Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-21 City Council Agenda PacketPALO ALTO City Council Monday, May 21, 2018 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Special Orders of the Day 5:00-5:10 PM 1. Appointment of one Candidate to an Unexpired Term on the Historic Resources Board Ending December 15, 2019, one Candidate to an Unexpired Term on the Human Relations Commission (HRC) Ending May 31, 2020, and Three Candidates to HRC for Three-year Terms Ending May 31, 2021 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments Oral Communications Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 5:35-5:40 PM 2. Approval of Action Minutes for the May 7, 2018 Council Meeting 5:10-5:20 PM 5:20-5:35 PM 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Consent Calendar 5:40-5:45 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3. Approval of a Construction Contract With Los Loza Landscaping in an Amount Not -to -Exceed $429,195 to Repair and Replace Brick Pathways and Install Replacement Pathway Lighting at the Lucie Stern Community Center and Approve a Budget Amendments in the General Fund and the Capital Improvement Fund 4. Adoption of a Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Approval of a Design for the Construction of a new Outfall Pipeline to Convey Treated Effluent From the RWQCP Through the Palo Alto Airport to Discharge Into an Unnamed Slough in the Baylands 5. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) to add a new Section Imposing an Annual Office Limit and Setting Forth Related Regulations, and to Repeal the Respective Regulations From Chapter 18.85 (Interim Zoning Ordinances). This Ordinance is Within the Scope of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certified and Adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution No. 9720 (FIRST READING: April 30, 2018 PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kou no) Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 5:45-8:00 PM LETTERS 6. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: The City Council Will Consider Appeals of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Decision to Approve Eleven (11) Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits to Establish Small Cell Wireless Communication Antennas and Equipment on Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way Near the Following Addresses: Node #129: CPAU Pole# 3121 (Near 2490 Louis Road, APN 127-30-062), Node #130: CPAU Pole #2461 (Near 2802 Louis Road, APN 127-28-046), Node #131: CPAU Pole #3315 (Near 891 Elbridge Way, APN 127-26-067), Node #133E: CPAU Pole #2856 (Near 949 Loma Verde, APN 127-24-020), Node #134: CPAU Pole #2964 (Near 3409 Kenneth Dr., APN 127-09-028), Node #135: CPAU Pole # 3610 (Near 795 Stone Ln., APN 127-47-001), Node #137: CPAU Pole #3351 (Near 3090 Ross Rd., APN 127-52- 031), Node #138: CPAU Pole #2479 (Near 836 Colorado Ave., APN 127-27-063), Node #143: CPAU Pole #3867 (Near 419 El Verano 2 May 21, 2018 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Ave., APN 132-15-017), Node #144: CPAU Pole #1506 (Near 201 Loma Verde Ave., APN 132-48-015), Node #145: CPAU Pole #3288 (Near 737 Loma Verde Ave., APN 127-64-039) Environmental Assessment: Exempt Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Class 3, Guidelines Section 15303 8:00-10:00 PM 7. Approval of: (1) a Construction Contract With O'Grady Paving, Inc. in the Amount of $4,336,298 for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project - Phase 1, Capital Improvement Project PE -13011; (2) Construction Contract With O'Grady Paving, Inc. Contractor in the Amount of $4,434,347 for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project Phase 2, Capital Improvement Project PE -13011; (3) Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract C14150694 With Mark Thomas & Company in the Amount of $145,419; (4) General Services Contract With TrafficWare Group, LLC. in the Amount of $181,287 for Purchase of SynchoGreen Adaptive Traffic Control System for Charleston- Arastradero Corridor Project, Capital Improvement Project PE -13011; and (5) Budget Amendments in the Capital Improvement Fund, Charleston/Arastradero Transportation Impact Fee Fund, and Storm Drain Fund State/Federal Legislation Update/Action Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 3 May 21, 2018 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Sp. Rail Committee Meeting - Cancelled Sp. Finance Committee - Budget Hearing Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings May 22, 2018 May 23, 2018 Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Proclamation Recognizing National Public Works Week May 21-27, 2018 City of Palo Alto Utilities Demand Side Management Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2017 Palo Alto Fire Department's Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Public Letters to Council Set 1 4 May 21, 2018 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 21, 2018 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointment of one Candidate to an Unexpired Term on the Historic Resources Board Ending December 15, 2019, one Candidate to an Unexpired Term on the Human Relations Commission (HRC) Ending May 31, 2020, and Three Candidates to HRC for Three-year Terms Ending May 31, 2021 On Monday, May 21, 2018, the Council is scheduled to appoint: • One (1) candidate to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) for an unexpired term ending December 15, 2019; • One candidate to the Human Relations Commission (HRC) for an unexpired term ending May 31, 2020; and • Three (3) candidates to the HRC for three-year terms ending May 31, 2021. Voting will be by paper ballot. Background On May 9, 2018, the Council interviewed applicants for the HRB and HRC. Applications can be viewed online HERE. The recording of the interviews can be viewed online HERE. On May 9, 2018, Mehdi Alhassani resigned from the Human Relations Commission. His term would have ended on May 31, 2020. On May 10, 2018, Patricia Landman withdrew her application for the Historic Resources Board. Historic Resources Board Vote to appoint one (1) unexpired term on the Historic Resources Board (HRB) ending December 15, 2019. The first candidate to receive at least five votes (required) will be appointed. The 2 HRB Candidates are as follows: 1. Gogo Heinrich 2. Deborah Shepherd Human Relations Commission Vote to appoint three (3) three-year terms on the Human Relations Commission (HRC) for terms ending May 31, 2021. The first three candidates to receive at least five votes (required) will be appointed. Following these three appointments, vote to appoint one (1) unexpired term on the HRC ending May 31, 2020. The first candidate to receive at least five votes (required) will be appointed. The 8 HRC Candidates are as follows: 1. Rebecca Eisenberg 2. Kathy Johnson 3. Gabriel Kralik 4. William Morrison 5. Kaloma Smith 6. Valerie Stinger (Incumbent) 7. Mark Weiss 8. Qifeng Xue Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 Page 3 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 21, 2018 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the May 7, 2018 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: 05-07-18 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 r � CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 7, 2018 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:04 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine; Holman arrived at 6:08 P.M., Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Scharff Special Orders of the Day 1. Proclamation Recognizing Public Employees and Individual Service Accomplishments in Alignment With National Public Service Recognition Week, May 6-12, 2018. 2. Appointment of Three Candidates to the Public Art Commission and two Candidates to the Utilities Advisory Commission for Three-year Terms Ending May 31, 2021. First Round of voting for three positions on the Public Art Commission with terms ending May 31, 2021. Voting For: Djibril Drame Voting For: Loren Gordon Voting For: Bonnie Hall Voting For: Yeuen Kim Voting For: Ian Klaus Voting For: Shannon McEntee Voting For: Ben Miyaji Voting For: Simcha Moyal DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach Filseth Tanaka DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach Fine, Kniss, Wolbach DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Kou Page 1 of 9 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Beth Minor, City Clerk announced that Loren Gordon with 8 votes, Ian Klaus with 6 votes, and Ben Miyaji with 5 votes were appointed to the Public Art Commission. First Round of voting for two positions on the Utilities Advisory Commission with terms ending May 31, 2021. Voting For: Arne Ballantine DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Wolbach Voting For: Mike Danaher DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Wolbach Voting For: Claude Ezran Voting For: Robert Hinden Voting For: Howard Hoffman Voting For: Yunteng Huang Voting For: Kamlesh Oza Voting For: Curtis Smolar Voting For: Rajesh Srinivasaraghavan Voting For: Henry Wong Tanaka Tanaka Ms. Minor announced that Arne Ballantine with 7 votes and Mike Danaher with 7 votes were appointed to the Utilities Advisory Commission. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to pull Agenda Item Number 3- Approval of the City of Palo Alto's Addendum to the Negative Declaration Adopted by the City of East Palo Alto... to be heard as Agenda Item Number 6A. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to continue Agenda Item 9- PUBLIC HEARING: Finance Committee Recommends Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code... to August 13, 2018. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Page 2 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/7/18 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Consent Calendar Council Members Holman and Kou registered no votes on Agenda Item Number 6- Ordinance 5438 Entitled, "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) to add a new Chapter 18.30(J) (Affordable Housing Combining District)... MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-6 with changes to Agenda Item Number 4 as outlined in the at place Staff Memorandum and to Agenda Item Number 6 as outlined by the City Attorney. 3. Approval of thc City of Palo Alto's Addcndum to thc Ncgativc and Approval of an Agrccmcnt for thc Pcrmancnt Tronsfcr of a Portion of thc City of Palo East fialo Alto. 4. Authorize the City Manager or his Designee to Amend the Contract With WatchGuard Video for the Purchase of 50 Body -worn Cameras for the Field -based Video Program in a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $110,000 and Approve a Budget Amendment in the Law Enforcement Services Fund. 5. Approval of a Three-year Contract With Northwest Woodland Services, Inc. in an Amount Not -to -Exceed $657,278 for Trail Maintenance in the Palo Alto Baylands, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, Foothills Park, and Grounds Maintenance in Utility Reservoir Sites. 6. Ordinance 5438 Entitled, "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) to add a new Chapter 18.30(J) (Affordable Housing Combining District) to Promote the Development of 100 Percent Affordable Housing Projects Located Within One-half Mile of a Major Transit Stop or One -quarter Mile of a High -quality Transit Corridor by Providing Flexible Development Standards and Modifying the Uses Allowed in the Commercial Districts and Sub -districts. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): This Ordinance is Within the Scope of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certified and Adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution Nos. 9720 and 9721 (FIRST READING: April 9, 2018 PASSED: 7-2 Holman, Kou no)." MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 4-5 PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 PASSED: 6-2 Holman, Kou no, Scharff absent Page 3 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/7/18 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Action Items 6A. (Former Agenda Item Number 3) Approval of the City of Palo Alto's Addendum to the Negative Declaration Adopted by the City of East Palo Alto, and Approval of an Agreement for the Permanent Transfer of a Portion of the City of Palo Alto's Individual Supply Guarantee to the City of East Palo Alto. MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Approve the Addendum, together with the Negative Declaration for the Transfer of Individual Supply Guarantee under the San Francisco Public Utility Commission Water Supply Agreement (ND) adopted by the City of East Palo Alto as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency on June 20, 2017, as adequate and complete under CEQA for the project described below; and B. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the Permanent Transfer of a Portion of an Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) from the City of Palo Alto to the City of East Palo. MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Tanaka no, Scharff absent 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Finance Committee Recommends Adoption of the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Action Plan and Associated 2018-19 Funding Allocations and Resolution 9755 Entitled, "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2018-19 Consistent With the Human Relations Commission's Recommendation." Public Hearing opened at 8:31 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 8:32 P.M. MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to: A. Adopt a Resolution allocating Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding as recommended in the draft Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Action Plan and as described in the Staff Report; B. Allocate CDBG funding as recommended in the draft Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Action Plan and as described in the Staff Report including the contingency plan policies recommended by the Finance Committee; Page 4 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/7/18 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES C. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 CDBG application and Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Action Plan for CDBG funds, any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and commitment of funds; and D. Authorize staff to submit the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Action Plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the May 15, 2018 deadline. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part B, "reallocating $5,000 from minor home repairs to the Downtown Streets Team." MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to: A. Adopt a Resolution allocating Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding as recommended in the draft Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Action Plan and as described in the Staff Report; B. Allocate CDBG funding as recommended in the draft Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Action Plan and as described in the Staff Report including the contingency plan policies recommended by the Finance Committee, reallocating $5,000 from minor home repairs to the Downtown Streets Team; C. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 CDBG application and Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Action Plan for CDBG funds, any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and commitment of funds; and D. Authorize staff to submit the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Action Plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the May 15, 2018 deadline. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Page 5 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/7/18 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES 8. Policy and Services Committee and Staff Recommendations on Next Steps Related to Airplane Noise (Continued From April 9, 2018). MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to direct the Mayor to regularly assign one or more Council Members to actively participate on available community roundtables related to aircraft impacts; and direct Staff to: A. Request temporary noise monitoring from San Francisco International Airport (SFO); B. Provide support to Palo Alto Council Members participating on available community roundtables related to aircraft impacts; C. Continue to include the health impacts of aircraft noise and emissions in the City's regional, state and federal legislative priorities and engage with policy makers and associated advocacy groups as appropriate; D. Include in the above efforts Palo Alto's support for: Improvements to SFO's Fly Quiet Program; ii . Adherence to the agreement to, whenever able, increase the altitude of aircraft over the Peninsula; iii . Maximizing the use of the BDEGA East Arrival route to SFO when possible; iv. Collaboration with other jurisdictions to develop a regional position in support system -wide solutions by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); v. Development of a noise -monitoring plan in concert with other jurisdictions; vi. Maximizing sequencing under current conditions and prioritizing the application of air traffic control technology to improve sequencing and aircraft management to minimize community impacts; vii. Adoption of improved metrics for airplane noise and related impacts; viii. Greater community engagement by the FAA, SFO and the San Jose International Airport (SJC); and Page 6 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/7/18 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES E. Hire a technical consultant to assist with a fast track process by the end of June 2018 to include both a qualify phase and a legal filing phase and to allow the City, if necessary, to file a complaint within 60 days of FAA implementing a change; F. Draft a letter to the FAA and congressional representatives in response to the FAA Update on Phase Two report from November 2017 and April 2018 and correct the Staff Report that the City follow Anna Eshoo's 2000 agreement regarding the 5,000 foot minimum height for MENLO; and G. Remove from the Staff Report, "therefore, while this solution demonstrates a willingness on the part of the FAA to mitigate impacts on the Peninsula, it is not likely to produce any improvement from the current state (since it is already being utilized) and, instead, will likely shrink in value over time as a mitigating solution - at least with respect to daytime noise." INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace Motion Parts E -G with, "plan a litigation strategy in support of legislative change and investigate the best approach for filing a timely lawsuit within 60 days of an appropriate new event: i. Work on forming a multi -city legal alliance; ii. Define a process to monitor FAA flight path changes; and ii i . Evaluate retaining Kaplan Kirsch or another legal expert." (New Part E) INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, "develop a system to evaluate and respond to the FAA Update on Phase Two, November 2017 and April 2018 and future FAA Reports." (New Part F) MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to direct the Mayor to regularly assign one or more Council Members to actively participate on available community roundtables related to aircraft impacts; and direct Staff to: A. Request temporary noise monitoring from San Francisco International Airport (SFO); B. Provide support to Palo Alto Council Members participating on available community roundtables related to aircraft impacts; Page 7 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/7/18 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES C. Continue to include the health impacts of aircraft noise and emissions in the City's regional, state and federal legislative priorities and engage with policy makers and associated advocacy groups as appropriate; D. Include in the above efforts Palo Alto's support for: i. Improvements to SFO's Fly Quiet Program; ii. Adherence to the agreement to, whenever able, increase the altitude of aircraft over the Peninsula; iii. Maximizing the use of the BDEGA East Arrival route to SFO when possible; iv. Collaboration with other jurisdictions to develop a regional position in support system -wide solutions by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); v. Development of a noise -monitoring plan in concert with other jurisdictions; vi. Maximizing sequencing under current conditions and prioritizing the application of air traffic control technology to improve sequencing and aircraft management to minimize community impacts; vii. Adoption of improved metrics for airplane noise and related impacts; viii. Greater community engagement by the FAA, SFO and the San Jose International Airport (SJC); E. Bring to Council as fast as possible a plan for a litigation strategy in support of procedural changes affecting Palo Alto and investigate the best approach for filing timely lawsuits within 60 days of an appropriate new event: i. Work on forming a multi -city legal alliance; ii. Define a process to monitor FAA flight path changes; iii. Evaluate retaining technical and legal expertise; and F. Develop a system to evaluate and respond to the FAA Update on Phase Two report, November 2017 and April 2018 and future FAA Reports. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Page 8 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/7/18 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Finance Committee Recommends Adoption of an Ordinance Amcnding Titic 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Codc by Establishing an Updatcd Citywidc Transportation Impact Fcc and Indefinitely Suspending Application of thc Existing Arca specific Fees in Accordance With These Changes, all in Furtherance of Implementation of thc Comprehensive Plan. The Citywidc Fcc is a Onc time fcc on new Dcvclopmcnt and Redevelopment Throughout Palo Alto to Fund Transportation Dcvclopmcnt in thc City. This Ordinance is Within thc Scopc of thc Adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution No. 9720. This Agenda Item continued to August 13, 2018. State/Federal Legislation Update/Action None. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:17 P.M. Page 9 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/7/18 CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto (ID # 9216) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/21/2018 Summary Title: Approval of Contract and Budget Amendments for Brick Pathway Repair at Lucie Stern Community Center Title: Approval of a Construction Contract With Los Loza Landscaping in an Amount Not -to -Exceed $429,195 to Repair and Replace Brick Pathways and Install Replacement Pathway Lighting at the Lucie Stern Community Center and Approve a Budget Amendment in the General Fund and the Capital Improvement Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with Los Loza Landscaping in an amount not to exceed $411,195 (Attachment A), for repair and replacement of brick pathways at the Lucie Stern Community Center and installation of replacement pathway lighting; 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more changes to the contract with Los Loza Landscaping for any related, additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of such changes shall not exceed $18,000; and 3. Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for a. the General Fund by: i. Increasing the transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund by $94,200; and ii. Decreasing the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve by $94,200; b. the Capital Improvement Fund by: i. Increasing the transfer from the General Fund by $94,200; and ii. Increasing the expenditure appropriation for CIP PG -06003 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Benches, Signage, Walkways, and Perimeter Lighting by $94,200. Background The Lucie Stern Community Center was built in 1934. Brick pathways exist throughout the center, connecting the main community center to the Children's Theatre and Community Theatre. In the center of the three buildings is a courtyard that is also constructed of bricks. Due to the age of the bricks many of them are broken, have settled, and fill material between the bricks has eroded away creating uneven walkways. Tree roots have also uplifted some areas. In 2011 a single pathway was identified for repair, however; the project was expanded to include other pathways and allow for ADA compliance. Since then, funding sources have been identified to complete the expanded project. Discussion This project will improve ingress and egress to the community center for visitors, recreation program participants, theatre patrons, and employees. Under contract, Los Loza Landscaping will remove, salvage, clean, and reset the pathway brick after re -grading. To maintain the original, historic character of the community center, at least 50% of existing bricks will be salvaged and re -used on -site, per project requirement. Broken and unusable bricks are to be replaced with bricks of like kind in size, shape, and color. During installation, replacement bricks will be blended with salvaged bricks. The work is to be performed per rendering and drawing specifications (Attachment B). To accommodate and reduce disruption to activities and events at the community center, this project will be completed in three phases during summer 2018. Bid Process In June 2017 the City issued an Invitation for Bid (IFB) that included a requirement for a Class A Engineering license. This initial IFB resulted in zero bids. As a result, a second IFB was issued to allow bids from Class B General Contractors with C-27 Landscaping and C-29 Masonry licenses. The second IFB was posted on Planet Bids on March 7, 2018. The bid period was 28 calendar days and one bid was received by the bid due date of April 4, 2018 City of Palo Alto Page 2 (Attachment C, bid summary). Summary of Solicitation Process Invitation For Bid (IFB) Published 03/07/2018 Non -Mandatory Pre -Bid Site Walk 03/21/2018 Number of Company Attendees Meeting at Pre -bid 1 Number of Bids Received 1 Bid Opening 04/04/2017 Bid Amount $411,195 A single bid was received from Los Loza Landscaping in an amount of $411,195. The City estimated bid value listed in the IFB on PlanetBids was $350,000. Staff has reviewed the bid submitted by Los Loza Landscapting and recommends it be approved for acceptance. City Council authorization for the City Manager or his deginee to authorize a change order amount not to exceed $18,000 is requested for any related additional, but unforeseen work that may develop during the project. Resource Impact Funding for this project is budgeted in two Capital Improvement Projects and will also be partly funded from penalty payments collected from a developer. Funding in the amount of $200,000 for this project is budgeted in the recurring CIP PF- 93009, Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance. Funding in the amount of $134,995 is budgeted in the recurring CIP PG -06003, Benches, Signage, Walkways, and Perimeter Landscaping. The remaining cost will be funded by a $94,200 penalty payment received from the developer of Edgewood Plaza for non - approved demolition of an Eichler designed building intended to be disassembled, relocated on -site, and rehabilitated. City Council approved use of the $94,200, currently in the General Fund Reserve for Edgewood Plaza, towards a project for the historic preservation of the Lucie Stern Community Center, identifying rehabilitation of the brick paver pathways as one of two potential projects (Staff Report ID # 4172 and respective minutes approval of agenda item # 17). Staff is requesting the $94,200 penalty payment be transferred by a budget amendment into CIP PG -06003. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance and/or minor alteration of the existing facilities and no further environmental review is necessary. Attachments: • Attachment A: Stern Brick Pathway Contract • Attachment B: Sten Brick Pathway Renderings & Drawings • Attachment C: Stern Brick Pathway Bid Summary City of Palo Alto Page 4 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C18159138 City of Palo Alto LUCIE STERN BRICK PATHWAY RENOVATIONS PROJECT Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS 6 1.1 Recitals 6 1.2 Definitions 6 SECTION 2 THE PROJECT 6 SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 7 3.1 List of Documents 7 3.2 Order of Precedence 7 SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR'S DUTY 8 4.1 Contractor's Duties 8 SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM 8 5.1 Contractor's Co-operation 8 SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION 8 6.1 Time Is of Essence 8 6.2 Commencement of Work 8 6.3 Contract Time 8 6.4 Liquidated Damages 8 6.4.1 Other Remedies 9 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time 9 SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR 9 7.1 Contract Sum 9 7.2 Full Compensation 9 SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE 9 8.1 Standard of Care 9 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION 10 9.1 Hold Harmless 10 9.2 Survival 10 SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION 10 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement 10 SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS 10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 11.1 Evidence of Coverage 10 SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS 11 12.1 Assignment 11 12.2 Assignment by Law 11 SECTION 13 NOTICES 11 13.1 Method of Notice 11 13.2 Notice Recipents 11 13.3 Change of Address 12 SECTION 14 DEFAULT 12 14.1 Notice of Default 12 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default 12 SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES 13 15.1 Remedies Upon Default 13 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services 13 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold 13 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract 13 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default 13 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond 13 15.1.6 Additional Provisions 13 15.2 Delays by Sureties 13 15.3 Damages to City 14 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default 14 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses 14 15.4 Suspension by City 14 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience 14 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause 14 15.5 Termination Without Cause 14 15.5.1 Compensation 15 15.5.2 Subcontractors 15 15.6 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination 15 SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES 16 16.1 Contractor's Remedies 16 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage 16 16.1.2 For City's Non -Payment 16 16.2 Damages to Contractor 16 SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS 16 17.1 Financial Management and City Access 16 17.2 Compliance with City Requests 17 SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES 17 18.1 Status of Parties 17 SECTION 19 NUISANCE 17 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited 17 SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES 17 20.1 Payment of Fees 17 SECTION 21 WAIVER 17 21.1 Waiver 17 SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS 18 22.1 Governing Law 18 22.2 Compliance with Laws 18 22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance 18 SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT 18 23.1 Integration 18 SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT 18 24.1 Survival of Provisions 18 SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES 18 SECTION 26 NON -APPROPRIATION 19 26.1 Appropriation 19 SECTION 27 AUTHORITY 19 27.1 Representation of Parties 19 SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS 19 28.1 Multiple Counterparts 19 SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY 19 29.1 Severability 19 SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES 19 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 30.1 Amendments of Laws 19 SECTION 31 WORKERS' COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION 19 31.1 Workers Compensation 19 SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS 20 32.1 General Notice to Contractor 20 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a) 20 32.3 DIR Registration Required 20 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices 20 32.5 Payroll Records 20 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on Monday May 21, 2018 ("Execution Date") by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and LOS LOZA LANDSCAPING ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a Company duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor's License Number 985575 and Department of Industrial Relations Registration Number 1000009602. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On March 7, 2018, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the LUCIE STERN BRICK PATHWAY RENOVATIONS ("Project"). In response to the IFB159138, Contractor submitted a Bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Contract Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the LUCIE STERN BRICK PATHWAY RENOVATIONS Project, located at 1305 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 ("Project"). Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as "Agreement" or "Bid Documents") consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Orders 3) Contract 4) Bidding Addenda 5) Special Provisions 6) General Conditions 7) Project Plans and Drawings 8) Technical Specifications 9) Instructions to Bidders 10) Invitation for Bids 11) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Declaration 12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents 13) Public Works Department's Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at time of Bid) 14) Utilities Department's Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current version at time of Bid) 15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 17) Notice Inviting Pre -Qualification Statements, Pre -Qualification Statement, and Pre - Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 18) Performance and Payment Bonds 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR'S DUTY. 4.1 Contractor's Duties Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. 5.1 Contractor's Co-operation. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Contract requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City's Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City's Notice to Proceed and shall be completed not later than Monday, September 15, 2018. ❑ within calendar days () after the commencement date specified in City's Notice to Proceed. By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of Five Hundred dollars ($500) per day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. The City is entitled to setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to Contractor, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of liquidated damages assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City's right to assess liquidated damages. 6.4.1 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City's Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor's failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Four Hundred Eleven Thousand One Hundred Ninety -Five Dollars ($411,195). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Additive Alternates .1 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. 8.1 Standard of Care. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well -supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter individually referred to as an "Indemnitee" and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, "Liability") of every nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of any third -party claim relating to the Contract. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION. 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor 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. Contractor 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 will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. 11.1 Evidence of coverage. Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. 12.1 Assignment. City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor's Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City. 12.2 Assignment by Law. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co -tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (1) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice to Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: Copy to: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 City of Palo Alto Community Services Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Lam Do AND [Include Construction Manager, If Applicable.] Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT o City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney's Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be sent by registered mail or certified mail with return receipt requested. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: Los Loza Landscaping 810 Hampton Rd Hayward, CA 94541 Attn: Jorge Loza 13.3 Change of Address. In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DEFAULT. 14.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to Contractor's performance bond surety. 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 15.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 14. City's election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. 15.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City's rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City's authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City's right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City's determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 15.2 Delays by Sureties. Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor's surety fails to arrange for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor's surety shall be deemed to have waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT liable for any additional cost incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work. 15.3 Damages to City. 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor's default under the Contract Documents. 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor's default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 15.4 Suspension by City 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City's expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause. In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City's satisfaction. Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension occasioned by Contractor's failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City's right to suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City's failure to suspend the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor's failure to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 15.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City's expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor's sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the Work performed by Contractor. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 15.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor's sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors: (1) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. .4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if the Construction Contract had not been terminated. 15.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 15.6 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (I) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT submittals of as -built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations arising prior to the termination date. SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Contractor's Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City's issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 16.1.2 For City's Non -Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor's intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 16.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 15.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 17.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take -offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 17.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor's obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 17.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. 18.1 Status of parties. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures' of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 19 NUISANCE. 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES. 20.1 Payment of Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non -City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 21 WAIVER. 21.1 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. 22.1 Governing Law. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no other place. 22.2 Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and California laws and city laws, including, without limitation, ordinances and resolutions, in the performance of work under this Construction Contract. 22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance. Contractor shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, Contractor shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, Contractor shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. 23.1 Integration. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. 24.1 Survival of Provisions. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City's right to audit Contractor's books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES. ❑ This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the public works contract does not include a project of $25,000 or less, when the project is for construction work, or the contract does not include a project of $15,000 or less, when the project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, 'improvement') work. Or ® Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION. 26.1 Appropriations. 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 the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, 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 Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shal l take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 27 AUTHORITY. 27.1 Representation of Parties. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS 28.1 Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. 29.1 Severability. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES. 30.1 Amendments to Laws. With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents, the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City, unless otherwise required by law. SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION. 31.1 Workers Compensation. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.” SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS. 32.1 General Notice to Contractor. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a) City provides notice to Contractor of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public wo rk pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contactor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” 32.3 DIR Registration Required. City will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Construction Contract with Contractor witho ut proof that Contractor and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices. City gives notice to Contractor and its listed subcontractors that Contractor is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and Contractor is subject to SB 854 -compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. 32.5 Payroll Records. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: (i) Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, Contractor and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. (ii) The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of Contractor and its listed subcontractors, respectively. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (iii) At the request of City, acting by its project manager, Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of City’s request. City requests Contractor and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project. (iv) If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and City shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to Contractor. This provision supplements the provisions of Section 15 hereof. (v) Inform the project manager of the location of contractor’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager or designee APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Attorney or designee APPROVED: ____________________________ Public Works Director LOS LOZA LANDSCAPING Officer 1 By:___________________________ Name:________________________ Title:__________________________ Date: _________________________ Officer 2 By:____________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:___________________________ Date:____________________________ VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE CITY OF PALO ALTO COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT LUCIE STERN PATHWAY CITY PROJECT NUMBERS PG-06003 CSCOVER SHEET PROJECT CONTACTS:680 280 101 4 92 1 1 84 4 24 880 17 80 580 680 680 101 580 101 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO BAY OAKLAND BERKELEY CONCORD ANTIOCH TRACY SAN JOSE PROJECT LOCATION PALO ALTO LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTCIVIL ENGINEEROWNER City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway ME L V I L L E A V E EMBA R C A D E R O R D MID D L E F I E L D R D WE B S T E R S T CO W P E R S T WA V E R L E Y S T BR Y A N T S T EM E R S O N S T AL M A S T CO L E R I D G E A V E LO W E L L A V E TE N N Y S O N A V E SE A L E A V E ME L V I L L E A V E KE L L O G G A V E KIN G S L E Y A V E LIN C O L N A V E PROJECT LOCATION 280 PROJECT SITE MAP SCALE: 1"=40'1 Sheet List Table SHEET TITLE CS COVER SHEET L1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS - WEST PATH L1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS - SOUTH PATH L2.0 TOPOGRAPHIC & DEMOLITION PLAN L3.0 PAVING & LAYOUT PLAN L4.0 GRADING & CONSTRUCTION DETAILS I L4.1 GRADING & CONSTRUCTION DETAILS II L5.0 HARDSCAPE DETAILS L6.0 LIGHTING LAYOUT PLAN L7.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN L8.0 SPECIAL TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION L9.0 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN E0.1 LEGEND, SCHEDULES, DETAILS AND SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM E.02 ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS E0.3.1 TITLE 24 FORMS (OUTDOOR) E0.3.2 TITLE 24 FORMS (OUTDOOR) E0.3.3 TITLE 24 FORMS (SIGN LIGHTING) ES1.0 SITE LIGHTING PLAN EXISTING CATEGORY 1 HISTORICAL BUILDINGS TO BE PROTECTED AND UNDISTURBED DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS OF WORK LIMITS OF WORK EXISTING PARKING LOT EXISTING LAWN EXISTING DRIVEWAY LUCIE STERN COMMUNITY CENTER NOTES: City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway 2) EXISTING ENTRY MAN DOOR 4) EXISTING CONDITIONS AT NORTHERLY ENTRANCE 1) EXISTING DRIVE AISLE PATH - VIEWING SOUTHEAST 3) EXISTING PATHWAY AT STAIRWELL - NEW LAYOUT TO MATCH GRADE OF TOP STEP 7) EXISTING DRIVE AISLE PATHWAY - VIEWING SOUTH 6) EXISTING DRIVE AISLE PATHWAY - MID PATH ENTRANCE 5) EXISTING DRIVE AISLE PATH - VIEWING NORTHWEST AT NORTHERLY ENTRANCE PHOTO KEY MAP - WEST SCALE:1"=50' 8) EXISTING DRIVE AISLE PATHWAY ENTRANCE - SOUTHERLY ENTRANCE 9) EXISTING DRIVE AISLE PATH - VIEWING NORTHEAST 10) EXISTING DRIVE AISLE PATH - VIEWING NORTH 11) EXISTING DRIVE AISLE PATH - VIEWING NORTH L1.0EXISTING CONDITIONS - WEST PATH City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway 3) EXISTING BRICK AREA2) TYPICAL SITE LIGHTING - VISTA 8202 SERIES 5) EXISTING ENTRANCE PATHWAY - VIEWING NORTH 7) EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 8) EXISTING ENTRYWAY ACCESS GATE AND RAMP 9) EXISTING PARKING - VIEWING NORTH TO PATH 10) EXISTING PATH AT OAK TREE - EAST END 11) EXISTING ENTRYWAY ACCESS GATE AND RAMP - EAST END 4) EXISTING CONDITIONS AT STAIRWELL ACCESS - LAYOUT RAISED TO MATCH GRADE AT TOP OF STEP. 6) EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 1) EXISTING ENTRANCE PATHWAY - VIEWING EAST PHOTO KEY MAP - SOUTH SCALE:1"=50' L1.1EXISTING CONDITIONS - SOUTH PATH L2.0TOPOGRAPHIC & DEMOLITION PLAN City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway SCALE: 1"=20' REMOVE EXISTING BRICK & MORTAR. “6) REMOVE EXISTING BRICK & MORTAR “6) REMOVE EXISTING BRICK & MORTAR “6) REMOVE EXISTING BRICK & MORTAR “6) REMOVE EXISTING BRICK & MORTAR “6) REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT AND SUBGRADE TO A DEPTH SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW STRUCTURAL 6(&7,21“6) EXISTING CONCRETE PATH TO REMAIN REMOVE EXISTING &21&5(7(“6) REMOVE EXISTING BRICK & MORTAR “6) 1.EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN WHEN GRADING OCCURS WITHIN THE DRIPLINE OF THE TREE. 2.CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR QUESTIONS OF GRADING OR THE TREE PROTECTION OCCUR AT TIME CONSTRUCTION. 3.ALL WORK WITHIN THE EXISTING TREE ROOT ZONES SHALL BE DONE USING ALL POSSIBLE CARE TO AVOID INJURY TO ROOTS. 4.FILLS INSIDE THE TREE ROOT ZONE SHOULD NOT EXCEED 4". 5.TRENCHING WITHIN A TREE PROTECTION ZONE IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT WHERE NON-INVASIVE METHOD IS EMPLOYED TO AVOID ROOT DAMAGE SUCH AS THE USE OF COMPRESSED AIR OR WATER. CONDUIT OR PIPE MAY BE INSTALLED BETWEEN ROOTS. 6.TREE DAMAGE, INJURY MITIGATION AND INSPECTIONS APPLY TO THE CONTRACTOR. REPORTING, INJURY MITIGATION MEASURES AND ARBORIST INSPECTION SCHEDULE (1-5) APPLY PURSUANT TO TTM, SECTION 2.20-2.30. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY PUBLICLY OWNED OR PROTECTED TREES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, PURSUANT TO TITLE 8 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE, AND CITY TREE TECHNICAL MANUAL, SECTION 2.25. 7.THE FOLLOWING GENERAL TREE PRESERVATION MEASURES APPLY TO ALL TREES TO BE RETAINED: NO STORAGE OF MATERIAL, TOPSOIL, VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE TREE ENCLOSURE AREA. THE GROUND UNDER AND AROUND THE TREE CANOPY AREA SHALL NOT BE ALTERED. TREES TO BE RETAINED SHALL BE IRRIGATED, AERATED AND MAINTAINED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE SURVIVAL. GENERAL TREE PROTECTION NOTES: TREE PROTECTION FENCING PER CITY STANDARDS. FENCING SHALL BE TYPE I CHAIN LINK PER L8.0. ,%'%.$ ORIGINAL BRICK & MORTAR TO BE REMOVED BRICK PATHWAY TO BE REMOVED CLEAN OF MORTAR FOR RE-INSTALLATION. TREE PROTECTION PER SHEET L8.0 TREE PROTECTION PER SHEET L8.0 REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING AC BERM, TYP. REMOVE EXISTING BRICK & 0257$5“6) EXISTING SIDEWALK, TYP. REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE RAMPS REMOVE AND 5(3/$&(“/)2) VERTICAL CURB REMOVE, RE-INSTALL EXISTING HANDRAILS. REMOVE EXISTING BRICK & MORTAR. “6) REMOVE ALL EXISTING PATHWAY LIGHTING, TYP. OF 14 EXISTING SHRUBS TO REMAIN EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, TYPICAL EXISTING CATEGORY 1 HISTORICAL BUILDINGS TO BE PROTECTED AND UNDISTURBED DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION RECENT INSTALL BRICK & MORTAR TO BE REMOVED BRICK PATHWAY WHICH IS NOT ORIGINAL BRICK. BRICK AND MORTAR TO BE REMOVED FROM SITE. NOT TO BE RE-INSTALLED. REMOVE EXISTING TURF LAWN LAWN AREAS TO BE REMOVED FOR NEW OR RE-ALIGNED PATHWAYS. LAWN TO BE REPAIRED/PATCHED AT EDGES OR REMOVED LIGHT BASES. TYPICAL. BIKE RACK AND D.G. PAVING TO REMAIN EXISTING LAWN EXISTING IRRIGATION TO BE RELOCATED ALONG PROPOSED PATHWAY EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN TO REMAIN EXISTING ROADWAY FACE OF CURB, TYP. EXISTING PLANTING TO REMAIN EXISTING PARKING LOT EXISTING LAWN EXISTING LAWN EXISTING DRIVEWAY LUCIE STERN COMMUNITY CENTER EXISTING LAWN EXISTING ART SCULPTURE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE RAMPS REMOVE AND REPLACE “/)2)9(57,&$/&85% REMOVE AND REPLACE “/)2)9(57,&$/&85% TREE PROTECTION PER SHEET L8.0 EXISTING BRICK PAVERS NOTES: 1.ALL EXISTING HISTORIC BRICK IN GOOD CONDITION SHALL BE SALVAGED AND REUSED. IT IS ASSUMED THAT AT LEAST 50% OF THE EXISTING HISTORIC BRICK WILL BE SALVAGED AND REUSED. DURING BRICK REMOVAL, AT OR BEFORE THE 25% AND 50% COMPLETION STAGES, AND BEFORE ANY HISTORIC BRICK IS DISCARDED, UPDATES ON THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE OF HISTORIC BRICK THAT IS IN GOOD CONDITION AND THAT CAN BE SALVAGED AND REUSED SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, AND ADJUSTMENT IF DETERMINED APPROPRIATE. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT THE INFORMATION FOR REVIEW. THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER MAY INSPECT REMOVED BRICKS TO VERIFY CONDITIONS. 2.NEW REPLACEMENT BRICKS SHALL BE BLENDED WITH SALVAGED HISTORIC BRICKS. DURING BRICK REPAVING, AT OR BEFORE THE 25% AND 50% COMPLETION STAGES, EXAMPLES OF BLENDED PAVING IN THE FIELD SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, AND ADJUSTMENT IF DETERMINED APPROPRIATE. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS. 3.NEW REPLACEMENT BRICKS SHALL MATCH THE HISTORIC BRICKS IN SIZE, SHAPE, TEXTURE AND COLOR. PHYSICAL SAMPLES OF THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BRICKS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT SAMPLES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION. PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BRICKS MAY INCLUDE BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO: McNEAR BRICK & BLOCK SAN RAFAEL, CA , 415.454.6811 STANDARD SOLID CLAY BRICKS SANDMOLD SERIES CLAY BRICK 'CHARTHAM' PAVERS OR EQUAL 4.PAVERS SHALL BE INSTALLED TO MATCH THE EXISTING HISTORIC PAVING IN LOCATION, PATTERN, SPACING, AND CROWNING. 5.ALL BRICK SHALL BE HAND CLEANED WITHOUT THE USE OF ABRASIVE, CHEMICAL, OR POWER WASHERS AND INSPECTED BY THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION PLANNER PRIOR TO REUSE. REMOVE EXISTING SHRUBS DESIGNATED BRICK STORAGE AREA PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION. LIMITS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ACTUAL LOCATIONS AND TIME REQUIREMENTS WITH CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. L3.0PAVING & LAYOUT PLAN City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway SCALE: 1"=20' CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1.ANY WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE DONE PER PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR, WHO MUST FIRST OBTAIN A STREET WORK PERMIT FORM PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 2.INSTALL NEW PATHWAY LIGHT FIXTURES ON WALKWAY AS SHOWN - FIXTURES BY LIGMAN LIGHTING UMK-60727 DARK GRAY COLOR (RAL 7043) OR EQUAL. 3.RECONFIGURE EXISTING IRRIGATION WHERE PATHWAYS LOCATION HAS BEEN RELOCATED. 4.CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR ASPHALT AND ASPHALT CURB AS NECESSARY WHERE DAMAGED FROM REMOVAL OF EXISTING BRICKS. 5.LAWN SOD TO BE INSTALLED ALONG PATH AREAS DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 6.THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, WITHIN THE WORK AREA. PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION WORK AT THE SITE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) AT 1-800-227-2600, AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. INSTALL BRICK PER DETAIL 5 SHEET L5.0 “6) INSTALL BRICK & MORTAR PER DETAIL 5 SHEET L5.0 “6) INSTALL BRICK PER DETAIL 5 SHEET L5.0 “6) INSTALL BRICK PER DETAIL 6 SHEET L5.0 “6) INSTALL 4' WIDE 4" 2500 PSI P.C.C. PATH OVER 4" CLASS II A.B. OVER 4" NATIVE GROUND COMPACTED TO 95% R.C. WITH SCORE JOINTS 3'-0" O.C. CONTRACTOR SHALL LAY OUT PATH ALIGNMENT AND HAVE FIELD REVIEWED BY A CITY REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO EXCAVATION OF PATH DESIGNATED BRICK STORAGE AREA INSTALL BRICK PER DETAIL 5 SHEET L5.0 “6) INSTALL NEW PATHWAY LIGHTING, 18' O.C. AND STAGGERED, TYP. OF 27 PER DETAILS 3 & 4 SHEET L4.1 EXISTING PATH ALIGNMENT INSTALL TRUNCATED DOMES, SEE SHEET L4.0, DETAIL 9 FOR FURTHER DETAIL. INSTALL TRUNCATED DOMES, SEE SHEET L4.0, DETAIL 10 FOR FURTHER DETAIL. INSTALL BRICK PER DETAIL 5 SHEET L5.0 “6) DETAIL REFERENCE DETAIL ENLARGEMENT 1.CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE & REUSE ALL EXISTING BRICK IN GOOD CONDITION. 2.CONTRACTOR TO HAUL OFF AND DISPOSE OF ALL BRICK AND DEBRIS THAT CANNOT BE SALVAGED. 3.SAVED BRICKS TO BE STORED ON SITE IN DESIGNATED AREA, REFER TO PLAN. 4.ALL EXISTING HISTORIC BRICK IN GOOD CONDITION SHALL BE SALVAGED AND REUSED. IT IS ASSUMED AT LEAST 50% OF THE EXISTING HISTORIC BRICK WILL BE SALVAGED AND REUSED. DURING BRICK REMOVAL, AT OR BEFORE THE 25% AND 50% COMPLETION STAGES, AND BEFORE ANY HISTORIC BRICK IS DISCARDED, UPDATES ON THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE OF HISTORIC BRICK THAT IS IN GOOD CONDITION AND CAN BE SALVAGED AND REUSED SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, AND ADJUSTMENT IF DETERMINED APPROPRIATE. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT THE INFORMATION FOR REVIEW. THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER MAY INSPECT REMOVED BRICKS TO VERIFY CONDITIONS. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME ADDITIONAL REQUIRED PAVERS TO BE PURCHASED ARE TO BE BLENDED WITH EXISTING. 6.NEW REPLACEMENT BRICKS SHALL MATCH THE HISTORIC BRICKS IN SIZE, SHAPE, TEXTURE AND COLOR. PHYSICAL SAMPLES OF THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BRICKS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION. PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BRICKS MAY INCLUDE BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO : McNEAR BRICK & BLOCK SAN RAFAEL, CA , 415.454.6811 STANDARD SOLID CLAY BRICKS SANDMOLD SERIES CLAY BRICK 'CHARTHAM' PAVERS OR EQUAL 7.PAVERS SHALL BE INSTALLED TO MATCH THE EXISTING HISTORIC PAVING IN LOCATION, PATTERN, SPACING, AND CROWNING. 8.THE MORTAR USED BETWEEN THE BRICKS SHALL CLOSELY MATCH THE AGED MORTAR. A MORTAR COLOR SAMPLE SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES PLANNER PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION. 9.ALL BRICK SHALL BE CLEANED BY HAND WITHOUT THE USE OF ABRASIVE, CHEMICAL, OR POWER WASHERS, AND INSPECTED BY THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION PLANNER PRIOR TO REUSE. EXISTING PARKING LOT EXISTING LAWN EXISTING LAWN EXISTING DRIVEWAY LUCIE STERN COMMUNITY CENTER EXISTING LAWN ,%'%.$ INSTALLED PER ORIGINAL LAYOUT - CROWNED CROWNED INSTALLATION OF PAVERS PER PLAN WITHIN ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT. SEE DETAIL 4, SHEET L5.0. INSTALLED PER ORIGINAL LOCATION - RAMP NON-CROWNED INSTALLATION OF PAVERS PER PLAN WITH RAISED SOLDIER COURSE EDGES WITHIN ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT. SEE DETAIL 5, SHEET L5.0. EXISTING CATEGORY 1 HISTORICAL BUILDINGS TO BE PROTECTED AND UNDISTURBED DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION BRICK PAVER NOTES: 6.4' 6.46' 15' 6.04' 5.3' 7.18' 5.01' PAVERS SUMMARY: REMOVAL ORIGINAL BRICK & MORTAR REMOVED 5,517 SF RECENT INSTALL BRICK & MORTAR REMOVED *413 SF TOTAL REMOVED 5,930 SF INSTALLED PER ORIGINAL LAYOUT - CROWNED 5,376 SF PER ORIGINAL LAYOUT - NON-CROWNED / RAMP 247 SF NEW LOCATION / RE-ALIGNMENT 380 SF TOTAL INSTALLED 6,003 SF *REMOVED FROM SITE, NOT TO BE RE-INSTALLED 5.63' 56.91' 73.54'14' R6.12' R3.46' 6.14' 10.2' 52.8'12.94' 14.33' 44.28' INSTALLED PER ORIGINAL LAYOUT - NOT CROWNED SLOPE TO GRASS PAVERS OVER SAND BASE PER DETAIL 6, SHEET L5.0. ALL TRENCHING FOR LIGHTS SHALL BE OUTSIDE THE TREE DRIPLINE WHEN POSSIBLE. OTHERWISE TRENCHING SHALL BE RADIAL TO THE TRUNK. CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT THE URBAN FORESTRY DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO TRENCHING 1-650-496-5953 PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION. LIMITS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ACTUAL LOCATIONS AND TIME REQUIREMENTS WITH CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. XX X X XX X XX X XX X X DETAIL SCALE:1"=5'8DETAIL SCALE:1"=5'6 L4.0GRADING & CONSTRUCTION DETAILS I City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway DETAIL SCALE:1"=5'4 DETAIL SCALE:1"=5'5 DETAIL SCALE:1"=5'3 DETAIL SCALE:1"=5'9 DETAIL SCALE:1"=5'11DETAIL SCALE:1"=5'10 DETAIL SCALE:1"=5'2DETAIL SCALE:1"=5'1 MATCH EXISTING DOOR THRESHOLD ELEVATION REMOVE AND REINSTALL EXISTING HANDRAIL REMOVE TRUNCATED DOMES AND RAMP, REPLACE AREA WITH BRICK INSTALL NEW LIGHTING PER PLANS REMOVE EXISTING AC PATCHWORK, REPLACE WITH BRICK TO MATCH TOP STEP PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING AC BERMS, TYP. EXISTING GATE TO SWING FREELY AND UNOBSTRUCTED, NOT TO BE RETROFITTED AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION. PROTECT IN PLACE PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING AC BERMS, TYP. EXISTING GATE TO SWING FREELY AND UNOBSTRUCTED, NOT TO BE RETROFITTED AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION. PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION, PROTECT IN PLACE REMOVE AND REPLACE “/)'(35(66('&85% WITH VERTICAL CURB, MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT HEIGHTS REMOVE EXISTING RAMP AND REPLACE WITH BRICK REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING SIGN EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION, PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION, PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION, PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION, PROTECT IN PLACE ,167$//“6) TRUNCATED DOMES MATCH EXISTING TOP OF STAIR ELEVATION REMOVE AND REPLACE “/)'(35(66('&85% WITH VERTICAL CURB, MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT HEIGHTS GRADE BREAK, TYP. GRADE BREAK, TYP. MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE GRADE MATCH GRADES ALONG EXISTING PROTECTED BRICKS EDGE, TYP. MATCH EXISTING GRADE ALONG PROTECTED BRICK EDGE REMOVE AND REINSTALL EXISTING HANDRAIL MATCH EXISTING GRADE ALONG PROTECTED BRICK EDGE MATCH EXISTING GRADE ALONG PROTECTED BRICK EDGE REMOVE AND REPLACE “/)'(35(66('&85% WITH VERTICAL CURB, MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT HEIGHTS MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE GRADE INSTALL 6" DEEPLIFT AC PATCHBACK SAWCUT LINE, TYP. INSTALL 6" DEEPLIFT AC PATCHBAGK SAWCUT LINE, TYP SAWCUT LINE, TYP. INSTALL 6" DEEPLIFT AC PATCHBACK MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE GRADE PATHWAY AT 5% MAX TO CLEAR TREE ROOTS CAST IN PLACE OVER 4" CONCRETE INSTALL 6" DEEPLIFT AC PATCHBACK SAWCUT LINE, TYP. GRADE PATHWAY AT 5% MAX TO CLEAR TREE ROOTS DETAIL SCALE:1"=5'7 MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE MATCH GRADES ALONG EXISTING PROTECTED BRICKS EDGE, TYP. RAMP RAMP RAMP RAMP GRADE BREAK, TYP. EXISTING CONCRETE PATH TO REMAIN GRADE BREAK, TYP. DETAIL SCALE:1"=5'2 L4.1GRADING & CONSTRUCTION DETAILS II City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway EXISTING SIDEWALK 95.53C MATCH EX. 95.56C MATCH EX. MATCH EX. MATCH EX. MATCH GRADES ALONG EXISTING SIDEWALK, TYP. EXISTING PLANTING AT SIGN R=40' EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN DETAIL SCALE:1"=5'1 LIGHTING TO BE INSTALLED FLUSH WITH BRICK PATHWAY MATCH GRADES ALONG REINSTALLED BRICKS EDGE, TYP. REINSTALL BRICK IN PLACE MATCH GRADES ALONG EXISTING SIDEWALK, TYP. EXISTING SIDEWALK NEW PATHWAY LIGHT TYP. OF 27 EXISTING LAWN INSTALL SIGNAGE LIGHT EXISTING IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION R=33'18' O.C. & STAGGERED L5.0HARDSCAPE DETAILS City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway BASKET WEAVE PATTERN VARIES (6) TO (11) MODULES WIDE SEE LAYOUT PLAN FOR CORRECT NUMBER 1/2" JOINT WIDTH TYP. @ SOLDIER COURSE 1/4" RAKED JOINT GROUT ALL JOINTS W/ MORTAR AS SPEC'D 1" MINIMUM DRY PACK MORTAR SETTING BED 4" CONCRETE SLAB SOLDIER COURSE FLUSH W/ GRADE PROVIDE 1/2" DIA COPPER TUBE BETWEEN EVERY 5TH SOLDIER WET MORTAR BED AT EDGE COURSE, 8" WIDE. COMPACTED SUBSOIL OR UNDISTURBED SOIL PVC COATED RIGID ELEC. CONDUIT FOR LIGHTING IN SAND BED AS SPEC'D. 3" WIDTH OF WALK VARIES: SEE LAYOUT PLAN 3/4" MORTAR JOINTS TYP. JOINT WIDTH MAY VARY SEE, SEE NOTE #8 SHEET L3.0 FOR MORTAR COLOR NOTES. SALVAGED BRICKS OR NEW ANTIQUE 'USED' BRICKS' SEE PLAN FOR LOCATION RAKED JOINTS MAX RAKE 1/4" CROWN PATH 1/4" PER FT FROM CL TO SIDES. SEE LAYOUT PLAN FOR LOCATION SOLDIER COURSE FLUSH W/ GRADE CONCRETE CURB N.T.S.1 GROOVES ARE APPROX. 1/4", 3/4" O.C. TYP. RAMP WARNING GROOVING N.T.S.2 TRUNCATED DOME DETAIL N.T.S.3 2.35" APART PER CBC FIG. 11B-23A .2" HEIGHT TAPERED EDGES WHERE EXPOSED PLAN SECTION "A" 36" DEPTH MIN. 2.35" APART PER CBC FIG. 11B-23A 0.9" BASE DIAMETER AND 0.45" TOP DIAMETER BRICK PATH - NON CROWNED (CONCRETE BASE) N.T.S.5 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC OVER COMPACTED SUBSOIL BASKET WEAVE PATTERN VARIES (6) TO (11) MODULES WIDE SEE LAYOUT PLAN FOR CORRECT NUMBER 1/2" JOINT WIDTH TYP. @ SOLDIER COURSE 1/4" RAKED JOINT GROUT ALL JOINTS W/ MORTAR AS SPEC'D 4" CONCRETE SLAB RAISED SOLDIER COURSE AT EDGE PROVIDE 1/2" DIA COPPER TUBE BETWEEN EVERY 5TH SOLDIER WET MORTAR BED AT EDGE COURSE, 8" WIDE. COMPACTED SUBSOIL OR UNDISTURBED SOIL PVC COATED RIGID ELEC. CONDUIT FOR LIGHTING IN SAND BED AS SPEC'D. 3" WIDTH OF WALK VARIES: SEE LAYOUT PLAN 3/4" MORTAR JOINTS TYP. JOINT WIDTH MAY VARY, SEE NOTE #8 SHEET L3.0 FOR MORTAR COLOR NOTES. SALVAGED BRICKS OR NEW ANTIQUE 'USED' BRICKS' SEE PLAN FOR LOCATION RAKED JOINTS MAX RAKE 1/4" SLOPE PATH 1/4" PER FT FROM SIDE TO SIDE FOR DRAINAGE. SEE LAYOUT PLAN FOR LOCATION RAISED SOLDIER COURSE AT EDGE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC OVER COMPACTED SUBSOIL 1" MINIMUM DRY PACK MORTAR SETTING BED 2-1/2"2-1/2" BRICK PATH - CROWNED N.T.S.4 BRICK PATH - NON CROWNED (SAND BASE) N.T.S.6 BASKET WEAVE PATTERN VARIES (6) TO (11) MODULES WIDE SEE LAYOUT PLAN FOR CORRECT NUMBER 1/2" JOINT WIDTH TYP. @ SOLDIER COURSE 1/4" RAKED JOINT GROUT ALL JOINTS W/ MORTAR AS SPEC'D 4" SAND RAISED SOLDIER COURSE AT EDGE PROVIDE 1/2" DIA COPPER TUBE BETWEEN EVERY 5TH SOLDIER SAND BED AT EDGE COURSE, 8" WIDE. COMPACTED SUBSOIL OR UNDISTURBED SOIL PVC COATED RIGID ELEC. CONDUIT FOR LIGHTING IN SAND BED AS SPEC'D. 3" WIDTH OF WALK VARIES: SEE LAYOUT PLAN 3/4" MORTAR JOINTS TYP. JOINT WIDTH MAY VARY, SEE NOTE #8 SHEET L3.0 FOR MORTAR COLOR NOTES. SALVAGED BRICKS OR NEW ANTIQUE 'USED' BRICKS' SEE PLAN FOR LOCATION RAKED JOINTS MAX RAKE 1/4" SLOPE PATH 1/4" PER FT FROM SIDE TO SIDE FOR DRAINAGE. SEE LAYOUT PLAN FOR LOCATION RAISED SOLDIER COURSE AT EDGE TENSAR BX-1100 GEOGRID, OR APPROVED EQUAL, OVER COMPACTED SUBSOIL 1" MINIMUM DRY PACK MORTAR SETTING BED 2-1/2"2-1/2" L6.0LIGHTING LAYOUT PLAN City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway REMOVE ALL (6) EXISTING GROUND LIGHTING AND INSTALL LIGMAN UMK-60727 LIGHT OR APPROVED EQUAL AS SHOWN PER DETAIL 4 SHEET C5.0 PATHWAY LIGHT N.T.S.4 INSTALL LIGMAN UMK-60727 LIGHT OR APPROVED EQUAL AS SHOWN PER DETAILS 3 & 4 ON THIS SHEET LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS FOR LIGMAN UMK-60727 OR APPROVED EQUAL: LIGMAN LIGHTING UMK-60727 OR EQUAL, www.bega-us.com MODEL UMK-60727 120-VOLT LIGHT COLOR - DARK GREY (RAL 7043) LED: 12W-215LM-WHITE LED; COLOR W40 - 4000K ELECTRICAL: SUPPLIED WITH 19.69" 2x17 AWG FOR CONNECTION. EXISTING SIGN LIGHTING TO BE INSTALLED FLUSH WITH BRICK PATHWAY INSTALL CREE SIGNAGE LIGHTING WITH EXTENSION ARM APPROVED EQUAL, SEE DETAIL 2. INSTALL ON A CONCRETE 4" DEEP BY 12" WIDE BAND. LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS FOR CREE OL OR APPROVED EQUAL: CREE OL SERIES LINEAR FLOOD www.cree.com MODEL #FLD-OL-SN-D8-14-E-UL-BZ-350-40K EXTENSION ARM # XA-XFR18BZ COLOR - BRONZE LED: 350mA, 4000K CCT ELECTRICAL: UNIVERSAL VOLTAGE 120V THROUGH 277V MOUNTING: MOUNTING SHALL BE 18" ABOVE GRADE AND PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. SIGNAGE LIGHT N.T.S.2 LIGHTING LAYOUT SCALE:1"=10'1 LIGHT FOUNDATION DETAIL N.T.S.3 DECORATIVE CONCRETE COLLAR AROUND RECESSING BOX, SEE PLAN VIEW FOR FURTHER DETAILS 6' 2' R1.25' PLAN SECTION 4" 2500 PSI CONCRETE R2' 8" ‘ SCORING LINES AT REVERSE CURVES AND CENTER FOR CRACK CONTROL, TYP. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR POWER, CONDUIT RUNS AND WIRING. SIGNAGE LIGHT - APPLIED N.T.S.5 PROPOSED CREE OL SERIES LINEAR FLOOD LIGHT, SEE DETAIL 2. NOTE, THERE IS NO EXISTING SIGNAGE LIGHT. L7.0STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 0' IMPERVIOUS AREA AND STORM WATER TREATMENT CALCULATIONS LEGEND NOTES: City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway PRE PROJECT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT SITE ELEMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT*AREA (SQ. FT) ASPHALT CONCRETE 0.70 9,344 CONCRETE 0.80 897 POROUS PAVER/CONCRETE 0.10 5,882 DECOMPOSED GRANITE 0.10 225 LANDSCAPING/TURF 0.10 33,651 TOTAL 49,999 POST PROJECT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT SITE ELEMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT*AREA (SQ. FT) ASPHALT CONCRETE 0.70 9,344 CONCRETE 0.80 897 POROUS PAVER/CONCRETE 0.10 5,882 DECOMPOSED GRANITE 0.10 225 LANDSCAPING/TURF 0.10 33,651 TOTAL 49,999 City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway L8.0SPECIAL TREE PROTECTION INSTRUCTION City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway L9.0STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" THEN ADJUST SCALE ACCORDINGLY REV. NO. City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway FI L E N A M E : C : \ U s e r s \ A l e k s a n d a r \ a p p d a t a \ l o c a l \ t e m p \ A c P u b l i s h _ 8 7 2 4 \ E 0 . 1 . d w g - - 0 5 / 1 9 / 1 7 PG-06003 SEI-13361 3DRAWING SCHEDULE SCALE NTS 1LEGEND SCALE NTS 2ABBREVIATIONS AND TAGS SCALE NTS LIGHTING FIXTURE NOTES: LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE 5LIGHT FIXTURE SCHEDULE SCALE NTS 6PANEL SCHEDULE SCALE NTS 7EXISTING LIGHTING CONTROL DIAGRAM SCALE NTS 4SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM SCALE NTS E0.1 LEGEND, SCHEDULES, DETAILS AND SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" THEN ADJUST SCALE ACCORDINGLY REV. NO. City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway FI L E N A M E : P : \ S i e g f r i e d \ 2 0 1 7 \ 1 7 0 4 6 0 L u c i e S t e r n C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r , P a l o A l t o , C A \ E l e c t r i c a l \ E 0 . 2 . d w g - - 0 5 / 1 9 / 1 7 PG-06003 SEI-13361 1ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS SCALE NTS E0.2 ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" THEN ADJUST SCALE ACCORDINGLY REV. NO. City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway FI L E N A M E : P : \ S i e g f r i e d \ 2 0 1 7 \ 1 7 0 4 6 0 L u c i e S t e r n C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r , P a l o A l t o , C A \ E l e c t r i c a l \ E 0 . 3 . 1 . d w g - - 0 5 / 1 9 / 1 7 PG-06003 SEI-13361 1TITLE 24 FORMS (OUTDOOR) SCALE NTS E0.3.1 TITLE 24 FORMS (OUTDOOR) IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" THEN ADJUST SCALE ACCORDINGLY REV. NO. City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway FI L E N A M E : P : \ S i e g f r i e d \ 2 0 1 7 \ 1 7 0 4 6 0 L u c i e S t e r n C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r , P a l o A l t o , C A \ E l e c t r i c a l \ E 0 . 3 . 2 . d w g - - 0 5 / 1 9 / 1 7 PG-06003 SEI-13361 1TITLE 24 FORMS (OUTDOOR) SCALE NTS E0.3.2 TITLE 24 FORMS (OUTDOOR) IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" THEN ADJUST SCALE ACCORDINGLY REV. NO. City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway FI L E N A M E : P : \ S i e g f r i e d \ 2 0 1 7 \ 1 7 0 4 6 0 L u c i e S t e r n C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r , P a l o A l t o , C A \ E l e c t r i c a l \ E 0 . 3 . 3 . d w g - - 0 5 / 1 9 / 1 7 PG-06003 SEI-13361 1TITLE 24 FORMS (SIGN LIGHTING) SCALE NTS E0.3.3 TITLE 24 FORMS (SIGN LIGHTING) IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1" THEN ADJUST SCALE ACCORDINGLY REV. NO. City of Palo Alto City Project Number PG-06003 City of Palo Alto Lucie Stern Pathway FI L E N A M E : C : \ U s e r s \ A l e k s a n d a r \ a p p d a t a \ l o c a l \ t e m p \ A c P u b l i s h _ 8 7 2 4 \ E S 1 . 0 . d w g - - 0 5 / 1 9 / 1 7 PG-06003 SEI-13361 1NOTES SCALE NTS2ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN SCALE 1"=20'-0" GENERAL NOTES CODED SHEET NOTES ES1.0 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN City of Palo Alto (ID # 9096) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/21/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Council Approval of an MND and Design of RWQCP New Outfall Line Title: Adoption of a Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Approval of a Design for the Construction of a new Outfall Pipeline to Convey Treated Effluent From the RWQCP Through the Palo Alto Airport to Discharge Into an Unnamed Slough in the Baylands From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendations Staff recommends that Council adopt a Resolution: 1. Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and 2. Approving the design of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Outfall Line Construction Project (CIP WQ-19000) to convey treated effluent from the RWQCP to San Francisco Bay. Background The current outfall pipeline that conveys treated effluent from the RWQCP to San Francisco Bay is 54 years old, and although only at half its useful life, the joints have been failing. Despite several repairs in 2014, 2016, and 2017, it is anticipated that the need for repairs will continue. Further, the 2012 Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP), approved by Council in July 2012, analyzed the capacity of the outfall pipeline and concluded that the existing outfall capacity is not sufficient to convey the RWQCP’s peak wet weather hydraulic flows of 80 million gallons per day (mgd) under all circumstances of high tides and high flows. The LRFP identified the need for a capital project to replace and rehabilitate the outfall line. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Discussion Following Council’s approval of the LRFP and identification of this Capital Improvement Project (WQ-19000) as part of the 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program, the City hired a design consultant to prepare plans for the new outfall line and an environmental consultant to prepare an environmental analysis for the proposed project, as discussed further in this report. The figure below shows the new outfall (blue) and existing outfall (red). The project plans in Attachment E represent a 90 percent design level of development. New Outfall Line The new outfall line consists of a 57-inch inside diameter high density polyethylene pipe, which would extend approximately 2,402 linear feet, starting at the RWQCP and ending immediately adjacent to the existing outfall line’s discharge point in an unnamed slough leading to San Francisco Bay. The new outfall line alignment runs primarily along the perimeter of the Palo Alto Airport, which limits construction at the airport, which is preferred by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The outfall will be installed primarily by the shallow burial method. To minimize disruptions, the final segment to the south of the airport runway into the slough will be installed by a pipe ramming method. