HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2607-6572CITY OF PALO ALTO
Climate Action and Sustainability Committee
Friday, August 07, 2026
Agenda Item
2.Recommendation to City Council to Accept the RWQCP Biosolids Facility Plan Update as
Part of the Long Range Facilities Plan Update and Adopt a Park Dedication Ordinance for
a Portion of the Measure E Site; CEQA Status – Not a Project Title Updated, Late Packet
Report Added
Climate Action and Sustainability Committee
Staff Report
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: August 7, 2026
Report #:2607-6572
TITLE
Recommendation to Accept the RWQCP Biosolids Facility Plan Update as Part of the Long Range
Facilities Plan Update and Adopt a Park Dedication Ordinance for a Portion of the Measure E
Site; CEQA Status – Not a Project
This item will be a late packet publication on 7/30/26.
1
0
1
0
5
Climate Action and Sustainability Committee
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Public Works
Meeting Date: August 7, 2026
Report #:2605-6429
TITLE
Recommendation to City Council to Accept the RWQCP Biosolids Facility Plan Update as Part of
the Long Range Facilities Plan Update and Adopt a Park Dedication Ordinance for a Portion of
the Measure E Site; CEQA Status – Not a Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Climate Action and Sustainability Committee recommend that City
Council:
1. Accept the Biosolids Facility Plan Update, prepared by Carollo Engineers, Inc., as a
component of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Long Range Facilities Plan
Update;
2. Adopt a Park Dedication Ordinance to dedicate approximately 7.7 acres of the Measure
E site at Byxbee Park as parkland; and
3. Direct staff to:
a. Continue dewatered solids hauling and offsite processing in the near term under
existing contracts;
b. Reserve the approximately 2.4-acre flat, uncapped portion of the Measure E site
for potential future biosolids processing; and
c. Monitor viable regional partnership opportunities, including the City of San
Jose’s proposed public-private partnership facility.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Biosolids Facility Plan Update (BFP-U), prepared by Carollo Engineers, Inc.,1 evaluates near-
and long-term biosolids management strategies for RWQCP wastewater treatment solids
residuals over a 30-year planning horizon (2025–2055). These solids must be treated and
managed, either onsite or off-site, in accordance with federal and state regulations to protect
public health and the environment before they can be reused, disposed of, or destroyed. Six
alternatives were carried forward from an initial screening of approximately 15 onsite and
seven offsite alternatives: the Baseline (offsite dewatering and hauling); an Offsite Partnership
1 Carollo Engineers. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Biosolids Facility Plan Update (Draft), 2026;
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/rwqcp/contracts/bfp-u-draft-2026-jul-24.pdf
1
0
1
0
5
with the City of San Jose; and four onsite options (Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD); MAD
with Thermal Hydrolysis Process; Thermal Belt Drying; and Thermal Drying with Pyrolysis). The
Baseline ranks highest under current conditions. Thermal Drying with Pyrolysis offers potential
net negative GHG emissions and Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, also known as
“forever chemicals”) reduction, but at significantly higher cost and technological risk.
• Near-Term (2026–2030): Continue offsite hauling and processing under existing
contracts (through March 2029). Implement near-term thickening improvements and
operational optimizations at the RWQCP. Monitor biosolids regulations regarding PFAS,
offsite market costs, offsite partnership opportunities, and emerging technologies.
Reserve the approximately 2.4-acre flat, uncapped portion of the Measure E site for
potential future onsite biosolids facilities.
• Mid-Term (2031–2040): Renew offsite contracts (5-year term; March 2034) and conduct
a BFP-U reassessment approximately two years prior to the next contract renewal
(approximately 2032) to determine if receiving location of hauled solids should be
changed. If a viable regional partnership (e.g., the City of San Jose’s proposed public-
private partnership facility) becomes available, evaluate and pursue if warranted.
• Long-Term (2041–2055): Plan, design, construct, and transition to onsite solids
processing if triggered by regulatory, market, or financial drivers. Consider
implementing Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD) with combined heat and power
onsite if offsite costs approach approximately $350 per wet ton, or if regulatory or
market changes require the onsite production of Class B biosolids. If future biosolids
PFAS regulations necessitate treatment, evaluate onsite PFAS-removal technologies,
such as Thermal Drying with Pyrolysis, as they become commercially proven. Since
PFAS-removal technologies are not yet well proven, continue to closely monitor
technology and regulatory developments.
