateral movement of gently to steeply
sloping, saturated soil deposits caused by earthquake-induced liquefaction. As the liquefaction susceptibility of the site is very high, the susceptibility to lateral spreading would also be very high. However, impacts related to
lateral spreading would be less than significant because the project does not include any structures, and the landfill cover would be designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable sections of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations to minimize geologic hazards including lateral spreading. The project site is not
located on Karst formations and has not been subjected to mining activities; thus, the risk of subsidence or collapse is expected to be low. The final landfill cover would be periodically inspected after construction in
accordance with the postclosure maintenance plan to monitor for signs of settlement, subsidence or other
problems with the integrity of the cover. Any problems found would be repaired as soon as feasible (Golder Associates, Inc. 2009).
(e) When expansive soils undergo alternating cycles of wetting (swelling) and drying (shrinking), the volume of the soil can change markedly. Expansive soils are common throughout California and can cause damage to
foundations and slabs unless properly treated during construction. However, the proposed project does not
include any structures that could be damaged by expansive soils. In addition, the landfill that would be covered with imported soil. Thus, there would be no impacts related to expansive soils.
(f) The proposed project does not involve any connections to a sewer system, nor would it require the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
(g) The Phase IIC closure will meet the requirements of Title 27, and will include multiple environmental protection measures. It is engineered and will not expose people or property to major geologic hazards.
Mitigation Measures: There are no potentially significant geology, soils, or seismicity impacts and no mitigation measures are required.
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Environmental and Regulatory Setting
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and affect regulation of the Earth’s temperature are known as greenhouse
gases (GHG). Common GHG include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). GHG emissions from human activities contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and climate scientists have
become increasingly concerned about the effects of these emissions on global climate change. The United
Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report concluded that recent regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases, are affecting many natural systems including water,
ecosystems, food, coasts, and health (IPCC 2007). GHGs can remain in the atmosphere long after they are
emitted. The potential for a GHG to absorb and trap heat in the atmosphere is considered its global warming potential (GWP). The reference gas for measuring GWP is CO2, which has a GWP of one. By comparison, CH4
has a GWP of 21, which means that one molecule of CH4 has 21 times the effect on global warming as one
molecule of CO2. Multiplying the estimated emissions for non-CO2 GHGs by their GWP determines their carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which enables a project’s combined global warming potential to be expressed
in terms of mass CO2 emissions.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 41 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which required the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to: 1) determine 1990
statewide GHG emissions, 2) approve a 2020 statewide GHG limit that is equal to the 1990 emissions level, 3)
adopt a mandatory GHG reporting rule for significant GHG emission sources, 4) adopt a Scoping Plan to achieve the 2020 statewide GHG emissions limit, and 5) adopt regulations to achieve the maximum
technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions. In 2007, the ARB approved a statewide 1990 emissions level and corresponding 2020 GHG emissions limit of
427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) (ARB 2007). In 2008, the ARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which projects, absent regulation or under a “business as usual” (BAU) scenario,
2020 statewide GHG emissions levels of 596 million MTCO2e and identifies the numerous measures (i.e.,
mandatory rules and regulations and voluntary measures) that will achieve at least 174 million MTCO2e of reductions and reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (ARB 2009). In 2011, the ARB
released a supplement to the 2008 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document (FED) that included an
updated 2020 BAU statewide GHG emissions level projection of 507 million MTCO2e (ARB 2011). The ARB has also adopted a Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Title 17, CCR,
Section 95100 – 95133 (17 CCR §95100 – 95133)), which requires facilities that emit greater than or equal to
10,000 metric tons of CO2e from combustion annually to report their GHG emissions to the ARB.
Since 2008, the ARB has adopted a number of measures to track and report GHG emissions and monitor
progress in meeting AB32 GHG reduction goals, including the Landfill Methane Control Measure (LMCM) (17 CCR §95460 - 95476). The LMCM reduces methane from landfills by requiring uncontrolled landfills to install
a gas collection and control system and existing gas collection systems to operate optimally. The City of Palo
Alto Landfill already operates a landfill gas collection and control system in accordance with its BAAQMD Permit to Operate.
In 2010, the BAAQMD released an updated inventory of Bay Area GHG emissions for base year 2007. The Bay Area emitted 95.8 million MTCO2e in 2007, with Santa Clara County contributing 18.8 million MTCO2e of
this total (BAAQMD 2010a). The BAAQMD’s 2010 GHG inventory recognizes two types of GHG emissions from landfills – biogenic CO2 emissions and non-biogenic GHG emissions. The BAAQMD’s 2010 GHG
inventory defines biogenic CO2 as the “CO2 emissions that are emitted from materials derived from living cells,
excluding fossil fuels, limestone and other materials that have been transformed by geologic processes. Biogenic-CO2 originates from carbon that is present in materials such as wood, paper, vegetable oils and food,
animal, and yard waste” (BAAQMD 2010a, pg. 3). Since the carbon contained in these materials was recently
taken out of the atmosphere, the release or combustion of biogenic sources of CO2 such as LFG does not add any net CO2 to the atmosphere. Biogenic CO2 emissions, therefore, are monitored and reported separately from
anthropogenic sources of GHG emissions. Non-biogenic landfill GHG emissions include the methane and
nitrous oxide formed during the anaerobic decomposition and combustion processes.
Locally, the City of Palo Alto adopted a Climate Protection Plan in December 2007 which sets out the
following goals for reducing CO2 emissions from the City and community:
• By 2009, the City will reduce emissions by 5% from 2005 emission levels.
• By 2012, the City and the Community will reduce emissions by 5% from 2005 levels.
• By 2020, the City and the Community will reduce emissions by 15% from 2005 levels, and bring the community in line with State reduction goals.