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The proposed new outfall line is designed to convey the entire RWQCP peak flow during heavy wet weather events at high tides as well as address further impacts on carrying capacity anticipated due to sea level rise. The design is consistent with the SAFER Bay preliminary project report, which anticipated 36-inches of sea level rise over the next 50 years. Once the new outfall line is installed, the existing outfall line would be rehabilitated. The combined discharge capacity of the two lines is anticipated to be 128 million gallons per day (MGD) during current high tide conditions. However, given an anticipated sea level rise of three feet over the next 50 years, the combined capacity after 50 years is anticipated to be reduced to approximately 80 mgd. Existing Outfall Line and Renzel Marsh In addition to the construction of a new outfall, the project includes rehabilitation of the existing outfall line and replacement of the Renzel Marsh pump. The existing outfall line must remain in service while the new outfall line is being constructed; thereafter, it will be drained and rehabilitated with cost-effective, flexible joint seals from within the pipe. To improve energy efficiency, a new freshwater marsh pump and piping modifications will be installed to replace the existing pump conveying treated effluent water to Renzel Marsh. The pump has been sized to provide up to three mgd of plant effluent into the marsh, which will accommodate future upgrades to the marsh. The new pump will allow for variation of flow into the marsh, improving biological conditions and habitat. Baylands Master Plan and Baylands Site Assessment and Design Guidelines The 2008 Baylands Master Plan (Plan) addresses the plant on pages 181-194 and provides policies that can be applied to the new outfall (in “Overall” on page 65, “Flood Control” on page 257, and “Access & Circulation” on page 242). The 2005 Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve document was prepared to help implement the Baylands Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan policies and programs related to the Baylands. Because the proposed project would not include any components that would be visible within the Baylands, none of the specific design guidelines apply. City of Palo Alto Page 4 2030 Comprehensive Plan City staff determined the project is consistent with the updated 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the Palo Alto Airport. Specifically, the project is consistent with the following goals and policies outlined in the Land Use Element and the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan:  Policy L-10.3: Minimize the environmental impacts associated with PAO operations;  Policy L-10.5: Address the potential impacts of future sea level rise; and  Program L10.3.2: Work with the airport to pursue opportunities to enhance open space and habitat value of the airport.  Goal T-10: The Palo Alto Airport is a “business and recreational facility for northern Santa Clara County, handling 250,000 landings and take-offs a year. Due to the short length of runway and Federal Aviation Administration-imposed noise restrictions, use of the Airport is limited to single-engine and light twin-engine aircraft.”  Policy T-57: Support the continued vitality and effectiveness of the Palo Alto Airport without significantly increasing its intensity or intruding into open space areas. The Airport should remain limited to a single runway and two fixed base operators. Palo Alto will allow for improvement and only minor expansion of existing Airport facilities. In the sensitive Baylands area, and immediately adjacent to homes in East Palo Alto, traffic and aircraft noise should be minimized. Timeline Approval of the project design and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is necessary in order to obtain applicable permits from regulatory agencies to construct the project. Necessary permits include a 401 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a 404 permit from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a permit from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Once the City has obtained these permits, the Public Works Department Environmental Services Division will finalize the project design. In addition, as the project involves work on land under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission (CSLC), an amendment to the existing lease agreement is required in order to identify the improvement. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Construction of the new outfall line would take approximately nine months over a two-year period. No construction would occur during the avian nesting season. Resource Impact The Outfall Line Construction (WQ-19000) Project was included as part of the 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program. At this time funding for the construction cost is estimated to be approximately $7.5 million, and this project will be recommended as part of the Proposed FY 2019 Capital Budget. A low interest state loan or utility revenue bond will be needed to pay for construction. The City has applied for a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan for water quality improvement projects with terms of 1.8% for 30-years and repayment beginning one year after construction completion, approximately three years from now. Loan repayment will be divided among the partner agencies with Palo Alto’s share at 38.16% of the total. More precise figures will be provided when staff returns to Council for approval of the construction contract and related documents. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was circulated on December 17, 2017 and circulation ended on January 31, 2018. The City held a community meeting for the project on January 17, 2018 at Cubberly Community Center to obtain comments on the Draft MND. One public comment was received during the circulation period. The comment was from the CLSC and noted that an amendment to the existing airport lease agreement between the City of Palo Alto and CLSC would be necessary prior to construction of the outfall line. The Final MND, including a formal response to the CSLC letter, is included in Attachment C. The Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan is included in Appendix A in the resolution. Attachments:  Attach A - Resolution Adopting MND and MMRP and Approving Project  Attach B - Final Initial Study  Attach C - Response to Comments on the Draft Initial Study MND  Attach D - Notice of Intent to Adopt Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration  Attach E - 90% Design Drawings RESO MND and Project - New Outfall Line 1 Not Yet Approved Resolution No. ____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Line Project Mitigated Negative Declaration for which an Initial Study was Prepared, in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and Adopting a Related Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Approving the Project Design R E C I T A L S A. Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Palo Alto prepared an Initial Study and approved for circulation a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (“RWQCP”) New Outfall Line Project (the “Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration”) all in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with state and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively “CEQA”). B. The RWQCP New Outfall Line Project (the “Project”) analyzed under the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration would involve the installation of a new outfall pipe, rehabilitation of the existing outfall pipe, and replacement the Renzel Marsh Pump. The new outfall pipe would extend approximately 2,402 linear feet, starting at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and ending immediately adjacent to the existing outfall pipe’s discharge point in an unnamed slough. Installation of the new outfall pipe would require open trenching and backfilling. The existing outfall pipe would be rehabilitated with flexible joint seals, but no open excavation would be required. A new pump would be installed to replace the existing pump that conveys treated water to the Renzel Marsh in order to improve efficiency. A more detailed description of the Project is set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. The draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public comment from December 22, 2017 through January 31, 2018. D. The City of Palo Alto considered the comments received during the public review period and prepared a final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. E. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level. F. In connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an initial ATTACHMENT A RESO MND and Project - New Outfall Line 2 Not Yet Approved study/mitigated negative declaration that identifies one or more significant environmental effects, CEQA requires the decision-making body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environmental effects to a less-than-significant level. G. Whenever a lead agency approves a project requiring the implementation of measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, CEQA also requires the lead agency to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation, and such a mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared for the Project for consideration by the decision-making body of the City of Palo Alto as lead agency for the Project (the “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” or “MMRP”). H. The City of Palo Alto is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the decision-making body for the proposed approval of the Project. I. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, together with comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA. J. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project are on file in the Department of Public Works, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 6th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 are available for inspection by any interested person at that location and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby make the following findings: (1) it has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, prior to acting upon or approving the Project, (2) the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and is consistent with state and local guidelines implementing CEQA, and (3) the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Palo Alto, as lead agency for the Project. The City Council designates the Director of Public Works, at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 6th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301, as the custodian of documents and records of proceedings on which this decision is based. RESO MND and Project - New Outfall Line 3 Not Yet Approved SECTION 2. THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby find that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it and all information received that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project. The MMRP is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for viewing at City of Palo Alto City Hall, 6th Floor – Public Works Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. SECTION 3. THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby approve the design of the New Outfall Line Project as described in the 90% design plan set dated August 2017. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ________________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ _______________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ________________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment _________________________________ Director of Public Works MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 1 Exhibit A PROJECT NAME Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project APPLICATION NUMBER N/A APPLICANT AGREEMENT James Allen, Regional Water Quality Control Plant Manager DATE 5/1/18 APPROVED BY City Council 5/21/18 APPLICANT/OWNER Tom Kapushinski, P.E. / LEED AP, Project Engineer City of Palo Alto Public Works Department - Regional Water Quality Control Plant 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code: ... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting an EIR. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation AIR QUALITY AIR-1 Mitigation Measure AIR-1 During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implements measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less- than-significant level. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting Applicant/Contractor During Construction Planning and Community Environment Department and Public Works Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 3 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 9. The Contractor shall prepare a SWPPP, to be submitted and approved by the City prior to the start of construction 10. The Contractor shall install rumble strips for trucks exiting the site. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1 Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Protocol level rare plant surveys shall be conducted within suitable habitat and during the blooming periods of Point Reyes bird’s-beak, California seablite, and saline clover, in order to confirm the presence or absence of these species within the project site. Surveys for Point Reyes bird’s beak and California seablite shall be conducted during the late season, June through October, and surveys for saline clover shall be conducted between April and June, based on the individual specie’s blooming season. If these rare plant species are observed during surveys, they shall be avoided by construction if feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, seed shall be collected for replanting, or whole individuals transplanted to a nearby Applicant/Contractor Prior to During, and After Construction Planning and Community Environment Department and Public Works Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 4 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation protected area containing suitable habitat prior to construction, or stored for replanting in the construction area following completion of construction. Transplanted or reseeded individuals shall be monitored for a minimum of two years following construction to ensure transplantation success. If transplanted individuals do not successfully establish, seed or individuals from established and healthy local populations shall be collected and planted at the project site. BIO-2 Mitigation Measure BIO-2 The measures listed below shall be implemented prior to or during construction activities within or adjacent to potential SMHM habitat: a) Prior to ground disturbing activities within and adjacent to potential SMHM habitat, all vegetation within the Project footprint shall be removed using hand-operated tools in the presence of a qualified biological monitor (see below). b) Following vegetation removal, exclusion barriers and/or fencing shall be installed to exclude individuals of this species from areas of active construction. The design of the exclusion barriers and fencing shall be approved by a qualified biologist and shall be installed in the presence of a qualified biological monitor. The fence shall be made of a material that does not allow SMHM to pass through, and the bottom shall be buried to a depth of a minimum of 4 inches so that these species cannot crawl under the fence. All support for the exclusion fencing shall be placed on the inside of the Project footprint. c) A qualified biological monitor shall be present during wildlife exclusion fence installation and removal, and during all vegetation clearing and initial ground disturbance conducted in vegetation in and adjacent to marsh habitats. The monitor shall Applicant/Contractor Prior to and During Construction Planning and Community Environment Department and Public Works Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 5 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation have demonstrated experience in biological construction monitoring and knowledge of the biology of the listed species that may be found in the Action Area, including SMHM and CRR. The monitor(s) shall have the authority to halt construction, if necessary, if noncompliance actions occur. The biological monitor(s) shall be the contact person for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a listed species or anyone who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped listed species. Following vegetation removal in potential habitat areas, fence installation, and initial ground disturbance, the biological monitor shall still conduct weekly site checks to provide guidance for fence maintenance, provide environmental sensitivity training, and document compliance with permit conditions. d) The biological monitor shall provide an endangered species training program to all personnel involved in Project construction. At a minimum, the employee education program shall consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable about the biology of listed species with potential to occur in the Action Area, and about their legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors and their employees involved with implementation of the Project. The program shall include a description of these species and their habitat needs; any reports of occurrences in the area; an explanation of the status of these species and their protection under State and Federal legislation; as well as a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to these species during construction. e) Food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in solid, closed containers (trash cans) and removed at the end of each work day from the investigation site to eliminate an attraction to predators of listed City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 6 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation species. f) At the end of each work period, all open trenches shall either be securely covered or shall have exit ramps installed to prevent entry and/or entrapment of SMHM. g) If a listed species is observed at any time during construction, work shall not be initiated or shall be stopped immediately until the animal leaves the vicinity of the work area of its own volition. If the animal in question does not leave the work area, work shall not be reinitiated until the appropriate agency is contacted and has made a decision on how to proceed with work activities. The biological monitor shall direct the contractor on how to proceed accordingly. The biological monitor or any other persons at the site shall not pursue, capture, handle, or harass any species observed. BIO-3 Mitigation Measure BIO-3 Construction of the project within the RWQCP and airport grounds shall be timed to occur within the CRR nesting season so that construction in other areas closer to suitable habitat and outside of existing areas of disturbance may be completed outside of the nesting season. Construction of the new outfall pipeline that would occur within the existing levee and the small reach of construction that would occur within the unnamed slough would avoid the CRR nesting season. Protocol level surveys for CRR shall be completed prior to construction to provide information regarding the location of nesting rails. However, based on a variety of factors, construction shall occur both within and outside of the CRR breeding season. Specifically: • Construction of the new outfall pipeline within the levee and in the unnamed slough (between Station 14+00 and 27+49) shall occur between September 1 and January 31 to avoid the CRR breeding season. Applicant/Contractor During Construction Planning and Community Environment Department and Public Works Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 7 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation • In-water construction in the unnamed slough shall be completed between September 1 and November 30 to avoid the windows for both CRR and listed fish species. BIO-4 Mitigation Measure BIO-4 To avoid impacts to burrowing owl, a pre-construction burrowing owl survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist of potential habitat areas (the Airport apron and along the adjacent levee berm top) at most 14 days from the initiation of project activities, irrespective of time of year. If burrowing owl is detected on the site, a no-disturbance buffer around the active burrow shall be enacted until work is finished or a qualified biologist confirms the burrow is no longer in use. This buffer shall be 250 feet if work is conducted in the area during the nesting season (February 1 – August 31) and 160 feet if work is conducted in the area outside of the nesting season. If the burrow cannot be avoided and work is to be conducted outside the nesting season, burrowing owls shall be passively excluded from the site following the procedures outlined in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 2012). Applicant/Contractor Prior to and During Construction Planning and Community Environment Department and Public Works Department BIO-5 Mitigation Measure BIO-5 All in-water work (i.e., in tidal areas at the unnamed slough) shall be conducted between June 15 and November 30 and will incorporate all avoidance measures listed in the regulatory permits. Installation of sheet piles in tidal waters, if necessary, shall occur by the use of a vibratory hammer during low tide. If impact pile driving is necessary, an evaluation of potential hydroacoustic impacts to fish shall be required, and if necessary additional measures shall be employed to ensure that underwater sound is reduced to levels that Applicant/Contractor During Construction Planning and Community Environment Department and Public Works Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 8 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation are below those that will cause injury to fish. Such additional measures may include: • Hydroacoustic monitoring by a sound engineer during in water pile driving work. • Use of a “soft start” to clear fish from the area of acoustic effect. • Use of a wood cushion block between the hammer and the pile. • Use of a bubble curtain or other similar technique to reduce underwater noise. • Complete all impact pile driving work at low tide. • Limiting the number of pile strikes in a day to reduce the cumulative sound pressure impacts to fish. BIO-6 Mitigation Measure BIO-6 • All construction documents shall include requirements for the restoration of temporary excavations in wetlands back to preconstruction grade, and revegetation of temporarily disturbed areas using appropriate native vegetation. Appropriate native vegetation may include pickleweed, saltgrass, Atriplex, and other salt tolerant wetland plant species. Pickleweed and saltgrass may be selectively harvested from adjacent tidal marsh and seasonal wetland areas for transplantation to temporarily impacted areas for restoration. • Limits of construction, wetlands, and buffers shall be clearly marked with high-visibility construction fencing. • Site access of machinery shall be restricted to as few areas as possible to prevent soil compaction. • Appropriate erosion control measures shall be used around soil stockpiles, graded slopes, and slurry management facilities. Erosion control materials shall be wildlife friendly and shall avoid the use of Applicant/Contractor Prior to and During Construction Planning and Community Environment Department and Public Works Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 9 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation plastic netting or fixed aperture netting. • A spill prevention and control plan shall be required as part of project specifications to minimize the chance of toxic spills. Spill kits shall be present for any work adjacent to open waters. All spills of oil and other hazardous materials shall be immediately cleaned u and contained. Any hazardous materials cleaned up or used on-site would be properly disposed of at an approved disposal facility. • Litter and Waste Management – Waste collection areas shall be designated on-site. Only watertight dumpsters and trash cans shall be used and inspected for leaks. Dumpsters and cans shall be inspected at the end of each work day when it is raining or windy. Waste collection shall occur regularly. Litter shall be picked up daily. CULTURAL RESOURCES CULT-1 Mitigation Measure CULT-1 If buried materials are encountered, all soil disturbing work shall be halted at the location of any discovery until a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist completes a significance evaluation of the find(s) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36CFR60.4) and CEQA guidelines (§15064.5[f]), and the State Lands Commission Attorney has been contacted to consult. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire-affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., Applicant/Contractor During Construction Planning and Community Environment Department and Public Works Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 10 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation wells, privy pits, dumps). The final disposition of any archaeological , historical, and paleontological resources recovered on-site under the jurisdiction off the California State Lands Commission shall be approved by the Commission. GEOLOGY/SOILS GEO-1 Mitigation Measure GEO-1 Dewatering The construction contractor shall implement a dewatering system to preserve the undisturbed bearing capacity of the existing subgrade soils at the bottom of excavations and shall meet the following minimum performance standards: • Stable excavation walls and bottom shall be provided; • A reasonably dry base of excavation shall be provided; • Native soils shall be filtered and loss of ground from dispersion or erosion shall be prevented; • Piping (boiling) of the excavation bottom shall be prevented; • All dewatering and shoring systems shall be installed and removed in accordance with governing (e.g., County, State) requirements; and • The contractor shall allow for the controlled release of groundwater to its static level in a manner that prevents disturbance of bottom soils and prevents flotation or movements of structures or pipelines. The contractor shall be prepared to implement alternative systems should the initial dewatering system fail to achieve these minimum performance requirements. The contractor shall be prepared to locally dewater or modify construction excavations, if and where needed, to provide stable and reasonably dry Applicant/Contractor During Construction Planning and Community Environment Department and Public Works Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 11 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation excavations. The dewatering system shall be localized, targeted, and short-term (days) in order to prevent consolidation and subsidence from prolonged dewatering. Shoring The contractor shall be required to shore the anticipated 12-foot deep excavations with interlocking sheetpiles in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) regulations and all other recommendations provided in the site-specific Geotechnical report (Appendix D). All shoring plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the start of construction activities. The construction shall ensure the shoring system meets all the minimum performance standards for shoring listed in the Geotechnical Report. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1 See Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 Below. NOISE NOISE-1 Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 The City shall provide all construction workers appropriate hearing protection. Applicant During Construction Planning and Community Environment Department and Public Works Department TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC TRAFFIC-1 Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 • Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City shall prepare and submit a Traffic Control Plan for review and approval. The Traffic Control Plan shall include best management practices and traffic measures including but not limited to: Applicant/Contractor Prior to and During Construction Planning and Community Environment Department and Public Works Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 12 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation o The City shall require the contractor to provide for passage of emergency vehicles through the project site at all times. o The City shall require the contractor to maintain access to all uses during project construction. o The City shall use traffic cones, signs, lighted barricades, lights, and flagmen as described and specified in the Caltrans Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, current edition, California Supplement, Part 6 Temporary Traffic Control to provide for public safety and convenience during construction. o The contractor shall install advance warning signs to alert bicyclists and motorists of the work zone and lane closures. Advance warning signs may be reflective signs, changeable message boards, cones, and barricades. o Flagging and other means of traffic control shall be required to allow for the safe movement of traffic through the work zone. The contractor shall provide flaggers to temporarily hold traffic for staging equipment or construction. o The City shall provide advanced notice to area residents, schools and emergency agencies when employing temporary traffic control measures. In addition, prior to the start of construction, the City shall provide emergency services with the proposed construction schedule. o The City shall require the construction contractor to provide for passage of emergency vehicles through the project site at all times. o The City shall require the construction contractor to maintain convenient access to driveways and buildings near the work area unless otherwise approved by the City in advance. o The City shall restore pavement, curbs, gutters, City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 13 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation and sidewalks, as necessary, to pre-disturbance conditions or better. o The temporary traffic control/detour portion of the project shall include one additional detour sign posted at the bicycle/pedestrian bridge across San Francisquito Creek between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Users approaching from East Palo Alto need to be directed to the detour route. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES TRIBAL-1 Mitigation Measure TRIBAL-1 In the event that an unanticipated tribal cultural resource is exposed during project construction, work within 30 feet of the discovery shall stop until a City- approved cultural resources professional can identify and evaluate the significance of the discovery and develop recommendations. Recommendations could include preparation of a Treatment Plan, which could require recordation, collection and analysis of the discovery; preparation of a technical report; and curation of the collection and supporting documentation in an appropriate depository. Applicant/Contractor During Construction Planning and Community Environment Department and Public Works Department California Environmental Quality Act INITIAL STUDY Final Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project March 2018 Attachment B RWQCP New Outfall Project Page i Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS   ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 1  1. PROJECT TITLE .................................................................................................................. 1  2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS ........................................................................ 1  3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER ................................................................. 1  4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS ............................................................. 1  5. APPLICATION NUMBER .................................................................................................. 1  6. PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................................ 2  7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION .................................................................................... 2  8. ZONING ............................................................................................................................... 2  9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 2  10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING ............................................................. 14  11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES ........................................................................................... 14  ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS .................................. 15  A. AESTHETICS ..................................................................................................................... 17  B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ............................................................ 20  C. AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................... 23  D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 30  E. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 51  F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY ........................................................................... 58  G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................... 64  H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............................................................. 67  I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ....................................................................... 72  J. LAND USE AND PLANNING .......................................................................................... 82  K. MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 87  L. NOISE ................................................................................................................................. 88  M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ....................................................................................... 95  N. PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 97  O. RECREATION ................................................................................................................. 100  P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ............................................................................ 102  Q. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 109  R. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 112  S. ENERGY CONSERVATION .......................................................................................... 117  T. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................................................... 119  SOURCE REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 122 DETERMINATION…………………………………………………………………...………123 12. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION…………………………………………………………124 RWQCP New Outfall Project Page ii Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Tables Table 1. Current outfall Flows and Velocities ............................................................................... 5  Table 2. Construction Equipment ................................................................................................ 10  Table 3. Air Quality Significance Thresholds ............................................................................. 25  Table 4. Construction Period Emissions ...................................................................................... 27 Table 5. Population Density and Associated Ambient Noise Levels .......................................... 91 Figures Figure 1. Regional and Vicinity Map…………………………………………………………...3 Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of Project Area……………………………………………………4 Figure 3. Proposed Pipeline Alignment………………………………………………………....7 Figure 4. San Francisquito Trail Detour Route…………………………………………………13 Figure 5. CNDDB Special-Status Plants……………………………………………………….32 Figure 6. CNDDB Special-Status Wildlife……………………………………………………..34 Figure 7. Preliminary Wetlands and Waters Delineation………………………………………38 Figure 8. Arborist Survey………………………………………………………………………39 Figure 9. Temporary Biological Resources Impacts……………………………………………45 Appendices Appendix A: Regional Water Quality Control Plant Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Illingworth &Rodkin Appendix B: Biological Resources Survey Report, WRA, Inc. Appendix C: Historical Resources Study for the City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant’s New 63-Inch Outfall Project, Tom Origer & Associates Appendix D: Draft Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, McMillen Jacobs Associates. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 1 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PROJECT TITLE Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California 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 Tom Kapushinski, P.E. / LEED AP, Project Engineer City of Palo Alto (650) 617-3130 4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS Tom Kapushinski, P.E. / LEED AP, Project Engineer City of Palo Alto Public Works Department - Regional Water Quality Control Plant 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 5. APPLICATION NUMBER N/A RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 2 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 6. PROJECT LOCATION 2501 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Parcel Numbers: 008-03-029 The project site is located in the eastern, Bayshore portion of the City of Palo Alto (City), in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of both U.S. Highway 101 and State Route 82 (El Camino Real), as shown on Figure 1, Regional and Vicinity Map. The project site is bounded by Mayfield Slough to the east, the San Francisco Bay (SF Bay), the Palo Alto Airport (Airport) to the west, and the City’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to the south, as shown on Figure 2, Aerial Photograph of Project Area. 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The project site includes the following designations: “Major Institutional/Special Facilities” and “Publicly Owned Conservation Land” by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update 2030. The Major Institutional/Special Facilities land use designation includes institutional, academic, government and community service land uses, and overlays the Airport and the RWQCP. The “Publicly Owned Conservation Land” land use designation includes resource management, recreational, and educational uses and overlays the existing levee, San Francisquito Creek Trail, and the existing RWQCP outfall. 8. ZONING The project site is zoned PF(D), Public Facilities/Site and Design Review Combining District. The PF(D) zone district is designed to accommodate government, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. The project is an allowed use in this zone district. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 9.1 Background The City’s RWQCP currently operates a 54-inch diameter outfall pipe to discharge treated effluent to SF Bay. The outfall pipe is a 54-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) extending from the RWQCP to an unnamed slough (Slough) just east of the San Francisquito Creek Trail next to the Airport. The 54-inch outfall exits the plant from an outfall box, and stop logs inside the outfall box normally direct all flow to this 54-inch outfall. The 54-inch outfall pipe was installed in approximately 1964 and consists of individual 10-foot-long concrete segments. The alignment of the existing outfall pipe travels east beneath the Airport apron and crosses under the existing levee to the Slough just south of the runway. The 54-inch outfall is 2,133-feet in length, with a transition to a 60-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) for the final 24-foot run into the unnamed slough. Figure 1. Regional and Vicinity Map City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 1 Location.mxd Map Prepared Date: 9/13/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: Esri Streaming - National Geographic Data Source(s): WRA Project Area Detail Area 0 0.25 0.5 Miles City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of Project Area Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 2 Study Area.mxd Map Prepared Date: 5/12/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: Esri Streaming - NAIP 2014 Data Source(s): WRA . Project Area 0 140 280 420 Feet RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 5 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 The outfall pipe was originally installed in shallow earth using open trench construction methods with a few feet of cover and has no slope (i.e., the pipe was installed at the same invert along its entire length). Recent excavations to repair leaks in the outfall pipe revealed that the pipe’s concrete cylinder appears to be in relatively good condition; however, the rubber gasket joints have begun to fail in a handful of locations, causing small leaks. The City believes subsidence over the past 50 years has contributed to leaks. The existing outfall is operated by gravity flow and its capacity is influenced by tidal elevations in San Francisco Bay. Table 1 summarizes the plant effluent flows. In accordance with the City’s Long Range Facilities Plan Report (Carollo Engineers, 2012), the RWQCP has the capacity to discharge 70 million gallons per day (MGD) under existing conditions when the water level in the Slough is at its Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) level. The report also indicated that when the water level in the Slough is at its Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) level or at its MHHW, the 54-inch outfall does not provide the capacity to discharge the design peak wet weather flow of 80 MGD. Table 1. Current outfall Flows and Velocities Flow Velocity in the 54-inch Outfall* Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) 19 MGD 1.9 ft/s Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF) 30-39 MGD 2.9 – 3.9 ft/s Minimum Dry Weather Flow (MDWF) 5-10 MGD 0.5 – 1.0 ft/s Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) 80 MGD 7.8 ft/s *When the pipe is full Furthermore, the RWQCP is expected to lose additional discharge capacity with its current outfall pipe system due to anticipated sea level rise over the next 50 years. In accordance with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Power Authority (SFCJPA) preliminary SAFER Bay project report, the SAFER Bay project uses 36 inches of sea level rise over the next 50 years as the design standard for the proposed new levee improvement. The City has decided to use the same amount of sea level rise for the design of the proposed project. To mitigate the issues rising from an aging outfall pipe and future sea level rise, and to prepare the RWQCP for a future peak wet weather event, the City is preparing to install a new outfall pipe to increase the discharge capacity and then rehabilitate the existing outfall to extend its service life. 9.2 Proposed Project As described above, the City is proposing to install a new effluent outfall pipe, rehabilitate the existing outfall pipe, and replace the Renzel Marsh pump. These three components are collectively considered the proposed project and are described in more detail below. New Effluent Outfall Pipe The City is proposing to install approximately 2,402 linear feet of new 63-inch high density polyethylene (HDPE) outfall pipe between the RWQCP’s existing outfall box and the Slough. In RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 6 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 compliance with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit, the new outfall pipe’s downstream end would be located immediately adjacent to the existing outfall pipe’s discharge point. The new effluent outfall pipe alignment would start from the existing outfall box, cross Embarcadero Road, then angle east through the existing Airport apron and parking lot, then turn north until it reaches the existing levee. The alignment then follows the levee alignment in a northwesterly direction for approximately 600 feet and then turns in a northeasterly direction until it reaches to the discharge point. This new outfall pipe alignment generally follows the Airport perimeter and is shown in Figure 3, Proposed Pipeline Alignment. It is important to note that the existing levee is not a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) authorized or maintained levee. The entire pipe would be constructed with open trench methods that would be about 12-feet deep where the outfall transitions into a parallel alignment with the existing levee. Where the levee separates the Airport property from the Baylands, excavations would be approximately 7-feet deep. Based on the geotechnical findings listed in the Geotechnical Report (Appendix D) prepared for the project, it is anticipated that the deeper 12-foot trench would be supported by sheetpiles driven down to exclude groundwater from entering the trench. The shallower seven- foot trench would utilize a benched or sloped open cut excavation. Based on the depth of groundwater and excavation depths, water-tight shoring would be use for the deeper trench excavation. Even where water-tight shoring is used, limited internal dewatering would be used to remove nuisance and minor seeps. Where the pipe crosses Embarcadero Road, the construction would maintain one lane open at all times by implementing a traffic control plan. Construction along the perimeter of the Airport would be reviewed and accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A cofferdam in the Slough would be installed using interlocking sheet piles to allow for open- trench installation. Two holes would be cut in the sheet piles to allow the 60-inch storm drain and the 54-inch existing outfall to pipes to pass through. Temporary pipes would be installed through the holes to connect from the end of the 60-inch storm drain and the 54-inch existing outfall to pass beyond the temporary sheetpiles and allow flow bypass. The interlocking sheet piles would provide reasonable water-tightness so that dewatering could be achieved via a sump pump. Minimal soil is anticipated to be temporarily discharged into the Slough within the cofferdam during construction. All cut soil would be removed and disposed of off-site. At the end of the new effluent outfall pipe, a new effluent monitoring station would be installed to monitor the effluent pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature. The effluent monitoring station would consist of a buried fiberglass or concrete box located just off the existing levee crest near the effluent outfall pipe discharge point. During the new effluent outfall installation, an electrical cable and a signal cable would be installed along the new outfall trench. The electrical cable would power the pH and DO meters. The signal cable would transmit data from the pH and DO meters to the Plant. To allow for flow control, two new sluice gates would be installed on the existing RWQCP outfall box. The sluice gates would be installed at the outlets from the outfall box to the new effluent outfall and the existing outfall pipes. The sluice gates would be stainless steel construction with motorized actuators. The sluice gates would be locally operated and would not be connected to the Plant’s SCADA system. City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California Figure 3. Proposed Pipeline Alignment Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 2 Pipeline Alignment.mxd Map Prepared Date: 10/12/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: Esri Streaming - NAIP 2016 Data Source(s): WRA New Pipeline Alignment Existing Pipeline Sheetpile Cofferdam Staging Area 0 125 250 375 Feet RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 8 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 The combined capacity of both the new outfall and the existing outfall is estimated to be approximately 123 MGD at current high tide water level. This capacity is based on adding the new outfall pipe with a 63-inch outside diameter and 57-inch inside diameter and the HPDE pipe material. After 36-inch of sea level rise, the combined capacity of both the new outfall and the existing outfall would be reduced to just slightly below 80 MGD. However, since the City plans to use Renzel Marsh Pump to divert approximately 3 MGD of flow into Renzel Marsh, the total capacity, including both outfalls and the Renzel Marsh flow diversion, is approximately 82 MGD, which exceeds the Plant Peak Wet Weather Flow of 80 MGD. Existing Outfall Pipe Rehabilitation After the new effluent outfall pipe construction complete, the flow can be diverted to the new outfall pipe during summer months (dry season) and the existing outfall pipe can be rehabilitated. The rehabilitation would include installing interior flexible joint seals to seal the joints that may have the potential to leak. The flexible joint seals would be installed from the interior of the pipe, and there would be no open excavation at the surface above the pipe. The Contractor would first need to dewater the existing pipe, then enter the pipe, with adequate ventilation and safety measures, to install the flexible joint seal. Renzel Marsh Pump Replacement The City has an existing pump that is experiencing air entrainment, causing noise and operational difficulties. The Renzel Marsh Pump is located in the basement of the RWQCP’s existing administrative building and pumps tertiary treated and UV disinfected effluent to Renzel Marsh. The pump suction consists of a long (i.e., over 700 feet) 12-inch diameter suction line, which connects to the existing outfall box. The water level inside the outfall box is influenced by the tidal water level in SF Bay. During very low tide, the suction line receives air and causes the Renzel Marsh Pump to cavitate, which generates noise and may damage the pump impeller over the long term. In order to improve operation, a new submersible pump, maximum 30 horsepower (HP), would be installed in an existing concrete structure, referred to as the Chlorine Contact Tank (CCT) outlet box, located inside the RWQCP, near the existing outfall box. The existing structure is open to the atmosphere and receives tertiary treated wastewater. The water level in the CCT outlet box is higher than the water level in the outfall box, which provides sufficient water depth above the pump suction inlet and avoids the air entrainment issue. The City would increase the power of the pump to 60 HP within five to ten years. A new variable frequency drive (VFD) would be mounted inside the UV system electrical room located just to the southeast of the CCT, on the southwest side of the UV structure. The new VFD would allow for variation in pump speeds, resulting in long-term energy efficient operation of the pump. A shallow electrical trench would be cut between the VFD in the UV electrical room and the new submersible pump installation location to allow for installation of the electrical conduit. The Renzel Marsh pump improvement would also include: RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 9 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018  approximately 40 feet of 12-inch diameter, High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) piping to be installed below grade, and  approximately 10 feet of exposed 12-inch diameter exposed ductile iron piping The below grade piping would be installed in trenches within the RWQCP boundaries; the trench depth would be approximately 5-feet in length. Additionally, approximately 10 feet of the existing 12-inch diameter below grade HDPE piping would be removed or abandoned in place, all within the grounds of the existing RWQCP. The new Renzel Marsh Pump would have the capacity to operate at 1.5 MGD for future flows, but would run at reduced speeds to provide 300 gpm (0.4 MGD). The existing Renzel Marsh pump located in the basement of the Administration building would be removed. Commissioning of New Systems The existing 54-inch outfall pipe would be maintained in service while the new effluent outfall pipe is being constructed. When the new outfall pipe is constructed and is ready to accept flow, it would then connect to the existing RWQCP outfall box. This construction activity would be scheduled during summer months (dry season). Temporary piping would be used to divert effluent into the existing 54-inch outfall pipe. After the new effluent outfall pipe is in service, the effluent would then be diverted to the new effluent outfall pipe. The existing outfall can then be taken out of service to allow rehabilitation. Once the rehabilitation is complete, the City would use both the new effluent outfall pipe and the existing outfall pipe. The new Renzel Marsh pump would be used to convey the tertiary treated and UV disinfected effluent to the Renzel Marsh. The new pump would typically be operated at all times to convey flow at a rate between 300 and 1,000 gallon per minute (gpm). Construction Details Construction Equipment Construction equipment for the proposed project would likely include the vehicles and equipment listed in Table 2 below. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 10 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Table 2. Construction Equipment Equipment Estimated Quantity Purpose Medium to Large Excavator 1 Trench excavation, trench shoring installation, backfilling trench, and trench compaction Medium to Large Dump Truck 2-3 Hauling excavated material and imported material for trench backfill Concrete Truck 2 Delivering concrete material Large Flatbed Truck 1 Delivering HDPE pipes Large HDPE Pipe Welding Machine (i.e., McElroy Fusion Machine) 1 Fusing HDPE pipe joints Medium to Large Pipe Layer or Boom Truck 1-2 Moving the HDPE pipe from ground to the trench Construction Schedule New outfall construction is anticipated to start in the third quarter of 2019. Construction of the new outfall pipeline and Renzel Marsh pump is anticipated to take approximately nine months, not accounting for pre-construction project coordination, which would mean no field work during this phase of preparation work, such as coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), contractor submitting paperwork for insurance and shop drawings, etc. The existing outfall pipe rehabilitation would take approximately six months and is anticipated to be in 2020. Construction of the new outfall pipeline within the levee and in the unnamed slough (between Station 14+00 and 27+00) would occur between September 1 and January 31 to avoid the California Ridgway’s Rail (CRR) breeding season. The proposed project would require a minimal amount of daily truck trips and would utilize the U.S. Route 101 Freeway via Embarcadero Road. The proposed project would not close any roads during construction. A traffic management plan would be prepared that would leave one lane open for through traffic, with flaggers controlling traffic, where the new outfall pipe crosses Embarcadero Road. Construction activities in this area would be limited to 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Nighttime construction would be required for approximately three weeks during installation of the pipeline along the Airport apron and within the levee, as work in this area would require runway closure. All other construction would occur within daylight hours and would be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction would be prohibited on Sundays and holidays. Signs identifying these hours would be posted at the site per the City Noise Ordinance. Grading, Drainage, and Utilities The proposed project would include trenching for the installation of a new effluent outfall pipe resulting in approximately 8,500 cubic yards of cut material to be exported from the site, as the excavated materials are generally not suitable for backfill and SFCJPA does not want pervious backfill around the pipe that is adjacent to their levee. In accordance with the SFCJPA and recommendations in the Geotechnical Report (Appendix D), the trenches would be backfilled with cementitious material with various unit weights, resulting in approximately the same load on the soils in the project site and minimizing any consolidation settlement. Therefore, approximately 6,250 cubic yards of cementitious material would be imported for the proposed RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 11 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 project. As the average construction truck has a capacity of 10 cubic yards, the proposed project would result in approximately 850 truck trips to haul soil for export and 590 cement truck trips. Assuming a 6 day work week, for a total of nine months, the project would require seven daily truck trips on average. Actual truck trips per day may vary. The trench would be located a sufficient distance from existing utilities to avoid lateral displacement of those utilities during construction. When crossing of existing utilities is required, a minimum of one foot of vertical clearance would be provided. Additionally, California’s Department of Drinking Water Regulations state that potable water pipelines shall maintain at least 10 feet horizontal and 1 foot vertical separation from any parallel primary or secondary treated sewage pipes (California Waterboards, 2016). PG&E, AT&T, and Comcast have already provided utility maps or stated they have no utilities in the area of the project. Tree Removal The proposed project would require the removal of three non-native trees near the RWQCP and Embarcadero Road. As the City is the project proponent, they are not subject to the formal requirements of the City’s tree ordinance. However, the City would replace the removed trees with tree species approved of as part of the 2012 RWQCP Landscaping Project. Staging, Access, and Detours All equipment, construction vehicles, and work crew vehicles would be staged in the lot adjacent to Embarcadero Road and the Airport terminal parking lot. Dump trucks would haul in backfill material and remove excavated soil from the site to an approved off-site disposal area. All equipment would access the site via Embarcadero Road, the existing levee top, and the San Franciscquito Creek Trail. The trucks would use the same access road, utilizing Embarcadero Road, which runs directly west to Highway 101. Access to Embarcadero Road would be available during the entire construction phase, as the traffic control plan would ensure one lane remains open at all times. Due to temporary closure of the Bay Trail during construction activities at the final reach of the pipeline and outfall for approximately two weeks, detour signage would be posted at Geng Road, the Lucy Evans Bayland Nature Interpretive Center, and on Embarcadero Road east of the RWQCP. See Figure 4, San Francisquito Trail Detour Route, for more details. Cumulative Projects As the local lead for flood improvement projects being studied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the SFCJPA is planning a levee enhancement project from San Francisquito Creek to the Palo Alto/Mountain View border. SFCJPA has planned to raise the crest of the levee paralleling the unnamed slough to 16 feet elevation. To ensure the SFCJPA was aware of the RWQCP’s new outfall project, the City reached out to the SFCJPA levee project. As a result of that outreach, the City has learned the levee project is still in the planning stages, with detailed design to come in future years. The SFCJPA has reviewed the new outfall project’s 90% design and is fully aware of this project. The SFCJPA main concern is that the new outfall design includes a backfill material around the pipe in the segment that is in immediate proximity to the improved levee, such that the new outfall pipe backfill would not act as a corridor for water, RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 12 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 which could undermine the levee. This material would only need to be installed where the new outfall intersects the levee. SFCJPA does not anticipate that the RWQCP would need to relocate the new outfall above the flood elevation. City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California Figure 4. San Francisquito Trail Detour Route Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\Fig x Trail Detour.mxd Map Prepared Date: 10/27/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: Esri Streaming - NAIP 2016 Data Source(s): WRA Sign: detour to Embarcadero Road, then Geng Road to San Francisquito Creek Trail Sign: detour to Geng Road, then Embarcadero Road to San Francisquito Creek Trail Sign at Friendship Bridge: detour to Geng Road, then Embarcadero Road to San Francisquito Creek Trail Ge n g R d . Emb a r c a d e r o R d . Signs San Francisquito Trail Temporary Closure San Francisquito Trail Temporary Detour Existing San Francisquito Creek Trail 0 320 640 960 Feet RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 14 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The project site is bordered to the north and east by Mayfield slough, an unnamed slough at the existing outfall pipe discharge point, the Palo Alto Duck Pond, and the San Francisco Bay. The Palo Alto Airport borders the project site to the north and west. The RWQCP and other industrial facilities are located to the south and west of the site. Byxbee Park is also located south of the RWQCP. 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)  BCDC Permit San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB)  Section 401 Water Quality Certification  Existing RWQCP National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)  Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)  Review and Approval of Construction Safety Phasing Plan San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA)  Plan Review City of Palo Alto  Encroachment Permit waived California State Lands Commission  Lease Amendment RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 15 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY IMPACTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially impacted by the project. Complete this table after the checklist is filled out and check the boxes for categories that are potentially significant with or without mitigation incorporated. Aesthetics X Hazards & Hazardous Materials Recreation Agriculture and Forest Resources Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation/Traffic X Air Quality Land Use/Planning X Tribal Cultural Resources X Biological Resources Mineral Resources X Utilities/Service Systems X Cultural Resources X Noise Energy X Geology/Soils Population/Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services 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 RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 16 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 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. 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. The left-hand 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 and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 17 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area and its surroundings? 1 b) Significantly alter public viewsheds or view corridors or scenic resources (such as trees, rocks, outcroppings or historic buildings) along a scenic highway? 4, 5 c) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 d) 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 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to the public’s experience and appreciation of the environment. The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, identifies several scenic resources, routes, and viewsheds within the City. Scenic routes within the City include Sand Hill Road, University Avenue, Embarcadero Road, Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway, Arastradero Road, and Foothill Expressway-Junipero Serra Boulevard. Embarcadero Road east of Highway 101 is considered a scenic corridor and gateway with views of the Palo Alto Baylands (Baylands). Views of the Baylands are also considered a scenic resource within the City and design recommendations are included in the Baylands Master Plan for this area. DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located partially within the RWQCP, in the vicinity of the Palo Alto Airport and other industrial uses, and partially within the open space of the Palo Alto Baylands. During construction the project would result in a minor impact to the visual character of the area with the presence of construction equipment. Once completed, RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 18 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 the proposed project elements including the new effluent outfall pipe, rehabilitation of the existing pipe, and Renzel Marsh pump would all be located completely underground and out of the line-of-sight. In addition, as described in the Project Description above, while construction of the new pipeline would require the removal of three trees, the proposed project includes the replacement of these trees per the RWQCP’s planting palette. Therefore, once the project is completed, the visual character of the site would be similar to existing conditions. A less-than- significant impact would occur. b) Would the proposed project significantly alter public viewsheds or view corridors or scenic resources (such as trees, rocks, outcroppings or historic buildings) along a scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. According to Caltrans California Scenic Highway Mapping System for Santa Clara County, no scenic highways are located within the vicinity of the project site.1 However, the City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies Embarcadero R oad east of Highway 101 as a scenic corridor and gateway with views of the Palo Alto Baylands. The proposed project would require work within Embarcadero Road for approximately one week for the installation of the new pipeline with trenching across Embarcadero Road. As the proposed project would only require construction within this corridor for one week, impacts would be less than significant. c) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. No lighting would be installed for use during the operational phase of the project. As the new effluent outfall pipe and, existing pipe, and Renzel Marsh pump would all be located underground, no materials would be installed that would create a new source of glare. The construction phase would occur mostly during daylight hours. However, due to the close proximity to the Airport, the stretch of new outfall pipe to be installed along the Airport apron and runway would require runway closure and approximately three weeks of nighttime construction with the use of headlights on trucks, and mobile lighting for the benefit of the construction crew. As this nighttime lighting would only be used for three weeks and would not be directed towards the sky, nighttime views in the area would not be adversely affected and impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the proposed project 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? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the vicinity of the RWQCP, Airport, San Francisquito Creek Trail, a golf course and the Palo Alto Baylands. The proposed project would include the rehabilitation of an existing pipeline below the ground surface, and the installation of a new pipe and pump below the ground surface. The proposed project would not involve the construction of any buildings or other structures that could potentially cast a substantial shadow on the previously listed aesthetic resources. During construction activities, 1 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Santa Clara County. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed: March 29, 2017. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 19 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 the construction equipment would include mobile vehicles and would not substantially shadow public open space. . The proposed trees to be planted would replace trees that would be removed during construction activities and would be similar in size and species of all other trees planted at the RWQCP. Therefore, these trees would not significantly alter existing conditions related to shadows. A less-than-significant impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: None Required. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 20 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 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. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources 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? 1, 6 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 7 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land2, timberland3, or timberland zoned Timberland Production4 1, 3 d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? 1 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? 1 f) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? 1 2 As defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) 3 As defined by Public Resources Code section 4526 4 As defined by Government Code section 51104(g) RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 21 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project site is located adjacent to Mayfield Slough and the Palo Alto Baylands of the San Francisco Bay, situated partially within and along the apron of the Palo Alto Airport. The project site is also partially within the RWQCP property. No agricultural uses are located on-site or in the surrounding vicinity. The project site is not located in an area designated as “Prime Farmland”, “Unique Farmland”, or “Farmland of Statewide Importance,” as documented on the California Resources Agency Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (commonly referred to as the Williamson Act). The project site is not located within the vicinity of any forest land or timberland. DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use? No Impact. According to the State of California Department of Conservation, Important Farmland Finder, the project site is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land”. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur. b) Would the proposed project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is zoned PF(D), which does not permit agricultural uses. Furthermore, according to the Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016 Map, developed by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, the project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Would the proposed project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland? No Impact. The project site is zoned PF (D) for Public Facilities/Site Design Review Combining District. The proposed project would install a new outfall pipe, rehabilitate the existing outfall pipe, and install new pump to pump treated water out to the Renzel Marsh. The proposed project would not include or result in the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland. No impact would occur. d) Would the proposed project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? No Impact. As described above, the proposed project is not located within the vicinity of forest land. Therefore, no forest land would be lost or converted to a non-forest use as a result of project implementation. No impact would occur. e) Would the proposed project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 22 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 No impact. The proposed project is not designated or within the vicinity of other lands that are designated as Farmland. Therefore, the conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use would not occur. The proposed project would have no impact. f) Would the proposed project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? No Impact. The project site is not designated as forest land or within the vicinity of any forest land. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of forest land to a non- forest use. The proposed project would have no impact. Mitigation Measures: None Required. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 23 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Issues Less than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (such as the 2010 Clean Air Plan or the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan)? 1, 8, 19 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1, 8, 19 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)? 1, 8, 19 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1, 8 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1, 8, 9 INTRODUCTION: The following Air Quality analysis is based in part on air quality data prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin (Appendix A). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project is located in the northern portion of Santa Clara County within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 24 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort. Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region- wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function and growth in children. Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants listed above. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and Federal level. Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the state's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. REGULATORY SETTING: 2017 Clean Air Plan The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP) provides a regional strategy to protect public health and protect the climate. The 2017 Plan updates the most recent Bay Area ozone plan, the 2010 Clean Air Plan, pursuant to air quality planning requirements defined in the California Health & Safety Code. To fulfill state ozone planning requirements, the 2017 control strategy includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors-reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)- and reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins. In addition, the Plan builds upon and enhances the Air District’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants. The Plan will ensure the Bay Area continues to meet fine PM standards, while continuing progress toward attaining state and national ozone standards (BAAQMD, April 2017). BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines published in 2017 contain recommended thresholds of significance for regional criteria pollutants (ROG, NOX, RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 25 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 PM10, and PM2.5) and community risk criteria, which were used in this assessment. Significance Thresholds In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA and were posted on BAAQMD’s website and included in BAAQMD's updated CEQA Guidelines (updated May 2017). The significance thresholds identified by BAAQMD and used in this analysis are summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Air Quality Significance Thresholds Pollutant Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds Average Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Average Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Annual Average Emissions (tons/year) Criteria Air Pollutants ROG 54 54 10 NOx 54 54 10 PM10 82 82 15 PM2.5 54 54 10 CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Fugitive Dust Construction Dust Ordinance or other Best Management Practices Not Applicable Health Risks and Hazards for Single Sources Excess Cancer Risk 10 per 1 million Chronic or Acute Hazard Index 1.0 Incremental annual average PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 Health Risks and Hazards for Cumulative Sources (Cumulative from all Sources within 1,000-Foot Zone of Influence) Excess Cancer Risk 100 per 1 million Chronic or Acute Hazard Index 10.0 Annual Average PM2.5 0.8 µg/m3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions 1,100 metric tons or 4.6 metric tons per service population Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = coarse particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 µm or less; CO = carbon monoxide, ppm = parts per million, µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. Source: BAAQMD, 2017. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 26 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The most recent clean air plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP). The proposed project would not conflict with the latest Clean Air planning efforts since the project would have emissions well below the BAAQMD thresholds (see b and c below) and would not interfere with implementation of any of the plan measures. The proposed project would not conflict with the latest Clean Air planning efforts since the project would result in minimal and temporary construction emissions and would ultimately reduce operational emissions from the RWQCP with a more efficient pump to the Renzel Marsh. In addition, the project does not require any General Plan amendments that would change land use assumptions in the 2017 Plan, upon which region-wide emissions were estimated. The proposed project would have no impact related to the implementation of the 2017 CAP. b) Would the proposed project violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction Period Emissions The California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.1 (CalEEMod) provided construction emissions for the project. A statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform to quantify air quality emissions from land use projects, CalEEMod provides emission estimates for both on- site and off-site construction activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions from site preparation and grading, trenching and open cut, pump installation, the existing outfall rehabilitation, and paving, while off-site activity includes worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. A construction build-out scenario, including equipment list and schedule, was based on information provided by the project applicant. The proposed project land use was input into CalEEMod as “User Defined Industrial” on 2.4 acres. A square footage of 38,120 sf was entered to account for ROG emissions from repaving. The anticipated cubic yardage of material import and export and cement truck trips by phase were entered into the model (see Appendix A). This included 14,729 cubic yards of total material import and export and 589 total cement truck round trips. The CalEEMod model assumes 16 cy/truck. It was assumed that there would be approximately three vendor trips per day to deliver the new pipe on average. Average daily emissions are shown in Table 4 for emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 during construction of the project. The CalEEMod input and output values for construction emissions are found in Appendix A. In addition, annual emissions are also shown in Table 4. As indicated in Table 4, computed project construction period emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD average daily significance thresholds. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 27 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Table 4. Construction Period Emissions Scenario ROG NOx PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust Annual construction emissions (tons) 0.09 tons 1.21 tons 0.04 tons 0.03 tons Average daily emissions (pounds)1 1.4 lbs. 18.3 lbs. 0.6 lbs. 0.5 lbs. BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs. Exceed Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1Assumes 132 workdays. Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 2017. Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less than significant if best management practices are implemented to reduce these emissions. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would implement BAAQMD-recommended best management practices including a SWPPP and installation of rumble strips for trucks exiting the site. Operational Period Emissions Operational air emissions from the proposed would be generated primarily from the new pump and maintenance vehicle trips. However, the replacement pump would not be larger in horsepower than the existing pump and maintenance vehicle trips would be limited. Net emissions from operation of the project would not be substantial, as proposed project emissions would be similar to existing levels. This would be a less-than-significant impact. c) Would the proposed project 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as in “nonattainment” for both federal and state ozone standards and state particulate matter standards. This nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. As stated in the BAAQMD 2017 Guidelines, “by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.” As described above, operation of the proposed project would not result in significant emissions that would violate applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, construction-related air quality emissions would be reduced to less- RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 28 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 than-significant levels and would be temporary in nature. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant contribution to cumulative air quality impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. d) Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur either by introducing a new sensitive receptor, such as a residential use, in proximity to an existing source of TACs or by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. The project would not introduce new receptors. Also, review of the project area did not reveal any sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site, which BAAQMD uses as a screening distance for potential impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure of receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Would the proposed project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. The 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identify potential sources of objectionable odors including wastewater treatment plant, manufacturing plants, landfills, and agricultural and industrial operations. The project would generate localized emissions of diesel exhaust during construction equipment operation and truck activity. These emissions may be noticeable from time to time by adjacent receptors. Operation of the proposed project would include a new effluent outfall pipe, however, this new pipe would be subject to the same regulations stipulated in the RWQCP’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (NPDES No. CA0037834) waste discharge requirements (WDRs), which includes regulation of objectionable odors from waste discharge. However, they would be localized and are not likely to adversely affect people off-site by resulting in confirmed odor complaints. The project would not include any sources of significant odors that would cause complaints from surrounding uses. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Construction Emissions During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implements measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less-than-significant level. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 29 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 9. The Contractor shall prepare a SWPPP, to be submitted and approved by the City prior to the start of construction 10. The Contractor shall install rumble strips for trucks exiting the site. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 30 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources 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, 10 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 10 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 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, 10 d) 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, 10 e) 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)? 1, 3, 10 RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 31 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources f) Conflict with the provisions of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1, 11 INTRODUCTION: The following Biological Resources analysis is based in part on the Biological Resources Survey Report prepared by WRA, Inc. in June 2017 (Appendix B). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Approximately half of the project footprint is located within the Palo Alto Airport and adjacent to the RWQCP, and half of the project footprint would occur on and within a levee separating the Airport from adjacent tidal areas. The Palo Alto Airport is among the busiest of all General Aviation airports in the United States, and air traffic is a source of consistent background visual and auditory disturbance for wildlife species. The RWQCP must operate 24 hours per day and seven days a week to provide water quality treatment in accordance with federal laws. Maintenance and operations occur at the RWQCP at any time during these operational hours, and the plant must be lit a night to accommodate safe and reliable operations and maintenance. The Airport operates from 7AM to 9PM, seven days a week, and must also utilize night lighting for safety. The tidal areas outboard of the levees surrounding the Airport support tidal wetlands, known populations of sensitive wildlife species, and contain potential habitat for sensitive plant species. The proposed project would occur in areas outside of and adjacent to these tidal areas. The background conditions described above are an important consideration when evaluating the potential for indirect impacts to sensitive species in the context of the project. Special-Status Plant Species Based on the database search for special-status plants, 12 special-status species have been documented within five miles of the project site (Figure 5, CNDDB Special-Status Plants). Of the special-status plant species recorded in the vicinity, three plant species have the potential to occur in the project site due to the presence of potentially suitable tidal salt marsh habitat. None of these plant species were observed during a survey of the approximately 27-acre Study Area by WRA biologists on May 2, 2017. The remaining special-status plant species have no potential or are unlikely to be found in the project site due to lack of suitable habitat. While none of the following special-status plant species were observed on-site by WRA biologists on March 27, 2017, rare plant surveys are recommended prior to construction during the blooming period of these special-status species with moderate or high potential to be found in the project site. 1 2 3333 3 3 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 Figure 5. Special-status Plants Documented within 5 Miles of the Study Area City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California 0 1 20.5 Miles . Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 3 CNDDB Plant.mxd CNDDB Plant Occurrences 1, alkali milk-vetch 2, California seablite 3, Congdon's tarplant 4, fragrant fritillary 5, Franciscan onion 6, Hoover's button-celery 7, lost thistle 8, Point Reyes salty bird's-beak 9, round-headed Chinese-houses 10, San Francisco collinsia 11, slender-leaved pondweed 12, western leatherwood Map Prepared Date: 5/12/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: National Geographic Data Source(s): CNDDB January 2017 Study Area < 5-mileBuffer RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 33 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018  Point Reyes bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre). State Endangered, Rank 1B.1.  California seablite (Suaeda californica). Federally Endangered, State Endangered, Rank 1B.1.  Saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum). State Endangered, Rank 1B.2. Surveys for Point Reyes bird’s beak and California seablite are recommended to occur during the late season from June to October and surveys for saline clover are recommended to occur from April through June. More information on these species and their blooming periods are provided below. Point Reyes bird’s beak Point Reyes bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre) is a hemiparasitic annual herb found in coastal salt marshes and swamps. It typically blooms from June through October at elevations from zero to 10 meters in elevation (CNPS 2015). The tidal wetlands and pickleweed mats may provide suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. California seablite California seablite (Suaeda californica) is a perennial evergreen shrub found in coastal salt marshes and swamps. It typically blooms from July through October at elevations ranging from zero to 15 meters (CNPS 2015). The tidal salt marsh and pickleweed mats may provide suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. The nearest documented occurrence for this species is located in the baylands adjacent and to the southeast of the project site (CDFW 2015). Saline clover Saline clover (Trifolium Hydrophilum) is an annual herb found in salt marshes, open areas in alkaline soils, and alkaline grasslands. It typically blooms between April and June in elevations of zero to 300 meters. The tidal salt marsh and annual grasslands may provide suitable habitat for this species. Special-Status Wildlife Species Based on the literature and database search, a total of 20 special-status wildlife species have been documented within five miles of the Study Area (Figure 6, CNDDB Special-Status Wildlife). Of the special-status wildlife species recorded in the vicinity of the Study Area, most have no potential or are unlikely to occur within the Study Area due to the absence of suitable habitats, including forest, riparian, open grassland, chaparral, and fresh waters. However, the Study Area has several habitat features including tidal salt marsh and slough habitat that may support 16 special-status species. One individual California Ridgway’s Rail (CRR) was observed foraging in the Study Area by WRA biologists on March 27, 2017. No other special status species were observed. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 7 7 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 1616 17 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 Figure 6. Special-status Wildlife Documented within 5 Miles of the Study Area City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California 0 1 20.5 Miles . Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 4 CNDDB Wildlife.mxd CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences 1, Alameda song sparrow 2, American badger 3, black skimmer 4, burrowing owl 5, California black rail 6, California clapper rail 7, California least tern 8, California red-legged frog 9, California tiger salamander 10, hoary bat 11, longfin smelt 12, northern harrier 13, pallid bat 14, salt-marsh harvest mouse 15, salt-marsh wandering shrew 16, saltmarsh common yellowthroat 17, Townsend's big-eared bat 18, western bumble bee 19, western pond turtle 20, western snowy plover Map Prepared Date: 5/19/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: National Geographic Data Source(s): CNDDB January 2017 Study Area < 5-mile Buffer RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 35 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Salt-Marsh Wandering Shrew SMHM and salt-marsh wandering shrew have the potential to occur within the project site due to the presence of tidal wetlands and pickleweed mats. Suitable habitat for SMHM and salt-marsh wandering shrew includes dense vegetation in tidal wetlands in the San Francisco Bay Area. SMHM may also be present in diked wetlands if suitably dense vegetation is present. In tidal areas, these species require upland refugia to escape high tides, and SMHM is known to opportunistically forage in uplands up to 330 feet from their primary wetland habitat (USFWS 2013). Therefore, the pickleweed mats adjacent to the Airport runway may also provide suitable habitat for these species as upland refugia with vegetation. These two species are known to occur in the wetlands along the Palo Alto shoreline, and SMHM has been documented in marshes outboard of the Palo Alto Airport along the San Francisquito Creek Trail (CDFW 2017). California Ridgway’s Rail (CRR) and Black Rail (CBR) CRR and CBR have the potential to occur in a small portion of the project site, specifically in the unnamed slough near the proposed new RWQCP outfall location. CRR and CBR are found in lowland wetlands in the San Francisco Bay Area. CBR is more restricted to tidal salt marsh habitats than CBR, which may also be found in diked wetlands with suitable vegetation composition. Both of these species have been documented in the marshes outboard of the Palo Alto Airport along the San Francisquito Creek Trail (CDFW 2017). CRR is known to breed there and an individual CRR was observed by WRA biologists during the March 27, 2017 site visit (CDFW 2017). CBR breeds rarely in south San Francisco Bay, but this species has been detected in the marshes adjacent to the project site in April, during the nesting season and may thus use these marshes within and adjacent to the project site for nesting (CDFW 2017). Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl has the potential to occur in the project site due to the presence of grasslands with the Airport apron and along the adjacent levee berm top. Burrowing owl inhabit small mammal burrows year-round, primarily those of the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) in the region, or other suitable burrow surrogates such as pipes, culverts, and some debris piles. This species typically occupies burrows in annual grassland habitats or other open spaces with sparse or non-existent tree or shrub canopies and short vegetation, usually under 18 inches in height. This species has been previously documented at the Palo Alto Airport in 1983 and at Byxbee Park southwest of the project site (CDFW 2017). However, no breeding occurrences have been documented at these locations. Ground squirrels are active in the grassy portion of the Study Area south of the Airport terminal. If this vegetation is regularly mowed, in these areas, conditions are suitable to support burrowing owl. Other Special-Status Bird Species The remaining special-status bird species with potential to occur in the Study Area all nest in wetland vegetation, and are known to the vicinity (CDFW 2017, Shuford and Gardali 2008). These birds may forage or nest within the salt marshes and adjacent uplands within the Study Area. Special-Status Lamprey and Fish Species The two lamprey species (pacific lamprey and river lamprey) and three fish species (green sturgeon, RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 36 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 white sturgeon, and steelhead) listed above are known to occur widely in San Francisco Bay waters. These species may be opportunistically present in the unnamed slough within the project site adjacent to the San Francisquito Creek Trail, near the location of the proposed RWQCP outfall. Adult and juvenile fish may enter the existing outfall location from bay waters to forage or for shelter. However, the outfall location does not contain or connect to spawning habitat for any of these species, and does not provide foraging or sheltering habitat or any particular value and any occurrences of these fish species would be incidental and short-lived duration. Wetlands and Waters Wetlands within the project site include tidal salt marsh and non-tidal seasonal wetlands. Based on a preliminary wetlands and waters delineation prepared by WRA biologists to support regulatory permits, the Study Area includes: 0.35 acre of non-wetland tidal waters; 1.32 acres of non-tidal seasonal wetlands; and 0.80 acre of tidal salt marsh (Figure 7, Preliminary Wetland and Waters Delineation). Tidal salt marsh within the project site is located outboard of the levee, adjacent to the unnamed slough, in the vicinity of the existing outfall. This community is dominated by hydrophytic plant species including pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), barley (Hordeum marinum), broadleaved pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), and alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus). Overall the tidal wetlands were dominated by obligate, facultative wetland, and facultative species, and were inundated or saturated at the time of the site visit. Soil samples taken within the project site provided evidence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. The boundary between tidal wetland and upland areas was demarcated by a transition to dominance of upland species and subtle changes in elevation. Non-tidal seasonal wetlands are located within the project site within the Airport runway infield area adjacent to the southern edge of the Airport runway. Non-tidal wetlands within this area are characterized as pickleweed mats (non-tidal), and consist predominately of pickleweed, salt grass, and broadleaved pepperweed. Several other species are associated with the pickleweed mats on the project site, including iceplant (Carpobrotus spp.), Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), and saltgrass. Wetland hydrology is driven primarily by runoff originating from adjacent lands during precipitation events, including portions of the Airport tarmac and runway. Shallow groundwater also contributes to wetland hydrology in the non-tidal wetlands, though to a lesser extent than surface-driven hydrology. Non-wetland tidal waters in the project site include un-vegetated aquatic areas below the HTL elevation. Non-wetland tidal waters are located in the unnamed slough, where no vegetation is present. The HTL in the project site was identified based on the approximate highest predicted tide using National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted tide levels for the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor (Station ID 9414525) (NOAA 2017). Based on this data, the HTL was 9.31 feet NAVD88. Trees An arborist survey was conducted on May 2, 2017 by WRA to identify trees that are regulated or protected under the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 8, Trees & Vegetation and Title 18, Zoning Code. The regulated trees of Palo Alto refer to all those trees or groups of trees included in the following three categories: 1) Protected Trees, 2) Street Trees and 3) Designated Trees. These categories are discussed further in the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Technical Manual, which also provides information RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 37 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 regarding the City’s tree permits and mitigation requirements. The arborist survey identified 65 trees within the project site, shown in Figure 8, Arborist Survey, below. These species included:  Kurrajong (Brachychiton populneus)  She-oak (Casurina cunninghamiana)  Loquat (Eriobotrya japonica)  River red bum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)  Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus)  White ironbark (Eucalyptus leucoxylon)  Swamp gum (Eucalyptus rudis)  Manna gum (Eucalyputus viminalis)  Honey myrtle (Melaleuca nesophila)  Lollypop tree (Myoporum laetum)  Breeder River yellowwood (Podocarpus elongatas)Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)  Italian buckhorn (Rhamnus alaternus) City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 1 Delineation.mxd Map Prepared Date: 9/13/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: Esri Streaming - NAIP 2014 Data Source(s): WRA PA 1 PA 2 PA 3PA 4 PA 5 PA 6 PA 7 PA 8 PA 9 Mean High Water (6.80 ft.) High Tide Line (9.31 ft.) Delineation Sample Points Jurisdictional Features Non-wetland Tidal Waters (0.35 ac.) Non-tidal Seasonal Wetlands (1.32 ac.) Tidal Salt Marsh (0.80 ac.) 0 110 220 330 Feet Figure 7. Preliminary Wetland and Waters Delineation City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California Figure 8. Arborist Survey Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\GPS Data.mxd Map Prepared Date: 5/8/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: Esri Streaming - NAIP 2014 Data Source(s): WRA . !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( 402401 400 403 404405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440441 442 443 444 445446447448449450451 452 453454455456 457458 459 460461 462 463 464 465 !(Tree 0 20 40 60 Feet This map may contain data from publicly available sources including, but not limited to, parcel boundaries. These data sources may be inaccurate. They are intended for reference purposes only and do not represent legal boundaries or absolute locations. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 40 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 REGULATORY SETTING: Special-Status Species Special-status species that require evaluation in CEQA documentation include those plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These acts afford protection to both listed species and those that are formal candidates for listing. The federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act also provides broad protections to both eagle species that are roughly analogous to those of listed species. Additionally, CDFW Species of Special Concern, CDFW California Fully Protected species, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, and CDFW Special-status Invertebrates are all considered special-status species. Bat species are also evaluated for conservation status by the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), a non-governmental entity; bats named as a “High Priority” or “Medium Priority” species for conservation by the WBWG are typically considered special-status and also considered under CEQA. In addition to regulations for special-status species, most native birds in the United States (including non-status species) are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), i.e., sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Under these laws, deliberately destroying active bird nests, eggs, and/or young is illegal. Plant species included within the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (Inventory) with California Rare Plant Rank (Rank) of 1 and 2 are also considered special-status plant species and must be considered under CEQA. Very few Rank 3 or Rank 4 plant species meet the definitions of Section 1901 Chapter 10 of the Native Plant Protection Act or Sections 2062 and 2067 of the CDFW Code that outlines CESA. However, CNPS and CDFW strongly recommend that these species be fully considered during the preparation of environmental documentation relating to CEQA. This may be particularly appropriate for the type locality of a Rank 4 plant, for populations at the periphery of a species range or in areas where the taxon is especially uncommon or has sustained heavy losses, or from populations exhibiting unusual morphology or occurring on unusual substrates. Critical Habitat Critical habitat is a term defined in the ESA as a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. The ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS to conserve listed species on their lands and to ensure that any activities or projects they fund, authorize, or carry out will not jeopardize the survival of a threatened or endangered species. In consultation for those species with critical habitat, federal agencies must also ensure that their activities or projects do not adversely modify critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in the species’ recovery. In many cases, this level of protection is similar to that already provided to species by the ESA jeopardy standard. However, areas that are currently unoccupied by the species but which are needed for the species’ recovery are protected by the prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat. Sensitive Biological Communities Sensitive biological communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 41 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 such as wetlands, streams, or riparian habitat. These habitats are protected under federal regulations such as the Clean Water Act (CWA); state regulations such as the Porter-Cologne Act, the CDFW Streambed Alteration Program, and CEQA; or local ordinances or policies such as city or county tree ordinances, Special Habitat Management Areas, and General Plan Elements. Waters of the United States The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the CWA. Waters of the U.S. are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all other waters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands as defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), are identified by the presence of (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. Areas that are inundated at a sufficient depth and for a sufficient duration to exclude growth of hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction as “other waters” and are often characterized by an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in non-tidal waters and a high tide line (HTL) in tidal waters. Other waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The placement of fill material into Waters of the U.S generally requires an individual or nationwide permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA. In addition, the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 regulates the placement of fill in navigable waterways. Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, Corps jurisdiction extends up to the mean high water (MHW) of navigable waterways including all tidal waters. Waters of the State The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) protects all waters in its regulatory scope and has special responsibility for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and are not systematically protected by other programs. RWQCB jurisdiction includes “isolated” wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the Corps under Section 404. Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Corps permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact Waters of the State, are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification determination. If a proposed project does not require a federal permit, but does involve dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to Waters of the State, the RWQCB has the option to regulate the dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements. Streams, Lakes, and Riparian Habitat Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of CFGC. Alterations to or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term “stream”, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as “a body of water that flows at least RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 42 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life [including] watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term “stream” can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream dependent terrestrial wildlife (CDFG 1994). “Riparian” is defined as “on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream.” Riparian vegetation is defined as “vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself” (CDFG 1994). Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW. San Francisco Bay and Shoreline The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has regulatory jurisdiction, as defined by the McAteer-Petris Act, over the Bay and its shoreline, which generally consists of the area between the shoreline and a line 100 feet landward of and parallel to the shoreline. Within the Project Area, BCDC has two areas of jurisdiction: San Francisco Bay and the Shoreline Band. Definitions of these areas, as described in the McAteer-Petris Act (PRC Section 66610), are given below. San Francisco Bay: all areas that are subject to tidal action from the south end of the Bay to the Golden Gate (Point Bonita-Point Lobos) and to the Sacramento River line (a line between Stake Point and Simmons Point, extending northeasterly to the mouth of Marshall Cut), including all sloughs, and specifically, the marshlands lying between mean high tide and five feet above mean sea level; tidelands (land lying between mean high tide and mean low tide); and submerged lands (land lying below mean low tide). Shoreline Band: all territory located between the shoreline of San Francisco Bay as defined above and a line 100 feet landward of and parallel with that line, but excluding any portions of such territory which are included in other areas of BCDC jurisdiction, provided that the Commission may, by resolution, exclude from its area of jurisdiction any area within the shoreline band that it finds and declares is of no regional importance to the Bay. Essential Fish Habitat Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is regulated through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Protection of EFH is mandated through changes implemented in 1996 to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to protect the loss of habitat necessary to maintain sustainable fisheries in the United States. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is applicable to areas occupied by specific fisheries managed by NMFS and defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" [16 USC 1802(10)]. NMFS further defines essential fish habitat as areas that "contain habitat essential to the long-term survival and health of our nation's fisheries" (NMFS 2007). EFH can include the water column, certain bottom types such as sandy or rocky bottoms, vegetation such as eelgrass or kelp, or structurally complex coral or oyster reefs. Under regulatory guidelines issued by NMFS, any federal agency that authorizes, funds, or undertakes action that may affect EFH is required to consult with NMFS (50 CFR 600.920). RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 43 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Other Sensitive Biological Communities Other sensitive biological communities not discussed above include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW. CDFW ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" and keeps records of their occurrences in its California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2015). Sensitive plant communities are also identified by CDFW (CDFG 2010). CNDDB vegetation alliances are ranked 1 through 5 based on NatureServe's (2010) methodology, with those alliances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered sensitive. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or those identified by the CDFW or USFWS must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (CCR Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Specific habitats may also be identified as sensitive in city or county general plans or ordinances. San Francisco Estuary Project Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan The federal Clean Water Act established the San Francisco Estuary Project (SFEP) in 1987, as part of the National Estuary Program, to protect and the 2007 Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) serves as the SFEP’s implementation tool. The CCMP promotes watershed management through objectives and corrective actions, including comprehensive long-term management strategies; enhanced wildlife habitat biodiversity; recreational access to the Bay that protects wildlife habitat; and a regional program for coordinated signage, education, and outreach (SFEP 2007). City of Palo Alto Tree Ordinance The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code provides protection for regulated trees under Title 8 of the City’s Municipal Code. As described above, regulated trees can fall under three broad categories; protected public and private trees, street trees, and designated public and private trees. Regulated trees are specifically defined as follows:  Protected Trees: All Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) trees that are 11.5-inches or greater in diameter and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) that are 18-inches in diameter or great and Heritage Trees as designated by City Council. The project site contains one Coast live oak, however it is only 2.4-inches in diameter and is therefore not considered Protected.  Public/Street Trees: All trees growing within the street right-of-way (publically-owned) outside of private property. All trees surveyed within the Study Area are located on public property.  Designated Trees: All trees, when associated with a development project, that are designated by the City to be saved and protected on a public or private property which is subject to a discretionary development review. The proposed outfall and pipeline would be subject to site design review and approval. If the City were to designate any trees within the Study Area as a “Designated Tree”, approval from the City’s Planning Division would be required to remove the designated tree. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 44 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 However, City-sponsored projects are not required to comply with the ordinance, and it is up to the City as to whether or not the removed trees would be replaced. DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would have a significant impact if it would 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. As stated above, the project site may have suitable habitat for three special-status plants and therefore the construction phase of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to special-status plant species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to these special-status plants to less than significant. In addition, the project site contains suitable habitat for special-status wildlife species including SMHM, CRR, CBR, and Burrowing Owl. Grading and construction activities required for the proposed project could therefore result potentially significant impacts to these species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to these species to less than significant. Other special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the project site include special-status fish species that may occur incidentally within the unnamed slough at the proposed outfall location. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts to special-status fish species to less than significant. In addition, the occurrence of shrubs and trees on the project site provides sufficient habitat to support nesting birds protected by the MBTA. To avoid disturbance to active nests, construction and/or vegetation removal can be scheduled to be initiated outside of the breeding bird season (February 1 through August 31). Disturbance of these birds would create a significant impact; however, the applicant would be required to avoid the breeding bird season or conduct pre- construction surveys in compliance with this federal law. b) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project contains two sensitive natural communities: tidal salt marsh (0.80 acre) and non-tidal seasonal wetlands (pickleweed mats, 1.32 acres). Due to the proposed pipeline alignment, the project would result in temporary ground disturbance in 0.13 acre of non-tidal seasonal wetlands and 0.06 acre of non-wetland tidal waters) (Figure 9, Temporary Biological Resources Impacts). However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would reduce these impacts to less than significant. City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California Figure 9. Temporary Biological Resources Impacts Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 3 Temp Impacts.mxd Map Prepared Date: 9/12/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: Esri Streaming - NAIP 2014 Data Source(s): WRA Sheetpile Cofferdam (Non-wetland Tidal Waters, 0.06 ac.) Installation of New Pipeline (Non-tidal Seasonal Wetland, 0.13 ac.) Contractor's Limit of Work/ Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) New Pipeline Alignment Sheetpile Cofferdam Temporary Construction Impacts Non-wetland Tidal Waters (0.35 ac.) Non-tidal Seasonal Wetlands (1.32 ac.) Tidal Salt Marsh (0.80 ac.) 0 60 120 180 Feet RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 46 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 c) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would involve some temporary work within federally protected wetlands, subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and waters of the San Francisco Bay, which would both be regulated by the RWQCB under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. As shown in Figure 9, Temporary Biological Resources Impacts, the project would result in temporary impacts to 0.13 acre of non- tidal seasonal wetlands and 0.06 acre of non-wetland tidal waters. Impacts from trenching and outfall pipe installation to wetlands and waters are therefore potentially significant. However, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation measure BIO-76. d) Would the proposed project 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? No Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are described as pathways or habitat linkages that connect discrete areas of natural open space otherwise separated or fragmented by topography, changes in vegetation, and other natural or human inducted factors such as urbanization. The project travels through developed areas, including the RWQCP and the Airport. As stated above, two special-status lamprey and three special-status fish species have the potential to occur opportunistically in the unnamed slough at the proposed outfall location. Adult and juvenile fish may enter the existing outfall location from the San Francisco Bay to forage or for shelter. However, the outfall does not contain spawning habitat and does not provide any habitat connectivity as a migratory corridor. Furthermore, as the proposed project would include installation of a pipe outfall and the rehabilitation of the existing pipe outfall, these elements would all be placed below the ground and no elements of the proposed project would interfere with habitats during operation. Therefore, no impacts to wildlife movement or native nursery sites would occur. d) Would the proposed project 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)? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Palo Alto provides protection for “Protected Trees”, ‘Street Trees”, and “Designated Trees”. No trees observed within the project site are considered “Protected Trees” under City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code based on species and diameter requirements. The project site includes street trees within the City’s right-of-way that are regulated under the City’s Tree Ordinance. The proposed pipeline alignment would require the removal of three trees within the RWQCP property. As this is a City-sponsored project, compliance with the City tree ordinance is not required. Furthermore, as described in the Project Description, the proposed project includes the replacement of these trees based on the RWQCP tree planting palette. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. f) Would the proposed project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 47 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. No state, regional or federal habitat conservation plans or Natural Community Conservation plans have been adopted for the project site. Furthermore, although not adopted regulatory documents, the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the San Francisco Estuary Project (SFEP) and Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan contain include recommendations and long-term goals for Bay habitats potentially affected by project activities. The proposed project is intended to install a new outfall pipeline that conveys treated effluent immediately adjacent to the existing outfall pipe’s discharge point into an unnamed slough of San Francisco Bay. The project occurs entirely within developed lands adjacent to the Bay, and would not conflict with any provisions of these non-regulatory documents. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to consistency with conservation plans. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Protocol level rare plant surveys shall be conducted within suitable habitat and during the blooming periods of Point Reyes bird’s-beak, California seablite, and saline clover, in order to confirm the presence or absence of these species within the project site. Surveys for Point Reyes bird’s beak and California seablite shall be conducted during the late season, June through October, and surveys for saline clover shall be conducted between April and June, based on the individual specie’s blooming season. If these rare plant species are observed during surveys, they shall be avoided by construction if feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, seed shall be collected for replanting, or whole individuals transplanted to a nearby protected area containing suitable habitat prior to construction, or stored for replanting in the construction area following completion of construction. Transplanted or reseeded individuals shall be monitored for a minimum of two years following construction to ensure transplantation success. If transplanted individuals do not successfully establish, seed or individuals from established and healthy local populations shall be collected and planted at the project site. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 The measures listed below shall be implemented prior to or during construction activities within or adjacent to potential SMHM habitat: a) Prior to ground disturbing activities within and adjacent to potential SMHM habitat, all vegetation within the Project footprint shall be removed using hand-operated tools in the presence of a qualified biological monitor (see below). b) Following vegetation removal, exclusion barriers and/or fencing shall be installed to exclude individuals of this species from areas of active construction. The design of the exclusion barriers and fencing shall be approved by a qualified biologist and shall be installed in the presence of a qualified biological monitor. The fence shall be made of a material that does not allow SMHM to pass through, and the bottom shall be buried to a RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 48 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 depth of a minimum of 4 inches so that these species cannot crawl under the fence. All support for the exclusion fencing shall be placed on the inside of the Project footprint. c) A qualified biological monitor shall be present during wildlife exclusion fence installation and removal, and during all vegetation clearing and initial ground disturbance conducted in vegetation in and adjacent to marsh habitats. The monitor shall have demonstrated experience in biological construction monitoring and knowledge of the biology of the listed species that may be found in the Action Area, including SMHM and CRR. The monitor(s) shall have the authority to halt construction, if necessary, if noncompliance actions occur. The biological monitor(s) shall be the contact person for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a listed species or anyone who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped listed species. Following vegetation removal in potential habitat areas, fence installation, and initial ground disturbance, the biological monitor shall still conduct weekly site checks to provide guidance for fence maintenance, provide environmental sensitivity training, and document compliance with permit conditions. d) The biological monitor shall provide an endangered species training program to all personnel involved in Project construction. At a minimum, the employee education program shall consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable about the biology of listed species with potential to occur in the Action Area, and about their legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors and their employees involved with implementation of the Project. The program shall include a description of these species and their habitat needs; any reports of occurrences in the area; an explanation of the status of these species and their protection under State and Federal legislation; as well as a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to these species during construction. e) Food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in solid, closed containers (trash cans) and removed at the end of each work day from the investigation site to eliminate an attraction to predators of listed species. f) At the end of each work period, all open trenches shall either be securely covered or shall have exit ramps installed to prevent entry and/or entrapment of SMHM. g) If a listed species is observed at any time during construction, work shall not be initiated or shall be stopped immediately until the animal leaves the vicinity of the work area of its own volition. If the animal in question does not leave the work area, work shall not be reinitiated until the appropriate agency is contacted and has made a decision on how to proceed with work activities. The biological monitor shall direct the contractor on how to proceed accordingly. The biological monitor or any other persons at the site shall not pursue, capture, handle, or harass any species observed. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 Construction of the project within the RWQCP and airport grounds shall be timed to occur within the CRR nesting season so that construction in other areas closer to suitable habitat and RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 49 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 outside of existing areas of disturbance may be completed outside of the nesting season. Construction of the new outfall pipeline that would occur within the existing levee and the small reach of construction that would occur within the unnamed slough would avoid the CRR nesting season. Protocol level surveys for CRR shall be completed prior to construction to provide information regarding the location of nesting rails. However, based on a variety of factors, construction shall occur both within and outside of the CRR breeding season. Specifically:  Construction of the new outfall pipeline within the levee and in the unnamed slough (between Station 14+00 and 27+49) shall occur between September 1 and January 31 to avoid the CRR breeding season.  In-water construction in the unnamed slough shall be completed between September 1 and November 30 to avoid the windows for both CRR and listed fish species. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 To avoid impacts to burrowing owl, a pre-construction burrowing owl survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist of potential habitat areas (the Airport apron and along the adjacent levee berm top) at most 14 days from the initiation of project activities, irrespective of time of year. If burrowing owl is detected on the site, a no-disturbance buffer around the active burrow shall be enacted until work is finished or a qualified biologist confirms the burrow is no longer in use. This buffer shall be 250 feet if work is conducted in the area during the nesting season (February 1 – August 31) and 160 feet if work is conducted in the area outside of the nesting season. If the burrow cannot be avoided and work is to be conducted outside the nesting season, burrowing owls shall be passively excluded from the site following the procedures outlined in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 2012). Mitigation Measure BIO-5 All in-water work (i.e., in tidal areas at the unnamed slough) shall be conducted between June 15 and November 30 and will incorporate all avoidance measure listed in the regulatory permits. Installation of sheet piles in tidal waters, if necessary, shall occur by the use of a vibratory hammer during low tide. If impact pile driving is necessary, an evaluation of potential hydroacoustic impacts to fish shall be required, and if necessary additional measures shall be employed to ensure that underwater sound is reduced to levels that are below those that will cause injury to fish. Such additional measures may include:  Hydroacoustic monitoring by a sound engineer during in water pile driving work.  Use of a “soft start” to clear fish from the area of acoustic effect.  Use of a wood cushion block between the hammer and the pile.  Use of a bubble curtain or other similar technique to reduce underwater noise.  Complete all impact pile driving work at low tide.  Limiting the number of pile strikes in a day to reduce the cumulative sound pressure RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 50 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 impacts to fish. Mitigation Measure BIO-6  All construction documents shall include requirements for the restoration of temporary excavations in wetlands back to preconstruction grade, and revegetation of temporarily disturbed areas using appropriate native vegetation. Appropriate native vegetation may include pickleweed, saltgrass, Atriplex, and other salt tolerant wetland plant species. Pickleweed and saltgrass may be selectively harvested from adjacent tidal marsh and seasonal wetland areas for transplantation to temporarily impacted areas for restoration.  Limits of construction, wetlands, and buffers shall be clearly marked with high-visibility construction fencing.  Site access of machinery shall be restricted to as few areas as possible to prevent soil compaction.  Appropriate erosion control measures shall be used around soil stockpiles, graded slopes, and slurry management facilities. Erosion control materials shall be wildlife friendly and shall avoid the use of plastic netting or fixed aperture netting.  A spill prevention and control plan shall be required as part of project specifications to minimize the chance of toxic spills. Spill kits shall be present for any work adjacent to open waters. All spills of oil and other hazardous materials shall be immediately cleaned u and contained. Any hazardous materials cleaned up or used on-site would be properly disposed of at an approved disposal facility.  Litter and Waste Management – Waste collection areas shall be designated on-site. Only watertight dumpsters and trash cans shall be used and inspected for leaks. Dumpsters and cans shall be inspected at the end of each work day when it is raining or windy. Waste collection shall occur regularly. Litter shall be picked up daily. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 51 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) 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? 1, 2, 18 b) Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 18 c) Cause damage to an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 1, 18 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1, 18 e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1, 18 f) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1, 2, 18 INTRODUCTION: As the project site is located on State sovereign land, all historic, cultural, or archaeological resources discovered are vested in the state and under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission (Public Resources Code § 6313). The following Cultural Resources analysis is based in part on the Historical Resources Study prepared by Tom Origer & Associates in September 2017 (Appendix C). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Geology and Soils The study area is located in northwestern Santa Clara County, in the City of Palo Alto. It consists of about 0.5 linear miles of flat, land. The land was once bay marsh that has been filled to contain the Airport, the RWQCP, and various other industrial buildings (Sowers 2004). The nearest freshwater source prior to development of the area was San Francisquito Creek which flowed through the (Area of Potential Affect (APE). The boundaries of the APE are provided in Appendix C. San Francisquito Creek has been channelized and now flows north of the Airport. Review of the geologic maps for the APE shows that the geology of the study area consists of Holocene epoch (11,700 years ago to present) estuarine organic clay and silty clay (bay mud) (Dibblee 2007; Helley and LaJoie 1979). RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 52 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Soils mapped for the study area are Aquic Xerorthents (SoilWeb 2017). Aquic Xerorthents consist of very deep, poorly draining bay mud. This soil is found in bay marshes. Cordgrass, pickleweed, and alkali heath are the chief vegetation supported by Aquic Xerorthents soils, and parcels with these soils have been used primarily for salt production (Gardner 1958: 125; Reed 2015:32). Cultural Setting Archaeological evidence indicates that human occupation of California began at least 11,000 years ago (Erlandson et al. 2007). Early occupants appear to have had an economy based largely on hunting, with limited exchange, and social structures based on the extended family unit. Later, milling technology and an inferred acorn economy were introduced. This diversification of economy appears to be coeval with the development of sedentism and population growth and expansion. Sociopolitical complexity and status distinctions based on wealth are also observable in the archaeological record, as evidenced by an increased range and distribution of trade goods (e.g., shell beads, obsidian tool stone), which are possible indicators of both status and increasingly complex exchange systems. At the time of European settlement, the study area was situated in an area controlled by the Ohlone, who are also referred to as Costanoans (Levy 1978:485-495). The Ohlone were hunter-gatherers who lived in rich environments that allowed for dense populations with complex social structures (Levy 1978:485- 495; Kroeber 1925:462-473). They settled in large, permanent villages about which were distributed seasonal camps and task-specific sites. Primary village sites were occupied throughout the year and other sites were visited in order to procure particular resources that were especially abundant or available only during certain seasons. Sites often were situated near fresh water sources and in ecotones where plant life and animal life were diverse and abundant. Historically, the study area lies within the lands owned by Mission Santa Clara de Asis which was located 14 miles southeast of the APE near the San Jose Airport. The mission was moved five times, eventually to its current location on what is now the Santa Clara University campus after the Guadalupe River flooded twice and two earthquakes (Hoover et al. 2002:422). The area around Palo Alto and Menlo Park was used as the mission's sheep grazing ranch (Hoover et al. 2002:431). After secularization the APE was located within the Las Pulgas and the Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito land grants (General Land Office [GLO] 1856, 1861). The Rancho de Las Pulgas wasinitially granted to José Darío Argüello and known as "Cachanigtac" but was later known as Las Pulgas (the fleas) (Hoover et al. 2002:402). The land consisted of 12 square leagues (over 69,000 acres). The western boundary of the land was disputed and 1856 a patent for 32,240 acres was finally issued to Argüello's widow, his two sons, and the attorney who provided his services in the dispute, Simon Monserrate Mezes (Hoover et al. 2002:403). The Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito land grant was granted to Rafael Soto in 1835 (Gullard and Lund 1989:45). The land consisted of 2,230 acres. Soto had sailed up San Francisquito Creek and established a pier (embarcadero) at the end of the bay marsh and higher ground. Soto and his family lived in the Palo Alto area for several years (Hoover et al. 2002:431). The City of Palo Alto was officially established in 1894 (Hoover et al. 2002:445; Sawyer 1922:284). It was founded by Leland Stanford, Sr. following the death of his son. Stanford had bought land in the RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 53 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Palo Alto area to establish a horse ranch (Gullard and Lund 1989:82). After their son's death in 1884 Stanford and his wife Jane decided to build a university near their home to commemorate their son (Gullard and Lund 1989:82). When the nearby town of Mayfield refused to stop selling liquor and close its saloons, Stanford, through Timothy Hopkins, purchased additional land for the establishment of a city for students of Stanford University to use (Gullard and Lund 1989:59; Hoover et al. 2002:445.) In 1938 William Hewlett and David Packard began using Packard's one-car garage as a laboratory. Within 20 years Hewlett-Packard Company became the leader in manufacturing electronic and computer devices which lead to the beginning of "Silicon Valley" (Hoover et al. 2002:446). The draw of the technology industry in combination with the post-World War II population boom that the San Francisco Bay Area experienced, caused Palo Alto to expand. Like much of the San Francisco Bay Area, the 1950s and 1960s were a time when many orchards and farms turned into suburbs. Eventually, the town of Mayfield was subsumed into Palo Alto. In addition to the increase in houses, infrastructure, services, and industrial buildings were constructed to service and employ the larger population. Native American Outreach A request was sent to the State of California’s Native American Heritage Commission seeking information from the sacred lands files and the names of Native American individuals and groups that would be appropriate to contact regarding this project. Letters were also sent to the following groups: The following groups were also contacted by mail:  Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista  Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan  Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area  North Valley Yokuts Tribe  The Ohlone Indian Tribe The purpose of contacting these groups was to provide notification of the proposed project so that they would have an opportunity to comment, if desired. It was not intended as, and does not constitute, consultation with tribes under AB52. More details about tribal consultation under AB52 is provided in Section Q (Tribal Cultural Resources) below. The Native American Heritage Commission replied with a letter dated August 23, 2017, in which they indicated that the sacred land file has no information about the presence of Native American cultural resources in the project area. No other comments have been received as of the date of this report. A log of contact efforts and copies of correspondence are provided in Appendix C. In addition to the contact efforts conducted by Tom Origer & Associates, the City of Palo Alto received an AB52 request to consult from the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. However, subsequent communication between the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians and the City of Palo Alto resulted in the tribe determining that the City of Palo Alto was outside their ancestral territory and they no longer had a wish to consult on projects overseen by the City. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 54 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Archival Study On August 24, 2017, Julia Franco completed a review of the archaeological site base maps and records, survey reports, and other materials on file at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park (NWIC File No. 17-0516). Archival research also included an examination of the library and project files at Tom Origer & Associates. Sources of information included but were not limited to the current listings of properties on the National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest as listed in the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Property Directory (OHP 2012). The Office of Historic Preservation has determined that structures in excess of 45 years of age should be considered potentially important historical resources, and former building and structure locations could be potentially important historic archaeological sites. Archival research included an examination of historical maps to gain insight into the nature and extent of historical development in the general vicinity, and especially within the study area. Maps ranged from hand-drawn maps of the 1800s (e.g., GLO) to topographic maps issued by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, ethnographic literature that describes appropriate Native American groups, county histories, and other primary and secondary sources were reviewed. Field Survey An intensive field survey was completed by Taylor Alshuth on September 1, 2017. The project area was examined by walking in a zigzag fashion within corridors 15 meters wide. Ground visibility was good to poor with vegetation, asphalt, and imported gravel being the chief hindrances. A hoe was used, as necessary, to clear small patches of vegetation so that the soil could be inspected. Based on the results of the pre-field research, it was anticipated that prehistoric resources, and to a lesser degree historic-period resources, could be found within the study area. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators expected to be found in the region include but are not limited to: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements such as slabs and hand-stones, and mortars and pestles; and locally darkened midden soils containing some of the previously listed items plus fragments of bone, shellfish, and fire affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). REGULATORY SETTING: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Under Section 106, when a federal agency is involved in an undertaking, it must take into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties (36CFR Part 800). Compliance with Section 106 requires that agencies make an effort to identify historic properties that might be affected by a project, and gather information to evaluate their eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). CEQA Guidelines CEQA also requires that historical resources be considered during the environmental review process RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 55 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 through an inventory of historical resources within a study area, and an assessment of potential project impacts to those resources. Note, the term “Historical Resources" encompasses prehistoric and historical archaeological sites and elements of the built environment (e.g., buildings, bridges, canals). Revisions to CEQA enacted in July 2015 call out a separate class of resources termed “Tribal Cultural Resources” (Public Resources Code Section 21074). Tribal cultural resources are those that are of specific concern to California Native American tribes, and are identified through direct and confidential consultation between the Tribe and the lead agency (PRC §21080.3.1). Significance Criteria For purposes of the National Register, the importance of a historic resource is evaluated in terms of criteria put forth in 36CFR60, as follows: The quality of significance is present in properties that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinct characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project adversely affect a historical resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? No Impact. According to the cultural resources survey prepared for the proposed project, there are no buildings or structures located on the project site that are listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register or City’s Historic Inventory. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on historic resources. b) Would the proposed project eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. As stated above, there are no buildings or structures on the project site that are listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register or City’s Historic Inventory. In addition, no prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits were found during the survey. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 56 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 c) Would the proposed project cause damage to an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in the cultural resource survey report, no archaeological site deposits or indicators were found during the survey. However, consideration was given to the possibility of buried archaeological sites within the study area. A model for predicting a location's sensitivity for buried archaeological sites was formulated by Meyer and Kaijankoski (2017) based on the age of the landform and the presence of certain environmental elements. A location is considered to have high sensitivity if it is on a Holocene-era landform with relatively gentle terrain (slope of 1 to 8 percent), and is within 100 meters of water. Given those criteria, there is the possibility that the study area could contain buried archaeological sites. However, because the landform was bay marsh until the 20th century, it would have been subjected to daily inundation due to tides; therefore there is a <1% probability of there being buried cultural resources within the project site. However, Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce any potentially significant impacts to buried cultural resources in the event of unanticipated discovery. d) Would the proposed project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact. No evidence of human remains or formal cemeteries was identified in the cultural resources survey report for the proposed project. However, if human remains are discovered on the project site during implementation of the proposed project, the applicant would be responsible for compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws related to human remains. If human remains are encountered, excavation or disturbance of the location must be halted in the vicinity of the find, and the county coroner contacted. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent makes recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity. Therefore, as the project site has no evidence of human remains and discovery of such would require compliance with federal, state, and local laws, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to disturbance of human remains. e) Would the proposed project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed replacement of the Renzel Marsh pump and rehabilitation of the existing outfall would not require any soil disturbance. The new proposed effluent outfall pipe would be installed mainly within Embarcadero Road and the existing levee. Therefore, the majority of ground work required for the proposed project would occur within previously disturbed soils. As described in the cultural resources survey report, the geology of the project site consists of Holocene epoch (11,700 years ago to present) estuarine organic clay and silty clay (bay mud) (Dibblee 2007; Helley and LaJoie 1979). However, no fossils were recorded in the archival records search or were found on-site during the field survey. While the proposed project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly affect a paleontological resource or geologic feature, unanticipated discovery of such a resource may result in a RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 57 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 potentially significant impact. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1, impacts to paleontological resources and geologic features would be less than significant.   f) Would the proposed project directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? No Impact. According to Map L-5 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, there are no local cultural or historic resources located within the project site. Therefore, there are no local cultural resources recognized by the City of Palo Alto within the project site. The proposed project would have no impact on local cultural resources. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CULT-1 If buried materials are encountered, all soil disturbing work shall be halted at the location of any discovery until a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist completes a significance evaluation of the find(s) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36CFR60.4) and CEQA guidelines (§15064.5[f]), and the State Lands Commission Attorney has been contacted to consult. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire-affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). The final disposition of any archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources recovered on-site under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission shall be approved by the Commission. Significance after Mitigation: Less Than Significant RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 58 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) Expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1, 13 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. 1, 16 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1, 13 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1, 17 iv) Landslides? 1, 17 v) Expansive soils? 1, 17 b) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 1 c) 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? 1, 17 d) Cause substantial soil erosion or siltation? 1, 9, 10 e) 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 RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 59 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 INTRODCUTION: A Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report (Geotechnical Report; Appendix D) was prepared for the project site by McMillen Jacobs Associates (June 2017) and provides information on the geotechnical setting of the site including groundwater, faulting, ground shaking, and liquefaction and provides recommendations for construction of the proposed project. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Seismicity Palo Alto is located in a geologically active part of the world. The San Andreas Fault— long considered the major seismic risk in California—passes through the community. The San Andreas Fault is believed capable of producing a magnitude 8.4 earthquake. This would cause very violent groundshaking in much of Palo Alto, with fault rupture possible along the San Andreas, Monte Vista, and Hermit Faults, and other fault traces around the Stanford Campus. Past land use decisions in Palo Alto have not always taken such hazards into consideration. Moreover, older buildings and infrastructure reflect the construction and engineering standards of their era, which in most cases fall short of current standards for seismic safety. As a result, a significant portion of the City would be at risk in the event of a major earthquake. The primary risks are building damage or collapse; disruption of lifelines, including water, sewer, gas, electric, and telephone; fire or explosion; and damage to transportation infrastructure. While the project site is located within a seismically-active region, no active faults are located within the project site. The nearest active fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately six miles southwest of the project site. Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs when soils lose internal strength and because of increased pore pressure generated by cyclic loading. Liquefaction hazards are significant in the area east of Highway 101 due to the porous nature and high water content of the soil. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Resilience Program, the project site is mapped as within an area having “very high susceptibility” to liquefaction. Landslides Other geologic hazards in Palo Alto may or may not be associated with seismic events. Landsliding may result from heavy rain, erosion, removal of vegetation, or human activities. It is a common hazard in the foothills and its severity depends on slope, soil, and underlying geology. Landslide hazards are increased during earthquakes, particularly if the ground is saturated. The project site’s topography is predominantly flat and does not include any landslides. Soils The Geotechnical Report (Appendix D) describes the project site as consisting of Artificial Fill overlying soft Young Bay Mud, which in turn overlies stronger Old Bay Mud. Artificial fill is a man- made accumulation of various materials including soil and rock fragments, organic material, concrete, asphalt, debris and rubbish. Bay Muds are typically very soft, lightweight, organic-rich, highly RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 60 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 compressible and weak silty clay estuarine deposits that are corrosive to concrete and steel and which have been accumulating within the limits of the San Francisco Bay for several thousands of years. DISCUSSION: a-i) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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? Less than Significant Impact. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG, Resilience Program, the proposed project is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest fault to the project site is within the San Andreas Fault zone, Peninsula section, approximately six miles southwest of the site. In addition, no new structures are proposed as a component of the project and operation of the proposed pipe outfall would not increase the number of people at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than- significant impact related to exposing people or structures to loss, injury, or death involving fault rupture. a-ii) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Due to the project site’s location within the San Francisco Bay Area, the project site would be subject to strong ground shaking during earthquakes due to nearby faults. The intensity of the ground shaking that would occur on the project site would be dependent upon the earthquake magnitude, its distance, surrounding topography, and the geometric relationships and seismic response of the underlying soil and bedrock. Earthquake shaking has been amplified in areas underlain by Bay Muds during historic earthquakes. Failure of the effluent outfall pipe due to seismic groundshaking would result in a potentially significant impact. To ensure the proposed pipeline is installed with adequate support, the outfall pipe would be encapsulated in a low density cellular backfill and would incorporate the additional design requirements listed in the Geotechnical Report (Appendix D). Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would implement the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report and would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The project would also be required to comply with the City’s adopted seismic safety restrictions from the California Building Code (CBC). This would ensure the proposed pipe outfall would not be subject to adverse effects resulting from seismic ground shaking. In addition, the proposed project does not include any structures and would not increase the number of people visiting the project site. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur after mitigation. a-iii) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to ABAG’s Liquefaction Study Zone Map, the project site is located within a “very high susceptibility” liquefaction hazard zone. Failure of the proposed effluent outfall pipe due to seismic-related ground failure, including RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 61 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 liquefaction, would result in a potentially significant impact. The proposed project would include recommendations of the site-specific Geotechnical Report (Appendix D), and would be constructed in compliance with all standard engineering practices and the CBC standards adopted by the City of Palo Alto. Specifically, the excavated trenches for the proposed outfall pipe would be backfilled with low density cellular material to prevent additional load on the site and prevent settlement or seismic ground failure. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would implement the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report and would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the proposed outfall pipe would not experience adverse effects related to seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction. In addition, the proposed project does not include any structures and would not increase the number of people visiting the project site once built. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur. a-iv) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located within an area of relatively flat topography, which would not provide the necessary setting for a landslide to occur. However, the project would require benched or sloped open cut trenching for placement of the proposed pipe within the existing levee. All earthwork would proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the site-specific Geotechnical Report prepared by licensed engineering and geologic personnel (Appendix D). Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would implement the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report and would reduce these impacts to a less- than-significant level. The proposed project would not create any new slopes on the project site. Risk of landslide during the operational phase would be considered low due to the flat nature of the project site. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur. a-v) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving expansive soils? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site consists of soils that have been identified as able to be suppressed over time or otherwise unstable. Project components, such as the outfall pipe and pump, could be damaged by expansive soils if improperly designed and constructed. The project would be built in compliance with all recommendations listed in the Geotechnical Report, which includes recommendations to ensure all aspects of the proposed pipeline alignment are appropriately designed and constructed, and that a low density cellular backfill is used to avoid increasing the net load on the soils within the project site avoiding any consolidation settlement from the proposed project. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would implement the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report and would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project would also comply with all Federal, State and local regulations including the CBC. A less-than-significant impact would occur. b) Would the project expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. All anticipated geologic hazards that could RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 62 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 result from project implementation would be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques. As described in more detail in item (c) below, trenching within the project site may result in in subsidence of soils, impacts related to unstable soils would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would implement the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report and would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. c) Would the project 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in the Geotechnical Report (Appendix D), the project site is partially located within the Palo Alto Bayland Preserve and is located on Artificial Fill and Bay Mud soils. Loads on the compressible Young Bay Mud cause the Bay Mud to consolidate or settle. These soils are generally saturated and could, as a result of a seismic activity, become unstable and result in lateral spreading, subsidence or liquefaction. The portion of the outfall alignment that would be include deep trenching (12 feet in depth) would utilize sheetpiles driven down into Old Bay Clays to provide a groundwater cutoff and stabilize the soils. The lower portion of these sheetpiles would be sacrificed when the trench is backfilled to avoid ground disturbance. To ensure adequate support for both the shallow trench (seven feet in depth) in the existing levee and the deeper trench, the entirety of the outfall pipe trenching would be encapsulated by low density cellular backfill as this would provide no new net load to the soils, per the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. As trenching within the project site may result in in subsidence of soils, impacts related to unstable soils would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would implement the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report and would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. d) Would the project cause substantial soil erosion or siltation? Less than Significant Impact. Project implementation would involve site clearing, grading, trenching and backfill placement that could contribute to accelerated erosion. BMPs recommended by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program and compliance with the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit would be implemented to minimize potential erosion and siltation. In compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit, the City would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including BMPs for stormwater runoff, erosion, and siltation both during construction and for the life of the project. Once construction is completed the project site would be revegetated and restored to existing conditions. With implementation of the SWPPP, associated BMPs, and site revegetation, a less-than-significant impact would occur. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 63 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-1 Dewatering The construction contractor shall implement a dewatering system to preserve the undisturbed bearing capacity of the existing subgrade soils at the bottom of excavations and shall meet the following minimum performance standards:  Stable excavation walls and bottom shall be provided;  A reasonably dry base of excavation shall be provided;  Native soils shall be filtered and loss of ground from dispersion or erosion shall be prevented;  Piping (boiling) of the excavation bottom shall be prevented;  All dewatering and shoring systems shall be installed and removed in accordance with governing (e.g., County, State) requirements; and  The contractor shall allow for the controlled release of groundwater to its static level in a manner that prevents disturbance of bottom soils and prevents flotation or movements of structures or pipelines. The contractor shall be prepared to implement alternative systems should the initial dewatering system fail to achieve these minimum performance requirements. The contractor shall be prepared to locally dewater or modify construction excavations, if and where needed, to provide stable and reasonably dry excavations. The dewatering system shall be localized, targeted, and short-term (days) in order to prevent consolidation and subsidence from prolonged dewatering. Shoring The contractor shall be required to shore the anticipated 12-foot deep excavations with interlocking sheetpiles in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) regulations and all other recommendations provided in the site-specific Geotechnical report (Appendix D). All shoring plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the start of construction activities. The construction shall ensure the shoring system meets all the minimum performance standards for shoring listed in the Geotechnical Report. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 64 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1, 19 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas? 1, 8, 19 INTRODUCTION: The following Greenhouse Gas analysis is based in part on greenhouse gas data prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin (Appendix A). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases, or GHGs, regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities. Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:  CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion.  N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops.  CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations.  Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents but their production has been stopped by international treaty.  HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling.  PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semi-conductor manufacturing. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 65 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Each GHG has its own potency and effect upon the earth’s energy balance. This is expressed in terms of a global warming potential (GWP), with CO2 being assigned a value of 1 and sulfur hexafluoride being several orders of magnitude stronger. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its GWP and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global warming is currently affecting changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise increases coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution. The 2017 version of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides a significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year of greenhouse gases, measured as CO2e, that is used to judge the significance of a project’s operational impact. DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases emitted by construction of the project were computed, as described above under impacts b and c for Air Quality (Appendix A). The same CalEEMod model run that was used to compute criteria air pollutant emissions was also used to compute GHG emissions from implementation of the project. Results of modeling indicate that project construction emissions would be 221 metric tons of CO2e. Neither the City nor BAAQMD have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions, though BAAQMD recommends quantifying emissions and disclosing that GHG emissions would occur during construction. It should be noted that this would, however, be below the operational significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year recommended by BAAQMD. BAAQMD also encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and applicable. Best management practices assumed to be incorporated into construction of the proposed project include, but are not limited to: using local building materials of at least 10 percent and recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the proposed project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact. AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, codifies the State of California’s GHG emissions target by directing CARB to reduce the state’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 was signed and passed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. Since that time, CARB, CEC, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the Building Standards Commission have all been developing RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 66 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 regulations that will help meet the goals of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. A Scoping Plan for AB 32 was adopted by CARB in December 2008. It contains the State of California’s main strategies to reduce GHGs from BAU emissions projected in 2020 back down to 1990 levels. BAU is the projected emissions in 2020, including increases in emissions caused by growth, without any GHG reduction measures. The Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, including direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. It required CARB and other state agencies to develop and adopt regulations and other initiatives reducing GHGs by 2012. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As the proposed project would not increase population or traffic on roadways beyond temporary construction equipment, the project would not conflict with implementation of AB 32. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 67 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment as a result of the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1 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? 1, 9 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1 d) 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 either in excess of ground soil and groundwater cleanup goals developed for the site or from location on listed hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5? 1, 14 e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? 1, 13 f) Result in a safety hazard from a public airport for people residing or working within the project area? 1, 15 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? 1 h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1 RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 68 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: "Hazardous materials" are defined in this Initial Study as substances with certain chemical and physical properties that could pose a substantial present or future hazard to human health or the environment if improperly handled, stored, disposed, or otherwise managed. A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state, or local agency or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. A hazardous material is defined in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations as follows: A substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66261.10). Chemical and physical properties cause a substance to be considered hazardous. Such properties include toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity (as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20-66261.24). The release of hazardous materials into the environment could potentially contaminate soils, surface water, and groundwater supplies. Under Government Code Section 65962.5, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a list of hazardous substance sites on their EnviroStor database. This list, referred to as the “Cortese List,” includes CALSITE hazardous material sites, sites with leaking underground storage tanks, and landfills with evidence of groundwater contamination. No hazardous materials have been documented by the DTSC in the EnviroStor database within the project site and there are no hazardous substances sites included on the Cortese List in the project vicinity. In addition, the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Geo Tracker database was accessed to determine if there are any hazardous material sites in the vicinity of the project site. According to the GeoTracker database, no hazardous materials are located at or near the site. The Palo Alto Airport is listed on the GeoTracker database with the cleanup status as “Complete – Case Closed as of 1/31/2014” and is therefore no longer considered a cleanup site.5 If improperly handled, hazardous materials can result in public health hazards through human contact with contaminated soils or groundwater, or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. There may also be a potential for accidental or unauthorized releases of hazardous materials that would pose a public health concern. Construction workers typically have the greatest risk of exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater. If contamination at a site remains undetected, workers and the public may be at risk of exposure if precautions are not taken during site development. Accidents or spills during transport of hazardous materials or wastes can also expose the general public and the environment to these substances. 5 SWRCB. 2015. GeoTracker, Palo Alto Airport (T10000004161). Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T10000004161 RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 69 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact. Small amounts of hazardous materials such as fuel, solvents, and oils, would be used during project construction activities for equipment use and maintenance, re- paving the trenched portion of Embarcadero Road, and trenching for pipe installation. Use of hazardous materials would be limited to the construction phase and would be in compliance with all local, state and federal standards associated with the handling and storage of hazardous materials. As the proposed project includes the installation of a new effluent outfall pipe, rehabilitation of the existing effluent outfall, and a new pump, there would be no routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with operation of the project. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the proposed project 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? Less than Significant Impact. Hazardous materials for construction and equipment maintenance would not be stored or used where they could affect nearby residences or sensitive receptors, but would be stored in the staging area, which is an empty lot adjacent to the Airport parking lot. Furthermore, the project would be required to prepare a SWPPP for compliance with the City’s Municipal Stormwater NPDES permit, including measures to minimize potential contamination from accidental spills and protect water quality at the site. Therefore, with compliance of the SWPPP as well as all local, State, and Federal regulations regarding hazardous materials, impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. c) Would the proposed project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The proposed project is not within one-quarter mile of a school. The closest educational facility is Hope Technology School, located approximately 0.54 miles southeast of the project site. The surrounding land uses of the project site including the Airport, a golf course, the San Francisco Bay and Palo Alto Baylands, and industrial facilities such as the RWQCP. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to emission or handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of existing or proposed schools. d) Would the proposed project 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 either in excess of ground soil and groundwater cleanup goals developed for the site or from location on listed hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5? RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 70 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Less than Significant Impact. According to EnviroStor, the DTSC database, the project site is not located on a site that is designated as a hazardous material site, but it is within the vicinity of one site that is in need of evaluation. The site that has yet to be evaluated is currently inactive and is approximately 0.15 miles away from the project site and project construction would not occur within this site. According to the SWRCB GeoTracker database, the Airport is listed with the cleanup status as “Complete – Case Closed as of 1/31/2014” and is therefore no longer considered a cleanup site. Therefore, project construction and operation would not create a significant hazard to the public due to being located on any hazardous material sites. A less- than-significant impact would occur. e) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Less than Significant Impact. According to the ABAG Wildland Urban Interface Map, a portion of the site is designated as within the “Wildland Urban Interface” interface. However, once completed, the proposed project would be completely underground and therefore not be at risk for fire. Short-term construction activities would not significantly increase the risk of wildlife near an urban area. In addition, the contractor specifications include a list of fire prevention BMPs that the contractor would be required to implement as part of the proposed project. These BMPs include the following, but are not limited to: provide spark arrestors on all internal combustion engines, store and handle flammable liquids in accordance with the Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, and provide fire extinguishers at hazardous locations or operations, such as welding. A less-than-significant impact would occur. f) Would the project result in a safety hazard from a public airport for people residing or working within the project area? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located directly adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport. According to the Palo Alto Airport Compatible Land Use Plan (CLUP), portions of the project site are located within the Turning Safety Zone, Sideline Safety Zone, Inner, Safety Zone, and Runway Protection Zone. The CLUP states that specifically the Runway Zone should be clear of all objects, structures, and activities. As such, the City would be required to submit a Construction Safety Phasing Plan to the FAA for review and approval prior to construction. This required Construction Safety Phasing Plan would include best management practices and procedures to ensure construction worker safety during all construction activities within airport safety zones. The proposed project would not alter the land use or zoning designations of the project site and would not result in any structures above the ground level. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in any safety hazards from a public airport. Impacts would be less than significant. g) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact would occur. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 71 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 h) Would the proposed project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities would require temporary lane closures along Embarcadero Road in order to place a small stretch of pipeline within the roadway. Minor delays may be experienced for access to or evacuation from the land uses adjacent to the area; however, the trenches used to install the new pipeline could be quickly covered in the event of an emergency to allow vehicles to drive through the work area. This would ensure the project does not prevent emergency access to or evacuation plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 impacts would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 as described in Section P (Transportation and Traffic) below. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 72 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1, 9 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 c) Substantially increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of storm water runoff or alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including altering the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, including increase in-stream erosion? 1 d) Result in stream bank instability 1, 17 e) Significantly increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of storm water runoff in a manner which would result in new or increased flooding on-or off-site 1 f) 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 g) Provide substantial additional sources of pollutants associated with urban runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality 1 h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate 1 RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 73 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Map or other flood hazard delineation map i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows 1, 16 j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding by placing housing or other development within a 100-year flood hazard area or a levee or dam failure inundation area 1, 16 k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow 1, 13, 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project site lies within the Matadero Creek watershed within Santa Clara County. The Matadero Creek watershed watershed covers an area of about 14 square miles, of which approximately 11 square miles are mountainous land, and three square miles are gently sloping valley floor. Matadero Creek originates in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains and flows in a northeasterly direction for approximately eight miles until it discharges into the Palo Alto Flood Basin, and then drains into the Lower South San Francisco Bay. Major tributaries to Matadero Creek are Arastradero and Deer Creeks and Stanford Channel.6 Climate Palo Alto has a Mediterranean-type climate with almost all precipitation falling between the months of October and May. The average annual rainfall is about 15.21 inches. Temperatures tend to be fairly mild, with the hottest temperatures occur in July and August and the coldest temperatures occurring in January. Flooding The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares maps of the 100-year flood hazard area of US communities. Areas within the 100-year flood hazard area are subject to 100-year flood, which means that in any given year, the risk of flooding in the designated area is 1 percent. Maps are also available for 500-year floods, which mean that in any given year, the risk of flooding in the designated area is 0.2 percent. Depth of flooding is determined by subtracting the land’s height above sea level from the base flood elevation. Areas within the 100-year flood hazard area are subject to mandatory federal insurance requirements, which include building standards to reduce flood damage. According to FEMA, the project site is located within flood zone AE, which is defined as an area subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event determined by detailed methods.7 6 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Matadero Creek. Available at: http://www.scvurppp- w2k.com/ws_matadero.shtml. 7 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Federal Insurance Rate Map. Number:06085C003OH Panel 30 of 830. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Palo%20alto%20airport#searchresultsanchor. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 74 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Groundwater The Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project analyzed the depth to groundwater with test borings and regional groundwater map. The regional map indicates the groundwater at the project site may be found at depths less than five feet from the surface. The test boring measured the depth to which groundwater accumulated to be nine feet below ground surface. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK This section describes the regulatory setting as it relates to hydrology and water quality in the project site. There is a well-established regulatory framework of federal and State laws for floodplain management and protection of water quality, which would apply to the project site. These regulations establish requirements for projects in flood-prone areas and water quality criteria for the protection of human health and the environment, including storm water discharges to surface water. The regulations are discussed below. Federal Agencies, Programs and Regulations Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FEMA issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps FIRMs that identify which land areas are subject to flooding. These maps provide flood information and identify flood hazard zones in the community. The design standard for flood protection is established by FEMA. FEMA’s minimum level of flood protection for new development is the 100-year flood event, also described as a flood that has a 1-in-100 (1 percent) chance of occurring in any given year. The area with this designation is also referred to as the 100-year flood plain. FEMA also designates the area with a 1-in-500 chance (0.2 percent) of flooding in a given year, or the 500-year flood plain. The map is dated August 3, 2009 and there have been no amendments since that time. The 2009 FIRM shows the project site as Zone VE, “Coastal flood zone with velocity hazards (wave action).” FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in floodplains. The insurance rate offered to communities is based on the designations shown on the FIRMs and recorded in the updates known as Letters of Determination. Clean Water Act (CWA) The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 is the primary federal law that governs and authorizes water quality control activities by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as the states. Various elements of the CWA address water quality, and they are discussed below. Wetland protection is administered by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA, including permits to dredge or fill wetlands. Section 401: Wetland Filling Under Section 401 of the CWA, an applicant for a Section 404 permit to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must first obtain a certificate from the appropriate State agency RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 75 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 stating that the fill is consistent with the State’s water quality standards and criteria. In California, the authority to either grant water quality certification or waive the requirement is delegated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Section 303: Water Quality Standards and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. As defined by the CWA, water quality standards consist of two elements: (1) designated beneficial uses of the water body in question; and (2) criteria that protect the designated uses. Water Quality standards applicable to the project site are listed in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to make a list of waters that are not attaining standards and requires them to develop a set of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) (see below under State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)). San Francisco Bay Central is on the Section 303(d) list as impaired by: chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, dioxin compounds, exotic species, furan compounds, mercury, PCBs, and selenium. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established by the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States from their municipal separate storm sewer systems. NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally identify limits on allowable concentrations in the effluent and receiving water, and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring and other activities. NPDES permits are issued by the SWRCB (see below). State Plans, Policies, and Regulations Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) of 1969 is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water quality. Under the Act, the State must adopt water quality policies, plans and objectives that protect the State’s waters for the use and enjoyment of the people. The Act sets forth the obligations of the SWRCB and RWQCBs to adopt and periodically update water quality control plans (Basin Plans). Basin Plans are the regional water quality control plans required by both the CWA and Porter-Cologne Act in which beneficial uses, water quality objectives and implementation programs are established for each of the nine regions in California. The project site falls under the San Francisco Bay Region Hydrologic Basin Planning Area Map. The Act also requires waste dischargers to notify the RWQCBs of their activities through the filing of Reports of Waste Discharge (RWD) and authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to issue and enforce RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 76 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 waste discharge requirements (WDRs), NPDES permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, or other approvals.8 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) In California, the SWRCB has broad authority over water quality control issues for the State. The SWRCB is responsible for developing statewide water quality policy and exercises the powers delegated to the State by the federal government under the CWA. Regional authority for planning, permitting and enforcement is delegated to the nine RWQCBs. The regional boards are required to formulate and adopt water quality control plans for all areas in the region and establish water quality objectives in the plans. NPDES Construction General Permit The SWRCB permits all regulated construction activities under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity.9 The permit is administered at the County level. Construction activities that disturb one acre or more of land must comply with a Construction General Permit that regulates storm water leaving construction sites. The project applicant must file Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) before beginning construction, including filing a Notice of Intent (NOI), and a SWPPP. The SWPPP must be implemented and monitored to ensure its effectiveness. The plan, which must also address control of pollutants in stormwater post-construction, must be on-site and available to inspectors. A SWPPP must include “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction and life of the project. Under the 2009 revision to the Construction General Permit, for discharges to water bodies that have beneficial uses such as fish spawning and fish migration, the project would at least be a Risk Level 2 project subject to Numeric Action Levels and some additional monitoring requirements. If erosion potential is considered high, the project could be determined to be a Risk Level 3 project subject to Numeric Effluent Limits, and more rigorous monitoring requirements, including receiving water monitoring or bioassessment. NPDES Post-Construction Stormwater Quality Post-construction stormwater management is covered by a different set of BMPs under the NPDES permit system. The intent of these regulations is to rigorously control the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff from any new development that creates or replaces impervious area over 10,000 square feet, so that receiving waters downstream are not adversely impacted. To comply with these requirements, new projects are required to install water quality, stormwater runoff BMPs that filter or treat rainfall runoff generated from storm events up to approximately the 85th percentile rainfall event (or approximately the 1-inch storm event) before discharging into storm drains or natural drainage systems. Projects over 10,000 square feet are required to capture 100 percent of rainfall runoff from new impervious surfaces and to treat it in post-construction stormwater systems. 8 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act’s website. http://ceres.ca.gov/ wetlands/permitting/porter.html, accessed September 8, 2009. 9 Order No. 2009-009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAR000002, adopted September 2, 2009. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 77 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Projects that begin after December 2012 must reuse the water on-site, unless that reuse is proven to be “infeasible.” If the water is reused in irrigation, it is returned to the aquifer. California Fish and Wildlife Code The CDFW protects streams, water bodies and riparian corridors through the streambed alteration agreement process under Section 1601 to 1606 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. The CDFW stipulates that it is “unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake” without notifying the Department, incorporating necessary mitigation and obtaining a streambed alteration agreement. CDFW’s jurisdiction extends to the top of banks and often includes the outer edge of riparian vegetation canopy cover. Regional and County Programs and Regulations Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay Region) The project site is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) is the San Francisco RWQCB’s master water quality control planning document. It designates beneficial uses and water quality objectives for waters of the State, including surface waters and groundwater. It also includes programs of implementation to achieve water quality objectives. Basin Plan for San Francisco Bay The Basin Plan established water quality objectives for total dissolved solids (TDS), mineral constituents, and turbidity on a watershed-by-watershed basis within the region, while objectives for total and fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus), pH, dissolved oxygen, and un-ionized ammonia are set on a region-wide basis. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, States, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by the relevant regulatory agency. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that the impaired water body can receive and still safely meet water quality standards.10 This calculation is called a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The TMDL approach provides a framework for evaluating pollution control efforts and for coordination between federal, State, and local efforts to meet water quality standards. TMDLs are adopted as amendments to the Basin Plan. 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads, http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/, accessed on February 25, 2010. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 78 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) McAteer-Petris Act The McAteer-Petris Act is a provision under California law that preserves San Francisco Bay from indiscriminate filling. The act established the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) as the agency in-charge with preparing a plan for the long-term use of the Bay and regulating development in and around the Bay while the plan was being prepared. The San Francisco Bay Plan, completed in January 1969, includes policies on 18 issues critical to the wise use of the Bay, ranging from ports and public access to design considerations and weather. The McAteer-Petris Act authorizes BCDC to incorporate the policies of the Bay Plan into state law. The Bay Plan has two features: policies to guide future uses of the Bay and shoreline, and maps that apply these policies to the bay and the shoreline. BCDC conducts the regulatory process in accordance with the Bay Plan policies and maps. These policies guide the protection and development of the bay and its tributary waterways, marshes, managed wetlands, salt ponds, and shoreline. BCDC has jurisdiction over areas within “a shoreline band that consists of all territory located between the shoreline of the Bay and a line 100 feet landward of and parallel with that line.”11 The proposed project includes activity within the Bay and within the 100-foot shoreline band and is therefore subject to BCDC requirements. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) is an association of thirteen cities and towns in Santa Clara Valley, the County of Santa Clara, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District that share a common NPDES permit to discharge stormwater to South San Francisco Bay. The program incorporates regulatory, monitoring, and outreach measures aimed at reducing pollution to the “maximum extent practicable” to improve the water quality of South San Francisco Bay and the streams of Santa Clara Valley. Participating agencies (including the City of Palo Alto) must meet the provisions of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit by ensuring that new development and redevelopment mitigate water quality impacts to stormwater runoff both during the construction and operation of projects. Other provisions include construction site control, water quality monitoring program, pollutants of concern control programs, watershed management, and industrial and commercial site controls. DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact. During construction, project activities, including site clearing and excavation, could result in sedimentation and erosion potentially increasing the input of sediment into the adjacent unnamed slough. The operation of construction equipment and presence of 11 BCDC (2007). The San Francisco Bay Plan. http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/plans/sfbay_plan.html RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 79 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 gasoline and other hazardous materials on-site could also contribute to an adverse effect to water quality. The City would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP, as required by the City’s NPDES Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would include provisions to control erosion and sedimentation, as well as a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan to avoid and clean up any accidental spills of hazardous materials. With the SWPPP and associated measures in place, impacts related to the degradation of water quality during construction would be less than significant. During operation, the proposed project would continue to convey treated effluent water to the unnamed slough via the proposed pipeline. Construction activities related to the repair of the existing pipeline and replacement of the Renzel Marsh pump would not contribute to erosion or sedimentation, as they would not require ground disturbance. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to water quality. b) Would the proposed project 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)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not require the use of groundwater for construction or operation. The installation of a new pipeline, would be the only component of the project that could potentially impact groundwater recharge, as the trench would be backfilled with impervious cementitious material. During construction minor dewatering of the shallow water table may occur. This would result in temporary, short-term, localized fluctuations in groundwater levels, but would not result in long-term impacts to the groundwater supply. The proposed project would place a 63-inch HDPE outfall pipe in the ground at a depth of 12-feet for a portion of the alignment and at a depth of seven feet where the pipeline alignment would be located within the existing levee. Groundwater recharge would not be impacted as water would be redirected around the pipe and would percolate into surrounding soils. The minimal addition of impervious material above the pipeline within the levee would not prevent groundwater recharge from recharge of surrounding soils. Therefore, groundwater recharge is not anticipated to be negatively affected by the project. A less-than-significant impact would result. c) Would the proposed project substantially increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of storm water runoff or alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including altering the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, including increase in-stream erosion? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to impact stormwater runoff or alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. A minimal amount of impervious surfaces would be added to the surface of the site that would not result in an increase in the rate, or alter the flow of stormwater runoff. As the impervious material would be used to backfill the levee, the levee is designed in a manner to prevent stormwater from gathering on the trail, causing erosion, and impacted the levees integrity. Storm-water runoff would continue to flow towards the unnamed slough at a similar rate as under existing conditions as the levee would be re-graded to existing conditions. Any areas that require vegetation removal would be revegetated after construction activities are complete to prevent erosion and siltation of the site. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 80 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Additionally, the measures included in the SWPPP would ensure impacts related to erosion on-or off-site would be less than significant. d) Would the proposed project result in stream bank instability? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be constructed in accordance with all recommendations listed in the site specific geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project. Implementation of all of the recommendations would ensure the stability of the bank of the unnamed slough during the construction and operational phases. These recommendations include the use of sheetpile walls and shoring methods to ensure the stability of the levee and outfall location. The project site is not located along any other stream banks or water bodies. A less-than-significant impact would result. e) Would the proposed project significantly increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of storm water runoff in a manner which would result in new or increased flooding on-or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. The project would include minimal new impervious surfaces and would not alter the existing drainage patterns or slopes on the project site. All slopes impacted by trenching of the proposed pipeline would be backfilled and restored to their existing grade. The levee would be backfilled with impervious cement material; however, this minimal backfill along the levee would continue to direct stormwater runoff to the unnamed slough, allowing for percolation in surrounding soils and would keep runoff away from the Airport. Additionally, any areas requiring vegetation removal on the site during construction activities would be revegetated after the conclusion of construction, ensuring minimal erosion would occur. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any new or increased flooding on-or off-site. A less-than-significant impact would occur. f) Would the proposed project 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? Less than Significant Impact. Runoff from the project site currently percolates into the ground, flows into storm drains along Embarcadero Road, or flows into the unnamed slough immediately adjacent to the outfall pipeline and Bay Trail. The proposed project would add a minimal amount of impervious surfaces to the project site that would not substantially increase runoff into the storm drains or the unnamed slough. Furthermore, drainage at the project site would remain similar to existing conditions as the site would be backfilled and regraded to match the existing slopes. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect capacity of the existing off- site stormwater drainage system. This is considered a less-than-significant impact. g) Would the proposed project provide substantial additional sources of pollutants associated with urban runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not affect water quality by any means other than what was previously identified above. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 81 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 h) Would the proposed project 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? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of any housing that would be exposed to flooding hazards. No impact would occur. i) Would the proposed project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Impact. According to the FEMA FIRM Map Number 06085C0030H, the project site is located within the 100-year flood zone and is designated zones AE (base flood elevations determined) and VE (coastal flood zone with velocity hazard). The proposed pipeline, existing pipeline, and Renzel Marsh pump would all operate underground and would therefore not impede or redirect flood flows. The project site would also be backfilled and graded to match existing conditions after the conclusion of construction activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not redirect flood flows. A less-than-significant impact would result. j) Would the proposed project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding by placing housing or other development within a 100-year flood hazard area or a levee or dam failure inundation area? No Impact.  While the project site is located within the 100-year flood hazard zone, the proposed project does not include the construction of any structures above ground, nor would the proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements result in an increase of visitors to the project site. In addition, no impact to people or structures is anticipated to occur as a result of levee or dam failure, as there are no dams or levees within the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to loss, injury or death involving flooding. k) Would the proposed project cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less than Significant Impact. Due to the project site’s location along the San Francisco Bay, the project site has the potential to be inundated by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. According to ABAG’s Resilience Program Hazard Mapping, the project site is within a tsunami inundation zone. No structures are proposed as a component of the project that could be damaged by a seiche or tsunami, as the wastewater infrastructure improvements would all be located below the ground surface. The National Warning System would provide warning to the City and the City would rely on its community alerting system to communicate to its’ residents the state of emergency. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None Required. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 82 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 J. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) Physically divide an established community? 1 b) Conflict with any applicable City land use plan, policy, or regulation (including but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan, CAP, or the City’s Zoning Ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect by: 1, 3, 2 i) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use patterns in the area? 1 ii) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? 1 c) Would the proposed project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Palo Alto is located in the northern part of Santa Clara County, in the portion of the Bay Area known as the Mid-Peninsula. The City shares a boundary with San Mateo County and six cities. The project site is located near the Palo Alto Baylands, starting at the RWQCP, and running through the existing levee adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport. The project site terminates at an unnamed slough within the San Francisco Bay. The project site is leased by the City from the California State Lands Commission. REGULATORY SETTING: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Design POLICY L-1.1: Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land northeast of Highway 101 as open space. POLICY L-5.4: Maintain the East Bayshore RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 83 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts, consistent with the approved 2012 East Meadow Circle Concept Plan (Appendix Y of this Comprehensive Plan).. POLICY L-7.14: Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources, including natural land formations, sacred sites, the historical landscape, historic habitats and remains of settlements here before the founding of Palo Alto in the 19th century.. Natural Environment POLICY N-1.5: Preserve and protect the Bay, marshlands, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and other natural water or wetland areas as open space, functioning habitats, and elements of a larger, interconnected wildlife corridor, consistent with the Baylands Master Plan, as periodically amended, which is incorporated here by reference. . POLICY N-4.12: Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development and increase the retention, treatment and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff. Include LID measures in major remodels, public projects and recreation projects where practical. POLICY N-5.4: 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. POLICY N-40: Apply site planning and architectural design techniques that reduce overall noise pollution and reduce noise impacts on proposed and existing projects within Palo Alto and surrounding communities.. POLICY N-6.7: While a proposed project is in the development review process, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses, public open spaces and public conservation land should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels for the potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan Overall Environmental Quality Policies 2. Recognize and maintain the relationship between the urbanized Embarcadero Road corridor in the northwest and the remaining recreation-oriented three-quarters of the Baylands. Allow no more urban intrusion. 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. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 84 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 13. Follow guidelines established in the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, Palo Alto Baylands Natural Preserve published in 2005. 14. Comply with Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) adopted by the Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) (Mandated by State). San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) San Francisco Bay Plan The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer- Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer- Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shoreline to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill. The McAteer-Petris Act directs the Commission to exercise its authority to issue or deny permit applications for placing fill, extracting materials, or changing the use of any land, water, or structure within the area of its jurisdiction, in conformity with the provisions and policies of both the McAteer- Petris Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan. Thus the Commission is directed by the Act to carry out its regulatory process in accord with the Bay Plan policies and Bay Plan maps which guide the protection and development of the Bay and its tributary waterways, marshes, managed wetlands, salt ponds, and shoreline. To keep pace with changing conditions and to incorporate new information concerning the Bay, the McAteer-Petris Act specifies that the Commission should make a continuing review of the Bay Plan and may amend or make other changes to the Bay Plan provided the changes are consistent with provisions of the Act. The Act and the Commission’s administrative regulations further specify that a Bay Plan amendment may be proposed by the Commission or any other person, and that a descriptive notice of the proposed amendment must be given in advance of a public hearing concerning the amendment, after which the Commission may vote whether or not to amend the Plan. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Commission members (18 members) is required under the Act to change the Bay Plan. Since its adoption by the Commission in 1968, the Bay Plan has been amended periodically and the Commission continues to systematically review the Plan to keep it current. The date of the most recent amendment adopted by the Commission is printed at the end of any amended policy section. From its studies of the San Francisco Bay, the Commission has concluded that the most important uses of the Bay are those providing substantial public benefits and treating the Bay as a body of water, not as real estate. The Commission also concluded that all desirable, high-priority uses of the Bay and shoreline can be fully accommodated without substantial Bay filling, and without loss of large natural resource areas. But shoreline areas suitable for priority uses—ports, water-related industry, airports, wildlife refuges, and water-related recreation—exist only in limited amount, and should be reserved for these purposes. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 85 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 The Bay Plan designates the project area as “Waterfront Park, Beach” as the priority use. DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project would install a new pipeline and outfall and would rehabilitate the existing outfall pipe for the RWQCP. The proposed project would also replace the existing Renzel Marsh Pump. Once completed, the entire project would be underground and would continue to service the same community as under existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur. b) Would the proposed project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan, CAP, or the City’s Zoning Ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect by: i) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use patterns in the area? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is zoned PF(D), Public Facilities/Site and Design Review Combining District. The PF(D) zone district is designed to accommodate government, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. The proposed project consists of wastewater infrastructure improvements and is an allowed use in this zone district. The project site includes the following land use designations from the Comprehensive Plan: “Major Institutional/Special Facilities” and “Publicly Owned Conservation Land” by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update 2030. The Major Institutional/Special Facilities land use designation includes institutional, academic, government and community service land uses, and overlays the Palo Alto Airport and the RWQCP. The “Publicly Owned Conservation Land” land use designation includes resource management, recreational, and educational uses and overlays the existing levee, San Francisquito Creek Trail, and the existing RWQCP outfall. Per Title 14 of the California Code of Regulation, minor repairs and improvements include any activity for which a BCDC permit is required and that is necessary to the health, safety, or welfare of the public in the entire Bay Area and is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan (14 CCR § 10601). These activities may include routine repairs, reconstruction, replacement, removal, and maintenance that do not involve any substantial enlargement or change in use within the Bay and the Shoreline Band. The project is a public utility line placed under the bottom of the Bay and below ground within the shoreline band. In addition, the project is the replacement of an existing utility line that does not involve a change in use in either the Bay or the shoreline band. The trail access closure is temporary in nature and would not permanently alter public access to the Bay and shoreline. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 86 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 ii) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is bordered to the north and east by Mayfield slough, an unnamed slough at the existing outfall pipe discharge point, the Palo Alto Duck Pond, and the San Francisco Bay. The Palo Alto Airport borders the project site to the north and west. The RWQCP and other industrial facilities are located to the south and west of the site. Byxbee Park is also located south of the RWQCP. The proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements would all be placed below the ground surface and would not be incompatible with the land uses and general character of the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the proposed project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? No Impact. No habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans encompass the project site. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: None required. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 87 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 K. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources 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? 1 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? 1, 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project would traverse 2,402 linear feet of land, starting at the RWQCP, traveling north, to parallel the eastern side of the Airport, until emptying into an unnamed slough within the San Francisco Bay. According to the Mineral Resources Data System, managed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), there are no mineral resources known or prospect within the project site.12 DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project 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? No Impact. According to USGS, no mineral resources or known or prospect within the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value of the region or residents of the state. No impact would occur. b) Would the proposed project, 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? No Impact. The Palo Alto General Plan, Natural Environment Chapter specifically mentions that Palo Alto does not contain any mineral deposits of significance. Therefore, the project would have no impact in terms of locally important mineral resources. The proposed project would not impact known mineral or locally important mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 12 USGS (2011). Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS). Website: http://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map.html RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 88 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 L. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? 1, 3 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or the municipal code, state standards, or applicable standards of other agencies, including but not limited to: 1, 3, 15 i) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1, 3, 15 ii) Result in instantaneous noise levels of 50dB or more in a bedroom or 55 dB or more measures from other rooms inside a house? 1, 3, 15 c) Would the proposed project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, including: 1 i) 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 ii) Cause the Ldn to increase by three dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60dB? 1 iii) Cause an increase of three dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60dB? 1 d) 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, would the project expose people 1, 3 RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 89 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? e) 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, 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady “background” noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. Those can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows: • Leq – An Leq, or equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night. • Lmax – The maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. • Lmin – The minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. • CNEL – The Community Noise Equivalent Level is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and a 10 dBA “weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 90 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24 hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL. Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. For residential uses, environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60–70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA.13 Noise levels greater than 85 dBA can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet suburban residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate level noise environments are urban residential or semi- commercial areas (typically 55– 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60–75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65–80 dBA). It is widely accepted that in the community noise environment the average healthy ear can barely perceive CNEL noise level changes of 3 dBA. CNEL changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dBA CNEL increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA CNEL increase as a doubling of sound. Noise levels from a particular source generally decline as distance to the receptor increases. Other factors, such as the weather and reflecting or barriers, also help intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. A commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA at acoustically “hard” locations (i.e., the area between the noise source and the receptor is nearly complete asphalt, concrete, hard-packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at acoustically “soft” locations (i.e., the area between the source and receptor is normal earth or has vegetation, including grass). Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations, respectively. Noise levels are also generally reduced by 1 dBA for each 1,000 feet of distance due to air absorption. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures – generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The normal noise attenuation within residential structures with open windows is about 17 dBA, while the noise attenuation with closed windows is about 25 dBA.10 The project would take place within existing roadway and levee along the apron of the Palo Alto Airport. The nearest residential properties to the project are situated approximately 0.60 miles west of the project. Table 5 summarizes typical ambient noise levels based on population density. The vicinity of the project area is most similar to that of “adjoining freeway or near a major airport” setting with an expected typical noise level of 80-90 dBA. 13 Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, October 2003 (in coordination with the California Department of Health Services) RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 91 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Table 5. Population Density and Associated Ambient Noise Levels Population Density Type dBA, Ldn Rural Suburban 40–50 Quiet suburban residential or small town 45–50 Normal suburban residential urban 50–55 Normal urban residential 60 Noisy urban residential 65 Very noisy urban residential 70 Downtown, major metropolis 75–80 Under flight path at major airport, 0.5 to 1 mile from runway 78–85 Adjoining freeway or near a major airport 80–90 Sources: Cowan 1984, Hoover and Keith 1996 REGULATORY SETTING: City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.10.060 (a): General Daytime Exception. Any noise source which does not produce a noise level exceeding 70 dBA at a distance of 25 feet under its most noisy condition of use shall be exempt from the provisions of Section 9.10.030(a), 9.10.040, and 9.10.050(a) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, except Sundays and holidays, when the exemption herein shall apply between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Section 9.10.060 (b) Construction. Except for construction activities on residential property as described in subsection (c) of this section, construction, alteration, and repair activities which are authorized by a valid city building permit shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays and shall be prohibited except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday provided that the construction, demolition or repair activities during those hours meet the following standards: (1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. If the device is house within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made out-side the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 110 dbA. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 92 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 (3) The holder of a valid construction permit for a construction project in a non-residential zone shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site upon commencement of construction, for the purpose of informing all construction contractors and subcontractors, their employees, agents, materialmen, and all other persons at the construction site, of the basic requirements of this chapter. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan While a proposed project is in the development review process, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses, public open spaces and public conservation land should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels for the potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The construction of the proposed project may generate groundborne vibration when heavy impact tools are used. Construction activities would include site preparation work, dewatering, excavation, and sheetpile installation. While project construction activities, such as sheetpile installation may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity, this work would occur within the existing levee. The nearest sensitive (residential) receptors are located approximately 0.60 miles to the west of the project site located on the western side of the Palo Alto Airport and the Palo Alto Golf Course. Therefore, construction crew members would be the only persons exposed to groundborne vibration during these construction activities. Furthermore, as the sheetpiles to be installed are for the purposes of dewatering and are not permanent features of the project, installation of these piles would not require the use of an impact pile driver. Due the project site’s proximity to the Palo Alto Airport and applicable height restrictions, large cranes would not be used during construction. As these sheetpiles would be installed with the use of smaller construction equipment, the project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the proposed project cause exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or the municipal code, state standards, or applicable standards of other agencies, including but not limited to: i) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? ii) Result in instantaneous noise levels of 50dB or more in a bedroom or 55 dB or more measures from other rooms inside a house? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include improvements to existing wastewater treatment infrastructure for the RWQCP, and operation of the proposed improvements would not result in the generation of noise, beyond existing conditions. Furthermore, the replacement of the Renzel Marsh Pump would reduce noise RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 93 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 levels at the RWQCP as the existing pump is experiencing air entrainment resulting in excess noise. The City would comply with Municipal Code requirements related to construction timing and signage posted on-site. However, the proposed project would require approximately three weeks of nighttime construction, outside of those times allowed by the Municipal Code, due to the project’s proximity to the Palo Alto Airport and runway. Although the project would require temporary nighttime construction, the nearest residential development is located approximately 0.60 miles west of the project site and would not be impacted by these nighttime construction activities. Due to the distance of the nearest residential development, the proposed project would not result in an instantaneous noise levels of 50 dB or more in a bedroom or 55 dB or more in other rooms inside a house. As stated above, the ambient noise environment for an area located near a major airport is expected to be between 80-90 dBA. Due to the ambient noise environment at the project site and the nature of the proposed improvements, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to indoor noise levels for residential development. d) Would the proposed project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, including: iv) 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? v) Cause the Ldn to increase by three dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60dB? vi) Cause an increase of three dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60dB? Less than Significant Impact. As stated above, the nearest residential area is located approximately 0.60 miles west of the project site. Furthermore, the ambient noise environment for an area located near a major airport is expected to be between 80-90 dBA. Due to the high level of ambient noise at the project site and the nature of the proposed improvements, neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than significant. e) 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is located within the Palo Alto Airport land use plan area and would travel through areas designated as within the 55, 60 and 65 Noise Contours (CNEL). As the proposed project would require construction workers to work in all three zones temporarily, the proposed project has the potential to expose the workers to excessive noise levels. However, as described the Project Description, the City is required to prepare a Construction Safety Phasing Plan for review and approval by the FAA prior RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 94 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 to the start of construction activities. In addition to the Construction Safety and Phasing Plan, Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would be implemented to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. 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? No Impact. No private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the project site. This condition precludes the possibility of the project site being exposed to adverse aviation noise from a private airstrip. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The City shall provide all construction workers appropriate hearing protection. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 95 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 M. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources 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 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: According to the City of Palo Alto’s Housing Element adopted in 2014, between 2000 and 2013, Palo Alto was one of the fastest growing cities in the County, with an overall 13 percent increase. Throughout Santa Clara County, population increased by nine percent during the same period. Estimates of future growth indicate a moderate and steady increase in population over the next 20 years. The current population, is assumed to be approximately 66,642 persons. By the year 2035, ABAG estimates that the population of Palo Alto will reach 84,000.14 DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project 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)? No Impact. The proposed project would not include residential housing, nor would it create permanent job opportunities that would necessitate workers and their families to move to the area. The proposed project would create temporary construction jobs; however, it is anticipated that the local labor force would fill those positions. The proposed project would create an additional outfall to convey reclaimed water from the RWQCP; however, it would replace the existing outfall, which would serve only to supplement regular wastewater flows and provide 14 City of Palo Alto. 2015-2023 Housing Element. 2014. Website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/37935. Accessed: March 30, 2017. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 96 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 additional capacity for the future when taking into account sea level rise. While the proposed project would increase the capacity of the wastewater conveyance at the RWQCP, this is intended to address the face the existing pipeline does not have the capacity for peak wet weather flows and the anticipated loss in capacity from future sea level rise. The proposed project is not intended to allow for increased service connections for wastewater conveyance and would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. No impact would occur. b) Would the proposed project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. A portion of the project site is located in an area dominated by industrial uses, including the existing RWQCP and the Airport. No residential housing is within the vicinity of the project site, nor are any houses planned for removal as a result of project implementation. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a need to construct replacement housing. No impact would occur. c) Would the proposed project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No houses or structures are planned for removal in order to implement the proposed project. Therefore, no people would be displaced, and no replacement housing demanded. d) Would the proposed project create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? No Impact. As stated above, the proposed project would not result in any permanent employment opportunities. A few temporary construction jobs would be staffed by the local population, but these would not result in a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: None required. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 97 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 N. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional school facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1 b) Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional fire protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1 c) Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional police protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1 d) Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional parks and recreation facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1 e) Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional library facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Fire Protection Services Fire protection services in the project area are provided by the Palo Alto Fire Department. The Department operates seven fire stations around the City and staff 6 Fire Engines, 1 Truck and 3 ambulances. During July-October, an eighth station is staffed in response to the heightened wildfire dangers. The Department employs 121 personnel, including line, prevention and staff positions.15 Police Services Law enforcement services in the project area are provided by the Palo Alto Police Department, located adjacent to City Hall and in a substation in the Ventura neighborhood opened in 1996. In 1995, Palo Alto had approximately 40 crimes per 1,000 residents, a rate very close to the rate for Santa Clara 15 City of Palo Alto Fire Department. Website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/fir/default.asp. Accessed: March 27, 2017. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 98 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 County as a whole and other similarly sized communities such as Mountain View. The Department had 173 employees in 1997, with 100 sworn officers including reserves. It shares Special Weapons and Tactical (SWAT) Teams with the cities of Los Altos and Mountain View and provides dispatching to the Stanford University Police through the City’s Communications Center. A key challenge for the Department over the life of the Comprehensive Plan includes implementation of the community policing program, a philosophy that is intended to get the community involved in problem solving relating to police protection and crime prevention. Other challenges for the future include the potential increase in white collar crime, and the continued need for interagency cooperation. Schools Palo Alto’s public schools are operated by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). PAUSD operates one preschool, twelve K-5 elementary schools, three 6-8 middle schools, two 9- 12 high schools, a continuation school, a self-supporting adult school, the Children’s Hospital School at Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital, and a summer school. PAUSD serves approximately 12,000 students in Palo Alto, Stanford, and part of Los Altos Hills.16 Parks The City owns and operates 29 neighborhood and district parks that total approximately 190 acres. They include ten “mini-parks” that range in size from one-half acre to two acres. These parks generally include small playgrounds for children and/or grass and landscape areas for playing or sitting. Most of the other parks are “neighborhood” parks and provide a mix of active and passive recreational areas. There are also three “district” parks that serve larger areas and contain a wider range of facilities. The district parks provide playing fields, picnic grounds, and community centers. The City also owns and operates several large open space preserves such as Palo Alto Baylands, Byxbee Park, and Foothills Park. These are described in the Natural Environment Element. Because of the “built-out” nature of the community, it is unlikely that many new parks will be created in Palo Alto. Maintenance and rehabilitation of existing facilities will continue to be the City’s primary concern relating to parks. DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project result in adverse physical impact from the construction of additional school facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? No Impact. The proposed project would not create any residential housing developments or create any permanent jobs that would result in a population increase within the City of Palo Alto. Temporary construction employment opportunities would be available; however, it is assumed that the local workforce would fill those positions. Therefore, as no population growth would result, no increase in school enrollment would occur. The proposed project would have no impact on schools. 16 Palo Alto Unified School District. Website: https://www.pausd.org/explore-pausd/our-district. Accessed: March 27, 2017. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 99 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 b) Would the proposed project result in adverse physical impact from the construction of additional fire protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? No Impact. The proposed project includes wastewater infrastructure improvements for the existing RWQCP. No increase in demand for fire or emergency services as a result of the project is anticipated, due to the nature of the proposed project. Therefore, an expansion of current fire facilities or the construction of a new fire facility would not result from project implementation. No impact would occur. c) Would the proposed project result in adverse physical impact from the construction of additional police protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? No Impact. The proposed project would result in improvements to the existing wastewater infrastructure of the RWQCP. An increase in demand for police services is not anticipated to occur due to the nature of the proposed project. Additionally, the current facilities are assumed to be sufficient to serve the community after the project has been implemented. No expansions to current facilities or construction of new facilities would be needed. No impact would occur. d) Would the proposed project result in adverse physical impact from the construction of additional parks and recreation facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? Less than Significant Impact. Project implementation would not result in increased usage of the City’s park facilities. The project site is located partially within the Bay Trail and Palo Alto Baylands; however, the proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements would not result in an increase in visitors to the area. Construction activities would result in a temporary closure of the Bay Trail for approximately two weeks for installation of the last segment of pipeline and the outfall. As described in the Project Description, a detour would be provided allowing pedestrians and cyclists to access either side of the Bay Trail extending from the project site. Therefore, no additional park facilities would be needed during temporary construction activities or once the project is implemented. Impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant. e) Would the proposed project result in adverse physical impact from the construction of additional library facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any residential development, and therefore would not create new residential population that could create additional demands on other public facilities, such as libraries. As described above, the proposed project would also not result in any permanent employment opportunities or a significant number of temporary opportunities. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to add to the current population and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: None required. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 100 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 O. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources 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? 1 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? 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Over one-third of Palo Alto’s land area consists of open space preserves. These preserves are primarily located in the southern foothills but also extend along the Bay on the northeastern edge of the City. Major foothill area open spaces include the 1,400-acre Foothill Park, 2,200 acres of Montebello Open Space Preserve, the 610-acre Arastradero Preserve, and 200 acres of Los Trancos Open Space Preserve. Foothill and Arastradero Parks are owned and operated by the City, while Montebello and Los Trancos are operated by the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District. Along the San Francisco Bay shoreline, open space is also contained in what is generally called the Palo Alto Baylands. Furthermore, the City owns and operates 29 neighborhood and district parks that total approximately 190 acres. The “neighborhood” parks and provide a mix of active and passive recreational areas. There are also three “district” parks that serve larger areas and contain a wider range of facilities. The district parks provide playing fields, picnic grounds, and community centers. DISCUSSION: 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? No Impact. The proposed project would not affect existing neighborhood or district parks or facilities as it would not induce population growth that could use such facilities. The proposed project would install a new outfall to improve reclaimed water conveyance from the RWQCP to the San Francisco Bay, as well as rehabilitate the existing outfall pipeline and replace the existing Renzel Marsh pump. While construction activities would result in a temporary closure of a portion of the Bay Trail, detours would be provided for approximately two weeks to allow for access to the Bay Trail both north and south of the minor temporary closure. Therefore, no impact on neighborhood or regional parks or facilities would occur. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 101 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes wastewater infrastructure improvements for the existing RWQCP. The proposed project would not increase use of the recreational facilities within the City and therefore would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities to compensate for potential impacts resulting from project implementation. While construction activities would result in a temporary closure of a portion of the Bay Trail, detours would be provided for approximately two weeks to allow for access to the Bay Trail both north and south of the minor temporary closure. Any impacts to the Bay Trail resulting from the use of heavy construction equipment and groundwork would be restored to pre-construction conditions. Therefore, no recreational facilities would be constructed or expanded due to construction impacts to the Bay Trail and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 102 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) Cause an intersection to drop below its level of service standard, or if it is already operating at a substandard level of service, deteriorate by more than a specified amount. 1 b) Cause a roadway segment to drop below its level of service standard, or deteriorate operations that already operate at a substandard level of service 1 c) Cause a freeway segment or ramp to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1 percent of segment capacity to a freeway segment or ramp already operating at LOS F. 1, 2 d) Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. 1 e) Increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that cannot be met by current or planned services. 1 f) Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities? 1 g) Create demand for transit services that cannot be met by current or planned services? 1 g) Create the potential demand for through traffic to use local residential streets? i) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1 i) Create an operational safety hazard? 1 RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 103 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources j) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 k) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1 l) 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 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The proposed project is located within a developed area of Palo Alto. The proposed outfall pipeline would be constructed beginning at the wastewater treatment plant, extending across Embarcadero Road, wrapping around the perimeter of the Airport until it reaches an unnamed slough within the San Francisco Bay. The only street that would be impacted by the project is Embarcadero Road, which provides access to the RWQCP, a parking lot for the Airport and the Bay Trail. Additional traffic from construction vehicles would be temporary in nature, only lasting for the duration of the construction period, approximately nine months. This traffic would generally include work vehicles and trucks traveling to and from the site. Construction would only occur during the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday - Friday in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. The proposed project would also require 20 days of night work for construction activities requiring runway closure. No new vehicle trips would be associated with operation of the proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements. DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project cause an intersection to drop below its level of service standard, or if it is already operating at a substandard level of service, deteriorate by more than a specified amount? Less than Significant Impact. Construction traffic (equipment and materials transport and daily worker traffic) would slightly increase traffic on local roads during the temporary construction phase of the proposed project. Temporary construction traffic would be limited to equipment RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 104 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 delivery and material transport, and a few employee vehicles on a daily basis. The temporary construction-related traffic would not result in a noticeable increase in traffic on local roads and is not expected to reduce the level of service (LOS) for local intersections. The main intersection that would be impacted by the proposed project would be Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road prior to the U.S. Route 101 on-ramp. This intersection was not analyzed for LOS in the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and does not operate at a substandard LOS. Due to the minimal number of daily truck trips required for construction that would come and go from the project site at different times, the proposed project would not cause this intersection to drop below its LOS standard and the construction traffic would be temporary. Therefore, impacts related to intersection LOS would be less than significant. b) Would the proposed project cause a roadway segment to drop below its level of service standard, or deteriorate operations that already operate at a substandard level of service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated above, construction traffic (equipment and materials transport and daily worker traffic) would slightly increase traffic on local roads during the temporary construction phase of the proposed project. The temporary construction-related traffic would not result in a noticeable increase in traffic on local roads and is not expected to reduce the LOS for any roadway segment. Large vehicles transporting equipment and materials to the project site could cause slight delays for travelers as the construction vehicles stop to unload. The only temporary lane closure would be during trenching within Embarcadero Road, which would only last for four weeks. However, the closure of this lane would represent a potentially significant impact. In addition to the temporary nature of this work, Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 would require the construction contractor to prepare a Traffic Control Plan and one lane would remain open during all construction activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1, potentially significant impacts related to intersection level of service would be reduced to less than significant. c) Would the proposed project cause a freeway segment or ramp to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1 percent of segment capacity to a freeway segment or ramp already operating at LOS F? Less than Significant Impact. As stated above, construction traffic (equipment and materials transport and daily worker traffic) would slightly increase traffic on local roads during the temporary construction phase of the proposed project. The temporary construction-related traffic would not result in a noticeable increase in traffic on local roads and is not expected to reduce the LOS for any freeway segment or ramp. The proposed project would require a minimal amount of daily truck trips and would utilize the U.S. Route 101 Freeway via Embarcadero Road. The U.S. 101 segment from Embarcadero northbound to University Avenue currently operates at an LOS F for both AM and PM peak hours and Embarcadero southbound to Oregon Expressway operates at an LOS E for AM peak hour and LOS F for PM peak hour. The capacity for both of these freeway segments is 9700. The proposed project would not contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity and would not cause the southbound Embarcadero Road segment to operate at an LOS F for the AM peak hour. Therefore, impacts to freeway segments and ramps would be less than significant. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 105 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 d) Would the proposed project impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated in the Project Description, the proposed project would require the temporary closure of the Bay Trail for approximately two weeks. However, the City would install detour signs prior to the start of construction to direct pedestrian and bicycle traffic to adjacent segments of the Bay Trail. Pedestrian and bicycle access would also be available across Embarcadero Road during project construction with the implementation of the Traffic Control Plan included in Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1. The proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements would not impede the development of any planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Potentially significant impacts related to the function of these facilities would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1. e) Would the proposed project increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that cannot be met by current or planned services? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project includes improvements to existing wastewater infrastructure for the existing RWQCP and operation of the project would not increase the demand for pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Construction of the proposed project would require minor temporary detours for access to the Bay Trail and minor delays at Embarcadero Road. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 would ensure pedestrian and bicycle access across Embarcadero Road is available during construction. Therefore, potentially significant impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be reduced to less than significant. f) Would the proposed project impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities? No Impact. The project site is not located in an area where any transit system facilities operate. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact the operation or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities. No impact would occur. g) Would the proposed project create demand for transit services that cannot be met by current or planned services? No Impact. The proposed project includes wastewater infrastructure improvements for the existing RWQCP. As operation of the proposed would not result in an increase in population, no additional transit services would be required. Therefore, no impact would occur. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 106 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 h) Create the potential demand for through traffic to use local residential streets? i) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? No Impact. The proposed project includes wastewater infrastructure improvements for the existing RWQCP. Construction trucks would utilize Embarcadero Road to U.S. Route 101 and would not impact residential streets. Therefore, no impact would occur. i) Would the proposed project create an operational safety hazard? No Impact. The proposed project includes wastewater infrastructure improvements and would include trenching within Embarcadero Road. However, the proposed project would not alter the design of the roadway and all trenching would be backfilled and restored to pre-construction conditions. Vehicular circulation and emergency access for the project site would remain the same during project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to creating an operational safety hazard. j) Would the proposed project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities would require temporary lane closures along Embarcadero Road to accommodate the proposed pipeline installation. Minor delays may be experienced for emergency access along this segment of roadway, however, Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 includes a Traffic Control Plan to reduce delays and ensure adequate emergency access is provided. In the event of an emergency, the trenches used to install the pipeline could be quickly covered to allow vehicles to drive through the work area. This is a short-term construction related impact that would cease upon project completion. Operation of the proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements would have no impact on emergency access. The implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to emergency access to less than significant. k) Would the proposed project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be installed along the perimeter of the Airport, and would include work within the runway safety zone. Work within this area would require runway closures and nighttime construction work would be utilized to reduce the number of runway closures. As described in the Project Description, the City is required to submit a Construction Safety Phasing Plan to the FAA for Rreview and Aapproval. Approval of the Construction Safety Phasing Plan by the FAA is required in accordance with federal regulation and would ensure that the runway closure would not affect air traffic patterns and would not result in a significant safety risk to a change in air traffic patterns. The proposed project would therefore not result in a significant safety risk due to change in air traffic patterns, and impacts would be less than significant. l) Would the proposed project 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 RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 107 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in the Project Description and analyses above, the proposed project would generate approximately 11 daily truck trips during the nine months of construction and would not result in any additional traffic during operation. This minimal increase in truck trips during construction would also not occur all at once and would be spread throughout the workday. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in queuing impacts such as spillback queues and blocked intersections. Impacts to queuing would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1  Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City shall prepare and submit a Traffic Control Plan for review and approval. The Traffic Control Plan shall include best management practices and traffic measures including but not limited to: o The City shall require the contractor to provide for passage of emergency vehicles through the project site at all times. o The City shall require the contractor to maintain access to all uses during project construction. o The City shall use traffic cones, signs, lighted barricades, lights, and flagmen as described and specified in the Caltrans Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, current edition, California Supplement, Part 6 Temporary Traffic Control to provide for public safety and convenience during construction. o The contractor shall install advance warning signs to alert bicyclists and motorists of the work zone and lane closures. Advance warning signs may be reflective signs, changeable message boards, cones, and barricades. o Flagging and other means of traffic control shall be required to allow for the safe movement of traffic through the work zone. The contractor shall provide flaggers to temporarily hold traffic for staging equipment or construction. o The City shall provide advanced notice to area residents, schools and emergency agencies when employing temporary traffic control measures. In addition, prior to the start of construction, the City shall provide emergency services with the proposed construction schedule. o The City shall require the construction contractor to provide for passage of emergency vehicles through the project site at all times. o The City shall require the construction contractor to maintain convenient access to driveways and buildings near the work area unless otherwise approved by the City in advance. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 108 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 o The City shall restore pavement, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, as necessary, to pre-disturbance conditions or better. o The temporary traffic control/detour portion of the project shall include one additional detour sign posted at the bicycle/pedestrian bridge across San Francisquito Creek between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Users approaching from East Palo Alto need to be directed to the detour route. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 109 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Q. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resource Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? 1 ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING In September 2014, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 52, which added provisions to the Public Resources Code (“PRC”) concerning the evaluation of impacts on tribal cultural resources under CEQA, and consultation requirements with California Native American tribes. In particular, AB 52 now requires lead agencies to analyze a project’s impacts on “tribal cultural resources,” separately from archaeological resources (PRC Section 21074; 21083.09). Under AB 52, “tribal cultural resources” include “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” that are either (1) listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the state or local register of historic resources; or (2) a resource that the lead agency chooses, in its discretion, to treat as a tribal cultural resource (PRC Section 21074). AB 52 also requires lead agencies to engage in additional consultation procedures with respect to California Native American tribes (PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3). If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document must discuss (1) whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource and (2) whether RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 110 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 feasible alternatives or mitigation measures avoid or substantially less the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource (PRC Section 21082.3(b)). Finally, AB 52 required the Office of Planning and Research to update Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines by July 1, 2016 to provide sample questions regarding impacts to tribal cultural resources (PRC Section 21083.09). AB 52’s provisions apply to projects that have a notice of preparation filed on or after July 1, 2015. In May 2016 the City received a single request from a tribe to be contacted in accordance with AB 52. However, through subsequent correspondence with the tribe, it was concluded that the tribe had contacted the Palo Alto in error and did not wish to be contacted regarding future projects within the City’s jurisdiction. The tribe, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, is not traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area within the City of Palo Alto. Because no other tribes have requested to be contacted, no notices in accordance with AB 52 were sent and no further action is required. Additional outreach to local Native American tribes and the Native American Heritage Commission was conducted as part of the cultural resources survey for the proposed project (Appendix C). DISCUSSION: a-i) Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resource Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the results of consultation with local Native American tribes, no tribal cultural resources were identified on-site that are listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources. In addition, the majority of groundwork for the proposed project would occur within previously disturbed areas. However, the possibility remains that the grading and construction phase of the proposed project could result in a substantial adverse change to unknown tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRIBAL-1 would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level. a-ii) Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resource Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Palo Alto, as the lead agency, has not identified any resources on the site in which they have determined to be significant to a RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 111 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 California Native American tribe. However, the possibility remains that the grading and construction phase of the proposed project could result in a substantial adverse change to unknown tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRIBAL-1 would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRIBAL-1: In the event that an unanticipated tribal cultural resource is exposed during project construction, work within 30 feet of the discovery shall stop until a City-approved cultural resources professional can identify and evaluate the significance of the discovery and develop recommendations. Recommendations could include preparation of a Treatment Plan, which could require recordation, collection and analysis of the discovery; preparation of a technical report; and curation of the collection and supporting documentation in an appropriate depository. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 112 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 R. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) Need new or expanded entitlements to water supply? 1 b) Result in adverse physical impacts from new or expanded utility facilities due to increase use as a result of the project? 1 c) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a utility facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1 d) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1 f) 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? 1 g) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1 h) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1 i) Result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands that would require the new construction of energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities? 1 RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 113 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 ENVIROMENTAL SETTING: The project site is located within the City of Palo Alto and the following utility and service agencies that serve the project area are described below: Water Service Palo Alto’s water supply comes from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commissions (SFPUC). The high quality water supply consists almost entirely of Sierra Nevada snowmelt, and the rest comes from local watersheds in Alameda and Santa Clara counties.17 The City of Palo Alto and the SFPUC are required by law to adhere to strict health and safety standard for potable drinking water. City staff periodically flush water mains and hydrants with fresh water to prevent the water quality from degrading.18 Wastewater Service Palo Alto is the lead agency of the City’s RWQCP partnership. The RWQCP provides wastewater treatment for six agencies (Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Stanford University and East Palo Alto Sanitary District). The City is confident that the RWQCP can adequately meet the demands of future needs, according to ABAG’s growth projections for the member agencies. Additionally, the City Council recently approved a 25-year master plan for upgrades and expansion of the RWQCP. The RWQCP incinerates sludge collected from its partner agencies and the City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto RWQCP is developing plans to move toward more environmentally conscious biosolid waste management practices.19 Stormwater Service The City’s stormwater system is managed and maintained by the City’s Public Works Department. Palo Alto is engaged in efforts to ensure they meet new federal and state stormwater management requirements. These efforts include intercepting trash at the downstream ends of the Matadero and Adobe creeks and imposing a new plastic bag ordinance to limit the number of bags that end up in area creeks. The City reports that it is compliant with NPDES standards.20 Solid Waste GreenWaste of Palo Alto has a franchise agreement to provide solid waste services in the City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto offers food waste and green waste and yard trimming disposal, and recycling of mixed paper, bottles, cans and other recyclable materials. According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the waste stream is transferred to the regional Sunnyvale Material and Recovery Transfer (SMaRT) Station. There, waste is sorted to remove recyclable goods for sale at market rates. Waste that cannot be recycled is deposited at the Kirby Canyon Landfill in San Jose. 17 City of Palo Alto Utilities. Out Water Quality Annual Report 2014. 18 City of Palo Alto. Water Supply and Quality. Website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/water/water_supply_and_quality.asp. Accessed: March 30, 2017. 19 Santa Clara Local Agency Formation Commission. LAFCO of Santa Clara County: City of Palo Alto. 2014. 20 Ibid. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 114 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project need new or expanded entitlements to water supply? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes improvements to wastewater infrastructure for the existing RWQCP and would not require any water once implemented. A dust control plan would be prepared for the proposed project during construction, which may include minor watering. As excavated soils on-site would not be kept for backfill and would be exported off-site, the project would not require dust suppression for large stockpiles on-site. Therefore, the existing water supplies would not need to be adjusted and no new or expanded entitlements would be required. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the proposed project result in adverse physical impacts from new or expanded utility facilities due to increase use as a result of the project? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project includes infrastructure improvements for the existing RWQCP. These proposed improvements would serve to expand the capacity of the RWQCP to account for future sea level rise and increased wastewater flows. Implementation of these expanded wastewater utilities would result in potentially significant impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Transportation and Traffic. However, implementation of the mitigation measures listed within this Initial Study would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. c) Would the proposed project result in a substantial physical deterioration of a utility facility due to increased use as a result of the project? No Impact. The proposed project includes infrastructure improvements for the existing RWQCP. These improvements include the rehabilitation of an existing deteriorated outfall pipe and failing pump. The improvements also intend to increase capacity of the existing system to address sea level rise and future increases. Neither construction nor operation of these improvements would result in the physical deterioration of a utility facility. No impact would occur. d) Would the proposed project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. As the proposed project includes improvements to wastewater infrastructure, the proposed project itself would not create any wastewater once implemented, nor would wastewater be generated during construction. The outfall and associated pipeline would convey reclaimed wastewater to an unnamed slough and would continue to operate under the existing wastewater permits of the RWQCP. No impact would occur regarding exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 115 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 e) Would the proposed project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No Impact. As the proposed project includes improvements to wastewater infrastructure, the proposed project itself would not create any wastewater once implemented, nor would wastewater be generated during construction. The proposed project would serve to increase the capacity of the existing RWQCP as the City’s wastewater treatment provider. Therefore, the RWQCP would have adequate capacity to serve existing communities and no impact would occur. f) Would the proposed project 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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes wastewater infrastructure improvements and would not require any stormwater drainage facilities. The project components would be placed underground and the ground surface would be graded and returned to existing conditions. Although an insubstantial increase in impervious surfaces would occur within the existing levee, the grade and design of the levee would not alteration of drainage patterns or result in erosion impacts. Therefore, no new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be required. Impacts would be less than significant. g) Would the proposed project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project may generate a small quantity of solid waste during construction; however, the waste would be disposed of or recycled at the appropriate facilities that have adequate capacity. Operation of the proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements would not result in the generation of solid waste. A less-than- significant impact would occur.  h) Would the proposed project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate a small amount of solid waste during construction activities; however, all of the waste would be disposed of in accordance to all federal, state and local statues. A less-than-significant impact would occur. i) Would the proposed project result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands that would require the new construction of energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the replacement of the existing Renzel Marsh Pump. The replacement pump would use a 30 HP motor, as under existing conditions. However, within five to ten years, the City would increase the power of the pump and would have increased energy usage with a 60 HP motor, as compared to the existing 30 horsepower motor. However, the pump would run at reduced speeds to provide 2 MGD of RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 116 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 flow, and would be used for 3 MGD flow in the future to account for future increased wastewater flows. In addition, the replacement pump would include a new variable frequency drive that would allow for variation in pump speeds, resulting in long-term energy efficient operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in electrical service demand that would require the construction of new or enhancement of existing facilities. The proposed project does not include the use of natural gas. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 117 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 S. ENERGY CONSERVATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources a) Would the proposed project have an energy impact? Energy impacts may include: 1 i) impacts resulting from amount and fuel type used for each stage of the project 1 ii) impacts on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity 1 iii) impacts on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy 1 iv) impacts to energy resources 1 v) impacts resulting from the project’s projected transportation energy use requirements 1 DISCUSSION: a) Would the proposed project have an energy impact? Energy impacts may include: i. impacts resulting from amount and fuel type used for each stage of the project ii. impacts on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity iii. impacts on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy iv. impacts to energy resources v. impacts resulting from the project’s projected transportation energy use requirements Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes improvements to wastewater infrastructure for the existing RWQCP. Construction of the proposed project would require the use of construction equipment and fuel and electricity. Transportation energy use would also result from construction activities including trucks used to export excavated materials as well as construction worker vehicle trips. Energy usage related to project construction would be minor RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 118 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 and temporary in nature, as construction activities would be phased and are only expected to occur for nine months. Operation of the proposed project would include minimal increased energy usage as the replacement pump for the Renzel Marsh Pump would be 30 HP as under existing conditions. However, within five to ten years the City would increase the pump power to 60 HP. This pump would run at reduced speeds to provide 2 MGD of flow, and would be used for 3 MGD flow in the future to account for future increased wastewater flows. In addition, the replacement pump would include a new variable frequency drive that would allow for variation in pump speeds, resulting in long-term energy efficient operation. Energy use during the construction and operation phases of the project would not result in a substantial adverse impact related to the amount of fuel required, local or regional energy supplies, peak period demands for electricity or other forms of energy, or impacts to energy resources. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 119 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 T. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Sources 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 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 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1 DISCUSSION: 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated above, the project site may have suitable habitat for three special-status plants and for special-status wildlife species including SMHS, CRR, CBR, and Burrowing Owl. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3 and BIO-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to these special-status species to less than significant. Other special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the project site include special-status fish species that may occur incidentally within the unnamed slough at the proposed outfall location. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts to special-status fish species to less than significant. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 120 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Furthermore, no historic or prehistoric resources have been identified on the site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce any potentially significant impacts to buried cultural resources and tribal cultural resources in the event of unanticipated discovery. 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)? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project includes mitigation measures to minimize the temporary impacts of construction activities, and no long-term adverse impacts are anticipated. As presented in the analysis for Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Service, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems any potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less-than-significant levels. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an evaluation of potential environmental impacts when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual 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. These impacts can result from a combination of the proposed project together with other projects causing related impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. A significant impact may occur if a project, in conjunction with other related projects in the area of the project, would result in impacts which are less than significant when viewed separately, but would be significant when viewed together. The project includes mitigation measure to minimize temporary impacts of construction activities, and no long-term adverse impacts are anticipated. With these measures, the project would result in individually minor impacts and would not contribute substantially to cumulative impacts in conjunction with the implementation of other projects in the area such as the SFCJPA levee enhancement project and the Palo Alto Airport paving project. As discussed in the Project Description, the City has coordinated with the SFCJPA to ensure no cumulative impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project and the proposed future levee enhancement project. The Airport paving project is anticipated to be finished prior to implementation of the proposed project and would be a minor effort that would not result in any cumulative impacts. Therefore, impacts would remain project specific in nature and would be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures included in this Initial Study. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction related impacts to Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazardous and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Traffic and Transportation have the potential to cause substantial adverse impacts to human beings. With RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 121 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 implementation of the various construction measures, BMPs, and Mitigation Measures included in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 122 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental/technical specialists evaluating the project, based on a review of existing conditions and project details, including standard construction measures 2. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (2017) 3. City of Palo Alto Zoning Map and Municipal Code 4. Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan (2008) 5. Caltrans Scenic Highway Program 6. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (2012) Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map 2012. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 7. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection (2016) Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016. 8. 2017 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Clean Air Plan (CAP), 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 9. NPDES Permit (2014) 10. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (2004) Urban Runoff Management Plan 11. WRA Biological Report (2017) 12. San Francisco Estuary Project (2016) Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 13. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) (2015) Resilience Program Hazard Mapping 14. Department of Toxic Substances (2016) EnviroStor Cleanup Sites or Hazardous Waste Facilities Database 15. Palo Alto Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 16. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 17. McMillen Jacobs Associates (2017) Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report 18. Tom Origer & Associates (Origer) (2017) Historical Resources Study for the City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant’s New 63-Inch Outfall Project 19. Illingworth & Rodkin (2017) Regional Water Quality Control Plant Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 123 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. <Note: Project Planner signs upon completion of analysis but Director shall sign when the Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is adopted - after circulation, comment period over> ___________________________________ _________________________ Project Planner Date ___________________________________ _________________________ Director of Planning and Date Community Environment RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 124 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Introduction On December 22, 2017 the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment (Lead Agency) released for a 30-day public review a Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project (SCH# 2017122060). The Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the response to comments on the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are informational documents prepared by the Lead Agency that must be considered by decision-makers before approving the proposed project and that must reflect the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15090). This section summarizes and responds to the comments and questions on the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated by the City to public agencies and the public as required by CEQA. As discussed below in Response to Comments, edits to the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration have incorporated the comments where appropriate. With these edits, this Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration does not describe a project having any new or substantially more severe impacts than those identified and analyzed in the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of a Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required. This section contains a copies of the comment letter submitted during the public review period on the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the individual responses to those comments. The written comment letter is designated with a number in the upper left-hand corner of the letter. Within the written comment letter, individual comments are labeled with the designated numbers in the margin. Immediately following the comment letter is an individual response to each numbered comment. Where responses have resulted in changes to the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, these changes are shown in the response and also appear in this document as underlined or strike-out text. Commenters The following organizations/persons provided written comments on the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City: 1. California State Lands Commission :STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 1 DO-South Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 Tom Kapushinski, P.E. City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 January 31, 2018 EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer (916) 574-1800 Fax (916) 574-1810 California Relay Service TDD Phone 1-!100-735-2929 from Voice Phone 1~800-735-2922 Contact Phone: (916) '57 4-1890 Contact FAX: (916) 574-1885 File Ref: SCH #2017122060 VIA REGULAR & ELECTRONIC MAIL (Iom.Kapushinski@cityofpaloalto.org) Subject: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project, Santa Clara County Dear Mr. Kapushinski: The California State Lands Commission (Commission) staff has reviewed the subject IS/MND for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project (Project), which is being prepared by the City of Palo Alto (City). The City, as the public agency proposing to carry out the Project, is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21000 et seq.). The Commission is a trustee agency for projects that could directly or indirectly affect sovereign land and their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses. Additionally, because the Project involves work on sovereign land, the Commission will act as a responsible agency. Commission Jurisdiction and Public Trust Lands The Commission has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable lakes and waterways. The Commission also has certain residual and review authority for tidelands and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 6009, subd. (c); 6009.1; 6301; 6306). All tidelands and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable lakes and waterways, are subject to the protections of the common law Public Trust Doctrine. As general background, the State of California acquired sovereign ownership of all · tidelands and submerged lands and beds of navigable lakes and waterways upon its admission to the United States in 1850. The State holds these lands for the benefit of all people of the $tQte for st,9tewide Public Trust purposes, which include but are not Tom Kapushinski, PE Page2 January 31, 2018 limited to waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, water-related recreation, habitat preservation, and open space. On tidal waterways, the State's sovereign fee ownership extends landward to the mean high tide line, except for areas of fill or artificial accretion or where the boundary has been fixed by agreement or a court. On navigable non-tidal waterways, including lakes, the State holds fee ownership of the bed of the waterway landward ·to the ordinary low-water mark and a Public Trust easement landward to the ordinary high~water mark, except where the boundary has been fixed by agreement or a court. Such boundaries may not be readily apparent from present day site inspections. Based on the information provided and review of in-house records, the Project would extend onto lands under the Commission's jurisdiction and covered by General Lease Nd. PRC 9143.9, issued to the City on August 15, 2014, which appears to cover the entire Project area for upland and in-water work. Therefore, an amendment to the existing lease is required to authorize the construction of the new improvements. The Commission also has jurisdiction and existing leases for adjacent lands, including the adjacent Palo Alto Airport (Lease No. PRC 4598). Project Description The City proposes to install a new effluent outfall pipe at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), rehabilitate the exiting outfall pipe, and replace the Renzel Marsh Pump to meet the agency's objectives and needs as follows: • Mitigate issues arising from an aging outfall pipe and future sea-level rise • Prepare the RWQCP for a future peak wet weather event From the Project Description, Commission staff understands that the proposed Project would jnclude the following components: • New Effluent Outfall Pipe: The new outfall pipe would extend approximately ·· 2,402 linear feet, starting at the RWQCP and ending immediately adjacent to the existing outfall pipe's discharge point in an unnamed slough. Installation of the new effluent outfall pipe would require open trenching and backfilling . . • Existing Outfall Pipe Rehabilitation: The existing outfall pipe would be rehabilitated with flexible joint seals, but no open excavation would be required. • Renze! Marsh Pipe Replacement: The R$nzel Marsh Pump is in the RWQCP administrative building basement, and is causing noise and experiencing air entrainment and operational difficulties. A new pump would replace the existing pump that conveys treated water to the Renzel Marsh to improve efficiency. Environmental Review Staff requests that the City consider the following comments on the IS/MND. General Comments 1. Commission Jurisdiction: As noted above, the Project area is on State sovereign land under the jurisdiction of the Commission. Please update page 14 of the Project Description (Other Public Agencies) and Section 2 of Appendix B to include the Tom Kapushinski, PE Page 3 January 31, 2018 California State Lands Commission as an agency that requires a lease amendm.ent for the Project. Although the City also has jurisdiction over the Project area, all land use descriptions throughout the IS/MND should also identify the Commission as a landowner, and recognize the Project area as public land. Biological Resources 2. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure (MM) 810;.1 requires that if avoidance of special-status plant species is not feasible during construction, then measures such as seed collection, replanting, and transplanting of plant species shall be perforrned. The analysis supporting MM 810-2 does not include any discussion on whether the measures are supported by the Californi.a Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and whether an Incidental Take Permit would be required for the measures. Commission staff recommends the City update the Biological Resources Section to include this information. Page 46 of the IS/MND references the incorporation of MM 810-7 to reduce potentially significant impacts on federally protected wetlands. However, ·MM 810-7 is not included in the list of MMs provided at the end of the Biological Resources Section or in the list of proposed Project-related MMs at the beginning of the · IS/MND. Please revise page 46 to reference the correct MM and provide language for MM 810-7, where appropriate. · 3. Underwater Noise: As described in the IS/MND, the new outfall pipe would be constructed using open-trench methods in the slough with sheet piles installed to create a cofferdam to allow for open trench installation. Sheet piles would be installed using a vibratory hammer during low tide; however, an impact hammer may be used if necessary. Given the potential for underwater and airborne noise impacts to special-status species within or near the Project site, Commission staff · recommends the City consult with the appropriate resource agencies, including CDFW, USFWS, and National Marine Fisheries Service, to ensure that the appropriate MMs are implemented during pile driving activities. MM 810-5 includes many appropriate measures to ensure potential impacts are minimized; however, if an impact pile driver is used, additional measures may be required by these agencies to ensure potential impacts remain less than significant. Climate Change 4. Sea-Level Rise: Project area waterways will be at higher risk of flood exposure given projected scenarios of sea-level rise: the region could see up to 1 foot of sea-level rise (from year 2000 levels) by 2030, 2 feet by 2050, and possibly more than 5 feet by 2100 (National Research Council 2012). In addition, as stated in Safeguarding California (California Natural Resources Agency 2014), climate change is projected to increase the frequency and severity of natural disasters related to flooding and storms (especially'when coupled with sea-level rise). The IS/MND cites that the project is being designed for 50 years and anticipating about 36 inches of sea-level rise over those 50 years. Tom Kapushinski, PE Page4 January 31, 2018 A large amount of State-owned lands and resources under the Commission's jurisdiction, including portions of the Project, will be impacted by rising sea levels. Please note that when considering a lease application for the proposed Project, Commission staff will: • Request information concerning the potential effects of sea-level rise on tt,e Project • If applicable, indicate how the applicant plans to address sea-level rise and what adaptation strategies are planned during the projected life of the Project • Where appropriate, recommend Project modifications that would eliminate or reduce_potentially adverse impacts from sea-level rise, including adverse impacts on public access. With these impacts and Public Trust responsibilities in mind, Commission staff encourages the City to ensure that the IS/MND carefully addresses all the above information. This information will facilitate the Commission's evaluation of the proposed Project's design and potential vulnerability when considering an amended lease application for the proposed Project. Additionally, the City should consider developing a long-term monitoring program to track shoreline changes and monitor climate change-related impacts (e.g., sea-level rise, storms, high tides, etc.) on the RWQCP facility within the lease premises. The information gathered from such monitoring efforts could help identify triggers that might lead to future modifications of the outfall pipe and RWQCP facility, or additional adaptation efforts. Cultural Resources 5. Title to Resources: The MND should mention that the title to all abandoned archaeological sites and historic or cultural resources on State sovereign land are vested in the state and under the jurisdiction of the Californ.ia State Lands Commission (Pub. Resources Code, § 6313). Commission staff requests that the City consult with Staff Attorney Jamie Garrett (see contact information below) should any cultural resources on state lands be discovered during construction of the Project. In addition, Commission staff requests that the following statement be included in the IS/MND's Mitigation and Monitoring Program: "The final disposition of archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources recovered on state lands under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission must be approved by the Commission." Recreation 6. Public Access: The IS/MND identifies that construction activities would result in the temporary closure of a portion of the Bay Trail for approximately 2 weeks. Because a detour will be· provided during the temporary closure of the Bay Trail, measures to notify the public should be identified in the IS/MND to minimize impacts to recreational users and the public. Measures could include posting signs at the Project area announcing the Project and any restrictions on recreational activities in the area, as well as construction fencing around potential staging areas. Tom Kapushinski, PE Page 5 January 31, 2018 · Transportation 7. Page 11 of the IS/MND explains thafthe Project would require about 850 truck trips to haul soil for export, and 590 cement truck trips. Assuming a 6-day work week for 9 months, the Project would require 7 daily truck trips on average. The Transportation Section of the IS/MND states that the Project would impact Embarcadero Road (which provides access to the RWQCP, a Palo Alto Airport parking lot, andthe Bay Trail) and would require 20 days of night work for construction activities requiring runway closure at the airport. Although MM Traffic-1 requires a Traffic Management . Plan to reduce traffic impacts to a less than significant level, there does not appear to be supporting discussion regarding potential impacts o.n delayed or reduced access to the airport due to construction activities affecting Embarcadero Road. There is also no apparent discussion on how the temporary runway closure would impact airport operations. As previously explained, the airport and affected sections · of Embarcadero Road also reside on State sovereign land under the jurisdiction of the Commission. Commiss.ion staff recommends an analysis of these impacts in the Transportation Section to ensure potential impacts are disclosed, and if applicable, mitigation measures are implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND for the Project. As a responsible and trustee agency, the Commission will need to rely on the adopted MND for the issuance of an amended lease as specified above and, therefore, we request that you consider our comments .prior to adoption of the MND. Please send copies of future Project-related documents, including electronic copies of the adopted MND, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Notice of Determination when they become available. Please refer questions concerning environmental review to Kelly Keen, Environmental Scientist, at (916) 574-1938 or via e-mail at kelly.keen@slc.ca.gov. For questions concerning archaeological or historic .resources under Commission jurisdiction, please contact Staff Attorney Jamie Garrett at (916) 574-0398 or via e-mail at jamie.garrett@slc.ca.gov. For questions concerning Commission leasing jurisdiction, please contact Dobri Tutov, Public Land Management Specialist, at (916) 574-0722 or via e-mail at dobri.tutov@slc.ca.gov. cc: Office of Planning and Research K. Keen, Commission J. Garrett, Commission D. Tutov, Commission L. Calvo, Commission Cy R. Oggi hief Division of Environmental Planning and Management RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 130 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Response to Comment A-1 This comment serves as an introduction to the California State Lands Commission’s (Commission) clarification of jurisdiction over the project site. According to the comment, the Commission has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungraded tidelands, submerges lands, and the beds of navigable lakes and waterways. Additionally, the comment states that the Commission granted the existing lease to the City on August 15, 2014 and that the City must obtain an amendment to the existing lease. Based on this comment, the City of Palo Alto is in the process of obtaining an amendment to the existing lease. This comment continues by including a brief description of the project and request that the City consider the ensuing comments. This comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigation Negative Declaration. This comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for their consideration in reviewing the project. Response to Comment A-2 This comment states that the Project area is on State sovereign land under the jurisdiction of the Commission and asks that the Commission be recognized under “Other Public Agencies” in the Project Description and in Appendix B as an agency that requires a lease amendment for the project. It continues to say that all land use descriptions should identify the Commission as a landowner and the project site as a public land. In response to this comment the following revisions have been made : Page 14 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)  BCDC Permit San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB)  Section 401 Water Quality Certification  Existing RWQCP National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)  Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)  Review and Approval of Construction Safety Phasing Plan RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 131 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA)  Plan Review City of Palo Alto  Encroachment Permit waived California State Lands Commission  Lease Amendment Page 82 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Palo Alto is located in the northern part of Santa Clara County, in the portion of the Bay Area known as the Mid-Peninsula. The City shares a boundary with San Mateo County and six cities. The project site is located near the Palo Alto Baylands, starting at the RWQCP, and running through the existing levee adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport. The project site terminates at an unnamed slough within the San Francisco Bay. The project site is leased by the City from the California State Lands Commission and is considered a public land. Section 2 of Appendix B: Based on the anticipated need to complete work within waters of San Francisco Bay and the shoreline, the following resource regulatory agencies have potential jurisdiction within the Study Area:  San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)  San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)  California State Lands Commission Response to Comment A-3 This comment acknowledges that if Mitigation Measure BIO-1, avoidance of special-status plant species, is not feasible then seed collection, replanting, and transplantation of plant species shall be performed. The comment continues that the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration does not acknowledge whether the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) support this measure and whether an Incidental Take Permit would be required. Although three special-status plant species have the potential to exist within the project site, none of these species have been observed on-site by the project biologists. Furthermore, these agencies were circulated the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and none of the agencies RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 132 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 commented on the document or proposed mitigation. While suitable habitat for California seablite is present within the project area, it is not likely to occur due to the level of historic disturbance in the project area, and the mitigation measures are included out of an abundance of caution for the protection of this extremely rare species. Regulatory permit applications were submitted to the SFRWQB, Corps, and BCDC prior to the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration being released. Shortly after the public review period for the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration the Corps sent a letter dated February 6, 2018 to the USFWS requesting formal Section 7 consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 related to Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, California Seablite, California Ridgeway’s Rail (formerly California Clapper Rail), and Western Snowy Plover. The Corps also sent a letter dated February 6, 2018 to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requesting initiation of informal Section 7 consultation for potential impacts to Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon and Central California Coast ESU steelhead and respective critical habitats pursuant to the ESA of 1973. Each letter from the Corps expresses support of the avoidance and minimization measures required of the proposed project. AS stated in the consultation letter from the Corps of Engineers “We have concluded that the project is not likely to adversely affect California sea-blite based on its limited occurrences known only at reintroduction sites in San Francisco Bay and the avoidance measures proposed.” Therefore, no federal Incidental Take coverage is warranted or being sought for California seablite. The California Endangered Species Act applies only to “take” of endangered species. In the unlikely event that California seablite is found on-site prior to construction, and Incidental Take Permit will be applied for prior to implementation of mitigation measures. Furthermore, the comment mentions that page 46 of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration references the incorporation of MM BIO-7, but that Mitigation Measure Bio-7 is not included in the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This was an inadvertent typo and has been corrected in the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to read: c) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would involve some temporary work within federally protected wetlands, subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and waters of the San Francisco Bay, which would both be regulated by the RWQCB under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. As shown in Figure 9, Temporary Biological Resources Impacts, the project would result in temporary impacts to 0.13 acre of non- tidal seasonal wetlands and 0.06 acre of non-wetland tidal waters. Impacts from trenching and outfall pipe installation to wetlands and waters are therefore potentially significant. However, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation measure BIO-76. Response to Comment A-4 This comment states that given the potential for underwater and airborne noise impacts to special-status species within or near the project site, the Commission recommends the City consult with the necessary regulatory agencies to ensure appropriate mitigation measures are included. The initial installation of the sheet piles would occur at low tide, when the site naturally dewaters to a level of 3 inches or less. In this environment the project site is not able to support any special-status fish. Furthermore, once the RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 133 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 sheet piles are installed all future work would occur within this same water level and therefore, would not result in significant underwater noise impacts. Additionally, all in-water work would occur within September 1 and November 30 to avoid the windows for listed fish species. Regulatory permit applications were submitted to all necessary regulatory agencies prior to release of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Shortly after the public review period for the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration the Corps sent a letter dated February 6, 2018 to NMFS requesting initiation of informal Section 7 consultation for potential impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon and Central California Coast ESU steelhead and respective critical habitats pursuant to the ESA of 1973. The Corps has determined that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon and Central California Coast ESU steelhead and respective critical habitats. The Corps has determined that the proposed action would have minimal adverse impact on EFH for species managed under the Pacific coast salmon fishery management plans (FMP), the Pacific groundfish FMP, and the coastal pelagic FMP, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1855(b ). This determination is based on proposed avoidance and minimization measures. Additionally, when work occurs, fish species utilizing the area should be able to find ample and suitable foraging areas in and along the adjacent areas. Post construction, fish species will return to feed; therefore, potential adverse effects are temporary and minor. However, to ensure all necessary avoidance measures are followed, the following change to Mitigation Measure BIO-5 on page 49 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been incorporated. This change does not constitute new mitigation for a new significant impact; it is merely clarifying and amplifying existing mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 All in-water work (i.e., in tidal areas at the unnamed slough) shall be conducted between June 15 and November 30 and will incorporate all avoidance measures listed in the regulatory permits. Installation of sheet piles in tidal waters, if necessary, shall occur by the use of a vibratory hammer during low tide. If impact pile driving is necessary, an evaluation of potential hydroacoustic impacts to fish shall be required, and if necessary additional measures shall be employed to ensure that underwater sound is reduced to levels that are below those that will cause injury to fish. Such additional measures may include:  Hydroacoustic monitoring by a sound engineer during in water pile driving work.  