1
0
1
0
5
BACKGROUND
3 directing staff to retire the
aging multiple-hearth furnace incinerators and to prepare a Biosolids Facility Plan (BFP).
Following the recommendations from the 2014 BFP,4 Phase I (Sludge Dewatering and Truck
Loadout Facility) was commissioned in 2019, enabling incinerator decommissioning, which
eliminated the plant’s largest GHG source. The City did not proceed with the originally
recommended Phase II construction of the thermal hydrolysis process with mesophilic
anaerobic digestion and digester gas-fueled combined heat and power (CHP) due to high capital
costs and implementation complexity discovered during design.
5 Since 2019, dewatered solids cake has been hauled
offsite for processing at Lystek International’s Solano County facility and Synagro’s Central
Valley Composting facility under contracts currently in place through March 2029.
6 In June 2024, City Council approved a contract with Carollo Engineers, Inc.
(Contract No. C24189086) to prepare the Long Range Facilities Plan Update (LRFP-U).7 The
LRFP-U includes the BFP-U, which evaluates near- and long-term biosolids management
strategies and potential facility siting options within the existing plant boundary, the 2.4-acre
Measure E site, or offsite alternatives.
3 City Council, July 2, 2012; Agenda Item #7; SR 2914,
4 CH2MHill (Now Jacobs). Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Biosolids Facility Plan, 2014;
5 Woodard & Curran. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Biosolids Facility Plan Update, 2019;
6 City Council, April 3, 2023; Agenda Item #12; SR #2302-0942,
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82279&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
7 City Council, June 10, 2024; Agenda Item #6, SR#2405-2993,
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82887&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
1
0
1
0
5
Measure E site at Byxbee Park as parkland while reserving the 2.4-acre portion of the Measure
E site for potential future biosolids processing based on evaluations from the BFP-U.13
On May 5, 2025, City Council approved the 2025 Council Priority Objectives.14 The Council
Priority Area Climate Action & Adaptation, and Natural Environment Protection included a
Council Priority Objective, CA 13 Develop an updated Regional Water Quality Control Plant
Biosolids Facility Plan. Complete initial work to develop plan, including consideration of PFAS
pollutants and the Measure E site, and review with a Council committee in advance of Council
acceptance of the plan in late 2025 or early 2026. The BFP-U directly addresses 2025 Council
Priority Objective CA 13 and is also included in the 2026 Council Values Supported Objective,
Advance recommendations for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Biosolids Facility Plan.
ANALYSIS
The draft BFP-U Report, provides a strategic implementation roadmap through 2055,
incorporating recent plant upgrades, regulatory changes, technological advances, and
community input.
Alternatives Evaluated
Six alternatives were carried forward from an initial screening of approximately 15 onsite and 7
offsite alternatives:
Two offsite Alternatives:
Alternative 1 – Baseline (Dewatering and Offsite Hauling): Continuation of current
operations, hauling dewatered cake to Synagro’s Central Valley Composting facility
and/or Lystek’s Solano County facility.
Alternative 2 – Offsite Partnership: Hauling to a potential public-private partnership
facility under development by the City of San Jose; technology and availability remain
uncertain.
Four Onsite Alternatives sited within the existing plant boundary and the 2.4-acre portion of the
Measure E site:
Alternative 3 – Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD): Onsite anaerobic digestion with
combined heat and power (CHP) utilizing biogas, producing Class B biosolids.
Alternative 4 – MAD with Thermal Hydrolysis Process (MAD+THP): Enhanced onsite
digestion using high-pressure steam pre-treatment, producing Class A biosolids; digester
gas-fueled combined heat and power (CHP).
Alternative 5 – Thermal Belt Drying: Onsite natural-gas thermal drying, producing Class
A dried biosolids with significant volume reduction.
Alternative 6 – Thermal Belt Drying with Pyrolysis: Onsite drying followed by pyrolysis
to produce biochar with energy recovery; the only alternative with demonstrated
13 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, June 23, 2026; SR#2604-6271,
14 City Council, May 5, 2025; Agenda Item #8; SR #2504-4466,
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83379&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto
1
0
1
0
5
potential for PFAS reduction in the solids byproduct (biochar) and projected net
negative GHG emissions.
The biosolids alternatives description and site layout of the onsite alternatives are summarized
in Attachment B.