In April 2013, the City Manager reported that 2012 GHG emissions from City operations were 53% below 2005 levels, exceeding the City’s climate reduction goals; Palo Alto community-wide GHG emissions were reported
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 42 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
to be 28% lower than 1990 emission levels, exceeding the state’s goals established by AB32 and the Climate Change Scoping Plan (City of Palo Alto 2013).
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1, 12, 20,
21
X
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
2, 16, 17,
40,18, 20, 21
X
DISCUSSION:
(a) As discussed in Section C, the proposed activities would not result in a substantial incremental increase in heavy equipment, on-road, or stationary source operations above the existing conditions, and emissions from
soil import and disposal operations are not within the scope of this IS.
Based on estimates of fuel consumption derived from OFFROAD2011, project off-road construction equipment
is expected to increase fuel consumption by approximately 4,250 gallons per year, which would result in a net
increase of approximately 44 MTCO2e per year as shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5. Project GHG Emissions From Construction Equipment
Fuel Consumption GHG Emission Factors
CO2 CH4 N2O
4,250 Gallons(A) 10.21 kg/gallon 0.0015 kg/gal 0.0001 kg/gal
Subtotal, kilograms 43,366 6.37 0.42
GHG Global Warming Potential(B) 1 21 310
Total Metric Tons CO2 Equivalents(C) 43.4 0.1 0.1
Source: TRA Environmental Sciences, 2013 (A) Fuel consumption estimated using OFFROAD 2011. (B) Global Warming Potential from CARB 2010.
(C) Value derived by converting kilograms to metric tons (1000 kilograms = 1 metric ton) and multiplying by global warming potential.
To date, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the South Coast Air Quality Management
District, and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District have adopted quantitative significance thresholds for GHGs. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD
had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the air quality and GHG emissions thresholds contained in the
BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (Updated May 2011). The court did not determine whether the thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA and therefore
determined that the BAAQMD was required to do CEQA analysis on the thresholds. In light of the court’s
order, lead agencies will need to determine appropriate air quality and GHG thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 43 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan was adopted in December 2007, and suggests a variety of possible actions to reduce GHG emissions in each of six general categories, including utilities, sustainable purchasing,
transportation and sustainable land use, green building, zero waste, and education and motivation. The Climate
Protection Plan includes a baseline inventory of the City’s municipal and community (businesses, residents and workers) emissions, citywide emissions reduction targets, and a number of goals and strategies for obtaining
those targets. These goals are intended to bring the City and community of Palo Alto in line with State reduction goals of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in 2020.
In the absence of other local GHG thresholds of significance, for this analysis, the City is evaluating the proposed project based on a project-based threshold of 1,100 MTCO2E per year. The City of Palo Alto does not
recommend adoption of that threshold for any other purpose at this time, but it is used for this analysis because
it was adopted by the BAAQMD as a quantitative GHG emissions threshold for project level analysis (BAAQMD 2011), and the BAAQMD derived the recommended threshold from statewide compliance with AB
32. For this reason the 1,100 MTCO2e per year threshold was considered most reasonable for use in this
analysis.
As shown in Table 5, the proposed project would not result in an incremental increase in GHG emissions that
exceeds 1,100 MTCO2e. In addition, the proposed closure activities would not interfere with the facility’s existing landfill gas monitoring and control systems. These systems would remain in operation during closure
and postclosure maintenance activities until it is demonstrated the landfill no longer poses a threat to the
environment and regulatory approval for decommissioning these systems is obtained from regulatory agencies. Thus, the project does not have the potential to result in an incremental increase in GHG emissions that may
have a direct or indirect significant effect on the environment.
(b) The proposed closure activities would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The landfill is subject to the ARB’s Landfill Methane Control Measure (17 CCR §95460 – 95476), which requires municipal solid waste facilities to reduce methane emissions by collecting and controlling fugitive methane emissions (which the
landfill already does). The project also would not conflict with any goals of the state or the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan, as the City Manager has estimated the City and Community of Palo Alto have already achieved reductions beyond the levels set by state and local GHG reduction plans.
Mitigation Measures: The project will not result in potentially significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts
and mitigation measures are not required.
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the
primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
2 X
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 44 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
2, 5 X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
2, 30 X
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
2 X
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
31 X
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
2, 30 X
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
30 X
h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
32, 33 X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
34 X
j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site?
2, 5 X
DISCUSSION:
(a) The Palo Alto Landfill is a Class III refuse disposal site which does not handle hazardous materials.
(b) Gas and leachate extraction wells will be maintained as part of the proposed project and the existing flare
will be moved from near Byxbee Park to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant. These facilities
will be off-limits to the public once the project area is converted to open space and gas and leachate releases
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 45 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
will not pose a risk to future users. Monitoring systems will be modified and expanded to detect leachate and gas releases from the landfill. The monitoring and control systems will remain in operation during the closure
and postclosure maintenance periods until it is demonstrated that the landfill no longer poses a threat to the
environment and regulatory agency approval to decommission the systems is obtained. Soil and compost brought in to develop a vegetative cover will not contain hazardous materials. Waste will not be removed or
transported from the landfill as part of the proposed project. (c) and (d) The project is not located within one-quarter mile of any existing or proposed schools, and the
proposed project does not propose to construct any educational facilities.
(e) The proposed project is not on the Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites (Cortese) List. The nearest Cortese
List site is located at 0.26 mile from the proposed project and will not be affected by the proposed project.
(f) and (g) The Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara County is a municipal airport located approximately 0.3 mile
from the proposed project. No private airstrips are in the area. The project does not include any structures that could interfere with air space used for the airport, and no additional construction equipment (such as a crane)
that could present a hazard to airport use is required for completion of the project.