Use of a “soft start” to clear fish from the area of acoustic effect.  Use of a wood cushion block between the hammer and the pile.  Use of a bubble curtain or other similar technique to reduce underwater noise.  Complete all impact pile driving work at low tide.  Limiting the number of pile strikes in a day to reduce the cumulative sound pressure impacts to fish. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 134 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Response to Comment A-5 This comment states that portions of the project site will be affected by sea level rise and encourages the City to address potential impacts, strategies to address sea-level rise, and incorporate modifications to project design if necessary. According to the Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles decision, the court ruled that neither questions on the Appendix G checklist nor provisions of the CEQA guidelines can properly be construed to require assessment of the impacts of existing environmental hazards on the project. The decision draws an explicit distinction between the project’s exacerbation of environmental hazards and the effects of users of the project and structures in the project of preexisting environmental hazards. It holds that to the extent that such questions may encompass the latter effects, the questions do not relate to environmental impacts under CEQA and cannot support an argument that the effects of the environment on the project must be analyzed in the environmental document. The court applied this ruling regarding sea level rise and emphasized that fact the environmental document was not required to discuss the impact of sea level rise on the project. Therefore, this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required to discuss sea level rise. However, as a part of the City’s lease amendment application to the Commission it will address the Commission’s requirements related to sea level rise, including a long-term monitoring program to track shoreline changes and monitor climate change-related impacts (e.g., sea-level rise, storms, high tides, etc.). Response to A-6 This comment states that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration should mention that all cultural resources on State Sovereign land are vested in the state and under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission (Pub. Resources Code § 6313). The comment continues to state that the City should consult with Staff Attorney Jamie Garrett should any cultural resources be discovered during construction. It continues to request that a mitigation measure be included in the IS/MND’s Mitigation and Monitoring Report. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will reflect the revisions made herein. The following revisions have been made within the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Section E. Cultural Resources, Page 51 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: INTRODUCTION: As the project site is located on State sovereign land, all historic, cultural, or archaeological resources discovered are vested in the state and under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission (Public Resources Code § 6313). The following Cultural Resources analysis is based in part on the Historical Resources Study prepared by Tom Origer & Associates in September 2017 (Appendix C). The following edit has been made to Mitigation Measure CULT-1on Page 57 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This change does not constitute new mitigation for a new significant impact; it is merely clarifying and amplifying existing mitigation. Mitigation Measure CULT-1 If buried materials are encountered, all soil disturbing work shall be halted at the location of RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 135 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 any discovery until a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist completes a significance evaluation of the find(s) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36CFR60.4) and CEQA guidelines (§15064.5[f]), and the State Lands Commission Attorney has been contacted to consult. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire-affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). The final disposition of any archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources recovered on-site under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission shall be approved by the Commission. Response to Comment A-7 This comment states that the IS/MND should include posting signs to notify the public that a portion of the Bay Trail will be closed and that a detour is available, as well as including construction fencing around staging areas. As mentioned on page 105 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, in Section P. Transportation and Traffic: d) Would the proposed project impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated in the Project Description, the proposed project would require the temporary closure of the Bay Trail for approximately two weeks. However, the City would install detour signs prior to the start of construction to direct pedestrian and bicycle traffic to adjacent segments of the Bay Trail. Pedestrian and bicycle access would also be available across Embarcadero Road during project construction with the implementation of the Traffic Control Plan included in Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1. The proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements would not impede the development of any planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Potentially significant impacts related to the function of these facilities would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1. Furthermore, a measure included in Mitigation Measure Traffic-1 states:  The temporary traffic control/detour portion of the project shall include one additional detour sign posted at the bicycle/pedestrian bridge across San Francisquito Creek between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Users approaching from East Palo Alto need to be directed to the detour route. Therefore, no additional public notice should be required beyond that already planned once construction begins. Furthermore, the staging area as delineated on Figure 3 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 136 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Negative Declaration is already a fenced, enclosed space and is anticipated to continue to function as such throughout the construction phase. Response to Comment A-8 This comment states that the IS/MND lacks a supporting discussion regarding potential impacts on delayed or reduced access to the airport due to construction activities affecting Embarcadero Road. The comment continues to state that the IS/MND also does not discuss how the temporary airport closure would impact airport operations. Finally, the comment states that Embarcadero Road and the airport area also located on State sovereign land under the jurisdiction of the Commission. As described in the sections below, the project may result in minor delays in traffic along Embarcadero Road; however access to the airport would still be feasible as no road closures would occur. Page 10 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: The proposed project would require a minimal amount of daily truck trips and would utilize the U.S. Route 101 Freeway via Embarcadero Road. The proposed project would not close any roads during construction. A traffic management plan would be prepared that would leave one lane open for through traffic, with flaggers controlling traffic, where the new outfall pipe crosses Embarcadero Road. Construction activities in this area would be limited to 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Emphasis added) Page 104 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: b) Would the proposed project cause a roadway segment to drop below its level of service standard, or deteriorate operations that already operate at a substandard level of service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated above, construction traffic (equipment and materials transport and daily worker traffic) would slightly increase traffic on local roads during the temporary construction phase of the proposed project. The temporary construction-related traffic would not result in a noticeable increase in traffic on local roads and is not expected to reduce the LOS for any roadway segment. Large vehicles transporting equipment and materials to the project site could cause slight delays for travelers as the construction vehicles stop to unload. The only temporary lane closure would be during trenching within Embarcadero Road, which would only last for four weeks. However, the closure of this lane would represent a potentially significant impact. In addition to the temporary nature of this work, Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 would require the construction contractor to prepare a Traffic Control Plan and one lane would remain open during all construction activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1, potentially significant impacts related to intersection level of service would be reduced to less than significant. A traffic management plan would be prepared that would leave one lane open for through traffic at all times, with flaggers controlling traffic, where the new outfall pipe crosses Embarcadero Road. The partial road closure would still allow for vehicles to pass through the project site. Furthermore, the temporary closure of the airport runway would only occur for a limited amount of time and would not significantly alter air traffic. Page 106 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 137 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 k) Would the proposed project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be installed along the perimeter of the Airport, and would include work within the runway safety zone. Work within this area would require runway closures and nighttime construction work would be utilized to reduce the number of runway closures. As described in the Project Description, the City is required to submit a Construction Safety Phasing Plan to the FAA for review and approval. The proposed project would therefore not result in a significant safety risk due to change in air traffic patterns, and impacts would be less than significant. Approval of the project and a Construction Safety Phasing Plan by the FAA is required in accordance with federal regulation and would ensure that the runway closure would not affect air traffic patterns and would not result in a significant safety risk to a change in air traffic patterns; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. In response to this comment, the following revisions have been made within the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Section P. Transportation and Traffic, Page 106 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: k) Would the proposed project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be installed along the perimeter of the Airport, and would include work within the runway safety zone. Work within this area would require runway closures and nighttime construction work would be utilized to reduce the number of runway closures. As described in the Project Description, the City is required to submit a Construction Safety Phasing Plan to the FAA for review and approval. Approval of the Construction Safety Phasing Plan by the FAA is required in accordance with federal regulation and would ensure that the runway closure would not affect air traffic patterns and would not result in a significant safety risk to a change in air traffic patterns. The proposed project would therefore not result in a significant safety risk due to change in air traffic patterns, and impacts would be less than significant. Response to Comment A-9 This comment provides a closing statement and provides the contact information for relevant staff at the State Lands Commission. This comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for their consideration in reviewing the project. APPENDIX A REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT NEW OUTFALL PROJECT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Project Name: RWQCP New Outfall Project Project Size 2,402 LF pipe 2.4 total project acres disturbed 38,120 s.f. paved area Qty Description HP Load Factor Dates Hours/day Total Work Days Avg. Hours per day Annual Hours Construction Hours Comments Site Preparation Start Date:7/8/2019 Total phase:20 8am-6pm End Date:8/2/2019 1 Medium Size Graders 10 10 5 100 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 10 5 2.5 50 1 Medium Size On-highway Truck 10 5 2.5 50 Open Cut Pipe Installation Cross Embarcadero Road Start Date:8/5/2019 Total phase:20 9:30am-3:30pm Station 3+47 to Station 4+50 End Date:8/31/2019 1 Asphalt Pavement Saw 6 1 0.3 6 Hauling Volume 2 Medium to Large Size Dump Truck 6 20 6 240 Soil Export Volume = 426 cubic yards 1 Medium to Large size Excavators 6 15 4.5 90 Concrete Import Volume = 308 cubic yards 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 6 20 6 120 AC/AB Pavement demolished and hauled: 35 cubic yards 1 Medium to Large size Pipe layer 6 16 4.8 96 AC/AB pavement Import Volume : 35 cubic yards 1 Small Size Road Roller 6 2 0.6 12 1 HPDE Fusing Machine 6 2 0.6 12 Cement Trucks: _28_ Total Round-Trips 1 Large Flatbed Truck 6 2 0.6 12 2 Medium Size Concrete Truck 6 5 1.5 60 1 Medium Size Graders 6 5 1.5 30 Open Cut Pipe Installation on Paved Surface Start Date:9/2/2019 Total phase:30 8am-6pm Station 4+50 to Station 13+00 End Date:10/11/2019 1 Asphalt Pavement Saw 10 1 0.3 10 Hauling Volume 2 Medium to Large Size Dump Truck 10 30 10 600 Soil Export Volume = 3,520 cubic yards 1 Medium to Large size Excavators 10 30 10 300 Concrete Import Volume = 2,545 cubic yards 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 10 30 10 300 AC/AB Pavement demolished and hauled: 290 cubic yards 1 Medium to Large size Pipe layer 10 20 6.7 200 AC/AB pavement Import Volume : 290 cubic yards 1 Small Size Road Roller 10 5 1.7 50 1 HPDE Fusing Machine 10 5 1.7 50 Cement Trucks: _255_ Total Round-Trips 1 Large Flatbed Truck 5 20 3.3 100 2 Medium Size Concrete Truck 10 20 6.7 400 1 Medium Size Graders 10 30 10 300 Open Cut Pipe Installation on Unpaved Surface ‐ Nighttime work Start Date:10/16/2019 Total phase:20 9pm-6am Station 13+00 to Station 26+00 End Date:11/12/2019 2 Medium to Large Size Dump Truck 8 20 8 320 Hauling Volume 1 Medium to Large Size Excavators 8 20 8 160 Soil Export Volume = 3,580 cubic yards 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 8 20 8 160 Concrete Import Volume = 2,540 cubic yards 1 HPDE Fusing Machine 8 5 2 40 1 Large Flatbed Truck 5 15 3.75 75 2 Medium Size Concrete Truck 8 20 8 320 1 Medium to Large Size Pipe layer 8 20 8 160 Cement Trucks: _254_ Total Round-Trips 1 Medium Size Graders 8 10 4 80 Open Cut Pipe Installation on Unpaved Surface ‐ Daytime Work with Height Restriction Start Date:10/30/2019 Total phase:10 8am-6pm Station 26+00 to Station 27+49 End Date:11/12/2019 2 Medium to Large Size Dump Truck 10 10 10 200 Soil Hauling Volume 1 Medium to Large Size Excavators 10 10 10 100 Export volume = 640 cubic yards. 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 10 10 10 100 Import volume = 520 cubic yards. 1 HPDE Fusing Machine 8 1 0.8 8 1 Large Flatbed Truck 10 1 1 10 2 Medium Size Concrete Truck 5 2 1 20 Cement Trucks: _52_ Total Round-Trips 1 Medium to Large Size Pipe layer 10 5 5 50 1 Medium Size Graders 10 5 5 50 Renzel Pump Installation Start Date:7/8/2019 Total phase:60 8am-6pm End Date:9/27/2019 1 Small Size BobCat Excavator 10 10 1.7 100 1 Small Size Link Belt Boom Truck 10 10 1.7 100 Existing Outfall Rehabilitation Start Date:11/14/2019 Total phase:30 8am-6pm End Date:12/25/2019 1 Medium to Large Size On-highway Truck 10 30 10 300 Overall Import/Export Volumes Renzel Pump Existing Outfall Rehabilitation New Outfall Off-road Equipment - Proposed equipment provided by applicant Off-road Equipment - Proposed equipment provided by applicant Off-road Equipment - Proposed equipment provided by applicant Off-road Equipment - Proposed equipment provided by applicant Off-road Equipment - Proposed equipment provided by applicant 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - 38,120 sf represents area for paving Construction Phase - anticipated phasing schedule provided by project applicant Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Proposed equipment provided by applicant CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 641.35 CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.029 N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006 58 Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2021 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) Floor Surface Area Population User Defined Industrial 1.00 User Defined Unit 2.40 38,120.00 0 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 9/19/2017 4:03 PMPage 1 of 1 RWQCP New Outfall Project Construction - Santa Clara County, Annual RWQCP New Outfall Project Construction Santa Clara County, Annual tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.34 0.34 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.34 0.34 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.41 0.41 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.34 0.34 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.34 0.34 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.41 0.41 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.34 0.34 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.34 0.34 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 0.00 38,120.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 2.40 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/8/2019 9/2/2019 tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 0.00 38,120.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/7/2019 8/2/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/7/2019 10/11/2019 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 30.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/7/2019 9/27/2019 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 60.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00 Grading - Trips and VMT - Embarcadeo: 804cy material + 56 cement =158 trips. Paved: 6,645cy material + 510 cement = 1,342. Nighttime: 6,120cy material + 508 cement = 1,274. Day: 1,160cy + 104 cement = 250. Bldg: 3 vendor trips/day Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value Off-road Equipment - Proposed equipment provided by applicant tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other General Industrial Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other General Industrial Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Graders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other General Industrial Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Graders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other General Industrial Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other General Industrial Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other General Industrial Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Graders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other General Industrial Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rollers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.31 0.31 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.41 0.41 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.34 0.34 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.34 0.34 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.41 0.41 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 6.00 3.00 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 1,274.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 250.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 1,342.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 158.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 5.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2021 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 2.50 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 10.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 1.70 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Aerial Lifts tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Graders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other General Industrial Equipment Highest 0.1091 0.1091 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 7-8-2019 9-30-2019 0.1091 0.1091 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 0.0000 220.4903 220.4903 0.0351 0.0000 221.36680.0395 0.0362 0.0757 0.0102 0.0334 0.0436Maximum 0.0861 1.2149 0.6381 2.3600e- 003 0.0000 220.4903 220.4903 0.0351 0.0000 221.36680.0395 0.0362 0.0757 0.0102 0.0334 0.04362019 0.0861 1.2149 0.6381 2.3600e- 003 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 220.4904 220.4904 0.0351 0.0000 221.36690.0395 0.0362 0.0757 0.0102 0.0334 0.0436Maximum 0.0861 1.2149 0.6381 2.3600e- 003 0.0000 220.4904 220.4904 0.0351 0.0000 221.36690.0395 0.0362 0.0757 0.0102 0.0334 0.04362019 0.0861 1.2149 0.6381 2.3600e- 003 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Site Prep/Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40 Open Cut - Embarcadero Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Open Cut - Paved Surface Rollers 1 1.70 80 0.38 Open Cut - Paved Surface Pavers 0 8.00 130 0.42 Open Cut - Embarcadero Excavators 1 4.50 158 0.38 Building Construction Forklifts 0 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Cranes 0 8.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Generator Sets 0 8.00 84 0.74 Open Cut - Embarcadero Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 0.30 81 0.73 Open Cut - Paved Surface Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 8.00 9 0.56 Load Factor Site Prep/Grading Off-Highway Trucks 1 2.50 402 0.38 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power 30 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 7 Existing Outfall Rehabilitation Trenching 11/14/2019 12/25/2019 5 20 6 Open Cut - Daytime Trenching 10/30/2019 11/12/2019 5 10 5 Open Cut - Nighttime Trenching 10/16/2019 11/12/2019 5 30 4 Open Cut - Embarcadero Trenching 8/5/2019 8/30/2019 5 20 3 Open Cut - Paved Surface Paving 9/2/2019 10/11/2019 5 60 2 Site Prep/Grading Grading 7/8/2019 8/2/2019 5 20 End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Building Construction Building Construction 7/8/2019 9/27/2019 5 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date Trips and VMT Existing Outfall Rehabilitation Off-Highway Trucks 1 10.00 402 0.38 Building Construction Aerial Lifts 1 1.70 63 0.31 Building Construction Excavators 1 1.70 158 0.38 Open Cut - Daytime Graders 1 5.00 187 0.41 Open Cut - Daytime Other General Industrial Equipment 1 5.00 88 0.34 Open Cut - Daytime Other General Industrial Equipment 1 0.80 88 0.34 Open Cut - Daytime Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 10.00 97 0.37 Open Cut - Daytime Excavators 1 10.00 158 0.38 Open Cut - Nighttime Graders 1 4.00 187 0.41 Open Cut - Nighttime Other General Industrial Equipment 1 8.00 88 0.34 Open Cut - Nighttime Other General Industrial Equipment 1 2.00 88 0.34 Open Cut - Nighttime Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Open Cut - Nighttime Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Open Cut - Paved Surface Graders 1 10.00 187 0.41 Open Cut - Paved Surface Other General Industrial Equipment 1 1.70 88 0.34 Open Cut - Paved Surface Other General Industrial Equipment 1 6.70 88 0.34 Open Cut - Paved Surface Excavators 1 10.00 158 0.38 Open Cut - Paved Surface Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 0.30 81 0.73 Open Cut - Embarcadero Graders 1 1.50 187 0.41 Building Construction Welders 0 8.00 46 0.45 Open Cut - Embarcadero Other General Industrial Equipment 1 0.60 88 0.34 Open Cut - Paved Surface Paving Equipment 0 8.00 132 0.36 Site Prep/Grading Graders 1 5.00 187 0.41 Open Cut - Embarcadero Rollers 1 0.60 80 0.38 Open Cut - Paved Surface Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 10.00 97 0.37 Site Prep/Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 2.50 97 0.37 Open Cut - Embarcadero Other General Industrial Equipment 1 4.80 88 0.34 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 3.9266 3.9266 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 3.95769.3000e- 004 9.3000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 Total 1.9300e- 003 0.0215 0.0278 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.9266 3.9266 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 3.95769.3000e- 004 9.3000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 Off-Road 1.9300e- 003 0.0215 0.0278 4.0000e- 005 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.2 Building Construction - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Existing Outfall Rehabilitation 1 3.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Open Cut - Daytime 5 13.00 0.00 250.00 Open Cut - Paved Surface 7 18.00 0.00 1,342.00 10.80 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Prep/Grading 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 Open Cut - Nighttime 5 13.00 0.00 1,274.00 10.80 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 2 16.00 3.00 0.00 Open Cut - Embarcadero 7 18.00 0.00 158.00 10.80 Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number 0.0000 2.3675 2.3675 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.37045.9000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 6.7000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 Vendor 4.4000e- 004 0.0114 3.0500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 3.9266 3.9266 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 3.95769.3000e- 004 9.3000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 Total 1.9300e- 003 0.0215 0.0278 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.9266 3.9266 1.2400e- 003 0.0000 3.95769.3000e- 004 9.3000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 Off-Road 1.9300e- 003 0.0215 0.0278 4.0000e- 005 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 5.7375 5.7375 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 5.74274.4000e- 003 1.1000e- 004 4.5000e- 003 1.1800e- 003 1.0000e- 004 1.2900e- 003 Total 2.1800e- 003 0.0127 0.0165 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.3700 3.3700 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.37233.8100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.8300e- 003 1.0100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0400e- 003 Worker 1.7400e- 003 1.3000e- 003 0.0134 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.3675 2.3675 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.37045.9000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 6.7000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 Vendor 4.4000e- 004 0.0114 3.0500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr MT/yr 0.0000 0.5617 0.5617 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.56216.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 Total 2.9000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 2.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5617 0.5617 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.56216.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 Worker 2.9000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 2.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 8.3264 8.3264 2.6300e- 003 0.0000 8.39233.3100e- 003 2.6300e- 003 5.9400e- 003 3.6000e- 004 2.4200e- 003 2.7800e- 003 Total 6.0000e- 003 0.0710 0.0312 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.3264 8.3264 2.6300e- 003 0.0000 8.39232.6300e- 003 2.6300e- 003 2.4200e- 003 2.4200e- 003 Off-Road 6.0000e- 003 0.0710 0.0312 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.3100e- 003 0.0000 3.3100e- 003 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.3 Site Prep/Grading - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 5.7375 5.7375 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 5.74274.4000e- 003 1.1000e- 004 4.5000e- 003 1.1800e- 003 1.0000e- 004 1.2900e- 003 Total 2.1800e- 003 0.0127 0.0165 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.3700 3.3700 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.37233.8100e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.8300e- 003 1.0100e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0400e- 003 Worker 1.7400e- 003 1.3000e- 003 0.0134 4.0000e- 005 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.4 Open Cut - Paved Surface - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.5617 0.5617 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.56216.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 Total 2.9000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 2.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5617 0.5617 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.56216.3000e- 004 0.0000 6.4000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 Worker 2.9000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 2.2300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 8.3264 8.3264 2.6300e- 003 0.0000 8.39233.3100e- 003 2.6300e- 003 5.9400e- 003 3.6000e- 004 2.4200e- 003 2.7800e- 003 Total 6.0000e- 003 0.0710 0.0312 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.3264 8.3264 2.6300e- 003 0.0000 8.39232.6300e- 003 2.6300e- 003 2.4200e- 003 2.4200e- 003 Off-Road 6.0000e- 003 0.0710 0.0312 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.3100e- 003 0.0000 3.3100e- 003 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 Fugitive Dust Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.0000 0.0000 29.8133 29.8133 9.3600e- 003 0.0000 30.04720.0128 0.0128 0.0118 0.0118Off-Road 0.0235 0.2641 0.1791 3.3000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 53.6059 53.6059 2.4700e- 003 0.0000 53.66780.0135 8.1000e- 004 0.0143 3.7000e- 003 7.8000e- 004 4.4700e- 003 Total 7.0800e- 003 0.2096 0.0488 5.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.8956 1.8956 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.89692.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.1600e- 003 5.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.8000e- 004 Worker 9.8000e- 004 7.3000e- 004 7.5400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 51.7103 51.7103 2.4200e- 003 0.0000 51.77080.0114 8.0000e- 004 0.0122 3.1300e- 003 7.7000e- 004 3.8900e- 003 Hauling 6.1000e- 003 0.2089 0.0413 5.3000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 29.8133 29.8133 9.3600e- 003 0.0000 30.04720.0128 0.0128 0.0118 0.0118Total 0.0235 0.2641 0.1791 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.0000 0.0000 29.8133 29.8133 9.3600e- 003 0.0000 30.04720.0128 0.0128 0.0118 0.0118Off-Road 0.0235 0.2641 0.1791 3.3000e- 004 Category tons/yr MT/yr Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 0.0000 7.7567 7.7567 2.4000e- 003 0.0000 7.81683.7100e- 003 3.7100e- 003 3.4200e- 003 3.4200e- 003 Total 6.2500e- 003 0.0640 0.0556 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.7567 7.7567 2.4000e- 003 0.0000 7.81683.7100e- 003 3.7100e- 003 3.4200e- 003 3.4200e- 003 Off-Road 6.2500e- 003 0.0640 0.0556 9.0000e- 005 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.5 Open Cut - Embarcadero - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 53.6059 53.6059 2.4700e- 003 0.0000 53.66780.0135 8.1000e- 004 0.0143 3.7000e- 003 7.8000e- 004 4.4700e- 003 Total 7.0800e- 003 0.2096 0.0488 5.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.8956 1.8956 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.89692.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.1600e- 003 5.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 5.8000e- 004 Worker 9.8000e- 004 7.3000e- 004 7.5400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 51.7103 51.7103 2.4200e- 003 0.0000 51.77080.0114 8.0000e- 004 0.0122 3.1300e- 003 7.7000e- 004 3.8900e- 003 Hauling 6.1000e- 003 0.2089 0.0413 5.3000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 29.8133 29.8133 9.3600e- 003 0.0000 30.04720.0128 0.0128 0.0118 0.0118Total 0.0235 0.2641 0.1791 3.3000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 7.7566 7.7566 2.4000e- 003 0.0000 7.81683.7100e- 003 3.7100e- 003 3.4200e- 003 3.4200e- 003 Total 6.2500e- 003 0.0640 0.0556 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.7566 7.7566 2.4000e- 003 0.0000 7.81683.7100e- 003 3.7100e- 003 3.4200e- 003 3.4200e- 003 Off-Road 6.2500e- 003 0.0640 0.0556 9.0000e- 005 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 7.3518 7.3518 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 7.35982.7700e- 003 1.0000e- 004 2.8700e- 003 7.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 8.5000e- 004 Total 1.3700e- 003 0.0251 9.8900e- 003 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2638 1.2638 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.26461.4300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 Worker 6.5000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 5.0300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0881 6.0881 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 6.09521.3400e- 003 9.0000e- 005 1.4300e- 003 3.7000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 Hauling 7.2000e- 004 0.0246 4.8600e- 003 6.0000e- 005 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.9127 0.9127 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.91331.0300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0400e- 003 2.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.8000e- 004 Worker 4.7000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.6300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 49.0901 49.0901 2.3000e- 003 0.0000 49.14760.0108 7.6000e- 004 0.0116 2.9700e- 003 7.3000e- 004 3.7000e- 003 Hauling 5.7900e- 003 0.1983 0.0392 5.1000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 13.3015 13.3015 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.40686.1800e- 003 6.1800e- 003 5.6900e- 003 5.6900e- 003 Total 0.0107 0.1128 0.0902 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 13.3015 13.3015 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.40686.1800e- 003 6.1800e- 003 5.6900e- 003 5.6900e- 003 Off-Road 0.0107 0.1128 0.0902 1.5000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.6 Open Cut - Nighttime - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 7.3518 7.3518 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 7.35982.7700e- 003 1.0000e- 004 2.8700e- 003 7.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 8.5000e- 004 Total 1.3700e- 003 0.0251 9.8900e- 003 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2638 1.2638 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.26461.4300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 Worker 6.5000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 5.0300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0881 6.0881 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 6.09521.3400e- 003 9.0000e- 005 1.4300e- 003 3.7000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 Hauling 7.2000e- 004 0.0246 4.8600e- 003 6.0000e- 005 3.7 Open Cut - Daytime - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 0.0000 50.0028 50.0028 2.3200e- 003 0.0000 50.06090.0118 7.7000e- 004 0.0126 3.2400e- 003 7.4000e- 004 3.9800e- 003 Total 6.2600e- 003 0.1987 0.0428 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.9127 0.9127 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.91331.0300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0400e- 003 2.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.8000e- 004 Worker 4.7000e- 004 3.5000e- 004 3.6300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 49.0901 49.0901 2.3000e- 003 0.0000 49.14760.0108 7.6000e- 004 0.0116 2.9700e- 003 7.3000e- 004 3.7000e- 003 Hauling 5.7900e- 003 0.1983 0.0392 5.1000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 13.3015 13.3015 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.40676.1800e- 003 6.1800e- 003 5.6900e- 003 5.6900e- 003 Total 0.0107 0.1128 0.0902 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 13.3015 13.3015 4.2100e- 003 0.0000 13.40676.1800e- 003 6.1800e- 003 5.6900e- 003 5.6900e- 003 Off-Road 0.0107 0.1128 0.0902 1.5000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 50.0028 50.0028 2.3200e- 003 0.0000 50.06090.0118 7.7000e- 004 0.0126 3.2400e- 003 7.4000e- 004 3.9800e- 003 Total 6.2600e- 003 0.1987 0.0428 5.2000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 10.0894 10.0894 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 10.10102.6400e- 003 1.5000e- 004 2.7900e- 003 7.2000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 8.7000e- 004 Total 1.3800e- 003 0.0391 9.5100e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.4564 0.4564 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.45675.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.2000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 Worker 2.4000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 1.8200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.6331 9.6331 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 9.64432.1200e- 003 1.5000e- 004 2.2700e- 003 5.8000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 7.3000e- 004 Hauling 1.1400e- 003 0.0389 7.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 7.3455 7.3455 2.3200e- 003 0.0000 7.40363.1000e- 003 3.1000e- 003 2.8500e- 003 2.8500e- 003 Total 5.5600e- 003 0.0605 0.0479 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.3455 7.3455 2.3200e- 003 0.0000 7.40363.1000e- 003 3.1000e- 003 2.8500e- 003 2.8500e- 003 Off-Road 5.5600e- 003 0.0605 0.0479 8.0000e- 005 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 22.3554 22.3554 7.0700e- 003 0.0000 22.53224.9300e- 003 4.9300e- 003 4.5300e- 003 4.5300e- 003 Total 0.0134 0.1355 0.0753 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 22.3554 22.3554 7.0700e- 003 0.0000 22.53224.9300e- 003 4.9300e- 003 4.5300e- 003 4.5300e- 003 Off-Road 0.0134 0.1355 0.0753 2.5000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 3.8 Existing Outfall Rehabilitation - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 10.0894 10.0894 4.6000e- 004 0.0000 10.10102.6400e- 003 1.5000e- 004 2.7900e- 003 7.2000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 8.7000e- 004 Total 1.3800e- 003 0.0391 9.5100e- 003 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.4564 0.4564 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.45675.2000e- 004 0.0000 5.2000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 Worker 2.4000e- 004 1.8000e- 004 1.8200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.6331 9.6331 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 9.64432.1200e- 003 1.5000e- 004 2.2700e- 003 5.8000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 7.3000e- 004 Hauling 1.1400e- 003 0.0389 7.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 7.3455 7.3455 2.3200e- 003 0.0000 7.40363.1000e- 003 3.1000e- 003 2.8500e- 003 2.8500e- 003 Total 5.5600e- 003 0.0605 0.0479 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.3455 7.3455 2.3200e- 003 0.0000 7.40363.1000e- 003 3.1000e- 003 2.8500e- 003 2.8500e- 003 Off-Road 5.5600e- 003 0.0605 0.0479 8.0000e- 005 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 0.0000 22.3553 22.3553 7.0700e- 003 0.0000 22.53224.9300e- 003 4.9300e- 003 4.5300e- 003 4.5300e- 003 Total 0.0134 0.1355 0.0753 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 22.3553 22.3553 7.0700e- 003 0.0000 22.53224.9300e- 003 4.9300e- 003 4.5300e- 003 4.5300e- 003 Off-Road 0.0134 0.1355 0.0753 2.5000e- 004 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.3159 0.3159 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.31623.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 Total 1.6000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.3159 0.3159 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.31623.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 Worker 1.6000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 0.0000 0.3159 0.3159 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.31623.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 Total 1.6000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.3159 0.3159 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.31623.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.6000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 Worker 1.6000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 1.2600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 APPENDIX B BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT Biological Resources Survey Report RWQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Prepared for: Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2350 Mission College Boulevard, Suite 525 Santa Clara, California 95054 Contact: Xiangquan Li XiangquanLi@kennedyjenks.com Date: June 2017 Revised: November 2017 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.0 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................ 1 2.1 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ...................................... 5 2.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................................................ 6 2.3 Regional Water Quality Control Board ................................................................................ 6 2.4 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................... 7 2.5 Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Requiring CEQA Evaluation .............................. 8 3.0 Biological Site Inventory and Constraints Conclusions ........................................................... 8 3.1 Wetlands and Waters .......................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Upland Vegetation Communities ....................................................................................... 10 3.3 Special-status Plants ......................................................................................................... 11 3.4 Special-status Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 13 4.0 Preliminary Impact Assessment and Recommendations ...................................................... 19 4.1 Wetlands and Waters ........................................................................................................ 19 4.2 Special Status Plant Species ............................................................................................ 19 4.3 Wildlife Impacts ................................................................................................................. 20 4.4 Tree Removal .................................................................................................................... 22 4.5 Public Access .................................................................................................................... 23 4.6 Sea Level Rise .................................................................................................................. 23 5.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 24 6.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 25 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Regional Location Map 2 Figure 2. Study Area 3 Figure 3. Special-Status Plant Species Documented in the Vicinity of the Study Area 12 Figure 4. Special-Status Wildlife Species Documented in the Vicinity of the Study Area 14 Figure 5. Arborist Survey 17 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1. Resource Agency Jurisdiction in the Study Area ............................................................ 5 Table 2. Summary of Tidal Elevations in the Vicinity of the Study Area .................................... 10 Table 3. Sea Level Rise Estimates and Water Surface Elevation Relative to Year 2000 ........... 23 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Biological Resources Survey Report is to provide an overview of biological resource constraints in the vicinity of the City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) and adjacent baylands. This report includes a description of the biological communities, findings from the wetland survey, and an evaluation of other biological or permitting constraints that warrant special scheduling, best management practices, or other special treatment during construction. This report will also provide an analysis of the anticipated methods for managing these constraints during construction based on the current conceptual project design. This information can also be used in the environmental analysis for the proposed RWCQP Primary Outfall Line Design Project (Project) or subsequent projects within the surveyed area pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An approximately 27-acre Study Area was surveyed during a site visit by WRA biologists on March 27, 2017 (Figures 1 and 2) and by a WRA arborist on May 2, 2017. The Study Area includes part of the RWQCP, land adjacent to the Palo Alto Duck Pond, a parking lot of the City of Palo Alto Airport, a levee berm that runs along the airport, and the existing RWQCP outfall in an unnamed slough below the San Francisquito Creek Trail. Based on our review of the Study Area, the primary biological resources and permitting concerns include: (1) restoration of temporary construction impacts to wetlands; (2) avoidance and minimization of potential impacts to salt marsh harvest mouse; (3) known locally nesting California Ridgway’s rail and California black rail and potential applicability of standard seasonal avoidance measures within 700 feet of tidal marsh areas; (4) project design to account for public access and sea level rise. These constraints are discussed in more detail in the following sections. 2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Based on the anticipated need to complete work within waters of San Francisco Bay and the shoreline, the following resource regulatory agencies have potential jurisdiction within the Study Area: •San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) •U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) •San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) •National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) •U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) •California State Lands Commission A general description of the regulatory permitting process and policy issues relevant to projects within the Study Area are provided below. In tidal areas, the boundary of resource agency jurisdiction is established by the elevation of the tides and the location of wetlands. Figure 1. Regional Location Map City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 1 Location.mxd Map Prepared Date: 9/13/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: Esri Streaming - National Geographic Data Source(s): WRA Project Area Detail Area 0 0.25 0.5 Miles City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California Figure 2. Study Area Map Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 2 Study Area.mxd Map Prepared Date: 5/12/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: Esri Streaming - NAIP 2014 Data Source(s): WRA . Study Area 0 140 280 420 Feet 5 Table 1 provides a summary of potential regulatory agency jurisdiction in the Study Area. Table 1. Resource Agency Jurisdiction in the Study Area Resource Agency Description of Jurisdiction BCDC Bay Jurisdiction: All tidal waters up to the elevation of 5 feet above Mean Sea Level (8.77 feet NAVD88). Shoreline Band Jurisdiction: All areas within 100 feet of BCDC Bay jurisdiction. Corps/RWQCB All tidal waters up to the elevation of the HTL (9.31 feet NAVD88) and all tidal marshes and wetlands. 2.1 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission BCDC administers the State of California McAteer-Petris Act and is the administering agency in San Francisco Bay for the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. BCDC “Bay jurisdiction” within the Study Area consists of all tidal waters of the San Francisco Bay, up to the elevation of MHW (where no tidal marsh vegetation is present) and to the elevation of 5 feet above Mean Sea Level (where tidal marsh is present). BCDC jurisdiction also includes all areas within 100 feet shoreward of the elevation of the Bay jurisdiction (BCDC “shoreline band jurisdiction”). BCDC issues permits for activities within their Bay jurisdiction and shoreline band jurisdiction. BCDC permits are classified as “major” or “minor” permits based on the type and scope of activity. Amendments to permits are classified as “material” or “non-material” depending on the scope of the change. Major permits and material amendments require a vote by the BCDC Board of Commissioners at a public hearing to approve. Minor permits and non-material amendments can be processed administratively. The City of Palo Alto holds an existing BCDC permit for the airport site. A minor non-material amendment to the existing BCDC permit may be possible, but a thorough review of the existing permit and confirmation with BCDC would be necessary prior to moving forward with that permitting approach. Outfall construction and portions of the pipeline that are installed within 100- foot shoreline band would require a permit from BCDC. BCDC review of the permit amendment request would involve a thorough review of the project’s impacts upon public use of the shoreline, including any temporary public access impacts during construction. If a separate BCDC permit governs the use and maintenance of public access in the Palo Alto Baylands, the project may also need to be reviewed for consistency with that BCDC permit. Due to the location of the outfall along the San Francisquito Creek Trail, the BCDC permit application will be required to address the temporary impacts to public access including detours required during construction. The BCDC permit amendment would also include a detailed description of avoidance and minimization measures implemented to reduce potential impacts from detour routes on public access or surrounding habitats. As the site is also located within a “site design and review” zoning district, design review and approval, if required, shall be secured prior to issuance of any permit and this review will be incorporated into the BCDC permit application. A certified CEQA document, RWQCB permit, and USFWS/NMFS consultation would be required before BCDC can consider an application to be complete. BCDC also requires that an applicant provide adequate “property interest documentation” for any work authorized by a BCDC permit. This can include fee title, easements, or similar property ownership documentation. In cases of public trust land grants, reference to the legislation or specific resolution governing the property ownership may be sufficient. 6 2.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The Corps issues permits under Clean Water Act Section 404 for construction or placement of materials in “Waters of the U.S.”, including tidal waters up to the elevation of the HTL and wetlands. They also issue permits under Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10, which is limited to construction below the elevation of MHW within “navigable waters”, which includes the San Francisco Bay. The Corps issues permits through a variety of vehicles and it is anticipated that this project will qualify for authorization by a “Nationwide Permit”. Nationwide Permits are programmatic level permits that can be processed under relatively short time frames and do not require independent public notice or project-specific National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) review. To be authorized by a Nationwide Permit, a project must meet the General and Regional Conditions of the permit. Based on the wetland delineation for the project, temporary impacts in wetlands and other waters of the U.S. may be required for the purpose of outfall construction within a tidal canal and trenching of the pipeline alignment through seasonal wetlands located on airport property south of Runway 31. In the tidal canal, the USACE regulates fill material placed below the plane of the high tide line, and within the lateral extent of wetlands adjacent to the open water portion of the canal. The project is anticipated to qualify under the Nationwide Permit (NWP) program for the Nationwide Permit No. 12, which authorizes Utility Line Activities. In addition, if outfall construction work is to occur in flowing waters, and dewatering of the outfall area is required as part of its construction, authorization under NWP 33, which covers Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering, may also be granted. A Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) must be submitted to the Corps for consideration under the NWP12 and NWP33. The notification requirements and the conditions that must be met will need to be addressed in the PCN. Temporary impacts to wetlands are not defined by regulation, but are generally considered to be impacts that remain in place for up to 90 days and are restored to pre-existing conditions after construction. Temporary impacts are typically required to be restored to the same elevation and drainage, and are required to be revegetated using appropriate native wetland vegetation. Post- construction documentation for the restoration of pre-construction contours and re-vegetation may be required. Importantly, no permanent loss of aquatic resources is anticipated to result from the project, therefore, compensatory mitigation to replace permanent aquatic resource losses is not anticipated. Other considerations for NWP12 include regional conditions that require excess material be removed from a trench, associated with utility line construction, and that excess material shall be disposed of in an upland site away from any wetlands or other waters of the U.S. so as to prevent this material from being washed into aquatic areas. Temporary sidecasting and stockpiling of excavated materials in wetlands may be allowed, with similar requirements for the restoration of pre-construction grades, drainage, and native vegetation. The Corps is required to ensure that their action in issuing a permit is consistent with requirements of other federal laws and regulations, including the Endangered Species Act (see NMFS and USFWS sections below). Any work affecting jurisdictional waters or wetlands would require a Corps permit. 2.3 Regional Water Quality Control Board The RWQCB is responsible for administering two laws related to placement of fill into jurisdictional waters: the state Porter-Cologne Act and the federal Clean Water Act. Compliance with both laws can be obtained in San Francisco Bay through issuance of a Water Quality Certification. The 7 Water Quality Certification is obtained through permit application to the RWQCB. In the Study Area, wetlands and all waters of San Francisco Bay below the elevation of the HTL are regulated by the RWQCB under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne Act. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) must certify the use of the NWP from the USACE and will process a 401 Water Quality Certification for the project. The 401 Certification is a separate application form, but can be completed based on information contained in the NWP application. CEQA documentation must be complete prior to the issuance of a Water Quality Certification. Any work affecting jurisdictional waters or wetlands would require a Water Quality Certification. 2.4 National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NMFS and USFWS are responsible for managing species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). NMFS is also responsible for administering requirements of the Magnuson- Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, which requires evaluation of potential project effects to “Essential Fish Habitat” (EFH). Both agencies are also responsible for ensuring that activities or projects do not adversely modify designated Critical Habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in the species’ recovery. Consultation for EFH and the Endangered Species Act is anticipated to occur via the Corps’ permit process via a Section 7 and EFH Consultation. Per federal regulations, the Corps is required to initiate consultations with NMFS and USFWS for activities that they determine have the potential to affect EFH, endangered species or habitat for endangered species. Take under the FESA is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Take extends to impacts to habitat, which result in take of listed species indirectly. Consultation with NMFS and USFWS may occur as either a formal consultation or informal consultation. A formal consultation typically entails preparation of a Biological Assessment and results in the issuance of a Biological Opinion. Informal consultation may entail preparation of a letter or a Biological Assessment, and results in the issuance of a Letter of Concurrence. The type of consultation required is dependent on specific project activities as they relate to the potential to result in take of species or habitat. Typically, consultations involving salt marsh harvest mouse are processed as formal consultations. The tidal canal and Bay within the Study Area are considered EFH, as are all tidally influenced areas in San Francisco Bay. Potential effects to EFH can be evaluated in the project Biological Assessment or endangered species consultation letter. In accordance with the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions for EFH, NMFS has established guidelines to assist in the identification of adverse effects to EFH and has identified actions required to conserve and enhance EFH. NMFS’ regulations detail procedures for federal agencies to coordinate, consult, or provide recommendations on actions that may adversely affect EFH, 50 C.F.R. pt. 600. It is not anticipated that any adverse effects to EFH will occur as a result of the project. In addition, critical habitat for federally-listed California central coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) is present within the Mayfield slough, and consultation with NMFS would be required for the installation of the outfall. Wetlands within and adjacent to the project site may support the federally listed salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM; Reithrodontomys raviventris, Federal Endangered, State Endangered, California Fully Protected), and California ridgway’s rail (CRR; Rallus obsoletus obsoletus, Federal Endangered, State Endangered, California Fully Protected), requiring consultation with the USFWS. 8 2.5 Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Requiring CEQA Evaluation Special-status species that require evaluation in CEQA documentation include those plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These acts afford protection to both listed species and those that are formal candidates for listing. The federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act also provides broad protections to both eagle species that are roughly analogous to those of listed species. Additionally, CDFW Species of Special Concern, CDFW California Fully Protected species, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, and CDFW Special-status Invertebrates are all considered special-status species. Bat species are also evaluated for conservation status by the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), a non-governmental entity; bats named as a “High Priority” or “Medium Priority” species for conservation by the WBWG are typically considered special- status and also considered under CEQA. In addition to regulations for special-status species, most native birds in the United States (including non-status species) are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), i.e., sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Under these laws, deliberately destroying active bird nests, eggs, and/or young is illegal. Plant species included within the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (Inventory) with California Rare Plant Rank (Rank) of 1 and 2 are also considered special-status plant species and must be considered under CEQA. Very few Rank 3 or Rank 4 plant species meet the definitions of Section 1901 Chapter 10 of the Native Plant Protection Act or Sections 2062 and 2067 of the CDFW Code that outlines CESA. However, CNPS and CDFW strongly recommend that these species be fully considered during the preparation of environmental documentation relating to CEQA. This may be particularly appropriate for the type locality of a Rank 4 plant, for populations at the periphery of a species range or in areas where the taxon is especially uncommon or has sustained heavy losses, or from populations exhibiting unusual morphology or occurring on unusual substrates. 3.0 BIOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY AND CONSTRAINTS CONCLUSIONS The Study Area was assessed by WRA for sensitive biological resources, including sensitive habitats and special-status species on March 27, 2017. In addition, on May 2, 2017 WRA conducted an arborist survey of the trees located within the Study Area in accordance with Title 8 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. The primary biological resource constraints affecting the Study Area are: •Non-tidal wetlands, tidal waters and tidal salt marsh habitat. Permits are required for Project work affecting non-tidal wetlands, tidal waters and tidal salt marsh habitat. It is anticipated that permits will require that temporary impacts be restored and anticipated that post-construction monitoring will be required to document restoration success. However, as long as impacts to wetlands are only temporary in nature, no additional mitigation is anticipated. •Special-status plants. Rare plant surveys are recommended for three rare plants with potential to occur in the Study Area, as discussed below. Survey windows for these species are June through October for Point Reyes bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre), July through October for California seablite (Suaeda californica), and April through June for Saline clover (Trifolium Hydrophilum), and may be accomplished prior to construction. 9 •Special-status wildlife. The Study Area has the potential to provide habitat for several special-status wildlife species, as discussed in the sections below. The species presenting the most significant constraints for construction are salt marsh harvest mouse and Ridgway’s rail. A literature and database search was conducted to assess the potential for special-status plant and wildlife species in the region to occur in the Study Area. Sources queried for this search included the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2017), USFWS ECOS database (USFWS 2017b), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory (CNPS 2017) for the 9 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangles that include and surround the Study Area (Mountain View, Palo Alto, Redwood Point, Newark, Niles, Milpitas, San Jose West, Cupertino, and Mindego Hill), as well as other CDFW publications (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Special-status plant species occurrences documented in the vicinity of the Study Area are shown on Figure 3 and special-status wildlife species are shown on Figure 4. 3.1 Wetlands and Waters Wetlands within the Study Area include tidal salt marsh and non-tidal seasonal wetlands. Tidal salt marsh within the Study Area is located outboard of the levee, adjacent to the unnamed slough, in the vicinity of the existing outfall.. This community is dominated by hydrophytic plant species including pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), barley (Hordeum marinum), broadleaved pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), and alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus). Overall the tidal wetlands were dominated by obligate, facultative wetland, and facultative species, and were inundated or saturated at the time of the site visit. Soil samples taken within the Study Area provided evidence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. The boundary between tidal wetland and upland areas was demarcated by a transition to dominance of upland species and subtle changes in elevation. Non-tidal seasonal wetlands are located within the Study Area within the airport runway infield area adjacent to the southern edge of the airport runway. Non-tidal wetlands within this area are characterized as picklweed mats (non-tidal), and consist predominately of pickleweed, salt grass, and broadleaved pepperweed. Several other species are associated with the pickleweed mats on the project site, including iceplant (Carpobrotus spp.), Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), and saltgrass. Wetland hydrology is driven primarily by runoff originating from adjacent lands during precipitation events, including portions of the airport tarmac and runway. Shallow groundwater also contributes to wetland hydrology in the non-tidal wetlands, though to a lesser extent than surface-driven hydrology. Non-wetland tidal waters in the Study Area include un-vegetated aquatic areas below the HTL elevation. Non-wetland tidal waters are located in the unnamed slough, where no vegetation is present. The HTL in the Study Area was identified based on the approximate highest predicted tide using National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted tide levels for the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor (Station ID 9414525) (NOAA 2017). Based on this data, the HTL was 9.31 feet NAVD88. Tidal elevations are provided in Table 2 below. 10 Table 2. Summary of Tidal Elevations in the Vicinity of the Study Area Tidal Datum Abbreviation Ft NAVD88 High Tide Line HTL 9.31 Mean Higher High Water MHHW 7.61 Mean High Water MHW 6.99 Mean Sea Level MSL 3.77 Mean Low Water MLW 0.77 Mean Lower Low Water MLLW 0.00 Elevations presented are based on Palo Alto Yacht Harbor (NOAA 2017). 3.2 Upland Vegetation Communities There are both sensitive and non-sensitive vegetation communities within the Study Area. Non- sensitive vegetation communities include Ruderal/Disturbed, Landscaped, and California Annual Grasslands. Two sensitive vegetation communities are located in the Study Area: Tidal Salt Marsh and Pickleweed Mats (non-tidal wetlands). Non-Sensitive Vegetation Communities Ruderal/Developed Ruderal habitat includes land disturbed by grading, cultivation, or other extensive human activities, typically left to become colonized by invasive herbaceous species. Ruderal habitat within the Study Area is found adjacent to the San Francisquito Creek Trail, including upland areas adjacent to the existing City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) outfall location. Vegetation at this location is comprised predominately of coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and California fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and non-native annual grasses. Developed site characteristics within the Study Area include the parking lot, fencing, airport tarmac and runway. Landscaped Landscaped vegetation within the Study Area is found along both sides of Embarcadero Road, and immediately north of the RWQCP. Vegetation in these communities consists of many non- native, ornamental trees and shrubs, including eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), lollypop tree (Myoporum laetum), breeder river yellowwood (Podocrapus elongatas), Italian buckthorn (Rhamnus alaternus), honey myrtle (Melaleuca nesophila), kurrajong (Brachychiton populneus), and loquat (Eriobotrya japonica). California Annual Grasslands California annual grassland land cover type consists primarily of nonnative annual grasses and annual forbs. This land cover type occurs in several areas of the Study Area, including the uplands along the airport runway and tarmac, and levee berm adjacent to the Palo Alto Duck Pond along the eastern edge of the Study Area. Dominant species in this habitat include wild oat (Avena spp.), bromes (Bromus spp.), mustard (Brassica nigra), and Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus). 11 Several shrubs, including coyote brush and golden fleece (Ericameria arborescense), occur within this land cover type on the levee berm separating the airport from Palo Alto Duck Pond. The levee berm includes upland transitional habitat adjacent to tidal salt marsh at this location. 3.3 Special-status Plants Based on the database search for special-status plants, 12 special-status species have been documented within five miles of the Study Area, as seen in Figure 3. Of the special-status plant species recorded in the vicinity, three plant species have the potential to occur in the Study Area due to the presence of potentially suitable tidal salt marsh habitat. The remaining special-status plant species have no potential or are unlikely to be found in the Study Area due to lack of suitable habitat. Rare plant surveys are recommended prior to construction during the blooming period of the following special-status species with moderate or high potential to be found in the Study Area. •Point Reyes bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre). State Endangered, Rank 1B.1. •California seablite (Suaeda californica). Federally Endangered, State Endangered, Rank 1B.1. •Saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum). State Endangered, Rank 1B.2. Surveys for Point Reyes bird’s beak and California seablite would occur during the late season from June to October and surveys for saline clover would occur from April through June. More information on these species and their blooming periods are provided below. Point Reyes bird’s beak Point Reyes bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre) is a hemiparasitic annual herb found in coastal salt marshes and swamps. It typically blooms from June through October at elevations from zero to 10 meters in elevation (CNPS 2015). The tidal wetlands and pickleweed mats may provide suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. California seablite California seablite (Suaeda californica) is a perennial evergreen shrub found in coastal salt marshes and swamps. It typically blooms from July through October at elevations ranging from zero to 15 meters (CNPS 2015). The tidal salt marsh and pickleweed mats may provide suitable habitat for this species within the Study Area. The nearest documented occurrence for this species is located in the baylands adjacent and to the southeast of the project site (CDFW 2015). Saline clover Saline clover (Trifolium Hydrophilum) is an annual herb found in salt marshes, open areas in alkaline soils, and alkaline grasslands. It typically blooms between April and June in elevations of zero to 300 meters. The tidal salt marsh and annual grasslands may provide suitable habitat for this species. 