Evaluation Criteria and Community Engagement
Evaluation criteria and weights were developed through a structured process that included an
RWQCP staff survey, two public Biosolids Input Workshops (May and July 2025), and a public
meeting (February 24, 2026). Table 1 summarizes the eight evaluation criteria, descriptions,
initial weighting factors originally proposed, and the final weighting factors that incorporated
feedback from the public workshops and meetings.
Table 1: Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Factors
Category Criterion Initial Weight Final Weight
Financial 1) Net Present Value (NPV)25%25%
2) Proven Technology Performance 11%10%
3) Global Environmental Impacts 14%17%
4) Footprint, Site Impacts, and Constructability 9%7%
5) Treatment Plant Process Impacts 11%9%
6) Operations and Maintenance Impacts 14%14%
7) Local Community and Environmental Impacts 6%8%
Non-
Financial
8) Regulatory and Program Resilience 10%10%
Total 100%100%
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Climate Action and Sustainability Lens
The BFP-U estimated GHG emissions using the Biosolids Emissions Assessment Model (BEAM,
November 2024), accounting for Scope 1, 2, and major Scope 3 emissions. The estimate
included negative emissions from carbon sequestration and emissions reduction from
displacement of synthetic fertilizer resulting from beneficial use of biosolids in agriculture. Key
findings from the projected Year 2055 annual GHG emissions and offsets are:
Baseline, Offsite Partnership, MAD, and MAD+THP produce comparable net GHG
emissions (approximately 950–1,800 MT CO₂e/yr), primarily from nitrous oxide
emissions from composting, partially offset by negative emissions from carbon
sequestration and displacement of synthetic fertilizer.
1
0
1
0
5
Thermal Belt Drying generates the highest emissions (~2,800 MT CO₂e/yr) due to natural
gas combustion, inconsistent with the City’s fossil fuel use reduction goals.
Thermal Drying with Pyrolysis is the only alternative projected to achieve net negative
GHG emissions (approximately −5,300 MT CO₂e/yr) through biochar carbon
sequestration; it is also the only alternative with demonstrated PFAS removal potential.
However, pyrolysis is an emerging biosolids management technology with very limited
full-scale municipal operating history compared to more established treatment
processes, resulting in greater uncertainty regarding long-term performance,
operational reliability, and lifecycle costs.
Because the RWQCP purchases zero-GHG electricity, the net GHG benefit of onsite
biogas generation under MAD alternatives is effectively zero under current electricity
purchasing arrangements.
Energy Use and Potential Biogas Energy Recovery
As part of criterion #3, global environmental impacts, the BFP-U evaluated energy use and
potential biogas energy recovery amongst the six alternatives. The alternatives differ
substantially in their reliance on electricity and fossil fuels:
The Baseline and Offsite Partnership alternatives require no new onsite energy-
consuming processes, with no additional natural gas or electricity demand beyond what
is needed to address increased solids loading with time.
MAD and MAD+THP generate digester gas (biogas) that fuels combined heat and power
(CHP) systems (1.6 MW and 1.9 MW, respectively), offsetting a portion of the plant’s
grid electricity use and contributing to their lower projected operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs. As noted above, the GHG benefit of CHP is effectively zero
under the City’s zero-GHG emissions electricity purchasing arrangements.
Thermal Belt Drying requires a significant amount of natural gas combustion for drying,
with the anticipated natural gas demand expected to surpass the existing natural gas
infrastructure supply capacity to the RWQCP. Thus, this alternative requires and
includes the costs for upsizing the RWQCP’s gas supply line. No onsite energy recovery is
included. Electric drying was considered as an alternative to natural gas or propane-
fueled thermal drying. However, electric drying is not recommended at this time
because the technology is not well established, requires many more units, has higher
costs, and demands a larger footprint.
Thermal Drying with Pyrolysis also uses natural gas for drying, but heat recovered from
the pyrolysis process (pyrogas) reduces gas demand by approximately half. The
alternative remains a net energy user and would still require the same RWQCP gas
supply line upgrade.
1
0
1
0
5
Recommended Biosolids Management Strategies
Alternative 1) and Offsite Partnership (Alternative 2) alternatives
ranked highest across all evaluation criteria and sensitivity analyses. Both of these two offsite
alternatives scored significantly higher than any onsite alternative (4.1 and 4.0, respectively),
driven primarily by superior Net Present Value cost (25% weight) and O&M Impacts (14%
weight) performance, reflecting the lower capital and O&M costs of continued offsite
management. Among the four onsite alternatives, MAD (Alternative 3) scored highest (3.0) on
cost-effectiveness, proven technology, and environmental impacts.