The project site is within the area covered by the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the
Palo Alto Airport (Windus 2008). The project is therefore subject to the land use compatibility policies
contained in the Plan regarding general compatibility, noise, building height and safety. The landfill has been a compatible land use near the airport for decades; the closure of Phase IIC of the landfill does not result in a
change in site activities that would result in a safety hazard for people working in the project area.
(h) The proposed project is not designated as part of an evacuation route and will not interfere with the
implementation of an emergency response plan. (i) The project site is not located within or near the wildland fire danger area.
(j) See (a) and (b) above. The landfill is a Class III landfill, and did not accept hazardous waste. It will be closed in accordance with the requirements of Title 27 as explained in the Project Description, and leachate and landfill
gas will be controlled and monitored until they no longer pose a threat to the environment. The proposed project closes the last section of the landfill which will be added as planned to the Byxbee Recreational Park. The park
is considered to be a compatible end use for the landfill.
Mitigation Measures: There are no potentially significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts and no
mitigation measures are required.
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Setting
The following summary of site climate, hydrogeology, topography and surface water is derived from the Final
Closure and Post-closure Maintenance Plan for Phase IIC City of Palo Alto Landfill (Golder Associates, Inc.
2009).
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 46 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Climate
Climate at the disposal site and adjacent areas is primarily a function of the geographic location of the area, its
proximity to the Bay and its separation from the ocean by the Coast Range. These factors influence precipitation, temperature, evaporation, wind, and fog and clouds.
An isohyetal map prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District shows the mean annual precipitation at the Palo Alto landfill to be about 13 inches. For a 100-year storm, the landfill site area could be subject to rainfall
intensities of nearly one inch an hour, or 3.5 inches in a 24-hour period.
Maximum temperature in the vicinity of the disposal area occurs in July, when the average daily maximum
temperature is 81oF. Minimum temperatures are expected to occur in January, with an average daily minimum temperature of 38oF.
The average annual evaporation for the region is approximately 69 inches based on data recorded at Newark, about 8 miles north-northeast of the Palo Alto Landfill, across San Francisco Bay.
Winds in the Palo Alto area are primarily influenced by temperature differences between the land and water bodies, except during the winter season when this influence is overridden by storm systems. A typical daily
pattern is a calm morning, with onshore winds increasing to late afternoon or evening. The early night is
typically calm with a gentle offshore wind often occurring during the middle of the night. During the winter season, the wind regimen is much less consistent with southeasterly and southerly winds often prevailing during
storms.
Hydrogeology
The landfill lies within the northern part of the Santa Clara Valley groundwater basin, which contains over
1,000 feet of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated clays, silts, sands and gravels. Water-bearing units along the
San Francisco Bay margin are typically separated by impervious clay aquitards and groundwater generally occurs under confined conditions. Regional ground water flow is toward the San Francisco Bay, recharged by
runoff from the coastal and inland mountains.
Previous investigations at the landfill indicate that the underlying sediments contain a shallow and a deep
aquifer zone. The shallow aquifer zone occurs from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 80 feet
below mean sea level (msl) and is underlain by a laterally extensive clay aquitard to a depth of approximately 180 feet below msl. The deep aquifer zone occurs below this aquitard and forms an extensive drinking water
aquifer in the Santa Clara Valley.
Previous investigations at the landfill by various consultants have further defined the hydrogeologic conditions
under and around the landfill. Two zones of sand, designated as the 20-foot sand and the 40-foot sand, have
been identified within the low-permeability Bay Mud. These sand units have been interpreted by previous investigators as being laterally continuous under part or all of the landfill. The 20-foot sand is 2 to 4 feet thick,
generally occurs at an elevation of about 20 feet below msl, is considered fairly continuous under the southern portion of the site, and is discontinuous or absent in the northernmost part of the site. The 40-foot sand is 2 to 10 feet thick, occurs at an elevation of about 35 to 40 feet below msl, and is generally considered continuous
beneath the site. The sands are fine to medium grained and poorly graded. Thin gravel layers have been encountered in some locations. Available subsurface data indicate that the water-bearing sands may be hydraulically connected beneath parts of the site.
Surface water and shallow groundwater occur in the tidal marsh environment surrounding the landfill at or near
mean sea level. Therefore, Bay Mud deposits are fully saturated within a few feet of ground surface. The water-
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 47 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
bearing characteristics of the Bay Mud deposits are poor (i.e., very low hydraulic conductivities), so they are not considered aquifers. Due to their higher transmissivity, the 20-foot and 40-foot sand units have been
identified as the primary water-bearing zones beneath the site even though groundwater occurs at shallower
depths within the low-permeability Bay Mud. The porosity of the sand units has been estimated to be 25 percent. Hydraulic conductivity for the sands ranges from 1.2 x 10-4 to 5.1 x 10-4 cm/sec for the 20-foot sand,
and 3.0 x 10-3 to 1.3 x 10-4 cm/sec for the 40-foot sand. Site groundwater monitoring wells are constructed to monitor either the 20-foot sand unit or the 40-foot sand unit.
Groundwater in the uppermost sand zone (approximately 20-foot depth) flows to the southwest with a gradient of approximately 1.0 x 10-3 foot per foot (ft/ft). Groundwater in the lower sand zone flows to the west with a
gradient of approximately 1.6 x 10-3 ft/ft. Regionally, groundwater in the shallow aquifer migrates naturally
toward San Francisco Bay; however, major pumping from the shallow and deep aquifer in the past altered flow patterns in those systems and locally reversed the bay-ward gradient. The aquifers are no longer extensively
pumped but a landward gradient still exists beneath the landfill.
The quality of the shallow groundwater underlying the landfill area is extremely poor and non-potable with
salinity levels more than double that of bay water. This is the result of seepage from tidal streams and sloughs,
restricted circulation, and contact with saline bay sediments. The history of the groundwater conditions in this locality indicate that this situation has always existed and was not the consequence of intrusion-related bay
waters.