Near-Term (2026–2030): Continue Baseline operations under existing contracts
(through March 2029). Implement near-term thickening improvements and operational
optimizations. Reserve space on the Measure E site for potential future onsite facilities.
Monitor PFAS regulations, offsite costs, offsite partnership opportunities, and emerging
technologies.
Mid-Term (2031–2040): Renew offsite contracts and conduct a BFP-U reassessment
approximately two years prior to the next renewal (~2032). If a viable regional
partnership (e.g., San Jose facility) becomes available, evaluate and pursue if warranted.
Long-Term (2041–2055): Implement onsite solids processing if triggered by regulatory,
market, or financial drivers. Consider implementing MAD with CHP if offsite
management costs approach $350/wet ton or if regulatory or market drivers require
onsite production of Class B biosolids. If PFAS limits are established and PFAS removal
technologies have become well proven, consider implementing a biosolids management
technology such as Thermal Drying with Pyrolysis.
1
0
1
0
5
Wildlife Corridor Feasibility Assessment and Measure E Site Recommendations
17 while retaining long-term flexibility to adapt to
potential future regulations.
17 City Council, March 9, 2026; Agenda Item #11; SR #2602-6021,
1
0
1
0
5
looking recommendation. This approach preserves essential operational flexibility while
permanently dedicating most of the Measure E site to parkland and habitat enhancement.
19 Continuing the near-term Baseline
preserves the GHG reductions achieved through the 2019 incinerator decommissioning and
avoids the high-emission trajectory of natural gas-intensive drying (Alternative 5, approximately
2,800 MT CO₂e/yr). The near-term Baseline also avoids the significant natural gas supply
commitments and infrastructure upgrades that onsite thermal drying alternatives would
require, consistent with the City's long-term goal of reducing fossil fuel reliance. The evaluation
framework, which incorporates GHG emissions, local environmental impacts (Baylands,
wildlife/habitat, sea level rise), and regulatory resilience (particularly regarding potential future
PFAS regulations), advances S/CAP goals for natural environment protection and coastal
resilience. Reserving the 2.4-acre Measure E site preserves the option to adopt emerging
technologies such as pyrolysis, positioning the City to pursue net-negative GHG outcomes while
complying with tightening regulatory targets. The multi-stage public engagement process (two
community workshops in 2025 and a public meeting in 2026) is also directly aligned with the
2026–2027 S/CAP Work Plan’s communications and engagement items.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
19 City of Palo Alto 2026-2027 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Work Plan,
1
0
1
0
5
The City held two Biosolids Input Workshops (May 20 and July 1, 2025) and a public meeting
(February 24, 2026) to present findings and solicit community input on GHG emissions,
emerging technologies, PFAS reduction, sea level rise, long-term flexibility, and the Measure E
site. Development of the BFP-U has been reviewed regularly with the RWQCP partner agencies
at quarterly parters meetings. Partner agency representatives have been supportive of the
recommended implementation approach. Staff also presented findings to the Parks and
Recreation Commission on June 23, 2026. Project updates are shared through the RWQCP
Capital Improvement Program website, Uplift Local, and the Sustainability e-Newsletter.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
NOT YET ADOPTED
1
162_20260615_ts24
Ordinance No. _
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Dedicating a
Portion of the Area Commonly Known as the Measure E Site as
Parkland
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Improvements. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and section 22.08.004 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code specify that land intended to be used for park purposes can be
dedicated for such use by ordinance.
(b) The Measure E site is approximately 10 acres in size. It is bordered by the City’s
Byxbee Park, Emily Renzel Wetlands, and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.
(c) The Measure E site was formerly part of Byxbee Park. The site was un-dedicated
by a vote of the people on November 8, 2011 pursuant to the measure being placed on the ballot
by Resolution 9195 (passed August 1, 2011). The terms of the ballot measure allow the site to
be used only for a processing facility for yard trimmings, food waste and other organic materials.
The measure allows the site to be re-dedicated after 10 years. No processing facility was ever
built.
(d) The City intends to re-dedicate a portion of the Measure E site through this
ordinance. The specific area to be dedicated is as described in Exhibit A-31 to this Ordinance. The
approximate area is 7.70 acres.
(e) Upon adoption of this ordinance, the portion of the Measure E site shall become
part of Byxbee Park.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby dedicates the specific portion of the Measure E site
as described in Exhibit A-31 to this Ordinance pursuant to Article VIII of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto and section 22.08.004 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 3. Section 22.08.450 is hereby added to Chapter 22.08 (Park dedications) to read
as follows:
22.08.450 Addition to Byxbee Park (Portion of former Measure E Site)
That certain parcel of land as delineated and described in Exhibit A-31, which is a portion of the
area known as the Measure E site, is hereby reserved for park, playground, recreation or
conservation purposes.
NOT YET ADOPTED
2
162_20260615_ts24
SECTION 4. Exhibit A-31 of this ordinance shall be codified as Exhibit A-31 to the Exhibits
for Title 22.
SECTION 5. The City Council finds that this ordinance is not a project within the meaning
of CEQA.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
Director of Community Services
NOT YET ADOPTED
3
162_20260615_ts24
Exhibit A-31
Addition to Byxbee Park (Portion of Measure E Site) – Legal Description
(see following pages)
"F:\20Projects\20087 Palo Alto RWQCP Advanced Treatment System\Working Documents\Survey Office\Legal Descriptions\2026 Project\Measure E Rededicated Area.docx" PAGE 1 OF 2
EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
COMMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE
DEED FROM ROBERT J. BAHR AND MAURICE R. LEDOYEN TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, RECORDED
DECEMBER 21, 1959, IN BOOK 4642 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AT PAGE 490, SAID
POINT LYING ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF EMBARCADERO ROAD (86.00 FEET IN WIDTH), SAID POINT
ALSO LYING ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM
GRACE ROSS SEALE TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, RECORDED JULY 11, 1933, IN BOOK 658 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AT PAGE 23 THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID
LANDS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM GRACE ROSS SEALE SOUTH 45° 05' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 479.99
FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED
FROM GRACE ROSS SEALE TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, RECORDED FEBRUARY 15, 1936, IN BOOK 764 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AT PAGE 51;
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE LAST MENTIONED DEED SOUTH
22°32'30" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 184.72 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN
PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM ALFRED SEALE AND GRACE ROSS SEALE TO THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO, RECORDED OCTOBER 14, 1932, IN BOOK 623 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AT
PAGE 572;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH, A DISTANCE OF 9.60 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE SOUTH 51°37'00” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 179.07 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF EMBARCADERO WAY (50.00
FEET IN WIDTH);
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION SOUTH 38°23'00” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 713.39
FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE DEED
RECORDED IN BOOK 623 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AT PAGE 572;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE EAST, A DISTANCE OF 110.36 FEET TO A POINT LYING ON THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT PARKLAND EXCLUSION AS SAID EXCLUSION IS
SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A-2 OF SECTION 22.08.020 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE, SAID POINT ALSO
BEARING EAST 415.54 FEET FROM A FOUR BY FOUR FENCE POST AS SHOWN ON THAT RECORD OF
SURVEY FILED WITH THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDER ON AUGUST 15, 1969 IN BOOK 258 AT PAGES
4 AND 5 OF SAID COUNTY RECORDS;
PRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
"F:\20Projects\20087 Palo Alto RWQCP Advanced Treatment System\Working Documents\Survey Office\Legal Descriptions\2026 Project\Measure E Rededicated Area.docx" PAGE 2 OF 2
THENCE SOUTH 37° 47' 30" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 209.06 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 42°36’55” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 28.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 12°23’20” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 34.05 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 8°02’59” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 47.90 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 43°30’20” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 120.73 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 47°45’20” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 139.57 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 46°00’05” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 189.73 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 44°38’50” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 169.97 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 42°40’51” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 517.42 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 49°17’08” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 652.20 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 54°17’43” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 180.61 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 42°36’55” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 248.36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 7.70 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF IS THE PLAT TITLED “EXHIBIT B.”
THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS’ ACT.
__________________________
KEVIN J. GENASCI, PLS 8660
JUNE 11, 2026
PRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
S37°47'30"E 209.06'
S42°36'55"E 28.12'N12°23'20"E 34.05'
N8°02'59"E 47.90'
N43°30'20"E 120.73'
N47°45'20"E 139.57'
N46°00'05"E 189.73'
N44°38'50"E 169.97'
110.36'
S38
°
2
3
'
0
0
"
E
7
1
3
.