Records of wells kept by the Santa Clara Valley Water District within the general area of the landfill indicate
that groundwater use is minor and restricted to small domestic wells south of Highway 101. Total annual
pumped groundwater (practically all for irrigation) is less than 4 acre-feet; the average individual well production over the year is less than 150 gallons per day. Future estimated groundwater usage in this area is no
more than, and probably less than, present levels. When these small domestic wells become non-operational for any reason, most of them would be replaced in favor of Palo Alto water supplies. The Palo Alto water system makes exclusive use of high quality imported Hetch Hetchy Project water (San Francisco Water Department).
Surface Water
Waters in the surface streams adjacent to the landfill are shallow and stagnant for most parts of the year. The constant decaying and replacement of vegetation on the stream banks, as well as the algal growth and
decomposition in the water, contribute to the green appearance and the poor chemical quality of these surface
streams.
Before refuse disposal operations started in the early 1930's, the landfill was crossed by a dendritic pattern of
meandering sloughs and creeks. These drainages brought upland runoff and flood waters to San Francisco Bay.
The main surface water bodies currently adjacent to the landfill are the former Palo Alto Yacht Harbor and
marsh (extensions of San Francisco Bay), the Palo Alto Flood Basin (which includes Matadero Creek and Mayfield Slough), and a recently restored wetlands habitat sanctuary (Emily Renzel Wetland). Mayfield Slough
has been rechanneled to the south and east perimeter of the site to improve the flood basin. The slough contains stagnant water during most of the year. The downstream end of the slough is closed by a tide gate that regulates inflow and outflow from the flood basin to the Bay. Matadero Creek flows east along the southern perimeter of
the landfill and terminates at Mayfield Slough. The creek and flood basin system drains surface runoff from Barron and Adobe creeks, several municipal storm drains, and storm water pumped from collection facilities in Mountain View.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 48 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regulatory Setting
Landfills in California are regulated by a complex framework of federal, state and local government codes and
regulations. Two of the primary governing laws are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and
the California Code of Regulations (Title 27).
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. National regulatory standards are defined in 40 CFR Part 258 (RCRA Subtitle D), promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Implementation of
Subtitle D is primarily through approved state permit programs that must be equivalent or more stringent than
Subtitle D. California is an approved state, so the U.S. EPA does not independently enforce Subtitle D in California. CalRecycle and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) jointly implement Subtitle D.
The program is consolidated within the California Code of Regulations Title 27 (27 CCR), Division 2.
California Code of Regulations Title 27. CalRecycle and the SWRCB both work under Title 27 to protect
water quality at landfill sites. Under Title 27, the SWRCB has the authority to require landfill operators to
protect water quality through WDRs, which identify specific measures and controls to be used and monitored at each landfill site. The WDRs also establish a water quality protection standard, the constituents of concern,
concentration limits, monitoring points, compliance period, ground and surface monitoring systems and
monitoring requirements, and corrective action when necessary.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1, 2 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
1, 2 X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
1, 2 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
1, 2 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
1, 2 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1, 2 X
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 49 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
1, 2 X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
1, 2 X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100-year
flood hazard area?
1, 2 X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 35 X
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1, 2 X
DISCUSSION:
(a) and (f) The landfill operates under WDRs issued by the RWQCB. The Phase IIC closure and postclosure maintenance and monitoring programs specified in the WDRs are intended to protect water quality.
(b) The project does not require the use of groundwater.
(c), (d), and (e) The project includes adding final soil cover to an existing landfill and maintaining and monitoring the landfill cover and environmental protection systems. These activities will not alter the drainage patterns on the site or in water bodies adjacent to the site. No new impervious surfaces will be installed which
would affect the rate of storm water runoff and the potential for erosion or siltation. The closure plan includes measures to minimize erosion.
(g) and (h) The project does not include housing or any other structures to be placed in the 100 year flood zone.
(i) The project does not involve a levee or dam.
(j) The project is outside of the tsunami zone, according to maps prepared by the Association of Bay Area
Governments. The project is in the Palo Alto Baylands and is not subject to mudflows.
(k) The project is not located on a stream and will not impact any streambanks.
Mitigation Measures: The project will not result in any significant impacts to hydrology or water quality and does not require mitigation measures.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 50 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental Setting
The Byxbee Recreation Area, located to the north of the site, is composed of portions of the landfill that were previously converted to parkland. The site is bounded by the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
(PARWQCP) to the northwest, a saltwater marsh area, the Emily Renzel Marsh and KFS World
Communications, Inc. (KFS) radio facilities to the west, the Palo Alto flood basin to the east and south, and a marsh area and former yacht harbor (old Yacht Harbor) to the north.
Regulatory Setting
Relevant land use and planning documents to the project include the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (City of
Palo Alto 2007), the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18), the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2008), the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines: Palo Alto Baylands Nature
Preserve (Catalyst 2005) and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County: Palo Alto Airport
(Windus 2008). The relevant portions of these documents are described below.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (2007)
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Public Park. This land use designation is
intended for “Open lands whose primary purpose is active recreation and whose character is essentially urban.”
(City of Palo Alto 2007). The following goals and policies from the comprehensive plan are relevant to the proposed project:
Goal N-1: A Citywide Open Space System that Protects and Conserves Palo Alto’s Natural Resources and Provides a Source of Beauty and Enjoyment for Palo Alto Residents.
Policy N-18: Preserve and protect the Bay, marshlands, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and other natural water or wetland areas as open space.
Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban
Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety.
Policy N-8: Protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses.
Goal N-5: Clean, Healthful Air for Palo Alto and the San Francisco Bay Area.
Policy N-27: Reduce emission of particulates from wood burning stoves, construction activity, automobiles, and
other sources.
Policy N-29: All potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants should be adequately buffered, or
mechanically or otherwise mitigated to avoid odor and toxic impacts that violate relevant human health standards.
Goal N-6: An Environment Free of the Damaging Effects of Biological and Chemical Hazardous Materials.
Goal N-7: Reduced Volumes of Solid Waste; Solid Waste Disposed in an Environmentally Safe, Efficient, Manner.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 51 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Goal N-8: An Environment That Minimizes the Adverse Impacts of Noise.
Policy N-43: Protect the community and especially sensitive noise receptors, including schools, hospitals, and
senior care facilities, from excessive noise.
Goal N-10: Protection of Life and Property From Natural Hazards, Including Earthquake, Landslide, Flooding, and Fire.
Policy N-51: Minimize exposure to geologic hazards, including slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and to seismic hazards including groundshaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landsliding.
Policy N-52: Minimize exposure to flood hazards by adequately reviewing proposed development in flood prone areas.
Policy C-27: Seek opportunities to develop new parks and recreation facilities to meet the growing needs of residents and employees of Palo Alto.
Policy C-30: Facilitate access to parks and community facilities by a variety of transportation modes.
Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance
The zoning designation for the site is PF(D)- Public Facility (Site and Design Review Combining District). The
PF (public facilities) district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and
community service or recreational facilities (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.28.010). The site and design review combining district is intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in
environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with
environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).010). Site and design approval is required for sites in the Site and
Design Review Combining District prior to issuance of any permit or other approval (Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.30(G).040). A site plan showing the location of all proposed buildings, structures, planted or landscaped areas, paved areas, and other improvements, and indicating the proposed uses or activities within the
site must be submitted to the Planning Commission (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).050). The
Planning Commission reviews the project and recommends approval or denial to the City Council, which then approves or denies the project (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).060-070).
Zoning Code Section 18.40.130(c) states that “landscaping should retain or enhance native vegetation in hillside, baylands or other natural open spaces areas or adjacent to such areas. The existing natural vegetation
and land formations should remain in a natural state unless modification is found to be necessary or appropriate
for a specific use allowed through architectural or site design review.” Relevant landscaping standards for these areas are as follows:
(1) In the selection of new landscaping, preference shall be given to natural, indigenous and drought resistant plants and materials. Non-indigenous landscaping should be limited to the immediate area
around a structure or structures.
(2) Site development plans shall, to the maximum extent feasible, provide for the retention of existing vegetation and land formations, and shall include an erosion and sediment control element setting forth
reasonable mitigation measures in accord with the grading and subdivision ordinances of the city.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 52 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(3) Landscaping shall, to the maximum extent feasible, integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems; and
be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced.
(4) Planting of invasive plant species shall not be permitted and removal of invasive species may be required as part of landscape plan requirements.
Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan (2008)
The following Overall Environmental Quality Policies from the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan (City of Palo Alto 2008) are relevant to the proposed project:
1. Ensure that the landfill area ultimately becomes an environmental asset and a continuation of the natural green space.
3. Expand bicycle and pedestrian activities while reducing vehicle traffic in the Baylands as far as possible.
4. Restrict storage and parking of vehicles in the Baylands.
5. Keep marshes open to the Bay along the entire shoreline.
6. Control access to environmentally sensitive marshland and upland meadow habitat.
7. Restore the diversity of plants and animals to disturbed upland sites.
8. Ensure there is sufficient native food and cover for wildlife.
12. Continue to allow intensive, structured, and special use recreation only where it is the least destructive
to wildlife habitat. In the “Natural Unit” and “Areas of Significant Change” (Harbor Area, Landfill Area, and Former ITT Property), create opportunities for people of all age groups to get near the water to observe
and enjoy the unique natural environment and wildlife of the Bay and marshlands, isolated from the urban
scene in a setting where natural qualities and forces are dominant. Recreational activities in these areas shall be compatible with the ecological and physical constraints and opportunities of the natural Baylands
systems.
13. Follow guidelines established in the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, Palo Alto Baylands Nature
Preserve published in 2005
14. Comply with Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) adopted by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) (Mandated by State).
In addition, the Landfill Area Chapter (Chapter 2) specifies procedures for landfill closure, Byxbee Park design and development, the Mayfield Slough remnant marsh and RWQCB requirements for landfill closure. The
Access and Circulation Chapter (Chapter 14) emphasizes transit, bicycle and pedestrian access to the Baylands
and bicycle and pedestrian trails within the Baylands to reduce private vehicle use and provide recreational opportunities. Finally, the Flood Protection Chapter (Chapter 15) contains flood protection measures for the
Baylands.
Site Assessment and Design Guidelines: Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (2005)
This document contains general design principles for signs, vehicle control, paving, site furniture, fences and enclosures, and colors and finishes that would apply to any such features included in the proposed new
recreation parkland.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 53 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County: Palo Alto Airport (2008)
The project site is within the area covered by the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the
Palo Alto Airport (Windus 2008). The project is therefore subject to the land use compatibility policies contained in the Plan regarding general compatibility, noise, building height and safety. The site is in the 60 and
55 community noise equivalency level (CNEL) contours according to Figure 5, and in the Traffic Pattern Zone according to Figure 7 of the Plan.
Measure E
In 2011 the City of Palo Alto residents approved Measure E. Measure E undedicated 10 acres of Byxbee
Parkland for consideration of an energy-compost facility. Eight of the 10 acres is located on the landfill. See the legal description of the property included in Measure E at the following web address:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30232. If an Energy-Compost facility is approved by
the City Council the City will perform CEQA review of the 10 acre area and may request permission from the State to build an energy-compost facility on the 8 acres of closed Phase IIC area of the landfill.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 4, 5 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
1, 4, 5 X
d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
1, 28 X
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
1, 4, 5 X
f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area?