3
9
'
S51°37'00"W 179.07'
S22°32'30"E 184.72'
S45
°
0
5
'
0
0
"
E
4
7
9
.
9
9
'
S0°00'00"W 9.60'
N90°00'00"E 415.54'
S42
°
4
0
'
5
1
"
E
5
1
7
.
4
2
'
S49
°
1
7
'
0
8
"
W
6
5
2
.
2
0
'
N54°17'43"W 180.61'
N42°36'55"W 248.36'
JOB NO.
DRAWN
DESIGN
DATE
20087
KJG
05/18/2026
SHEET
SCALE:
1
AS SHOWN
OF:3 4 2 8 B r o o k s i d e R o a d , S t o c k t o n , C a l i f o r n i a 9 5 2 1 9
2 0 9 -9 4 3 -2 0 2 1 w w w .s i e g f r i e d e n g .c o m F x : 2 0 9 -9 4 2 -0 2 1 4
CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
SURVEYING
PLANNING
ATHLETIC FACILITY
DESIGN
GEOTECHNICAL
SRS
250'
SCALE: 1"=250'
125'0'
LEGEND:
APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS
P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING
S.C.C.R. SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS
1
EXHIBIT "B"
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
W
A
Y
REDEDICATED AREA OF
MEASURE "E"
7.70 AC±
PALO ALTO REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
P.O.C. (E. CORNER
4642 O.R. 490, S.C.C.R.)
P.O.B.
PRE
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
Biosolids Alternatives Description and Site Layout
Biosolids Facility Plan Update (BFP-U)
www.paloalto.gov
6 Biosolids Alternatives Advanced to Detailed Evaluation
Alt 3 - MAD Alt 4 - MAD with THP
Alt 5 - Thermal Drying Alt 6 - Drying + Pyrolysis++Alt 2 -
Offsite
Partnership
(Hauling for off-
site treatment at
San Jose Regional
Facility)
4 Onsite Alternatives
Alt 1 -
Baseline
(Continued hauling
for off-site
treatment at
Lystek/Synagro)
MAD: Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion
THP: Thermal Hydrolysis Process
2
Offsite Alternatives
3
Baseline:
Continue Current Practice
•Sludge hauling contract with Synagro WWT, Inc.
•Offsite treatment at 2 regional facilities:
•Synagro Central Valley Composting Facility
•Lystek Solano County Facility
Offsite Partnership (if available):
Biosolids Facility at the San José-Santa Clara
Regional Wastewater Facility
•To be delivered via a Public-Private Partnership (P3), which
may accept biosolids from regional agencies
•Private partner to process biosolids into fertilizer product
using commercially proven technology (to be determined)
•May require additional treatment at RWQCP to meet
minimum quality requirements
Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion (MAD)
4
What is MAD?
•Similar to our digestive systems, MAD
uses natural microbes, in the absence
of oxygen, to break down organic waste
at moderate temperatures (~35°C). The
result? Digester gas and Biosolids!
Challenges
Higher capital cost than current
operation
More complex to operate and
maintain than current operation
Produces ammonia-rich
sidestream
Engine Generators
Class B Biosolids
Off-site Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Reuse
Wastewater Solids
Mesophilic Anaerobic Digesters
Digester Gas
Sidestream to RWQCP Influent
Belt Filter Presses
Benefits
One of the most used processes to
treat wastewater solids
Relatively easy to operate and
maintain
Produces Class B biosolids, that
can be used in agriculture
Produces energy-rich digester gas,
used to generate electricity
1.Digestion
2.Digested Sludge Storage
Tank
3.Digested Sludge Transfer
Pump Station
4.Digester Gas
Conditioning
5.Cogeneration & Boiler
Building
6.Flare
7.Sidestream Treatment
8.Intermediate Sludge
Transfer Pump Station
MAD – Sited at Measure E
5
7
2
3
5 4 6
8
1
1
1
1
MAD with Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP)
6
What’s different from MAD?
•Before digestion, solids are broken
down using Thermal Hydrolysis Process
(THP). THP “pressure-cooks” the solids,
making them easier for microbes to
digest – leading to more digester gas
production.