1, 4, 5 X
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use?
1, 6, 7 X
DISCUSSION:
(a) The closure of Phase IIC of the landfill and postclosure monitoring and maintenance activities will occur on
an existing landfill site that does not currently divide an established community. It has been a landfill since at least 1930 and is 0.7 mile from the nearest residential area.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 54 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(b) The project is subject to several applicable plans and policies within the City of Palo Alto, and is regulated by state agencies, including CalRecycle (CIWMB), the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District. The project is in compliance with the applicable policies and
regulations. Closure of Phase IIC of the landfill is planned so that in the future it can be developed as part of the Byxbee Recreation Area.
(c) The project is not located within the study area of an existing HCP or NCCP.
(d), (e), and (f) The closure of Phase IIC of the landfill is a planned activity that will allow completion of the Byxbee Recreational Park. It does not change the existing land use.
(g) The project site is not designated as farmland. Mitigation Measures: The project will not significantly impact land use and no mitigation is required.
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
4, 5, 36 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
4, 5, 36 X
DISCUSSION:
(a) and (b) There are no known mineral resources of value on the project site or in the area. The site is not
delineated as a locally important mineral resource in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (City of Palo Alto
2007) or the Santa Clara County General Plan (Santa Clara County 1994). The project would have no impact on the availability of mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures: The project will not impact mineral resources and no mitigation measures are required.
L. NOISE
Environmental Setting
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. The frequency (pitch), amplitude (intensity or loudness), and duration of noise all contribute to the effect on a listener, or receptor, and whether or not the receptor perceives
the noise as objectionable, disturbing, or annoying.
The decibel scale (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. Sound levels in
dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a tenfold increase in acoustic energy,
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 55 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
while 20 dBs is 100 times more intense, 30 dBs is 1,000 more intense, etc. In general, there is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its amplitude, or intensity, with each 10 dB increase
in sound level perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness.
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common method is the “A-weighted sound level,”
or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is typically most sensitive. Thus, most environmental measurements are reported in dBA, meaning decibels on the A-scale.
Noise exposure over the course of an entire day can be described by the community noise equivalent level, or CNEL. For CNEL, a 5 dB “penalty” is added to evening hours (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and a 10 dB “penalty” is
added to nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) when calculating the 24-hour average noise level. For example, a
45 dBA nighttime sound level would contribute as much to the overall day-night average as a 55 dBA daytime sound level. The artificial penalties imposed during CNEL calculations are intended to account for a receptor’s
increased sensitivity to sound levels during quieter nighttime periods.
The primary existing noise sources at the project site are from airplane, construction equipment, and vehicle
traffic. The Palo Alto Airport is located approximately 0.3 mile from the project site and US Highway 101 is
located approximately 0.5 mile from the site. According to the 2022 Aircraft Noise Contours (Figure 7 in the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto Airport), the site is in the 55 and 60 dB
CNEL contours.
Sensitive receptors are facilities that house or attract people who are especially sensitive to the effects of the
noise environment. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, parks, and residential areas are examples of
sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptors to the site are parks including Byxbee Recreation Area and Palo Alto Baylands Park. There are no hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities or residential areas near the
site.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
1, 2 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
1, 2 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
1, 2 X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
2, 37 X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1, 38 X
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 56 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1 X
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB?
1, 30 X
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in
an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
1, 30 X
i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an
existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB?
1, 30 X
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
1, 30 X
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater?
1, 30 X
l) Generate construction noise exceeding the
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more?
1, 30 X
DISCUSSION:
(a) and (c) Construction activities at the site has been ongoing for decades, and will continue at existing levels under the project; no additional construction equipment activity over existing conditions is proposed to occur as a result of the Phase IIC closure. Construction noise would occur over the short-term during the construction
period. According to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.10.060, noise levels from individual construction equipment are limited to 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the source or anywhere off of the property plane. Project construction is not expected to exceed this noise level, and construction would be limited to the hours of
8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays, consistent with the City’s Municipal Code (Section 9.10.060). Therefore, the project would not expose persons to a generation of noise levels in
excess of standards during the short-term construction period.
(b) Site construction and development would involve the use of construction equipment such as graders, dump
trucks and compacters, but would not use equipment such as jack hammers that cause excessive ground borne
vibration or ground-borne noise levels. In addition, there is no housing, schools or other structures in the area that could be regularly subjected to groundborne vibration.
(c) See response to (a), above.
(d) The proposed project would not result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity during
closure construction because the same equipment is currently operating at the site and no significant amount of new or unusually loud equipment is required to complete the closure of Phase IIC. In addition, the project
would comply with noise limits and construction hours required by the City’s Municipal Code (Section
9.10.060).
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 57 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(e) The project site is located within the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Palo Alto
Airport (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission 2008). The Palo Alto Airport is located
approximately 0.3 mile north of the site. The closure of Phase IIC of the landfill will not result in new exposures of people working in the area to airport noise, since people already work at the landfill. There are no residential
uses associated with the project. (f) The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
(g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) The project is not near any residential areas. The nearest residential area is 0.7 mile
away.
(l) Project activities are similar to existing landfill activities and will be temporary. They will not cause a
significant increase in noise levels that would affect users at nearby Byxbee Park.
Mitigation Measures: The project will not result in significant noise impacts, and no mitigation measures are
required.
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1 X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1 X
d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1 X
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local
population projections?
1 X
DISCUSSION:
(a), (b) (c), (d) and (e) The project is the closure of Phase IIC of the landfill and postclosure monitoring and maintenance activities over the entire landfill. No aspect of the project provides services that would serve
growth in the region, and the project does not involve housing in any way.
Mitigation Measures: The project does not impact housing and no mitigation measures are required.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 58 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Setting
The Palo Alto Fire District, headquartered at 250 Hamilton Avenue, provides fire service to the project site. The nearest station to the site is Fire Station 3, located at 799 Embarcadero Road, approximately 1.5 miles west of
the site.
The Palo Alto Police Department, located at 275 Forest Avenue, provides police protection to the site.
The closest school to the site is Ohlone Elementary School, located approximately 0.7 mile west of the site.
Visitor serving recreation areas are located around the site. Byxbee Recreation Area (which includes previously closed sections of the landfill) borders the site to the north, and Palo Alto Baylands Park borders the site to the
south. The Baylands Nature Preserve, Palo Alto Duck Pond and Palo Alto Golf Course are also located to the
north of the site.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection? 1, 2 X
b) Police protection? 1, 2 X
c) Schools? 1, 2 X
d) Parks? 1, 2, 5 X
e) Other public facilities? 1, 2 X
DISCUSSION:
(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) The landfill site currently receives fire and police protection, and is planned to be
converted to passive parkland in the future. Closure of Phase IIC and postclosure monitoring and maintenance activities at the landfill will not require new structures or activities that will increase the need for fire protection,
police protection, and land uses (eg. Housing) that increase the demand for new parks, schools or other public
facilities are not proposed.
Mitigation Measures: The project will not impact public services and no mitigation is required.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 59 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
O. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
2, 5 X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
2, 5 X
DISCUSSION:
(a) and (b) The proposed project would close Phase IIC of the landfill and continue monitoring and maintenance
of the landfill into the postclosure period. These activities will provide environmental protections so that in the future Phase IIC can be converted as planned to 51 acres of passive parkland, to be added to the existing
Byxbee Park Recreation Area. The project does not affect population numbers or park and recreation demands. The impacts of developing the park were previously addressed in the Byxbee Park Master Plan process.
Mitigation Measures: The project will not result in the need for new recreation services and no mitigation is required.
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Environmental Setting
Regional access to the site is provided by U.S. Highway 101, a major interstate that runs north-south through the project area. Local access is provided by Embarcadero Road, travelling east from Highway 101. Congestion
management measures are under construction at 101 and Embarcadero Road. There are several parking lots in
the Palo Alto Baylands; the closest one to the project site is the Byxbee Park Hills parking lot, which has a capacity for 19 vehicles including one ADA accessible space, as well as bicycle parking (City of Palo Alto
2008).
The closest transit service to the project site is a shuttle that runs from the California Street Caltrain Station to
the Harbor development office park, located approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the site. The shuttle runs on
weekdays during commute hours (City of Palo Alto 2008).
The primary pedestrian and bicycle trails in the project area include the San Francisco Bay Trail, which runs north-south approximately 0.3 mile west of the site at its closest point, and the Bay to Ridge Trail, which runs east-west approximately 0.2 mile north of the site at its closest point. A third, unnamed pedestrian and bicycle
trail encircles the Baylands to the east of the site and extends from the Palo Alto Golf Course to the Palo Alto Baylands Park (City of Palo Alto 2008).
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing
circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a
general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
1, 2 X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1, 2 X
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
1, 30 X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1 X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
1 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity that
impacts traffic circulation and air quality?
1 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
1 X
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto)
intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in
the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the
critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more?
1, 2 X
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more?
1, 2 X
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 61 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the
critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more?
1, 2 X
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of
segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F?
1, 2 X
l) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
1, 30 X
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a
comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue
storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at
project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through
traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact
other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
1, 30 X
n) Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1 X
o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? 1 X
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1, 2 X
DISCUSSION:
(a), (b), (h), (i), (j), and (k) The Palo Alto landfill has been in operation, and a source of traffic, for over 90 years. Although waste disposal operations have stopped, the landfill still receives approximately 100 loads of
soil per day (1,200-1,500 cy) which is stockpiled at the site or used for repair in areas where the landfill has subsided. The Phase IIC closure project and the postclosure maintenance of the landfill will require continued soil import. It is estimated that 410,000 cubic yards of material will be imported over the next 12-18 months at
the current rate. Thus the project will not result in increased traffic levels that will impact the circulation system, conflict with congestion management projects, or impact operating levels at any intersections or on Highway 101.
(c)The Palo Alto Airport is located approximately 0.3 mile north of the site. However, the proposed project does
not include any structures or activities that will affect air traffic patterns or safety.
(d) The project does not include road construction.
(e) The project does not affect existing emergency access.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 62 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(f) The project does not require additional parking capacity.
(g), (n), and (o) The project does not affect alternative transportation facilities.
(l), (m), and (p) The project does not result in an increase in traffic over existing conditions that will impact the
TIRE index (it is also 0.7 mile from the nearest residential area), change queuing or create an operational safety hazard.
Mitigation: The project will not result in significant impacts to transportation and traffic and mitigation measures are not required.
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:
Sources Potentially Significant Issues
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
1, 2 X
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
1, 2 X
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
2 X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
2 X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
2 X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
2 X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
2 X
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
1 X
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 63 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION: (a) and (b) The project is the closure of Phase IIC of the Palo Alto Landfill and it does not involve new
wastewater generating uses.
(c) The closure of Phase IIC of the landfill will not add new impervious surface area and will not increase
surface water runoff in the area. There are existing stormwater controls at the landfill, and new stormwater controls will be constructed as part of the landfill closure. The maintenance of stormwater facilities will
continue under the closure plan. The proposed ET cover material is designed to absorb stormwater.
(d), (e), and (f) The Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC closure project does not require a significant new water supply
or result in land uses which require wastewater treatment or landfill capacity.
(g) The closure and postclosure activities that are proposed will be completed in compliance with state and
federal regulations, as explained in the Project Description.
Mitigation Measures: The project will not result in significant impacts to utilities and service systems and no
mitigation measures are required.
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
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?