Challenges
Higher capital cost than current
operation
Much more complex to operate
and maintain than MAD
Produces more ammonia-rich
sidestream than MAD
Potential safety concerns related
to high temperature, high
pressure, and steam
Benefits
Produces more digester gas than
MAD
Produces drier biosolids, reducing
hauling costs
Produces Class A biosolids, which
can be used without restrictions
Steam Boilers
Class ABiosolids
Pre-THP Screening and Dewatering Thermal Hydrolysis Process
Post-Dewatering(Belt Filter Presses)
Digester Gas
Wastewater Solids
Mesophilic Anaerobic Digesters
Off-site Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Reuse
Steam Sidestream to RWQCP Influent
MAD + THP – Sited at Measure E
7
1.Screening & Pre-
Dewatering
2.THP (Cambi)
3.Digestion
4.Digested Sludge Storage
Tank
5.Digested Sludge Transfer
Pump Station
6.Digester Gas
Conditioning
7.Cogeneration & Boiler
Building
8.Flare
9.Sidestream Treatment
2
4
5 6
7 8
9 10
1
3
33
3
Thermal Drying
8
How does it work?
•Dewatered solids are fed to a dryer and
heated using either direct hot air or
indirect heating. Water is evaporated,
producing a Class A biosolids product
that is approximately 90% dry matter
and suitable for beneficial reuse.
Challenges
Overall system, including
extensive exhaust treatment, is
much more complex to operate
and maintain than current
operation
Highest natural gas use
High capital cost
Potential operational and odor
issues if drying undigested solids
Potential safety concerns related
to high temperature and dust
Benefits
Well-established process for
treating wastewater solids
Drastically reduces the amount of
product, resulting in minimal
hauling costs and truck traffic
Produces Class A biosolids, which
can be used without restrictions
Does not produce ammonia-rich
sidestream
Dried Cake
Belt Filter Presses Thermal Dryer
Natural Gas
Wastewater Solids
Off-site Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Reuse
Thermal Drying – Sited Onsite
9
1.Cake Transfer
Station
2.Thermal Belt Drying
2
1
Drying + Pyrolysis
10
How does it work?
•Solids are first dried and then
heated in a pyrolysis unit at 900-
1,500°F with no oxygen. This
converts the solids into biochar, a
product similar to small bits of
barbecue charcoal, that can be
used in agriculture or other uses
like concrete additive.
Challenges
Very few installations at WWTPs, with history of
operational issues that impact reliability
Highest operations and maintenance complexity
Highest capital cost
High natural gas use
Potential operational and odor issues if drying
undigested solids
Potential safety concerns related to high
temperature and dust
Less nutrients in biochar relative to other
biosolids products
Short-chain PFAS may not be reduced in biochar
and PFAS may end up in exhaust or condensate
Benefits
Drastically reduces the amount of
product (biochar), resulting in
minimal hauling costs and truck
traffic
May remove PFAS from the
biochar
Produces biochar and syngas
Does not produce ammonia-rich
sidestream
Biochar
Belt Filter Presses Thermal Dryer Pyrolysis
Natural Gas
Wastewater Solids
Off-site Hauling to Beneficial Agricultural Reuse
Drying + Pyrolysis – Sited Onsite
11
1.Thermal Drying
2.Pyrolysis
1.Cake Transfer
Station
2.Thermal Drying
3.Pyrolysis
32
1
Attachment C: Evaluation Criteria Scores of
Biosolids Management Alternatives (Higher is Better)
Notes:
Baseline: Dewatering and Off-site Hauling
MAD: Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion
THP: Thermal Hydrolysis Process
Reference: Biosolids Facility Plan Update Draft Report: Technical Memorandum 2.3 –
Biosolids Alternatives Screening and Evaluation
Strategic Biosolids Management Roadmap
The strategic roadmap supports the City in
addressing current needs, while preserving
flexibility to adapt to future regulatory or market
drivers by implementing alternative solids
management pathways.
REVISIONSVICINITY MAP
23.59 AC
PLANT BOUNDARY PROJECT
PALO ALTO
WQCP/MEASURE
"E"FLAT, UNCAPPED AREA
FLAT, UNCAPPED AREA OF
EMBARCADERO RD,
SHEET TITLE
7.70 AC SITE PLAN
Proj Mgr KJG
Date 5/20/2026
Job No.
SHEET:
20087
OF:1