1, 23, 24, 25, 26 X
b) 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)?
1, 2, 39 X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
1, 2, 39 X
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 64 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION: (a) As noted under Biological Resources, there is a very small chance that closure activities could impact
species that are protected by law. Mitigation measures are recommended to avoid significant impacts.
(b), and (c) The landfill closure and postclosure monitoring activities are similar to activities that are ongoing at
the landfill, and are intended to provide the necessary environmental protections for air and water quality. The project does not require an increase in equipment amount or new equipment that is particularly tall or loud in
order to be completed. The closure activities are short-term and will be completed within two years; the
postclosure activities are long term and are essentially the same as existing postclosure activities on other portions of the landfill that were previously closed.
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 65 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SOURCE REFERENCES
(1) Preparer’s knowledge and analysis
(2) Final Closure and Postclosure Maintenance Plan for Phase IIC City of Palo Alto Landfill Palo Alto, CA
March 2009 (August 2009 update). Prepared for the City of Palo Alto; Prepared by Golder Associates Roseville, CA. Reference #083-97260
Personal communications with Rich Haughey, Golder Associates, 2013.
(3) State Highways Map
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/ (accessed July 29, 2013)
(4) Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2007 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp (accessed Jan? - July 2013)
(5) Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan. 2008. 4th Edition. Adopted by the Palo Alto City Council October, 2008.
(6) 2010 Santa Clara County Important Farmlands map; Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection 2011.
(7) Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2012/2013 map; California Department of Conservation, Division
of Land Resource Protection 2012.
(8) Public Resources Code section 12220(g).
(9) Public Resources Code section 4526.
(10) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. San Francisco, CA. December, 1999.
(11) _______2010. “2010 Clean Air Plan”. 2010 Clean Air Plan. BAAQMD, Planning, Rules and Research
Division, Plans. January 6, 2012. Web. July 2, 2013. <http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx>
(12) _______2010a. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. San Francisco, CA. February 2010. <http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/regionalinvento
ry2007_2_10.ashx>
(13) _______ 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, Ca. June
2010, updated May 2011.
(14) _______2012. Final Major Facility Review Permit. Issued to City of Palo Alto Landfill, Facility #A2721. June 4, 2012.
<http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Engineering/Title%20V%20Permits/A2721/A2721_2012-6_Renewal-
Final-Permit_02.ashx?la=en>
(15) _______2013. “Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.” Air Quality Standards and Attainment
Status. BAAQMD, Planning, Rules, and Research Division, Air Quality Standards. n.d. Web. July 2, 2013.
<http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm>
(16) California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2007. Staff Report California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Level and 2020 Emissions Limit. Sacramento, CA. November 16, 2007.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 66 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(17) _______2009. Climate Change Scoping Plan – A Framework for Change. Endorsed by ARB December 2008.Sacramento, CA. May 11, 2009.
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm>
(18) _______2011. Final Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document. Released
August 19, 2011. Sacramento, CA. Approved August 24, 2011. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/fed.htm;
and _______2010. “Local Government Operations Protocol for the Quantification and Reporting of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Sacramento, CA May 2010. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/pubs/1go_protocol_v1_1_2010-05-03.pdf
(19) City of Palo Alto 2007. “Comprehensive Plan and Amendment.” City of Palo Alto, Government, Hot
Topics, City Projects, Land Use and Development, Comprehensive Plan. October 9, 2007. Web. July 3, 2013. <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp>
(20) _______2007a. Climate Protection Plan. Palo Alto, CA. December 3, 2007.
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/9986>
(21) _______2013. Summary of Sustainable Activities. City Council Information Report from the Palo Alto
City Manager. Palo Alto, Ca. April 15, 2013.
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33915>
(22) United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2012. "Currently Designated Nonattainment
Areas for All Criteria Pollutants." The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants, Criteria
Pollutant Reports. U.S. EPA. December 14, 2012. Web. July 2, 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html#CALIFORNIA >
(23) CNDDB
(24) ESA. August 2008. Draft Wildlife Management – Byxbee Park and Future Landfill Closure Area Wildlife Habitat Assessment. Preliminary Subject to Revision. Prepared for the City of Palo Alto. ESA 205466 Oakland,
CA
(25) Oregon Department of Agriculture, Plant Programs. Point Reyes bird’s beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp.
palustris). http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/CONSERVATION/pages/profile_comapa.aspx. Accessed July
2, 2013.
(26) Orlando, J.L. et, al. South San Francisco Bay Tidal Marsh Vegetation and Elevation Surveys – Corkscrew
Marsh, Bird Island, and Palo Alto Baylands, California. United States Geological Survey. 1983.
(27) Municipal Code Section 8.10, City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.
(28) http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Habitat-Conservation-Plans/es_hcp.htm (Accessed July 6, 2013)
(29) ABAG Alquist Priolo map: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/FaultZones/index.html (Accessed July 2013)
(30) Google Earth, 2013. 37o26’53.05”N 122o06’26.28”W (Accessed July 2013)
(31) Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor ID 71003672
(32) Muti-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, Association of Bay Area
Governments, 2010
(33) City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan, June 2007
(34) Wildland Fire Assessment System, United States Forest Service
(35) ABAG Tsunami Map: http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Tsunami/index.html (Accessed July 2013)
(36) Santa Clara County General Plan 1995-2010. December 1994.
(37) Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.10.060
Palo Alto Landfill Phase IIC Closure Project Page 67 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(38) Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. November 19, 2008. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Santa Clara County Palo Alto Airport. Prepared by Walter Windus, PE, Saratoga, CA.
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx (July 2013).
(39) Other sections of this Initial Study
(40)_______2010. “Local Government Operations Protocol for the Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions.”Sacramento, CA. May 2010. < http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/pubs/lgo_protocol_v1_1_2010-05-03.pdf>