1 2 3333 3 3 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 Figure 3. Special-status Plant Documented within 5 Miles of the Study Area City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California 0 1 20.5 Miles . Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 3 CNDDB Plant.mxd CNDDB Plant Occurrences 1, alkali milk-vetch 2, California seablite 3, Congdon's tarplant 4, fragrant fritillary 5, Franciscan onion 6, Hoover's button-celery 7, lost thistle 8, Point Reyes salty bird's-beak 9, round-headed Chinese-houses 10, San Francisco collinsia 11, slender-leaved pondweed 12, western leatherwood Map Prepared Date: 5/12/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: National Geographic Data Source(s): CNDDB January 2017 Study Area < 5-mileBuffer 13 3.4 Special-status Wildlife Based on the literature and database search, a total of 20 special-status wildlife species have been documented within five miles of the Study Area. Of the special-status wildlife species recorded in the vicinity of the Study Area, most have no potential or are unlikely to occur within the Study Area due to the absence of suitable habitats, including forest, riparian, open grassland, chaparral, and fresh waters. However, the Study Area has several habitat features including tidal salt marsh and slough habitat that may support 16 special-status species. These species which may utilize the Study Area are listed and are briefly discussed below. •Salt-marsh harvest mouse (SMHM; Reithrodontomys raviventris). Federal Endangered, State Endangered, California Fully Protected. •Salt-marsh wandering shrew (Sorex vagrans halicoetes). CDFW Species of Special Concern •California black rail (CBR; Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus). State Threatened, California Fully Protected, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. •California Ridgway’s rail (CRR; Rallus obsoletus obsoletus). Federal Endangered, State Endangered, California Fully Protected. •Saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa). CDFW Species of Special Concern, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. •Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula). CDFW Species of Special Concern, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. •Bryant’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus). CDFW Species of Special Concern. •Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). CDFW Species of Special Concern. •Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus). CDFW Species of Special Concern. •Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). CDFW Species of Special Concern. •Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). CDFW Species of Special Concern, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. •Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus (=Lampetra) tridentatus). CDFW Species of Special Concern. •River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi). CDFW Species of Special Concern. •Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). Federal Threatened, CDFW Species of Special Concern, Critical Habitat. •White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus). CDFW Species of Special Concern. •Steelhead - central California coast DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Federal Threatened, Critical Habitat. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 7 7 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 1616 17 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 Figure 4. Special-status Wildlife Documented within 5 Miles of the Study Area City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California 0 1 20.5 Miles . Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\Fig 4 CNDDB Wildlife.mxd CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences 1, Alameda song sparrow 2, American badger 3, black skimmer 4, burrowing owl 5, California black rail 6, California clapper rail 7, California least tern 8, California red-legged frog 9, California tiger salamander 10, hoary bat 11, longfin smelt 12, northern harrier 13, pallid bat 14, salt-marsh harvest mouse 15, salt-marsh wandering shrew 16, saltmarsh common yellowthroat 17, Townsend's big-eared bat 18, western bumble bee 19, western pond turtle 20, western snowy plover Map Prepared Date: 5/19/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: National Geographic Data Source(s): CNDDB January 2017 Study Area < 5-mile Buffer 15 Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Salt-Marsh Wandering Shrew SMHM and salt-marsh wandering shrew have the potential to occur within the Study Area due to the presence of tidal wetlands and pickleweed mats, as described in Section 3.2 above. Suitable habitat for SMHM and salt-marsh wandering shrew includes dense vegetation in tidal wetlands in the San Francisco Bay Area. SMHM may also be present in diked wetlands if suitably dense vegetation is present. In tidal areas, these species require upland refugia to escape high tides, and SMHM is known to opportunistically forage in uplands up to 330 feet from their primary wetland habitat (USFWS 2013). Therefore, the pickleweed mats adjacent to the airport runway may also provide suitable habitat for these species as upland refugia with vegetation. These two species are known to occur in the wetlands along the Palo Alto shoreline, and SMHM has been documented in marshes outboard of the Palo Alto Airport along the San Francisquito Creek Trail (CDFW 2017). California Ridgway’s Rail and Black Rail CRR and CBR have the potential to occur in the Study Area due to the presence of tidally influenced salt marsh habitat, specifically near the proposed RWQCP outfall location. CRR and CBR are found in lowland wetlands in the San Francisco Bay Area. CBR is more restricted to tidal salt marsh habitats than CBR, which may also be found in diked wetlands with suitable vegetation composition. Both of these species have been documented in the marshes outboard of the Palo Alto Airport along the San Francisquito Creek Trail (CDFW 2017). CRR is known to breed there and an individual CRR was observed by WRA biologists during the March 27, 2017 site visit (CDFW 2017). CBR breeds rarely in south San Francisco Bay, but this species has been detected in the marshes adjacent to the Study Area in April, during the nesting season and may thus use these marshes within and adjacent to the Study Area for nesting (CDFW 2017). Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl has the potential to occur in the Study Area due to the presence of grasslands with the airport apron and along the adjacent levee berm top. Burrowing owl inhabit small mammal burrows year-round, primarily those of the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) in the region, or other suitable burrow surrogates such as pipes, culverts, and some debris piles. This species typically occupies burrows in annual grassland habitats or other open spaces with sparse or non-existent tree or shrub canopies and short vegetation, usually under 18 inches in height. This species has been previously documented at the Palo Alto Airport in 1983 and at Byxbee Park southwest of the Study Area (CDFW 2017). However, no breeding occurrences have been documented at these locations. Ground squirrels are active in the grassy portion of the Study Area south of the airport terminal. If this vegetation is regularly mowed, in these areas, conditions are suitable to support burrowing owl. Other Special-Status Bird Species The remaining special-status bird species with potential to occur in the Study Area all nest in wetland vegetation, and are known to the vicinity (CDFW 2017, Shuford and Gardali 2008). These birds may forage or nest within the salt marshes and adjacent uplands within the Study Area. Special-Status Lamprey and Fish Species The two lamprey species (pacific lamprey and river lamprey) and three fish species (green sturgeon, white sturgeon, and steelhead) listed above are known to occur widely in San Francisco Bay waters. These species may be opportunistically present in the unnamed slough within the Study Area adjacent to the San Francisquito Creek Trail, near the located of the proposed 16 RWQCP outfall. Adult and juvenile fish may enter the existing outfall location from bay waters to forage or shelter. However, the outfall location does not contain or connect to spawning habitat for any of these species, and does not provide foraging or sheltering habitat of any particular value and any occurrences of these fish species would be incidental and short-lived in duration. 3.4 Trees An arborist survey was conducted on May 2, 2017 by WRA to identify trees that are regulated or protected under the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 8, Trees & Vegetation and Title 18, Zoning Code. The regulated trees of Palo Alto refer to all those trees or groups of trees included in the following three categories: 1) Protected Trees, 2) Street Trees and 3) Designated Trees. These categories are discussed further in the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Technical Manual, which also provides information regarding the City’s tree permits and mitigation requirements. The arborist survey identified 65 trees within the Study Area, shown in Figure 5 (Arborist Survey) below. These species included: •Kurrajong (Brachychiton populneus) •She-oak (Casurina cunninghamiana) •Loquat (Eriobotrya japonica) •River red bum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) •Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) •White ironbark (Eucalyptus leucoxylon) •Swamp gum (Eucalyptus rudis) •Manna gum (Eucalyputus viminalis) •Honey myrtle (Melaleuca nesophila) •Lollypop tree (Myoporum laetum) •Breeder River yellowwood (Podocarpus elongatas)Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) •Italian buckhorn (Rhamnus alaternus) No trees observed within the Study Area are considered “Protected Trees” under City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code based on species and diameter requirements. The Study Area includes street trees within the City’s right-of-way that are regulated under the City’s Tree Ordinance. However, because this is a City-sponsored project, compliance with the City tree ordinance is not required. City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project Palo Alto, California Figure 5. Arborist Survey Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26188\GIS\ArcMap\GPS Data.mxd Map Prepared Date: 5/8/2017 Map Prepared By: czumwalt Base Source: Esri Streaming - NAIP 2014 Data Source(s): WRA . !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( 402401 400 403 404405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440441 442 443 444 445446447448449450451 452 453454455456 457458 459 460461 462 463 464 465 !(Tree 0 20 40 60 Feet This map may contain data from publicly available sources including, but not limited to, parcel boundaries. These data sources may be inaccurate. They are intended for reference purposes only and do not represent legal boundaries or absolute locations. 19 4.0 PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Wetlands and Waters As described in Section 3.0 above, the Study Area includes jurisdictional features including tidal and non-tidal wetlands and non-wetland waters. Permits from BCDC, the Corps, and the RWQCB are anticipated to be required for the project. Temporary impacts to wetland vegetation would be required to be restored to pre-construction conditions. The Project should avoid permanent impacts from fill or dredging to avoid the need for mitigation through wetland creation or purchase of mitigation bank credits. Avoidance and Minimization Measures Based on our current knowledge of site conditions and the proposed project, the following avoidance and minimization measures are recommended: •Include requirements in construction documents for the restoration of temporary excavations in wetlands back to preconstruction grade, and revegetation of temporarily disturbed areas using appropriate native vegetation. Appropriate native vegetation may include pickleweed, saltgrass, Atriplex, and other salt tolerant wetland plant species. Pickleweed and saltgrass may be selectively harvested from adjacent tidal marsh and seasonal wetland areas for transplantation to temporarily impacted areas for restoration. •Clearly mark limits of construction, wetlands, and buffers with high-visibility construction fencing. •Site access of machinery should be restricted to as few areas as possible to prevent soil compaction. Indirect impacts to wetlands, waters, and sensitive biological communities can be avoided through implementation of the following measures: •Use of appropriate erosion control measures around soil stockpiles, graded slopes, and slurry management facilities. Erosion control materials should be wildlife friendly and avoid the use of plastic netting or fixed aperture netting. •A spill prevention and control plan should be required as part of project specifications to minimize the chance of toxic spills. Spill kits shall be present for any work adjacent to open waters. All spills of oil and other hazardous materials would be immediately cleaned up and contained. Any hazardous materials cleaned up or used on-site would be properly disposed of at an approved disposal facility. •Litter and Waste Management – Waste collection areas will be designated onsite. Only watertight dumpsters and trash cans will be used and inspected for leaks. Dumpsters and cans will be inspected at the end of each work day when it is raining or windy. Waste collection will occur regularly. Litter will be picked up daily. 4.2 Special Status Plant Species Based upon a review of the resources and databases listed in Section 3.0, it was determined that three special-status plant species have moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area. These species include: Point Reyes bird’s-beak, California seablite, and Saline clover. Special- status plant species that have been documented in the CNDDB within a 5-mile radius of the Study Area are depicted in Figure 3. 20 The three special-status plant species with potential to occur within the Study Area are generally observed within marshes, and have potential to occur within the tidal marsh habitat located within the Mayfield slough in the northeastern portion of the Study Area. The Project could potentially impact habitat suitable for the special-status species listed above. Avoidance and Minimization Measures Protocol level rare plant surveys are recommended during the blooming periods of each of these three species, in order to confirm the presence or absence of these species within the Study Area. Surveys for Point Reyes bird’s beak and California seablite would be conducted during the late season, June through October, and surveys for saline clover would be conducted between April and June, based on the individual specie’s blooming season. If these rare plant species are observed during surveys, they may need to be avoided by construction, seed collected for replanting, or whole individuals transplanted prior to construction to avoid impacts. 4.3 Wildlife Impacts Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse As described in Section 3.2 above, wetland vegetation communities in the Study Area contain suitable habitat for SMHM. Disturbance of vegetation within or adjacent to these communities has the potential to directly impact this species (including injury and mortality) or to indirectly (including reduced use of refuge areas) impact this species through temporary increases in human traffic, vibration, and noise during project activities. Avoidance and Minimization Measures Standard measures currently required by USFWS to avoid and minimize potential impacts to SMHM require any vegetation removal be conducted by hand (or hand held power tools) and exclusion fencing to be installed following vegetation removal. In addition, a biologist is required to be onsite during vegetation removal and exclusion fence installation within suitable habitat. Work in and adjacent to tidal areas is typically to avoid work within two hours before or after a tide greater than 6.5 feet at the Golden Gate bridge. Avoidance measures for SMHM would also be suitable for avoiding impacts to salt-marsh wandering shrew. California Ridgway’s Rail and California Black Rail As described in Section 3.2 above, tidal salt marsh communities at and surrounding the outfall have the potential to support CRR and CBR, and project-related activates within 700 feet of tidal marsh may affect these species during nesting. Based on a review of historic occurrences, as well as observations of CRR by WRA during the site visit, it is likely that nesting rails will be present in the tidal marsh surrounding the outfall. Ongoing activities at the airport are an important consideration in assessing the potential for project activities to affect rails in adjacent tidal areas. The Palo Alto Airport is among the busiest of all General Aviation airports in the United States, and air traffic is a source of consistent background visual and auditory disturbance. Thus, construction within the airport grounds may be viewed differently from construction in the adjacent tidal marsh areas from the perspective of potential impacts to CRR. Construction within the airport may not result in disturbance to nesting rails because individuals are accustomed to a relatively high level of disturbance from airport activities. Construction in tidal areas could potentially affect nesting rails because it would occur in areas that are not associated with normal air traffic and airport maintenance activities. 21 Avoidance and Minimization Measures The USFWS typically requires avoidance of construction activity within 700 feet of nesting rails. The rail nesting season occurs between February 1 and August 31 in any given year. For projects occurring in and adjacent to tidal marsh in San Francisco Bay, the USFWS requires protocol-level surveys during the early nesting season to determine if rails are nesting within 700 feet of construction areas. If the survey results are negative, work within the buffer zone during the nesting season is permitted. If surveys indicate rails are nesting 1 within 700 feet of construction areas, typical USFWS measures require construction be delayed in areas of nesting rails until the end of the nesting season. Given the background conditions present at the active airport, it may be possible to apply this standard requirement only to work occurring immediately adjacent to and within tidal marsh at the outfall. This could allow for work to occur within airport grounds during the nesting season. The final determination with regard to CRR constraints could only be made by the USFWS. Burrowing Owl Grassland areas adjacent to the airport runway and airport terminal that are regularly maintained by mowing have the potential to support burrowing owl. There are records of burrowing owl in at the Palo Alto Airport and adjacent parklands, however, no breeding was documented at these occurences. If construction activities were to occur these areas, potential direct (injury and mortality) and indirect impacts (nest abandonment) could occur to this species. Avoidance and Minimization Measures In accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012), a Pre-construction survey for burrowing owl is recommended prior to any construction activities. The CDFW Staff Report also contains guidance pertaining to avoidance and minimization measures for this species if active burrows are found on the site. If active burrows are found, avoidance measures typically include no-work setbacks during the nesting season, and exclusion of owls from active burrows during the non-breeding season. Consultation with CDFW may be required if burrowing owl is observed during the nesting season. Other Special-Status or Nesting Birds Other special-status and non-special status bird species have the potential to nest within the Study Area. Most nesting birds in California are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Game and Fish Code, which prohibit the removal of active bird nests. Avoidance and Minimization Measures To avoid disturbance to active nests, construction and/or vegetation removal can be scheduled to be initiated outside of the breeding bird season (February 1 through August 31). As an alternative to this schedule restriction, preconstruction surveys and bird deterrence measures may need to be implemented. The risk of relying on preconstruction surveys is that if nesting birds are found, those nests cannot be removed and are at minimum required to be monitored during construction to ensure that construction is not affecting nesting success. Bird deterrence measures, such as netting, acoustic disturbance mechanisms, and reflective materials, can be 1 Presence of nesting rails is typically determined by the presence of an active “calling center”, indicating an attempt to nest. 22 put in place to deter some but not likely all bird nesting prior to construction. These measures can help prevent some nesting but are unreliable at completely preventing nest establishment. Special-Status Fish Species As described in Section 3.4 above, special-status fish species may occur incidentally within the unnamed slough at the proposed outfall location. Potential in-water work as part of the project would have a very limited potential to impact these special-status fish species. The Study Area does support core habitat for any special status fish species, and any occurrence of special status fish in or adjacent to the Study Area would be short lived and incidental. The Project is not anticipated to have any real or lasting effects on fish populations. Avoidance and Minimization Measures Due to the potential for impacts to special-status fish species within the unnamed slough located at the proposed RWQCP outfall location, NMFS may require any in-water work to be conducted between June 15 and November 30. Further measures may be required to minimize threshold sound levels, including vibratory pile driving and other sound attenuation measures if pile driving is necessary as a part of the Project. If in-water pile driving is necessary, an evaluation of potential hydroacoustic impacts to fish will be required as part of the consultation process. If hydroacoustic impacts exceed established thresholds for take, NMFS may require hydroacoustic monitoring by a sound engineer during in water pile driving work. 4.4 Tree Removal The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code provides protection for regulated trees under Title 8 of the City’s Municipal Code. As described above, regulated trees can fall under three broad categories; protected public and private trees, street trees, and designated public and private trees. Regulated trees are specifically defined as follows: •Protected Trees: All Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) trees that are 11.5-inches or greater in diameter and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) that are 18-inches in diameter or great and Heritage Trees as designated by City Council. The project site contains one Coast live oak, however it is only 2.4-inches in diameter and is therefore not considered Protected. •Public/Street Trees: All trees growing within the street right-of-way (publically-owned) outside of private property. All trees surveyed within the Study Area are located on public property. •Designated Trees: All trees, when associated with a development project, that are designated by the City to be saved and protected on a public or private property which is subject to a discretionary development review. The proposed outfall and pipeline would be subject to site design review and approval. If the City were to designate any trees within the Study Area as a “Designated Tree”, approval from the City’s Planning Division would be required to remove the designated tree. Based on the preliminary site plans, the proposed pipeline alignment from the RWQCP to the proposed outfall location would require the removal of one eucalyptus (56.0-inch DBH) and two lollypop trees (18.5-inch DBH and 3.8-inch DBH) within the RWQCP property (tree numbers 463, 406, and 405 in Figure 5). The trees within the Study Area are considered Street Trees under the ordinance. However, City-sponsored projects are not required to comply with the ordinance, and it is up to the City as to whether or not the removed trees would be replaced. 23 4.5 Public Access As described above, the Study Area includes public access features including the San Francisquito Creek Trail. Projects within the Study Area have the potential to impact public access through temporary path closures requiring detours. The project would not trigger any potential impacts or mitigation under CEQA with regard to public access. However, BCDC will require details with regard to the plans for temporary public access closures or detours during construction, and may require improvements to existing public access amenities to compensate for temporary closures or access restrictions. The potential and extent of public access improvements would be determined by BCDC based on the nature, extent, and duration of any temporary public access closure. It is recommended that the City consider potential public access improvements early in the process if the nature, extent and duration of any public access closures warrants public access improvements. 4.6 Sea Level Rise As the Study Area is located within BCDC jurisdiction and includes tidally influenced wetlands, projects have the potential to impact the Bay shoreline. BCDC permits require the project provide reasonable protection to persons and property against hazards of unstable geologic or soil conditions, of sea level rise, or of flood or storm waters. While BCDC sea level rise policies are not anticipated to be strictly applicable to the project, it is common for BCDC to require some analysis of sea level rise even for permits that do not require a full sea level rise risk assessment and adaptation plan. The level of analysis required for projects that do not require an adaptation plan typically involves analyzing the potential effects of anticipated sea level rise based on the life of the project. If the operation of the outfall is at risk of being effected by sea level rise during the life of the project, BCDC may require a list of actions that the City plans to implement to plan for this risk. The estimated 100-year extreme tide elevation for this area is approximately 9.7 feet NAVD88 (AECOM 2016). The National Research Council (NRC 2012) projections of sea level rise provided below are appropriate for planning purposes because they encompass the best available science, have been derived considering local and regional processes and conditions, and their use is consistent with state guidance. Water surface elevations presented in Table 3 take into account estimates of future sea level rise on top of the 100-year tide event, but do not factor in wave runup. Table 3. Sea Level Rise Estimates and Water Surface Elevation Relative to Year 2000 Year Most Likely SLR (inches)* Water Surface Elevation based on Most Likely SLR + 100-yr Tide (Feet NAVD88) Upper Range SLR (inches)* Water Surface Elevation based on Upper Range SLR + 100-yr Tide (Feet NAVD88) 2050 11” ± 4” 10.6’ ± 0.3’ 24” 11.7’ 2100 36” ± 10” 12.7’ ± 0.8’ 66” 15.2’ *Source: NRC 2012. Of primary consideration for the RWQCP outfall is whether or not the hydraulics would continue to adequately function with higher projected sea levels. WRA is aware the City is considering this issue and the outcomes of this review will be pertinent to the BCDC permit process. 24 5.0 CONCLUSION Based on our review of the Study Area, the primary biological resources and permitting concerns include: (1) restoration of temporary construction impacts to wetlands; (2) avoidance and minimization of potential impacts to salt marsh harvest mouse; (3) known locally nesting California Ridgway’s rail and California black rail and potential applicability of standard seasonal avoidance measures within 700 feet of tidal marsh areas; (4) project design to account for public access and sea level rise. The Project is likely to require the issuance of a Section 404 permit from the Corps, a Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, and a BCDC permit. The issuance of the Corps permit is expected to require consultation with the USFWS and NMFS under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act for salt marsh harvest mouse, California Ridgway’s rail, and federally- listed fish species. The consultation process with these agencies could result in additional avoidance and mitigation measures to those provided in this memorandum. The Corps and RWQCB permits will determine the final requirements for restoration of temporary impacts, including whether or not any additional mitigation is required. Special considerations for the BCDC permit are Direct impacts to SMHM, CRR, CBR, special-status fish, as well as temporary impacts to habitat for these species, may occur during project construction if no avoidance measures are implemented. Similarly, project activities have the potential to impact nesting birds if no avoidance measures are implemented. With the implementation of suitable avoidance measures, such as pre-construction surveys during the avian breeding season, work windows, and biological monitoring, no significant impacts to special status species would be anticipated. In addition, protocol level rare plant surveys are recommended during the blooming periods of each of the three special-status plant species with moderate or high potential to occur within the Study Area, in order to confirm the presence or absence of these species within the Study Area. Projects within the Study Area have to potential to impact regulated trees. All trees located on public property are regulated under the City’s Tree Ordinance. Because the proposed outfall and pipeline is a City project, the specific processes in the ordinance are not required for the project. The City will determine the appropriate tree replacement, if any, for removed trees. BCDC will require projects to consider public access and sea level rise in the project design and permit specifications may require additional design measure to those provided in this memorandum. The avoidance and minimization measures provided above are intended to aid in project planning, and may be modified in their final form based on agency determinations and CEQA requirements. Through implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures listed above, projects within the Study Area would result in minimal impacts to protected resources and would minimize the level of effort required during the regulatory permitting process. 25 6.0 REFERENCES AECOM. 2016. San Francisco Bay Tidal Datums and Extreme Tides Study. Final Report. February 2016. [CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/docs/BUOWStaffReport.pdf.. [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. California Natural Diversity Database. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, CA. Accessed: April 2017. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org; most recently accessed: April 2017 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2017. National Geodetic Survey Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/Tidal_Elevation/choosevm.jsp. Accessed April 2017. Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali (eds). 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and CDFG, Sacramento. [USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Information for Planning and Conservation. Species List. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists-form.cfm. Accessed April 2017. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California. Sacramento, California. xviii + 605 pp. APPENDIX C HISTORICAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT NEW OUTFALL PROJECT Historical Resources Study for the City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant's New 63-Inch Outfall Project Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California Eileen Barrow, M.A. September 11, 2017 Historical Resources Study for the City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant's New 63-Inch Outfall Project Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California Prepared by: _________________________________ Eileen Barrow, M.A. Tom Origer & Associates Post Office Box 1531 Rohnert Park, California 94927 (707) 584-8200 Prepared for: WRA, Inc. 2169-G East Francisco Boulevard San Rafael, California 94901 September 11, 2017 i ABSTRACT Tom Origer & Associates conducted an historical resources survey for the City of Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant's New 63-Inch Outfall Project, Outfall No. 1 (700-HDPE-1001), Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. This study was requested and authorized by WRA, Inc, on behalf of the City of Palo Alto. This project will be subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. The purpose of this report was to identify historical resources other than Tribal Cultural Resources (see definition of historical resources in the Regulatory Context section). Tribal Cultural Resources are defined in Public Resources Code [PRC] 21074 (a)(1)(A)-(B). This study included archival research at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University (NWIC File No. 17-0516), examination of the library and files of Tom Origer & Associates, Native American contact, and field inspection of the study area. No historical resources were found within the study area. Documentation pertaining to this study is on file at the offices of Tom Origer & Associates (File No. 17-073). Synopsis Project: New 63-Inch Outfall Project Location: Palo Alto, Santa Clara County APN: N/A USGS Map: Mountain View 7.5’ series Study Type: Intensive Scope: 0.5 linear miles Finds: None ii Project Personnel Report preparation and project oversight was completed by Eileen Barrow. Ms. Barrow has been with Tom Origer & Associates since 2005. She holds a Master of Arts in cultural resources management from Sonoma State University. Her professional affiliations include the Society for American Archaeology, the Society for California Archaeology, the Cotati Historical Society, the Sonoma County Historical Society, and the Western Obsidian Focus Group. Taylor Alshuth conducted the field survey. Mr. Alshuth obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from Humboldt State University in 2014, after obtaining an Associate of Arts degree in Anthropology at Santa Rosa Junior College in 2012. He has been affiliated with the Society for California Archaeology, the Archaeological Institute of America, and the Archaeological Conservancy. Mr. Alshuth has been a part of northern California archaeology since 2014. iii CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ i Synopsis .............................................................................................................................................. i Project Personnel ............................................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 REGULATORY CONTEXT .................................................................................................................. 1 Resource Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 2 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 2 Project Setting ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Area of Potential Effects Location and Description .......................................................................... 3 Cultural Setting .................................................................................................................................. 3 STUDY PROCEDURES AND FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 7 Native American Contact .................................................................................................................. 7 Native American Contact Results...................................................................................................... 7 Archival Study Procedures ................................................................................................................ 7 Archival Study Findings .................................................................................................................... 8 Field Survey Procedures .................................................................................................................. 11 Field Survey Findings ...................................................................................................................... 11 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 11 Known Resources ............................................................................................................................ 11 Accidental Discovery ...................................................................................................................... 11 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 12 MATERIALS CONSULTED ............................................................................................................... 13 APPENDIX A: Native American Contact FIGURES Figure 1. Project vicinity ........................................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2. Location of APE within San Francisco Bay marshland .......................................................... 4 Figure 3. Study location ......................................................................................................................... 5 TABLES Table 1. Cultural Resources Studies conducted within 1-mile of the APE. ........................................... 9 Table 2. Cultural Resources within 1-mile of the APE ........................................................................ 10 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto proposes to install a new 63-inch outfall pipe from their Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to an unnamed slough east of the Palo Alto Airport. The City is proposing this project to mitigate issues related to the aging existing outfall and anticipated sea level rise. The outfall will start at the RWQCP, cross Embarcadero Street where it will enter the Palo Alto Airport. The outfall will continue on the airport property to an unnamed slough that feeds into San Francisco Bay (Figures 1 and 3). The project will require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Documentation pertaining to this study is on file at Tom Origer & Associates (File No. 17- 073). REGULATORY CONTEXT Under Section 106, when a federal agency is involved in an undertaking, it must take into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties (36CFR Part 800). Compliance with Section 106 requires that agencies make an effort to identify historic properties that might be affected by a project, and gather information to evaluate their eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). CEQA also requires that historical resources be considered during the environmental review process through an inventory of historical resources within a study area, and an assessment of potential project impacts to those resources. Note, the term “Historical Resources" encompasses prehistoric and historical archaeological sites and elements of the built environment (e.g., buildings, bridges, canals). Revisions to CEQA enacted in July 2015 call out a separate class of resources termed “Tribal Cultural Resources” (Public Resources Code Section 21074). Tribal cultural resources are those that are of Figure 1. Project vicinity (adapted from the 1980 Santa Rosa and the 1969 San Jose 1:250,000-scale USGS map). 2 specific concern to California Native American tribes, and are identified through direct and confidential consultation between the Tribe and the lead agency (PRC §21080.3.1). This study does not include identification or discussion of tribal cultural resource. Letters sent to the Native American Heritage Commission and local Native American groups as part of this study were for informational purposes only. Pursuant to Section 106 and the CEQA Guidelines, the goals of this study were to: 1) identify all historic resources within the project area; 2) provide an evaluation of the significance of identified resources; 3) determine resource vulnerability to adverse impacts that could arise from project activities; and 4) offer recommendations designed to protect historic resource values, as warranted. Resource Definitions The National Register defines a historic property or historic resource as a district, site, building, structure, or object significant in American history, architecture, engineering, archaeology, and culture, and that may be of value to the nation as a whole or important only to the community in which it is located. These resource types are described by the National Park Service (NPS) as follows (NPS 1995:4-5). Site. A site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. Building. A building, such as a house, barn, church, hotel, or similar construction, is created principally to shelter any form of human activity. "Building" may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail, or a house and barn. Structure. The term "structure" is used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made usually for purposes other than creating human shelter. Object. The term "object" is used to distinguish from buildings and structures those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed. Although it may be, by nature or design, movable, an object is associated with a specific setting or environment. District. A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Significance Criteria For purposes of the National Register, the importance of a historic resource is evaluated in terms of criteria put forth in 36CFR60, as follows: The quality of significance is present in properties that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: 3 A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinct characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Eligibility criteria for the California Register are very similar and will not be presented here. Additionally, the OHP advocates that all historical resources over 45 years old be recorded for inclusion in the OHP filing system (OHP 1995:2), although professional judgement is urged in determining whether a resource warrants documentation. PROJECT SETTING Area of Potential Effects Location and Description The study area is located in northwestern Santa Clara County, in the City of Palo Alto, as shown on the Mountain View 7.5’ USGS topographic map (Figure 3). It consists of about 0.5 linear miles of flat, land. The land was once bay marsh that has been filled to contain the Palo Alto Airport, the City of Palo Alto's RWQCP, and various other industrial buildings (Sowers 2004). The nearest freshwater source prior to development of the area was San Francisquito Creek which flowed through the APE. San Francisquito Creek has been channelized and now flows north of the Palo Alto Airport Review of the geologic maps for the APE shows that the geology of the study area consists of Holocene epoch (11,700 years ago to present) estuarine organic clay and silty clay (bay mud) (Dibblee 2007; Helley and LaJoie 1979). Soils mapped for the study area are Aquic Xerorthents (SoilWeb 2017). Aquic Xerorthents consist of very deep, poorly draining bay mud. This soil is found in bay marshes. Cordgrass, pickleweed, and alkali heath are the chief vegetation supported by Aquic Xerorthents soils, and parcels with these soils have been used primarily for salt production (Gardner 1958: 125; Reed 2015:32). Cultural Setting Archaeological evidence indicates that human occupation of California began at least 11,000 years ago (Erlandson et al. 2007). Early occupants appear to have had an economy based largely on hunting, with limited exchange, and social structures based on the extended family unit. Later, milling technology and an inferred acorn economy were introduced. This diversification of economy appears to be coeval with the development of sedentism and population growth and expansion. Sociopolitical complexity and status distinctions based on wealth are also observable in the archaeological record, as evidenced by an increased range and distribution of trade goods (e.g., shell 4 Figure 2. Location of APE within San Francisco Bay marshland (adapted from the Creek and Watershed Map of Palo Alto & Vicinity Sowers 2004). 5 Figure 3. Study location (adapted from the USGS 1997 Mountain View 7.5’ map). 6 beads, obsidian tool stone), which are possible indicators of both status and increasingly complex exchange systems. At the time of European settlement, the study area was situated in an area controlled by the Ohlone, who are also referred to as Costanoans (Levy 1978:485-495). The Ohlone were hunter-gatherers who lived in rich environments that allowed for dense populations with complex social structures (Levy 1978:485-495; Kroeber 1925:462-473). They settled in large, permanent villages about which were distributed seasonal camps and task-specific sites. Primary village sites were occupied throughout the year and other sites were visited in order to procure particular resources that were especially abundant or available only during certain seasons. Sites often were situated near fresh water sources and in ecotones where plant life and animal life were diverse and abundant. Historically, the study area lies within the lands owned by Mission Santa Clara de Asis which was located 14 miles southeast of the APE near the San Jose Airport. The mission was moved five times, eventually to its current location on what is now the Santa Clara University campus after the Guadalupe River flooded twice and two earthquakes (Hoover et al. 2002:422). The area around Palo Alto and Menlo Park was used as the mission's sheep grazing ranch (Hoover et al. 2002:431). After secularization the APE was located within the Las Pulgas and the Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito land grants (General Land Office [GLO] 1856, 1861). The Rancho de Las Pulgas was initially granted to José Darío Argüello and known as "Cachanigtac" but was later known as Las Pulgas (the fleas) (Hoover et al. 2002:402). The land consisted of 12 square leagues (over 69,000 acres). The western boundary of the land was disputed and 1856 a patent for 32,240 acres was finally issued to Argüello's widow, his two sons, and the attorney who provided his services in the dispute, Simon Monserrate Mezes (Hoover et al. 2002:403). The Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito land grant was granted to Rafael Soto in 1835 (Gullard and Lund 1989:45). The land consisted of 2,230 acres. Soto had sailed up San Francisquito Creek and established a pier (embarcadero) at the end of the bay marsh and higher ground. Soto and his family lived in the Palo Alto area for several years (Hoover et al. 2002:431). The City of Palo Alto was officially established in 1894 (Hoover et al. 2002:445; Sawyer 1922:284). It was founded by Leland Stanford, Sr. following the death of his son. Stanford had bought land in the Palo Alto area to establish a horse ranch (Gullard and Lund 1989:82). After their son's death in 1884 Stanford and his wife Jane decided to build a university near their home to commemorate their son (Gullard and Lund 1989:82). When the nearby town of Mayfield refused to stop selling liquor and close its saloons, Stanford, through Timothy Hopkins, purchased additional land for the establishment of a city for students of Stanford University to use (Gullard and Lund 1989:59; Hoover et al. 2002:445. In 1938 William Hewlett and David Packard began using Packard's one-car garage as a laboratory. Within 20 years Hewlett-Packard Company became the leader in manufacturing electronic and computer devices which lead to the beginning of "Silicon Valley" (Hoover et al. 2002:446). The draw of the technology industry in combination with the post-World War II population boom that the San Francisco Bay Area experienced, caused Palo Alto to expand. Like much of the San Francisco Bay Area, the 1950s and 1960s were a time when many orchards and farms turned into suburbs. Eventually, the town of Mayfield was subsumed into Palo Alto. In addition to the increase in houses, infrastructure, services, and industrial buildings were constructed to service and employ the larger population. 7 STUDY PROCEDURES AND FINDINGS Native American Contact A request was sent to the State of California’s Native American Heritage Commission seeking information from the sacred lands files and the names of Native American individuals and groups that would be appropriate to contact regarding this project. Letters were also sent to the following groups: The following groups were also contacted by mail: Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area North Valley Yokuts Tribe The Ohlone Indian Tribe The purpose of contacting these groups was to provide notification of the proposed project so that they would have an opportunity to comment, if desired. It was not intended as, and does not constitute, consultation with tribes. Native American Contact Results The Native American Heritage Commission replied with a letter dated August 23, 2017, in which they indicated that the sacred land file has no information about the presence of Native American cultural resources in the project area. No other comments have been received as of the date of this report. A log of contact efforts and copies of correspondence are appended to this report (Appendix A). In addition to the contact efforts conducted by Tom Origer & Associates, the City of Palo Alto received an AB52 request to consult from the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. However, subsequent communication between the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians and the City of Palo Alto resulted in the tribe determining that the City of Palo Alto was outside their ancestral territory and they no longer had a wish to consult on projects overseen by the City of Palo Alto. Archival Study Procedures On August 24, 2017, Julia Franco completed a review of the archaeological site base maps and records, survey reports, and other materials on file at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park (NWIC File No. 17-0516). Archival research also included an examination of the library and project files at Tom Origer & Associates. Sources of information included but were not limited to the current listings of properties on the National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest as listed in the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Property Directory (OHP 2012). The Office of Historic Preservation has determined that structures in excess of 45 years of age should be considered potentially important historical resources, and former building and structure locations could be potentially important historic archaeological sites. Archival research included an examination of historical maps to gain insight into the nature and extent of historical development in 8 the general vicinity, and especially within the study area. Maps ranged from hand-drawn maps of the 1800s (e.g., GLO) to topographic maps issued by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, ethnographic literature that describes appropriate Native American groups, county histories, and other primary and secondary sources were reviewed. Sources reviewed are listed in the "Materials Consulted" section of this report. Archival Study Findings Archival research found that only a small portion of the southern end of the APE had been previously surveyed (Strother et al. 2007). Twenty-nine studies have been conducted within one mile of the APE (see Table 1). These studies have resulted in the finding of seven resource within one mile of the APE (see Table 2). There are no reported ethnographic sites within one mile of the survey area (Kroeber 1925; Levi 1978). A review of 19th and 20th century maps shows no buildings within the study area (Arnold 1874; Bromfield 1894, 1910; GLO 1858, 1861; Thompson and West 1876; USACE 1943; USCGS 1857, 1862, 1910; USGS 1897, 1899, 1923, 1948a, 1948b, 1961a, 1961b; Wislocki 1890). County histories state that Rafael Soto had a pier (embarcadero) just west of the APE possibly as early as 1835. Buildings are shown on the 1857 map, but by this time, the location is called Wilson's Landing (USCGS 1857). Historical maps show a levee in the vicinity of the APE as early as 1923 (USGS 1923). This levee is located west of the APE. The 1943 USACE map shows additional levees, one of which is within the APE; however, the 1953 USGS map shows the majority of the levees in their current location; outside the APE (USACE 1943; USGS 1953). At some point after 1968 the airport expanded to the east, and shrank the Duck Pond so that the terminal building and additional tie-downs could be constructed. At this time, the levee that was located along the western edge of the pond was moved east, outside the APE (USGS 2017). The Palo Alto Airport was constructed between 1934 and 1936. The original runway was located on what was the Palo Alto Golf Course just west of where the current the airport is located. During World War II the airfield was closed to the public until 1956. After the airport reopened to the public the runway was moved to its current location. Over the next 20 years other developments at the airport took place including construction of the current terminal building, paved tie-down areas, several hangars, and the airport tower (Starovoytov and Laduzinsky 2011; USGS 2017). 9 Table 1. Cultural Resources Studies conducted within 1-mile of the APE. S# Title Author Date No # Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report for the East Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Project. Origer, T. 2015 3023 A Preliminary Reconnaissance of the Archaeological Resources of the East Palo Alto Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 Dotta, J. 1974 3033 Letter report regarding an archaeological reconnaissance for the proposed Palo Alto Post Office in East Palo Alto, California Holman, M. 1976 3123 An Assessment of the Archaeological and Paleontological Resources as May be Impacted by the South Bay Dischargers Authority's Proposed Joint Outfall Pipeline Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Incorporated 1975 3163 Letter report regarding the results of an archaeological reconnaissance of the proposed Dumbarton Bridge replacement project. Dietz, S. 1973 4201 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Expansion. Anonymous N.D. 4279 Archaeological Reconnaissance: Proposed Site of Sanitary Land Fill, Santa Clara County, California Riley, L. N.D. 4411 Archaeological Reconnaissance and Literature Survey for the City of Palo Alto Regional Wastewater Treatment Works Dietz, S. 1977 7452 Cultural Resources Investigations, Air Products Liquid Nitrogen Facility Project, Santa Clara County, California Maniery, J. 1985 8345 Archaeological Survey Report 04-SCL-101 Portions of P.M. 38.3/52.5 Improvements to Route 101 between Route 17 in San Jose and Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, 04393 - 389131 04393 - 396171 Melandry, M. 1980 9442 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Matadero Creek Flood Control Project in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara Cartier, R. 1987 18047 Letter report regarding an Archaeological Field Inspection of the Palo Alto Golf Course, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California Holman, M. 1994 25159 Archaeological Investigations for the 2950 West Bayshore Road Wireless Communications Site, CA 2287H. Nadolski, J. and M. St. Clair 2002 25330 Letter report regarding the Nextel Communications Wireless Telecommunications Service Facility - Santa Clara County Billat, L. 2000 29698 Request for SHPO Review of FCC Undertaking PG&E City of Palo Alto / SF-05252A Thal, E. and L Billat 2005 33697 Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Reuse Pipeline, Santa Clara County, California, Cultural Resources Inventory Martorana, D. 2007 34074 Cultural Resource Assessment Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant UV Disinfection Project, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. Strother, E., A. Arrigoni, D. Bailey, J. Allan, and W. Self 2007 34175 Letter report regarding the San Francisquito Creek Pump Station, Santa Clara County, California Holman, M. 2006 37075 Historic Resources Compliance Report for the U.S. 101 Auxiliary Lanes (Route 85 to Embarcadero Road) Project, Santa Clara County, California: 04-SCL-101 PM 52.17-48.97 EA 04-4A330. Whitaker, A. 2008 39085 Cultural Resources - Existing Conditions Ravenswood/4 Basin Research Associates, 2010 10 Corners Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan, City of East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, California Inc. 39088 Letter report regarding a Cultural Resources Review - Records Search, Limited Literature Review, and Native American Consultation: Sewer Rehabilitation Project - East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Santa Clara County Busby, C. 2010 39266 Cultural Resources Study for the Line 101 South ILI Upgrade Project, Santa Clara County, California Thomas, J. 2012 41536 Final Survey Report: Palo Alto Historical Survey Update Corbett, M. and D. Bradley 2001 41600 Collocation ("CO") Submission Packet FCC Form 621: Utility Poles Along Waverly Street, Lincoln Avenue, Emerson Street, Bryant Street, Park Avenue, Rinconada Avenue, Arrowhead Way, and Dennis Way, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. Supernoqicz, D. 2012a 43191 Historic Property Survey Report: State Route 85 Express Lanes Project, Santa Clara County, California, EA 4A7900; EFIS 0400001163 US 101 PM 23.1-28.6 SR 85 PM 0.0-24.1 US 101 PM 47.9-52.0 Kubal, K. 2013 43328 New Tower ("NT") Submission Packet FCC Form 620: Baylands/Palo Alto, Project No. CNU4060. Supernowicz, D. 2013a 43979 Letter report regarding Cultural Resources Review - Runnymede Storm Drain Phase II, City of East Palo Alto, San Mateo Busby, C. 2012 45231 Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Action Plan for the Oregon-Pagemill Expressway Project, Palo Alto, California: 04-SCL-0-0-CR Cartier, R. 2012 45670 Historic Property Survey Report: US 101 Express Lanes Project, Santa Clara County, California, Project No. 0412000459/EA 2G7100 04-SCL-101 PM 16.00/52.55 OF- SCL-85 PM 23.0/24.1 Kubal, K. 2014 Table 2. Cultural Resources within 1-mile of the APE Resource Designation Resource Description Author Date P-43-002809 Utility pole Supernowicz, D. 2012b HUD061122B Single-family residence Murillo-Garcia, E. 2006 HRI 4302-0604-0000 Sea Scout Base Corbett, M. 2000 HRI 4302-0133-0000 Harbormaster's House Anonymous 1978 P-43-000578 Midden Bocek, B. and J. Rutherford 1985 P-43-003004 Airport tower Supernowicz, D. 2013b P-43-003140 Green Gables District Arbunich, M. 2005 The Palo Alto Treatment Plant was constructed in 1934. The plant was upgraded in 1957 to meet the needs of the San Francisco Bay Area's post-World War II population increase. In 1966, a long-range plan was adopted which recommended that the water treatment in the area should be consolidated. The cities of Mountain View and Los Altos agreed to retire their treatment plants, and East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Stanford University, and Los Altos Hills agreed to share the costs of upkeep for a regional facility. In 1972, the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant was completed. Since that time the facility has been subjected to upgrades between 1975and 2010 (Carollo 2012). 11 Since the original construction in 1934, only five buildings/structures remain that were constructed more than 50 years ago. These buildings include the Influent Box and Septage (1966), the Headworks Old Pumping Plant Nos. 7, 8, and 9 (1956), the Recycled Water Chlorine Contact Tank (1934, remodeled in 1976), Recycled Water Filters (1948, remodeled in 1976) the Abandoned Chlorine Contact Tank (1956, remodeled in 1972) (Carollo 2012). Field Survey Procedures An intensive field survey was completed by Taylor Alshuth on September 1, 2017. The project area was examined by walking in a zigzag fashion within corridors 15 meters wide. Ground visibility was good to poor with vegetation, asphalt, and imported gravel being the chief hindrances. A hoe was used, as necessary, to clear small patches of vegetation so that the soil could be inspected. Based on the results of the prefield research, it was anticipated that prehistoric resources, and to a lesser degree historic-period resources, could be found within the study area. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators expected to be found in the region include but are not limited to: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements such as slabs and hand-stones, and mortars and pestles; and locally darkened midden soils containing some of the previously listed items plus fragments of bone, shellfish, and fire affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). Field Survey Findings Archaeology No prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits were found during the survey. Built Environment There are no buildings or structures within the APE. RECOMMENDATIONS Known Resources Archaeology No archaeological site indicators were found during the survey and no resource-specific recommendations are warranted. Built Environment There are no buildings or structures within the APE and no resource-specific recommendations are required. Accidental Discovery Consideration was given to the possibility of buried archaeological sites within the study area. A model for predicting a location's sensitivity for buried archaeological sites was formulated by Meyer and Kaijankoski (2017) based on the age of the landform and the presence of certain environmental 12 elements. A location is considered to have high sensitivity if it is on a Holocene-era landform with relatively gentle terrain (slope of 1 to 8 percent), and is within 100 meters of water. Given those criteria, there is the possibility that the study area could contain buried archaeological sites. However, because the landform was bay marsh until the 20th century, it would have been subjected to daily inundation due to tides; therefore there is a <1% probability of there being buried cultural resources within the APE. If buried materials are encountered, all soil disturbing work should be halted at the location of any discovery until a qualified archaeologist completes a significance evaluation of the find(s) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36CFR60.4) and CEQA guidelines (§15064.5 [f]). Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire-affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). The following actions are promulgated in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d) and pertain to the discovery of human remains. If human remains are encountered, excavation or disturbance of the location must be halted in the vicinity of the find, and the county coroner contacted. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent makes recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity. SUMMARY Tom Origer & Associates completed an historical resources survey of an approximately 0.5 linear mile for the City of Palo Alto's RWQCP's New 63-Inch Outfall Project. The study was requested and authorized by WRA, Inc., on behalf of the City of Palo Alto. This study was designed to meet the requirements of Section 106 and CEQA. No historical resources were found within the study area and no resource-specific recommendations were made. Documentation pertaining to this study is on file at the offices of Tom Origer & Associates (File No. 17-073). 13 MATERIALS CONSULTED Anonymous N.D. Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Expansion. Document S-4201 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 1978 Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) 4302-0133-000. Form on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Arbunich, M. 2005 Primary Record P-43-003140. Form on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Incorporated 1975 An Assessment of the Archaeological and Paleontological Resources as May be Impacted by the South Bay Dischargers Authority's Proposed Joint Outfall Pipeline. Document S-3123 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Arnold, T. 1874 Map Exhibiting the Salt Marsh, Tide, and Submerged Lands Disposed of by the State of California in and Adjacent to the Bays of San Francisco and San Pablo and now Subject to Reclamation. Board of State Harbor Commissioners. Basin Research Associates, Inc. 2010 Cultural Resources - Existing Conditions Ravenswood/4 Corners Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan, City of East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, California. Document S-39085 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Billat, L. 2000 Letter report regarding the Nextel Communications Wireless Telecommunications Service Facility - Santa Clara County. Document S-25330 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Bocek, B. and J. Rutherford 1985 Primary Record P-43-000578. Form on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Bromfield, D. 1894 Official map of San Mateo County, California. <http://digitalcollections.ucsc.edu/cdm/ compoundobject/collection/p15130coll3/id/1720/rec/3> 1910 Official map of San Mateo County, California. <http://digitalcollections.ucsc.edu/cdm/ compoundobject/collection/p15130coll3/id/1736/rec/1> Busby, C. 2010 Letter report regarding a Cultural Resources Review - Records Search, Limited Literature Review, and Native American Consultation: Sewer Rehabilitation Project - East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Santa Clara County. Document S-39088 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 14 2012 Letter report regarding Cultural Resources Review - Runnymede Storm Drain Phase II, City of East Palo Alto, San Mateo. Document S-43979 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Byrd, B., A. Whitaker, P. Mikkelsen, and J. Rosenthal 2017 San Francisco Bay-Delta Regional Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources, Caltrans District 4. Document on file at the Office of Cultural Resources Studies, California Department of Transportation, District 4, Oakland. California Soil Resource Lab 2017 SoilWeb. Resource accessed at https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/. University of California, Davis. Carollo 2012 Long Range Facilities Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Document on file with the City of Palo Alto. Cartier, R. 1987 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Matadero Creek Flood Control Project in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara. Document S-9442 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 2012 Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Action Plan for the Oregon-Pagemill Expressway Project, Palo Alto, California: 04-SCL-0-0-CR. Document S-45231 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Corbett, M. 2000 Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) 4302-0604-000. Form on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Corbett, M. and D. Bradley 2001 Final Survey Report: Palo Alto Historical Survey Update. Document S-41536 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Cowan, R. 1977 Ranchos of California: A List of Spanish Concessions 1775-1822 and Mexican Grants 1822- 1846. Historical Society of Southern California, Los Angeles. Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historical Resources. State of California, Sacramento. Dibblee, T. 2007 Geologic Map of the Palo Alto and Mountain View Quadrangles, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California. Dibblee Geology Center Map #DF-350. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California. Dietz, S. 1973 Letter report regarding the results of an archaeological reconnaissance of the proposed Dumbarton Bridge replacement project. Document S-3163 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 15 1977 Archaeological Reconnaissance and Literature Survey for the City of Palo Alto Regional Wastewater Treatment Works. Document S-4411 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Dotta, J. 1974 A Preliminary Reconnaissance of the Archaeological Resources of the East Palo Alto Redevelopment Project Area No. 1. Document S-3023 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Erlandson, J. T. Rick, T. Jones, J. Porcasi 2007 One if by Land, Two if by Sea: Who Were the First Californians? In: California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. (pp 53-62) T. Jones and K. Klar, editors. AltaMira Press. Lanham, MD. Gardner, R., F. Harradine, G. Hargreaves, J. Retzer, O. Bartholomew, and T. Glassey 1958 Soil Survey of the Santa Clara Area, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. General Land Office 1856 Plat of Las Pulgas land grant. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1858 Plat of Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito land grant. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1861 Plat of Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito land grant. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Gullard, P. and N. Lund 1989 History of Palo Alto: The Early Years. Scottwall Associates, San Francisco. Helley, E. and K. LaJoie 1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region, California - Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and their Importance to Comprehensive Planning. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Government Printing Office, Washington. Holman, M. 1976 Letter report regarding an archaeological reconnaissance for the proposed Palo Alto Post Office in East Palo Alto, California. Document S-3033 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 1994 Letter report regarding an Archaeological Field Inspection of the Palo Alto Golf Course, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. Document S-18047 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 2006 Letter report regarding the San Francisquito Creek Pump Station, Santa Clara County, California. Document S-34175 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Hoover, M., H. Rensch, E. Rensch, and W. Abeloe 1966 Historic Spots in California. 3rd edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 16 Hoover, M., H. Rensch, E. Rensch, W. Abeloe, and D. Kyle 1990 Historic Spots in California. 4th edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Hoover, M., H. Rensch, E. Rensch, W. Abeloe, and D. Kyle 2002 Historic Spots in California.5th edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford. King, J. 2004 Surface and Subsurface Archaeological Sensitivity. In Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record: A Geoarchaeological Study of the Southern Santa Clara Valley and Surrounding Regions, by J. Rosenthal and J. Meyer, pp. 81-94. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, University of California. Kroeber, A. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Kubal, K. 2013 Historic Property Survey Report: State Route 85 Express Lanes Project, Santa Clara County, California, EA 4A7900; EFIS 0400001163 US 101 PM 23.1-28.6 SR 85 PM 0.0-24.1 US 101 PM 47.9-52.0. Document S-43191 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 2014 Historic Property Survey Report: US 101 Express Lanes Project, Santa Clara County, California, Project No. 0412000459/EA 2G7100 04-SCL-101 PM 16.00/52.55 OF-SCL-85 PM 23.0/24.1. Document S-45670 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Levy, R. 1978 Costanoan. In California edited by R. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Maniery, J. 1985 Cultural Resources Investigations, Air Products Liquid Nitrogen Facility Project, Santa Clara County, California. Document S-7452 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Margolin, M. 1978 The Ohlone Way. Heyday Books, Berkeley. Martorana, D. 2007 Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Reuse Pipeline, Santa Clara County, California, Cultural Resources Inventory. Document S-33697 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Melandry, M. 1980 Archaeological Survey Report 04-SCL-101 Portions of P.M. 38.3/52.5 Improvements to Route 101 between Route 17 in San Jose and Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, 04393 - 389131 04393 - 396171. Document S-8345 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 17 Meyer, J. and P. Kaijankoski 2017 Discovering Sites: Geoarchaeological Approaches to Site Sensitivity and Predictive Modeling. In, San Francisco Bay-Delta Regional Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources, Caltrans District 4. B. Byrd, A. Whitaker, P. Mikkelsen, and R. Rosenthal. Pp 4-1 through 4-13. On file at the Caltrans District 04 Office of Cultural Resource Studies, Oakland, California. Meyer, J. and J. Rosenthal 2007 Geoarchaeological Overview of the Nine Bay Area Counties in Caltrans District 4. Document S-33600 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Milliken, R. 1995 A Time of Little Choice. Ballena Press, Menlo Park. Moratto, M. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Francisco. Murillo-Garcia, E. 2006 Housing and Urban Development review HUD061122B. Document on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Nadolski, J. and M. St. Clair 2002 Archaeological Investigations for the 2950 West Bayshore Road Wireless Communications Site, CA 2287H. Document S-25159 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Nelson, N. 1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4). Berkeley. Office of Historic Preservation 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 2012 Historic Property Directory. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. Origer, T. 2015 Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report for the East Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Project. Document on file at the offices of Tom Origer & Associates, Santa Rosa. Reed, W. 2015 Supplement to the Soil Survey of Santa Clara Area, California, Western Part. U.S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. Riley, L. N.D. Archaeological Reconnaissance: Proposed Site of Sanitary Land Fill, Santa Clara County, California. Document S-4279 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 18 Sawyer, E. 1922 History of Santa Clara County, California. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles. Sowers, J. 2004 Creek and Watershed Map of Palo Alto and Vicinity. Oakland Museum of California, Oakland. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. Starovoytov, A. and D. Laduzinsky 2011 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: Palo Alto Airport, 1901, 1903, and 1925 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, California. Document on file at the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. Strother, E., A. Arrigoni, D. Bailey, J. Allan, and W. Self 2007 Cultural Resource Assessment Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant UV Disinfection Project, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. Document S-34074 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Supernowicz, D. 2012a Collocation ("CO") Submission Packet FCC Form 621: Utility Poles Along Waverly Street, Lincoln Avenue, Emerson Street, Bryant Street, Park Avenue, Rinconada Avenue, Arrowhead Way, and Dennis Way, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. Document S-41600 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 2012b Primary Record P-43-002809. Form on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 2013a New Tower ("NT") Submission Packet FCC Form 620: Baylands/Palo Alto, Project No. CNU4060. Document S-43328 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 2013b Primary Record P-43-003004. Form on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Thal, E. and L. Billat 2005 Request for SHPO Review of FCC Undertaking PG&E City of Palo Alto / SF-05252A. Document S-29698 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Thomas, J. 2012 Cultural Resources Study for the Line 101 South ILI Upgrade Project, Santa Clara County, California. Document S-39266 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Thompson and West 1876 Historical Atlas Map of Santa Clara County. Thompson and West, San Francisco. 19 United States Army Corps of Engineers 1943 Palo Alto. 15' tactical map. War Department, Washington, D.C. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey 1857 San Francisco Bay. Register No. 664. United States Coast Survey, Washington, DC 1862 Map of the Southern Part of San Francisco Bay. United States Coast Survey, Washington, DC 1910 San Francisco Bay. Register No. 664. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, DC United States Geological Survey 1897 Palo Alto, California. 15’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 1899 Palo Alto, California. 15’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 1923 California San Francisco Bay Southern Part. 1/50,000 Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 1948a California San Francisco Bay Southern Part. 1/50,000 Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 1948b Palo Alto, California. 15’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 1961a Mountain View, California. 7.5’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 1961b Palo Alto, California. 15’ series map. Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. 2017 EarthExplorer. https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov accessed on August 29, 2017. Whitaker, A. 2008 Historic Resources Compliance Report for the U.S. 101 Auxiliary Lanes (Route 85 to Embarcadero Road) Project, Santa Clara County, California: 04-SCL-101 PM 52.17-48.97 EA 04-4A330. Document S-37075 on file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Wislocki, S. 1890 Official Map of Santa Clara County, California. Britton & Rey, San Jose. APPENDIX A Native American Contact Copies of Correspondence Native American Contact Efforts RWQCP's New 63-Inch Outfall Project Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Organization Contact Action Results Native American Heritage Commission Form 8/21/17 A response was received via email stating that a search of the Sacred Lands File resulted in a negative finding. A list of additional contacts was provided. Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Valentin Lopez Irenne Zwierlein Letter 8/25/17 No response received as of the date of this report. Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ann Marie Sayers Letter 8/25/17 No response received as of the date of this report. Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area Rosemary Cambra Letter 8/25/17 No response received as of the date of this report. North Valley Yokuts Tribe Katherine Erolinda Perez Letter 8/25/17 No response received as of the date of this report. The Ohlone Indian Tribe Andrew Galvan Letter 8/25/17 No response received as of the date of this report. Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 (916) 373-3710 (916) 373-5471 – Fax nahc@nahc.ca.gov Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: RWQCP New 63-Inch Outfall Project: Outfall No. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) County: Santa Clara USGS Quadrangles Name: Mountain View Township T5S Range R2W Section(s) N/A MDBM (within the Rinconada Del Arroyo de San Francisquito land grant) Date: August 21, 2017 Company/Firm/Agency: Tom Origer & Associates Contact Person: Eileen Barrow Address: P.O. Box 1531 City: Rohnert Park Zip: 94927 Phone: (707) 584-8200 Fax: (707) 584-8300 Email: eileen@origer.com Project Description: The project proponent is obtaining permits from the RWQCP for a new outfall pipe. Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 August 25, 2017 Valentin Lopez Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista P.O. Box 5272 Galt, CA 95632 RE: Regional Water Quality Control Plant New 63-Inch Outfall Project (Outfall No. 1 [700-HDPE- 1001]), Santa Clara County, California Dear Mr. Lopez: I write to notify you of a proposed project within Santa Clara County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. Our firm is surveying approximately 0.5 miles of land for the installation of a new sewer outfall pipe. A portion of the study area is located on the Palo Alto Airport. The City of Palo Alto is reviewing the project for CEQA compliance. The project will also be reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board (for both CEQA and Section 106 compliance) and by the Federal Aviation Administration (for Section 106 compliance). This notification does not constitute consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the Mountain View, California 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangles showing the project location. Sincerely, Eileen Barrow Senior Associate Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 August 25, 2017 Irenne Zwierlein Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista 789 Canada Road Woodside, CA 94062 RE: Regional Water Quality Control Plant New 63-Inch Outfall Project (Outfall No. 1 [700-HDPE- 1001]), Santa Clara County, California Dear Ms. Zwierlein: I write to notify you of a proposed project within Santa Clara County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. Our firm is surveying approximately 0.5 miles of land for the installation of a new sewer outfall pipe. A portion of the study area is located on the Palo Alto Airport. The City of Palo Alto is reviewing the project for CEQA compliance. The project will also be reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board (for both CEQA and Section 106 compliance) and by the Federal Aviation Administration (for Section 106 compliance). This notification does not constitute consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the Mountain View, California 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangles showing the project location. Sincerely, Eileen Barrow Senior Associate Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 August 25, 2017 Ann Marie Sayers Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan P.O. Box 28 Hollister, CA 95024 RE: Regional Water Quality Control Plant New 63-Inch Outfall Project (Outfall No. 1 [700-HDPE- 1001]), Santa Clara County, California Dear Ms. Sayers: I write to notify you of a proposed project within Santa Clara County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. Our firm is surveying approximately 0.5 miles of land for the installation of a new sewer outfall pipe. A portion of the study area is located on the Palo Alto Airport. The City of Palo Alto is reviewing the project for CEQA compliance. The project will also be reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board (for both CEQA and Section 106 compliance) and by the Federal Aviation Administration (for Section 106 compliance). This notification does not constitute consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the Mountain View, California 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangles showing the project location. Sincerely, Eileen Barrow Senior Associate Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 August 25, 2017 Rosemary Cambra Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area P.O. Box 360791 Milpitas, CA 95036 RE: Regional Water Quality Control Plant New 63-Inch Outfall Project (Outfall No. 1 [700-HDPE- 1001]), Santa Clara County, California Dear Ms. Cambra: I write to notify you of a proposed project within Santa Clara County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. Our firm is surveying approximately 0.5 miles of land for the installation of a new sewer outfall pipe. A portion of the study area is located on the Palo Alto Airport. The City of Palo Alto is reviewing the project for CEQA compliance. The project will also be reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board (for both CEQA and Section 106 compliance) and by the Federal Aviation Administration (for Section 106 compliance). This notification does not constitute consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the Mountain View, California 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangles showing the project location. Sincerely, Eileen Barrow Senior Associate Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 August 25, 2017 Katherine Erolinda Perez North Valley Yokuts Tribe P.O. Box 717 Linden, CA 95236 RE: Regional Water Quality Control Plant New 63-Inch Outfall Project (Outfall No. 1 [700-HDPE- 1001]), Santa Clara County, California Dear Ms. Perez: I write to notify you of a proposed project within Santa Clara County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. Our firm is surveying approximately 0.5 miles of land for the installation of a new sewer outfall pipe. A portion of the study area is located on the Palo Alto Airport. The City of Palo Alto is reviewing the project for CEQA compliance. The project will also be reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board (for both CEQA and Section 106 compliance) and by the Federal Aviation Administration (for Section 106 compliance). This notification does not constitute consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the Mountain View, California 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangles showing the project location. Sincerely, Eileen Barrow Senior Associate Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology / Historical Research P.O. Box 1531, Rohnert Park, California 94927 ♦ www.origer.com Phone (707) 584-8200 August 25, 2017 Andrew Galvan The Ohlone Indian Tribe P.O. Box 3152 Fremont, CA 94539 RE: Regional Water Quality Control Plant New 63-Inch Outfall Project (Outfall No. 1 [700-HDPE- 1001]), Santa Clara County, California Dear Mr. Galvan: I write to notify you of a proposed project within Santa Clara County, for which our firm is conducting a cultural resources study. Our firm is surveying approximately 0.5 miles of land for the installation of a new sewer outfall pipe. A portion of the study area is located on the Palo Alto Airport. The City of Palo Alto is reviewing the project for CEQA compliance. The project will also be reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board (for both CEQA and Section 106 compliance) and by the Federal Aviation Administration (for Section 106 compliance). This notification does not constitute consultation. Enclosed is a portion of the Mountain View, California 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangles showing the project location. Sincerely, Eileen Barrow Senior Associate APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION REPORT i City of Palo Alto: Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall No. 1 Project DRAFT - Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report June 29, 2017 Prepared for: Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Prepared by: McMillen Jacobs Associates 1350 Treat Blvd., Suite 100 Walnut Creek, California 94597 City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Report McMillen Jacobs Associates i DRAFT /June 2017 Distribution To: Xiangquan Li Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. From: Norman Joyal McMillen Jacobs Associates Prepared By: Norman Joyal McMillen Jacobs Associates Reviewed By: Rachel Martin and Dru Nielson McMillen Jacobs Associates Issued Draft: June 29, 2017 City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates ii Draft / June 2017 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Geotechnical Data ............................................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Project Test Borings ................................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Laboratory Tests ...................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Cone Penetration Tests ........................................................................................................... 2 2.4 Geologic Maps ......................................................................................................................... 2 2.5 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................ 3 3.0 Geotechnical Data Interpretation ..................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Geotechnical Settings .............................................................................................................. 3 3.1.1 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 4 3.1.2 Faulting ............................................................................................................................... 4 3.1.3 Ground Shaking .................................................................................................................. 4 3.1.4 Liquefaction ......................................................................................................................... 5 3.1.5 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 5 4.0 Project Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Support of Trench Excavations ................................................................................................ 6 4.2 Excavatibility ............................................................................................................................ 7 4.3 Dewatering ............................................................................................................................... 8 4.4 Shoring ..................................................................................................................................... 9 4.5 Short-term and Long-term Groundwater Levels .................................................................... 12 4.6 Backfill Recommendation for Pipe Under Levee ................................................................... 12 4.7 Settlement Estimates for Areas Outside Levee ..................................................................... 13 5.0 Additional Services and Limitations ............................................................................................. 14 5.1 Additional Services ................................................................................................................ 14 5.2 Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 14 6.0 References ....................................................................................................................................... 14 List of Tables Table 1. Partial Summary of Data from Test Borings .............................................................................. 1 Table 2 - Potential Surface Settlement of Passively-Shored Excavations……………………………… 10 City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates iii Draft / June 2017 List of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Boring Location Map Figure 3 Soil Map Figure 4 Geology Map Figure 5 Thickness of Young Bay Mud Figure 6 Groundwater Map Figure 7 FEMA Flood Zone Map Figure 8 Bay Area Faults Map Figure 9 Bay Area Earthquakes Map Figure 10 Seismic Shaking Map Figure 11 Modified Mercalli Intensity Figure 12 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map Figure 13 Bay Mud Settlement and Time Rate Figure 14 Dewatering Limits vs. Grain Size Figure 15 Preliminary Shoring Pressure Diagram for Cantilevered Shoring Figure 16 Preliminary Shoring Pressure Diagram for Braced Shoring Figure 17 Minimum Shoring Pressure for Traffic and Equipment Surcharge Figure 18 Excavation Backfill Details Figure 19 Vertical Soil Pressure due to Live Loads Figure 20 Marston’s Load Coefficients for Trench Conditions Figure 21 Marston’s Load Coefficients for Embankment Conditions Figure 22 Composite Modulus of Soil Reaction – E’c Figure 23 Hydrostatic Uplift Appendices Appendix A Boring Log Legend and Cone Penetration Test Legend Appendix B Boring Logs (B-1 through B-3) Appendix C Cone Penetration Test Results Appendix D Laboratory Test Results City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 1 Draft / June 2017 1.0 Introduction This geotechnical engineering investigation report presents geotechnical findings for the City of Palo Alto’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project in Santa Clara County, California. The project will include design and construction of a new outfall parallel to the existing 54-inch outfall from the City’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant into an unnamed slough in the San Francisco Bay. The new HDPE outfall pipeline crosses through the Palo Alto Airport property and an existing levee under the jurisdiction of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Power Authority. While preliminary project design included evaluation of new outfall pipe sizes ranging from 36 to 54-inch diameter and several potential trenchless crossings, it is our understanding that the present level of project design is to construct a 54- inch outfall pipe. The new pipe will be constructed by open trench excavations that will be about 12 feet deep from Station (Sta.) 1+00 to about Sta. 14+50. At Sta. 14+50 the trench excavation transitions up to about 7 feet deep at the start of an existing levee that separates the airport property from the adjacent bay land and waters. The new outfall pipe parallels and follows the inboard side of the levee all the way to its eventual termination at the unnamed slough 2.0 Geotechnical Data 2.1 Project Test Borings Three test borings were undertaken by McMillen Jacobs Associates near the project pipeline alignment on May 17, 2017 (Figure 2). Borings B-1 and B-3 were completed successfully to the planned drilling depths. At the location for Boring B-2, drilling was attempted at three different locations within the immediate planned boring location, all of which met refusal on concrete at depths of 2.5 feet. The nature of the obstruction at this location is unknown. The logs of the test borings are provided in Appendix B. A partial summary of data from the test boring logs is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Partial Summary of Data from Test Borings Test Boring Drill Depth (ft) Depth to GW (ft) USCS Group Symbol1 Soil Types Logged B-1 36.5 9 CL, SC, SM B-2 2.5 - 3 drill attempts met refusal on a concrete obstruction B-3 26.5 9.5 CL, CH, SC, SM 1 USCS - Unified Soil Classification System Group Symbols, defined in Appendix A figures. The test borings were drilled with a CME 55 drill rig using 6-inch diameter hollow stem augers. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained from test borings by pushing a 3.0-inch outside diameter, 2.9-inch inside diameter Shelby Tube Sampler (STS) or by driving a 2.5-inch inside diameter, 3.0-inch outside diameter Modified California Sampler (MCS) containing brass or steel liners into the bottom of the boring. Disturbed soil samples were obtained by driving a 1.4-inch inside diameter and 2.0- City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 2 Draft / June 2017 inch outside diameter Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler (ASTM D1586) into the bottom of the boring. A 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches per blow was used to drive all samplers. The number of blows required to drive the samplers the last 12 inches of an 18-inch drive is recorded on the boring logs as penetration resistance (blows/ft). Soil samples retrieved from test borings were examined for classification, logged, and sealed to preserve their natural moisture content for laboratory testing. Classification systems used to log the samples are provided in Figure A-1 of Appendix A. Descriptions of soils provided in the boring logs are based on observations during drilling and sampling, and on the results of laboratory tests. At the end of drilling, borings were backfilled with cement grout. 2.2 Laboratory Tests Moisture content, unit weight, Atterberg limits, grain size analysis, and direct shear tests were performed in the laboratory on soil samples retrieved from the test borings. Consolidation testing was planned for two test samples; however, after extruding the Shelby tube samples, the laboratory determined the samples were too disturbed for any meaningful consolidation testing. Test results are summarized on the logs of the test borings in Appendix B, and as test result figures in Appendix D. 2.3 Cone Penetration Tests Five (5) cone penetration tests (CPT-1 through CPT-5) were driven and logged along the project pipeline alignment on May 17, 2017 (Figure 2). CPT-1, CPT-3, CPT-4, and CPT-5 were advanced to a depth of 35.4 feet, whereas CPT-2 was advanced to a depth of 40.4 feet. The CPTs were performed with a 20-ton compression-type cone with a 15-cm2 base area, an apex angle of 60 degrees and a friction sleeve with a surface area of 225 cm2. The cone and sleeve are advanced separately to obtain separate readings for cone and sleeve resistance. The cone was pushed into the ground at a constant rate of 2 cm per second in accordance with ASTM D-3441 and cone readings were taken at approximately 5-cm intervals. The same approach was used when the sleeve was pushed into the ground for the sleeve resistance. The CPT logs are provided in C. The CPT logs have been hand annotated with our interpretation of the Young Bay Mud contact with the stiffer Old Bay Muds. A pore pressure dissipation test was performed as part of CPT-8. The results of the pore pressure dissipation test are provided in Appendix E. 2.4 Geologic Maps Near surface soils (i.e., soils within about 5 feet of the ground surface) mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) within the project area are identified and described in Figure 3. The soils mapping shows the pipeline alignment primarily in the Aquic clay and sandy clay soils. The alignment is also adjacent to areas of Novato fat clay soils. Deposits mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) within the project area are identified and described in Figure 4. The project area is identified by the USGS to be in an area of artificial fill and Bay Mud deposits. Artificial fill is a man-made accumulation of various materials including soil (e.g., clay, silt, sand, and gravel) and rock fragments (e.g., cobbles and boulders), organic material (e.g., peat), concrete, asphalt, debris and rubbish (e.g., steel, rubber tires, etc.). Bay Muds are typically very soft, City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 3 Draft / June 2017 lightweight, organic-rich, highly compressible and weak silty clay estuarine deposits (with occasional sand lenses and stringers) that are corrosive to concrete and steel and which have been accumulating within the limits of the San Francisco Bay (including Richardson Bay) for several thousands of years. The fill and native soils encountered in test borings for the project (see the logs of project test borings provided in Appendix B) are consistent with these mapped descriptions. A contour map of the base of Bay Mud by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Goldman, 1969; now known as the California Geological Survey) is provided in Figure 5. From straight line interpolation between the zero and 20 foot contour, the Young Bay Mud thickness is interpreted to be about ten feet thick. Adding the fill, it places the bottom of the Young Bay Mud about 15 feet below the ground surface. Considering the regional variability of these deposits, this correlates well with the borings and the Young Bay Mud contact interpreted on the CPT logs. 2.5 Groundwater The depth to groundwater measured in test borings for the project is shown on the test borings in Appendix B. Additionally, a regional groundwater map modified from the Seismic Hazard Zone Report is provided in Figure 6. The mapping in this figure indicates that near-surface groundwater at the project area may be found at depths less than 5 feet from the surface. 3.0 Geotechnical Data Interpretation 3.1 Geotechnical Settings Geotechnical settings along the new pipeline alignment identified in our investigation consist of Artificial Fill overlying soft Young Bay Mud which in turn overlies stronger Old Bay Mud. The Artificial Fill & Bay Mud setting along the new pipeline alignment is generalized as being about five to six feet of fill overlying soft to very soft, highly-compressible and often under-consolidated, water-saturated, organic- rich silty clay mud containing lenses of sand, oyster shells, and peat (Young Bay Mud). Underlying the Young Bay Mud is soft to medium stiff Old Bay Mud consisting of fine-grained cohesive (clays and silts) and granular non-cohesive (sands and gravels) alluvial soils (soil transported and deposited by creeks) and episodic fluvial soils (deposition through water). The following is a summary of additional geotechnical conditions in Artificial Fill & Bay Mud setting of the project area based on the geotechnical investigation: • Aquic and Novato soil units (described on Figure 3); • Artificial fills comprised of clayey sands and silty sands with gravel, that may also contain deleterious debris; • Young Bay Mud, with test results from test boring samples of: o Typical standard penetration blow count = 2 from borings, <5 from CPT interpretations; o Direct shear friction angle = 21 and 26 degrees o Cohesion = 30 and 190 psf ° o Moisture content = 28 to 57% (4 tests) City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 4 Draft / June 2017 o Dry density =62 and 85 pcf • Airport pavements; • Buried concrete obstructions, which may be construction debris or unidentified utility; and • High groundwater levels, likely influenced by tides. Loads on the compressible Young Bay Mud cause the Bay Mud to consolidate (settle). Each episode of loading adds a new consolidation settlement cycle to any cycle that has not reached 100% consolidation. In a steady state, the rate of Bay Mud settlement is generally high in the early years (5 to 10 years) and will slowly decrease over time which could be tens of years depending on the load, Young Bay Mud thickness, and whether settlement occurs under single or double drainage conditions. Consequently, depending on the history of fill placement along the alignment, there very well may be on-going settlement from that loading history. Generally, the loading history of a Bay Mud site is not known so estimating residual settlement from prior loading is not practical. Therefore, discussions of settlement generally center around the placement of any new net load increase the ground has not felt before. To illustrate the magnitude and duration of Young Bay Mud settlement over time, Figure 13 presents Young Bay Mud consolidation curves developed by the Army Corp of Engineers. From the curves, even a modest fill thickness of 5 feet on a modest 15-foot-thick Young Bay Mud layer results in about 12 inches of settlement with that settlement projected to occur over four to five years. 3.1.1 Groundwater The measured depth to which groundwater accumulated in project test borings on completion of drilling was at 9 feet and 9.5 feet below ground surface as recorded on the individual boring logs in Appendix B and summarized in Table 1. The project test borings were backfilled with grout immediately upon drill completion to minimize disruption to the airport; therefore, the groundwater levels measured on completion of drilling do not represent static (i.e., equilibrium) groundwater levels. Equilibrium groundwater levels can take several hours to days to be established in an open borehole. Equilibrium groundwater levels will likely be higher (i.e., closer to the ground surface) than the groundwater levels measured on completion of drilling. In addition, groundwater levels in the project areas will fluctuate based on factors such as tides, seasonal rainfall, water levels in nearby drainages, and possibly other factors not evident at the time of writing this report. The entire project area is identified to be in Zone A, special flood hazard area inundated by the 1% annual chance flood as shown on the FEMA Flood Zone Hazard Map (Figure 7). 3.1.2 Faulting No active fault (where active fault is defined by the State of California as one with known surface displacement within the last 10,000 years, see Hart and Bryant, 1997) is known to cross the project areas. The nearest active fault to the project areas is the San Andreas Fault, located between 6 and 7 miles to the southwest. The location of the San Andreas Fault, and other seismogenic faults relative to the project areas are shown on Figure 8. 3.1.3 Ground Shaking The project areas will be subject to strong ground shaking during earthquakes on nearby faults, including those identified on Figure 9. It is estimated that the peak firm rock ground acceleration in the project areas, based on 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (equivalent to a seismic recurrence interval of City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 5 Draft / June 2017 one event every 475 years), is 0.5g (see Figure 10). The actual ground shaking that will occur in the project areas during an earthquake will be dependent upon the earthquake magnitude, its distance, surrounding topography, and the geometric relationships and seismic response of the underlying soil and bedrock. Earthquake shaking in the Bay Area has been amplified in areas underlain by Bay Muds during historic earthquakes (e.g., the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake). Bolt (1993) indicates that average peak ground accelerations greater than 0.5g results in ground cracks and breakage of underground pipes (Figure 11). 3.1.4 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose internal strength because of increased pore pressure generated by cyclic loading. This behavior is commonly induced by ground shaking during earthquakes. Soils prone to liquefaction are saturated (below groundwater), non-cohesive silts and sands of low to medium density. Liquefaction-prone soils encountered in project test borings consist of the loose silty clay sand in B-1 and the silty sand with gravel layer both encountered around the 14 to 20 feet depth below ground surface. The Association of Bay Area Governments has identified the project area as having a very high susceptibility to liquefaction (ABAG, 2017). Historically, we are aware of ??? Any history of liquefaction in project area 3.1.5 Conclusions This geotechnical investigation encountered a variety of conditions along the new forcemain alignment that are documented herein. None of these conditions present “fatal flaws” to project construction. However, the geotechnical conditions encountered along the new forcemain alignment, as listed below, do present challenges that will require careful attention and coordination by designers and contractors in order to design and construct the project in a safe and economic manner and to ensure its useful long-term performance. Geotechnical conditions and challenges for the project include:  Tidally and seasonably variable groundwater level depths.  Porous and permeable soils and granular utility bedding and trench backfill (Embarcadero Road and Airport property).  Vertically and laterally variable native soil composition including: • Silts and clays, and sands and gravels.  Vertically and laterally variable native soil density and consistency including: • Loose to medium dense sands that are liquefiable; and • Very soft to stiff silts and clays, including highly-compressible Bay Muds.  Vertically and laterally variable native soil behavior in excavations including: • Flowing and running, granular, non-cohesive sands that will have no stand-up time when exposed in vertical excavations; • Fast raveling cohesive fine-grained silts and clays that will have little to no stand-up time when exposed in vertical excavations; and • Squeezing and swelling cohesive fine-grained silts and clays (Bay Muds).  Historic fills that potentially contain dumped uncompacted materials and oversized debris. City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 6 Draft / June 2017  Utilities and utility trench backfills with variable bedding and backfill types (typically granular), and geometries.  Existing airport pavements and the proposed renovations of those pavements.  Relatively low bearing capacity of native Young Bay Mud for pipeline thrust blocks, if any.  Potential for unidentified buried man-made objects (e.g., abandoned pipelines, foundations, rip- rap, fill debris, etc.).  Seismic ground shaking and related effects (soil liquefaction and lateral spreading).  Construction vibrations. 4.0 Project Recommendations During the pre-design phase, different alternative alignments were evaluated for an open cut installation as was the possibility of using trenchless methods to complete some of the new outfall installation. The 30% design has the alignment bordering the south and eastern sides of the airport tarmacs before the alignment begins to follow the levee that borders the east side of the airport. The new outfall will be constructed by open trench excavations that will be about 12 feet deep from Station (Sta.) 1+00 to about Sta. 14+50 which is where the outfall transitions into a parallel alignment with an existing levee. At Sta. 14+50 the trench excavation transitions up to about 7 feet deep at the start of the levee that separates the airport property from the adjacent bay land and waters. The new outfall pipe parallels and follows the inboard side of the levee all the way to its eventual discharge termination at the unnamed slough. The 30% design envisions the deeper trench will be supported by sheetpiles driven down into the Old Bay Clays to provide a water cutoff. The plan is to sacrifice the lower part of the sheetpiles (typically below 5 feet) when the trench is backfilled. For the shallower 7-foot-deep trench, the plan is to use a benched or sloped open cut excavation. In addition to the trench support recommendations, the following additional design recommendations were requested in your May 19 email to which were attached the updated 30% drawings and a draft of SaferBay report: • Groundwater elevation to be used in design and construction and the long-term groundwater level after 50 years with an anticipated three-foot rise is sea level. • Backfill material around the pipe for that portion of the alignment that is located within or at the toe of the existing levee to ensure a water conduit is not created along the pipe. • Review settlement information for the airport project and provide an estimate of the settlement that can be expected at the pipeline outside of the levee (Sta. 1+00 to Sta. 14+50). 4.1 Support of Trench Excavations Temporary excavations consisting of vertical-walled trench excavations for open-cut installation will be required for the new outfall from Sta. 1+00 to about Sta. 14+50. That station approximately coincides with where the new outfall begins to parallel the airport levee. The anticipated trench depth for the outfall along this series of stationing is about 12 feet and it is anticipated the trench shoring will consist of interlocking sheetpile for the initial excavation ground support. The design intent is to embed the sheetpile toe in the Old Bay Mud to cut off groundwater. The sheetpile interlock is assumed to be City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 7 Draft / June 2017 ‘watertight’ (typically defined with an allowance for seepage water as no system is ever watertight) such that during excavation the only water that has to be dealt with in the trench is that which is locked into the formation as a result of the sheetpile toe cutoff and that which bleeds through the sheetpile interlock. The upper five or so feet of the sheetpile will be removed and the rest will be abandoned in-place to avoid ground disturbance if extracted. Where the open trench meets up with the levee, the trench will transition to a benched open cut that will be about 7 feet deep. At this depth, the trench bottom would be slightly above the groundwater level noted in our boring logs. For a benched excavation, a reasonable approach would be to sideslope the upper two to three feet of the trench followed by a four to five-foot vertical excavation that can be supported with trench boxes. The proposed trench depths of 7 and 12-feet-deep will be in the Young Bay Mud. At the 7-foot depth just below the fill, the Young Bay Mud is generally stiffer due to episodic desiccation of the surface before fill was ever placed, as well as the consolidation that occurred when the fill was placed. Desiccation down to the current 12 foot depth (actually about 8 feet before any fill was placed) may have occurred historically, but the anticipation is the ground will be softer at a 12 foot depth than at 7 feet. A soft trench bottom in Bay Mud is often stabilized with a ‘burrito wrap” (foundation material wrapped in filter fabric) which serves as the basal support for the pipe bedding. Refer to Figure 18 for excavation backfill details. This is not a problem for the deeper trench, but it is for the trench alongside the existing levee. The San Francisquito Creek Joint Power Authority does not want pervious backfill around the pipe that is adjacent to their levee, the trench backfill details shown in Figure 18 are not applicable. To ensure adequate support for the pipe and to ensure backfill around the pipe is not pervious, the most reasonable thing to do is to encapsulate the outfall pipe in a low density cellular backfill. The project specifications should make the contractor solely responsible for the design, installation, performance and removal/abandonment of all shoring and related items (e.g., dewatering and ground improvement systems if used). The contractor should be required to submit his proposed shoring, dewatering and ground improvement systems to the owner for review prior to their implementation. The submittal should contain alternative and contingent systems that the contractor will be prepared to implement should the initial systems not achieve the minimum performance requirements described herein. 4.2 Excavatibility Project excavations in trench backfill and areal fills as encountered in project test borings (see logs in Appendix B) can generally be made with appropriately-sized conventional excavators. Project excavations through hard debris or rubble fill are commonly associated with the land reclamation fill placed on top of Young Bay Muds may require special excavation equipment and methods (e.g., hoe- rams, jack hammers). Contractors must independently evaluate the excavatibility of the subsurface materials to be encountered during project construction and choose appropriate excavation equipment and methods. City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 8 Draft / June 2017 4.3 Dewatering All construction in project excavations should be performed in the dry. “Water-tight” shoring and dewatering of the ground isolated by the shoring toe embedment will be a critical component to successful construction of the project. The groundwater level within the bore holes is above the invert of the deeper portions of the outfall invert (or below the invert in the case of the shallower 7-foot-deep trench. Based on our groundwater findings and the anticipated project excavation depths, dewatering of the ground encapsulated by the water-tight shoring should be planned for the deeper trench excavations. Although groundwater would not be expected in the shallower excavations, the contractor should be prepared to handle groundwater in the event groundwater levels change from those reported at the time of our investigations. The contractor should be made solely responsible for the design, construction, and effects of temporary dewatering systems, and the contractor should be required to submit dewatering plans to the owner for review prior to implementation. The design of the dewatering systems should be based on the actual groundwater inflow into excavations at the time of construction and the type of shoring used (e.g., interlocking driven sheet piles with adequate toe embedment is an effective way of reducing or eliminating external dewatering requirements). For short-term excavations (i.e., trench excavations open less than 24 hours) and where the groundwater level is at or below the invert of the planned outfall, a stable trench bottom may be maintained by an internal dewatering system consisting of regularly-spaced, rock-filled sumps excavated below the trench bottom. Submersible pumps within the rock-filled sumps will remove collected groundwater. The spacing and depth of these sumps and the foundation rock between sumps should be such that the trench bottom is relatively dry and stable, and capable of supporting compaction of pipe bedding material in the case of the deeper trench. Where the invert of the planned outfall is below the groundwater level, a water-tight shoring system will be required. Water-tight shoring typically consists of continuous, pre-driven interlocking sheet piles which have been driven with sufficient toe embedment to prevent groundwater flow to and boiling (i.e., piping) in the excavation bottom. For the anticipated head differential of less than 5 feet in the deeper trench, a five foot toe embedment in the Old Bay Clay below the SM/SC layer just above a 20 foot depth in the geotechnical borings. A deeper toe embedment may be necessary to develop sufficient passive pressure to resist active loading on the system. Even where water-tight shoring is used, we anticipate that limited internal dewatering (i.e., pumping from rock-filled sumps inside the excavation) will be required to remove nuisance water and minor seeps. Dewatering methods will need to vary within the project areas to account for variations in subsurface conditions, proximity to drainageways, groundwater depth, required excavation depths, and dewatering method limitations related to the grain size of the soils being dewatered. The limitations of various methods of dewatering relative to the particle (grain) size of the water-bearing soils are illustrated on Figure 14. Grain size distributions for project soils to be dewatered are plotted on Plate C-2 in Appendix D. Based on a comparison of these plots with Figure C-2, there is a potential for high rates of groundwater inflow from the SM materials if they are not cutoff by the sheetpile toes. City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 9 Draft / June 2017 Collectively, the contractor’s project dewatering system(s), together with his project shoring systems, are to preserve the undisturbed bearing capacity of the existing subgrade soils at the bottom of excavations and meet all the following minimum performance requirements: • Provide stable excavation walls and bottom; • Provide a reasonably dry base of excavation; • Filter native soil and prevent loss of ground from dispersion and erosion; • Prevent piping (boiling) of the excavation bottom; • Draw down the groundwater level to 3 feet below and beyond the excavation bottom and sidewalls where shoring is not designed to resist hydrostatic pressures; • Prevent damaging settlement to nearby structures, utilities and/or pipelines; • Be installed and removed in accordance with governing (e.g., County and State) requirements; and • Allow for controlled release of groundwater to its static level in a manner that prevents disturbance of the bottom soils and prevents flotation or movement of structure or pipelines. The project specifications should require that the contractor’s dewatering, shoring and ground improvement submittals contain alternative contingent systems, and that the contractor be prepared to implement alternative systems should the initial systems not achieve these minimum performance requirements. Uncontrolled seepage of groundwater through excavation sidewalls or bottom will cause the excavations to be unstable and unsuitable for pipeline and related structural support. Consequently, the contractor should be prepared to locally dewater or modify (e.g., by ground improvement) construction excavations, if and where needed, to provide stable and reasonably dry excavations. Prolonged dewatering will cause an increase in effective stress on the underlying Bay Mud which will lead to consolidation and area subsidence. External dewatering for any extended period is not allowed, but localized, targeted, short-term dewatering (days) will be allowed. 4.4 S horing The contractor should be required to shore the anticipated 12-foot-deep project excavations with interlocking sheetpiles in accordance with Cal/OSHA regulations. The contractor should be made solely responsible for the selection, design, construction, removal and effects of shoring noting the following: • Project excavations will be located parallel to and/or across backfill for other existing utilities (Embarcadero Road crossing) and within areal fills all of which will be over soft compressible Bay Mud. Project excavations will therefore encounter various types of fill including granular, non-cohesive materials that will tend to run or ravel when dry or flow when saturated with groundwater (i.e. have little to no stand-up time in unshored vertical excavations). Unsupported vertical excavations in flowing, running or raveling ground will most likely experience excavation wall loss and related undermining of adjacent pavements, utilities, and structures. Therefore, the anticipated 12 foot excavation into these types of materials must have water-tight shoring (i.e., continuous interlocked steel sheet piles with toe embedment). • Aluminum hydraulic speed shores with full solid sheet backing that covers all of the trench walls or trench boxes may only be used for supporting the vertical excavation made for the bottom of the anticipated 7-foot-deep trench that parallels the existing levee where the soils have sufficient City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 10 Draft / June 2017 stand-up time for its safe and complete installation (i.e., not in running, flowing or fast-raveling soils). • Absent an active global dewatering system along the alignment, the shoring systems must be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures and to extend below the base of the excavation to sufficient depths to (1) provide lateral stability at the base of the shoring system and (2) to prevent heave and/or piping (boiling) through the base of the excavation. The shoring designer should determine the minimum required toe embedment based on the depth of the excavation, the specific shoring system used, and the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the field at the time of construction. For the purposes of sheetpile design, the average buoyant unit weight of area fill and Bay Mud soils in the project areas, to depths of the invert of the planned new sanitary sewer replacement pipeline, can be taken as 70 pcf and 40 pcf, respectively, with a critical hydraulic gradient of 1.0 and 0.8, respectively. We recommend that a minimum safety factor of 2.0 be used for design of project shoring and dewatering systems against base failure. • Shoring systems that do not provide positive support to excavation walls (i.e., passive shoring like trench boxes or active systems like cantilevered shoring that allow inward movement of the trench wall) may cause surface settlement. A summary of the potential surface settlement of passively-shored excavations is provided in Table II-3. Unrestricted flowing, running, or raveling ground conditions will result in surface settlements significantly greater than that indicated in Table 2. Table 2 - Potential Surface Settlement of Passively-Shored Excavations Soil Type Surface Settlement (% of Excavation Depth) Lateral Zone of Disturbance (Multiples of Excavation Depth) Sand 0.5%H H Soft to Medium Stiff Clay 1-2%H 3-4H Stiff Clay <1%H 2H From Suprenant and Basham (1993). • Preliminary design of braced shoring may be based on the preliminary lateral earth shoring pressure diagrams provided on Figure 16. These diagrams represent soil conditions encountered in project test borings. Final earth pressures and pressure diagrams for the contractor’s design and implementation of individual shoring systems will be dependent on (1) the actual soil and groundwater conditions encountered during construction, (2) the contractor’s shoring type, design, and installation method, and (3) surcharge pressures, including those from stockpiling, construction equipment, vehicle traffic (see F for minimum surcharge pressures). A professional Structural or Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California and with experience in the design of shoring systems should design, sign, and stamp the contractor’s proposed shoring plans. The plans should be required to be submitted to the owner for review prior to construction. The shoring plans should indicate interrelationships with dewatering and ground improvement systems. The shoring plans should contain alternative contingent systems, and the contractor should be prepared to implement these alternative systems should the initial plans not achieve the following minimum performance requirements: • Protect personnel that enter the excavation. • Comply with all governing regulations pertaining to excavation safety (e.g., the most current edition of Cal/OSHA Construction Safety Orders, Article 6). City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 11 Draft / June 2017 • Be compatible with the surface and subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered in project test borings, and/or mapped in the project areas, and resist lateral earth pressures and hydrostatic pressures. • Protect existing utilities, pavements, and structures. • Excavation and installation of shoring must occur in a manner and sequence that does not damage existing structures, pavements, and utilities including through settlement, heave, or vibrations. • Prevent caving (i.e., raveling, running, or flowing) or lateral movement of excavation walls and associated loss of adjacent ground and adjacent ground surface settlement, even when subjected to construction vibrations. • Provide stable excavation walls and bottom (e.g., prevent bottom heave). • Allow for removal or abandonment of shoring in a manner and sequence that (1) is in step with the backfilling sequence (i.e., shoring should not be removed ahead of backfilling), (2) does not cause disturbance (i.e., loosening) of pipe bedding and pipe embedment material, and (3) does not damage the existing pipeline or structures, pavements, and utilities including through settlement, heave, or vibrations (contractor to address removal/abandonment concerns specific to the type of shoring proposed in the shoring submittal). Any void space created by shoring removal should be completely filled with CLSM (see Section II.3.4.4) or approved equivalent. • Resist lateral earth pressures including those from lateral loads from vehicular traffic, construction equipment and spoils, and hydrostatic pressures, if and where applicable. • Soil conditions can vary widely over short lateral and vertical distances in the project areas; therefore, project excavations should be continually monitored and documented by the contractor’s Cal/OSHA approved “competent person”, and the contractor should be prepared to make changes and modifications to shoring requirements in response to these changes and consistent with governing regulations (e.g., the most current edition of Cal/OSHA Construction Safety Orders) pertaining to excavation safety. Cal/OSHA soil classifications include the following: Type A Soil: Excludes material that is part of a sloped or layered system dipping into the excavation at a slope ≥ 4H:1V, but includes cohesive soil with an unconfined compressive strength of ≥ 1.5 tsf that is: o Not fissured, o Not subject to vibration from heavy traffic, pile driving, or similar effects, and o Not been previously disturbed. Type B Soil: Excludes material that is part of a sloped or layered system dipping into the excavation at a slope ≥ 4H:1V, but includes the following: o Cohesive soil with unconfined compressive strength between 0.5 and 1.5 tsf, o Angular gravel and silt, o Previously disturbed soil, except that is otherwise classified as Type C, o Soil fissured or subject to vibration and not otherwise Type C soil, or o Dry rock that is not stable. Type C Soil: Excludes material that is part of a sloped or layered system dipping into the excavation at a slope ≥ 4H:1V, but includes the following: City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 12 Draft / June 2017 o Cohesive or disturbed soils low cohesion and friction angle, o Sand and non-angular gravel, o Submerged soil or soil from which water is freely seeping, or o Submerged rock that is not stable. The subsurface soils encountered in test borings and mapped in the project areas were consistent with a Cal/OSHA soil classification Type C. The contractor should be required to provide special shoring design for owner review in cases where excavations will be in close proximity (below an imaginary plane projected downward at an inclination of 1.5H:1V from the nearest foundation or utility edge) to critical structures or utilities in order to minimize potential excavation-related damage. Special shoring should account for surcharge pressures and should be designed to maintain positive lateral support for adjacent structures and utilities. Areas requiring special shoring should also receive preconstruction condition surveys to establish a baseline against which any claimed third-party damages can be compared. 4.5 Short -term and Long-term Groundwater Levels We recommend a construction and short-term design (2-3 years) groundwater level at 5 feet below ground surface. The long-term groundwater level is predicated on a 3-foot rise in sea levels over the next 50 years. We recommend the long-term groundwater level be set at current ground surface elevation. 4.6 Backfill Recommendation for Pipe Under Levee The San Francisquito Creek Joint Power Authority does not want pervious backfill around the pipe that is adjacent to their levee. That limits the options to compacting an impervious fill material below, around and above the pipe or placing a cementitious backfill around the new outfall. Compacting an impervious fill around the pipe is no easy feat, especially the haunches below the springline of the pipe. To achieve the support necessary for the outfall pipe where the backfill has to be impervious adjacent to the levee, we recommend the placement of a low density cellular backfill material. Low density backfill is preferred over traditional controlled low strength material (CLSM) because it is lighter and adds no new net load to the ground which can initiate a consolidation settlement cycle in the Young Bay Mud. The cellular backfill should consist of the following: • A hand-excavatable mixture of cement, pozzolan, and water that has been mixed in accordance with ASTM C94 and is in a flowable state during placement; • A maximum in-place density of 50 to 60 pcf; • A minimum 28-day compressive strength of no less than 50 psi; • A minimum 12-hour compressive strength of no less than 20 psi; • Physiochemical properties that do not damage the pipeline; and • Placed in appropriate lifts or with methods to prevent movement of the pipe, including by flotation. Placement of backfill on top of cellular backfill should not be allowed until the backfill passes the ball drop test of ASTM D6024. City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 13 Draft / June 2017 Where the cellular backfill is used as pipeline embedment material, the pipeline should be elevated off of the trench bottom or foundation material using cradles, sandbags, or other approved supports prior to backfill placement. Spacing of these supports is dependent on the pipeline material, diameter and structural properties, as well as the permissible amount of sagging which can be allowed between supports. Pipelines backfilled using cellular backfill tend to float. This tendency can be mitigated using pipe anchors/weights and/or sequential backfilling (where the cellular backfill is poured in stages, and allowed to set in between stages). For sequential backfilling, the height to which the cellular backfill can be initially poured is a function of the buoyant forces imposed on the pipeline, and the amount of resistance provided by the pipeline anchoring/weighting system (if used). 4.7 Settlement Estimates for Areas Outside Levee From a practical viewpoint, and except for ongoing, long-term, area-wide Bay Mud consolidation settlement, if any, the amount of settlement caused by the new outfall pipe will depend to a large degree how much new net load is added to the ground. The fluid weight in the pipe is less than the wet unit weight of soil displaced so that adds no net load to the ground. The biggest uncertainty lies with the outfall backfill. A traditional sand/gravel bed below the pipe and a baserock backfill around and on top of the pipe will add new load to the ground which will initiate consolidation settlement. Depending on how much new additional load added to the ground, long term settlement from that alone could amount to several inches. From a practical point of view, minimizing the amount of settlement resulting from the construction by compensation for the removal and addition of load, such as using light-weight fill materials, can be expensive and time consuming to ensure the pipe is adequately supported. For that reason, we recommend that consideration be given to using lightweight cellular backfill around the deeper segment of pipe, not just the segment that parallels the existing levee. If that were the case, we would expect less load on the ground than what it felt before thus mitigating any consolidation settlement for the construction itself. Consequently, the settlement of the pipeline outside the levee will depend to a large degree on how the outfall pipe is backfilled. If done in the traditional manner with granular bedding and backfill, the magnitude of settlement could be on the order of several inches. If, however, the outfall is backfilled with a cellular concrete backfill settlement of the pipe outside the levee would not be expected. 4.8 Other Trench Design Information Attached to this report but not discussed in the body of the text are other typical pipe design charts, graphs and tables that are typically included with other pipe design geotechnical investigations. This information provides charts for Vertical Soil Pressure as a function of Live Loads (Figure 19), Marston’s Coefficients for trench and embankment conditions (Figures 20 and 21), E’c Modulus of soil Reaction (Figure 22), and Hydrostatic Uplift sketches (Figure 23) depicting how the ground can be engaged to resist hydrostatic uplift . The pipeline designers can assess the applicability of this information in their pipeline design. City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 14 Draft / June 2017 5.0 Additional Services and Limitations 5.1 Additional Services We recommend that McMillen Jacobs Associates be given the opportunity to provide the following additional services through the completion of project construction: •Review of final plans and specifications prior to bid for conformance with geotechnical conditions and recommendations; •Review of contractor submittals (e.g., shoring, dewatering, ground improvement, etc.) for conformance with geotechnical findings described herein; •Review and response to contractor requests for information that relate to geotechnical issues; and •Periodic construction observations during excavations to verify conformance of exposed surface conditions with the findings of this report. We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Kennedy Jenks Consultants and the City of Palo Alto, and their authorized agents for the City of Palo Alto’s new outfall project in Palo Alto, California. Field work for this geotechnical engineering investigation report was planned and completed based on project information provided to us at the time of our subsurface investigation. This geotechnical engineering investigation report was formulated based on findings from our field work and the project information provided to us by the time this report was prepared. 5.2 Limitations Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report are based on our professional knowledge, judgment and experience. No warranty or other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood. Studies of, and design recommendations related to soil corrosivity and soil and groundwater contamination in the project areas, and the mitigation thereof, is not part of our scope of services for this geotechnical investigation. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments should be considered a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by McMillen Jacobs Associates and will serve as the official document of record. 6.0 References ARMY CORP ENGINEED BAY MUD MAPS ABAG 2017 American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM D1586 – Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 15 Draft / June 2017 Dibblee, T.W., Jr. 2007. Geologic Map of the Solyo and Westley Quadrangles, San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, California. Dibblee Geology Center Map No. DF-340, Dibblee Foundation. Dibblee, T.W., Jr. 1982. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Patterson Quadrangle, Stanislaus County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-394. Hawkes, H.E., Jr., F.G. Wells, and D.P. Wheeler, Jr. 1942. Chromite and Quicksilver Deposits of the Del Puerto Area, Stanislaus County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Strategic Minerals Investigation Bulletin 936-D. HDR, May 2015. Preliminary Alternatives Report, San Francisquito Creek to the Palo Alto/Mountain View Border, dated May 2015. Herd, D.G. 1979. The San Joaquin Fault Zone—Evidence for Late Quaternary faulting along the west side of the Northern San Joaquin Valley, California [abs]. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Cordilleran Section, 11(3) 83. Heuer, R. 1974. Important ground parameters in soft ground tunneling. In Subsurface Exploration for Underground Excavation and Heavy Construction. Henniker, NH: New England College; New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 41–55. Kennedy/Jenks 2017. 30% Design Drawings, Regional Water Quality Control Plant Outfall No. 1, Palo Alto, California Kimyai, A. 1987. Geology and palynology, Del Puerto Canyon, Stanislaus County. California Geology, 40(5) 106–113. Lettis, W.R. 1988. Quaternary Geology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. In Graham, S.E., ed., Studies of the Geology of the San Joaquin Basin. Pacific Section Society for Sedimentary Geology, 60, 333–351. Lettis, W.R. 1982. Late Cenozoic Stratigraphy and Structure of the Western Margin of the Central San Joaquin Valley, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-526. Marchand, D.E., and Harden, J.W. 1978. Preliminary Geologic Maps Showing Quaternary Deposits of the Lower Tuolumne and Stanislaus Alluvial Fans and along the Lower San Joaquin River, Stanislaus County, California (Westley, Brush Lake, Ripon, and Salida 7-1/2′ Quadrangles) . U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-656. McMillen Jacobs Associates. February 2016. North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program Preliminary Design Drawings for Design-Build Contracting, Drawings 01C39. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. City of Palo Alto New Outfall Project Geotechnical Data Report McMillen Jacobs Associates 16 Draft / June 2017 Sowers, George F. 1979. Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering, 4th ed., 83 Table 2:10. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Sowers, J.M., J.S. Noller, and W.R. Lettis. 1993. Preliminary Maps Showing Quaternary Geology of the Patterson and Crows Landing 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-223. Wagner, D.L., E.J. Bortugno, and R.D. McJunkin. 1991. Geologic Map of the San Francisco—San Jose Quadrangle. California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map No. 5A. Wentworth, C.M., M.C. Blake, R.J. McLaughlin, and R.W. Graymer. 1999. Preliminary Geologic Map and Description of the San Jose 30 X 60-Minute Quadrangle, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 98-795. Figures Figure 1 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Vicinity Map Project Area Modified from Google Earth (2017) Figure 2 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Test Boring Location Map B-1 CPT-1 - Project Alignment - Project test boring (See Appendix B) - Project cone penetration test (See Appendix C) Modified from client 30% design plans plot dated 4/10/2017. LEGEND: 1+00 0 200 ft SCALE 100 B-3 B-2 B-1 CPT-5 CPT-4 CPT-3 CPT-2 CPT-1 EM BARCADERO RD 3 Figure July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Soil Map ---------WaterW Modified from U.S. Soil/Natural Resources Conservation Service (2017) 0-9 SC 61-100 21-56 25-44 9-24 9-28 SC 49-100 19-60 25-44 9-24 28-35 SC 53-100 21-61 25-44 9-24 35-51 CL, CH 100 85-100 43-67 24-43 51-59 CL, CH 100 81-100 43-67 24-43 Aquic120 High High 0-4 CH 100 55-95 41-86 21-51 4-11 CH 100 61-96 45-86 25-51 11-24 CH 100 67-100 45-86 25-51 24-39 CH 100 66-100 45-86 25-51 39-59 CH 100 68-100 45-86 25-51 Novato155 High High 0-10 ML 97-100 88-100 35-53 13-25 10-24 CL 97-100 87-100 33-49 13-25 24-31 CL 97-100 83-100 33-49 14-25 31-38 CL 97-100 82-100 33-49 14-25 38-51 CL 97-100 82-100 33-48 14-25 51-71 CH 96-100 86-100 47-62 25-37 71-79 CH 96-100 82-100 47-62 25-37 Campbell Moderate Moderate165 Mapped Soil ID Name Below Ground Depth (in) USCS Group Symbol No. 4 No. 200 Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Uncoated Steel Concrete % Passing Sieve: Atterberg Limits High Water Table (ft) Risk of Corrosion 2.6-3.0 0 - - Project Alignment LEGEND: 0 200 ft SCALE 100 Figure 4 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Geology Map File No. 5576.0 Artificial Fill gravel, sand, silt, clay, rock fragments, organic matter and man-made debris in various combinations. Floodplain Deposits (Holocene) sandy to silty clay with local lenses of coarse materials of silt, sand, and pebbles. Bay Mud (Holocene) water-saturated esuarine mud of clay and silty clay underlying marshlands and tidal mud flats. Basin Deposits (Holocene) silty clay to clay deposits and contains unconsolidated, locally organic, plastic silt and silty clay. Modified from Brabb, E.E., et all., Helley, E.J., et al., Geology of the Palo Alot 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle (USGS, OFR 98-348) LEGEND: Af Qhfp Qhbm Qhbm Project Area Figure 5 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Thickness of Young Bay Mud File No. 5576.0 Modified from Goldman (1969) LEGEND: - Depth to Bay Mud - Approximate Depth 20 ? Project Area Figure 5 6 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Groundwater MapFile No. 5576.0 LEGEND: Map modified from Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Mountain View 7.5-minute Quadrangle (2006, SHZR 060) SCALE 0 5000 ft2500 Project Area Figure ZONE V - Coastal flood zone inundated by the 1% annual chance flood with velocity hazard (wave action). ZONE A - Special flood hazard area inundated by the 1% annual chance flood. ZONE X - An area determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. ZONE X500 - An area inundated by the 0.2% annual chance flood with average flood depths less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. 7 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. FEMA Flood Zone Hazard MapFile No. 5576.0 NOTES: 1. The flood zones of this map are based on Flood Zones - FEMA Q3 (2003) and DFIRM (2009) LEGEND: SCALE 0 1500 ft750 Project Area Figure 8 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Bay Area Faults Map A On major plate boundary faults, lesser-known faults, and unknown faults. B The probability that a M > 6.7 earthquake will involve one of the lesser known faults is 13%. File No. 5576.0 37 30' Project Area Map modified from USGS Fact Sheet 2016-3020 A B 38 38 30' 37 38 30'38 30' 37 30' 38 38 30' 37 Figure 37 30' 9 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Bay Area Earthquakes Map Map modified from USGS Fact Sheet 2016-3020 38 38 30' 37 38 30'38 30' 37 30' 38 38 30' 37 Project Area File No. 5576.0 Figure Shaking Severity and Intensity Light (MMI 5) Moderate (MMI 6) Strong - MMI 7 Very Strong - MMI 8 Violent - MMI 9 Very Violent - MMI 10 10 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Seismic Shaking MapSeismic Shaking Map Latitude/Longitude Peak Ground Acceleration: (ASCE 7-10 Figure 22-7) U.S. Seismic Design Maps (2016 CBC, USGS 2017). File No. 5576.0 EARTHQUAKE SHAKING SCENARIOS San Andreas Fault (M7.8)Hayward Fault (M7.0) 9 87 NOTES: 1. See Figure 8 for the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI). 2. Map modified from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG 2017, last updated 2014) 0.52 g 37.455741° N / -122.112609° W 8 Figure 11 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Modified Mercalli Intensity REFERENCE: "Earthquakes & Volcanoes," Volume 21, Number 1, 1989 "Earthquakes A Primer," Bruce A. Bolt, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Copyright 1993. AVERAGE PEAK ACCELERATION (gravity 9.80 m/s ) AVERAGE PEAK VELOCITY (cm/s) MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY VALUE AND DESCRIPTION 2 > 0.60g 0.06 - 0.07g 0.015 - 0.02g 0.03 - 0.04g 0.10 - 0.15g 0.50 - 0.55g 0.25 - 0.30g 5 - 8 1 - 2 2 - 5 8 - 12 20 - 30 45 - 55 > 60 VI. Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors. Some moderately heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster and damaged chimneys. Trees, bushes, shaken slightly to moderately. Damage slight in poorly constructed buildings. Broken dishes, glassware and some windows. Moved furnishings and overturned furniture. IV. During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Rattling of dishes, windows, and doors; walls make creaking sounds. Hanging objects swing. Sensation like a heavy truck passing. Standing vehicles rocked noticeably. V. Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows and so on broken; cracked plaster in a few places; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles and other tall objects sometimes noticeable. Pendulum clocks may stop. Buildings trembled throughout. III. Felt quite noticeable indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing vehicles may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of a truck. Duration estimated. II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing. I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances. VII. Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; chimneys cracked to considerable extent. Noticed by persons driving vehicles. Waves on ponds, lakes, running water. Broke numerous windows, heavy furniture overturned. Dislodged bricks and stones. IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out-of-plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken. Reservoirs threatened. X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Railroad rails bent. Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed, slopped over banks. Reservoirs greatly damaged. Open cracks in cement pavements and asphalt road surfaces. XI. Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly. Dams, dikes, embankments severly damaged. Destroyed large well-built bridges. XII. Damage total. Practically all works of construction damaged greatly or destroyed. Landslides, falls of rock, slumping of river banks extensive. Fault slips in firm rock, with notable horizontal vertical off-set displacements. Water channels, surface and underground disturbed and modified greatly. Waves seen on ground surfaces. VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving vehicles disturbed. Figure 12 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Liquefaction Susceptibility MapFile No. 5576.0 NOTES: 1. This map depicts the general hazard level of a neighborhood and the relative hazard levels from community to community. Hazard levels are less likely to be accurate for neighborhoods on or near the border between two zones. 2. This map is based on Knudsen & others, 2000 and Witter & others, 2006. Very High Susceptibility High Susceptibility Moderate Susceptibility Low Susceptibilty Very Low Susceptibility LEGEND: Map modified from Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG, 2017) SCALE 0 1500 ft750 Project Area Figure Modified from CDMG (1969) ULTIMATE AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT OF FILLS ACCORDING TO THICKNESS OF FILL AND THICKNESS OF UNDERLYING BAY MUD. PERCENT SETTLEMENT OF FILLS OVER TIME ACCORDING TO THICKNESS OF MUD. Modified from CDMG (1969) 13 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Bay Mud Settlement and Time RateFile No. 5576.0 Figure 14 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Dewatering Limits vs. Grain Size File No. 5576.0 REFERENCE: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986, Design Manual 7.02 Foundations and Earth Structures, Figure 14. NOTES: 1 Subaqueous excavations or cutoff wall required. 2 Limits for gravity systems including sumps, well points, and deep wells. 3 Limits for well point vacuum methods. 4 Electro osmosis possible. Pe r c e n t R e t a i n e d b y W e i g h t 1000 100 10 1 .1 .01 .001 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0 3 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 140 20012 10 Pe r c e n t P a s s i n g b y W e i g h t Grain Size, mm U.S. STANDARD SIEVE No. BOULDERS U.S. SIEVE SIZE IN INCHES GRAVEL COARSE FINE COARSE HYDROMETER MEDIUM FINE SAND SILT CLAYCOBBLESFINES 1 3 4 2 Figure 15 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Preliminary shoring pressure diagrams for cantilevered shoring Figure Pa 16 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. z 2' pP H 0.25 H wP Design Groundwater Level sP 0.25 H 0.50 H 2 1 3 100 psf 1'pP Ground Surface Excavation Bottom Pa H wHw Subsurface Material Type: Condition: AGW - Above Design Groundwater Level (requires full dewatering) BGW - Below Design Groundwater Level (does not include hydrostatic pressure) Pa Soft to Medium Stiff Silt and Clay AGW BGW 60H 30H 220z 110z Medium Stiff to Stiff Silt and Clay AGW BGW 50H 25H 280z 140z Medium Dense to Dense Sand and Gravel AGW BGW 40H 20H 360z 180z SUBSURFACE MATERIAL PRESSURE TYPE DISTRIBUTION Soft to Medium Stiff Soil 1+3 Stiff to Very Stiff Soil 1 Sand and Gravel 1+2+3 = Excavation height (feet) = Height of groundwater above base of excavation (feet) = Depth below base of excavation (feet) = Passive earth pressure (pcf) = Active shoring pressure (pcf) = Hydrostatic pressure = 62.4 pcf x Hw = Lateral surcharge pressure from adjacent loads SYMBOL LEGEND: H Hw Z Pp Pa Pw Ps Preliminary Shoring Pressure Diagram for Braced Shoring NOTES: 1. These preliminary pressure diagrams are for excavations of less than 20 feet in depth. 2. A minimum factor of safety of 2 should be used in passive pressure calculations. 3. Excavation base stability should be analyzed after base width has been selected. 4. Final design shoring pressure diagrams to be developed by the contractor based on the contractor's selection of shoring system and on the ground conditions encountered during construction. Pp Maximum = 1,000 psf (soft to medium stiff) = 2,000 psf (medium stiff to stiff or medium dense to dense) P (Ultimate)p Figure 17 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Minimum Shoring Pressure for Traffic and Equipment Surcharge 20 ft As Required 10 0 p s f 24 0 p s f Shoring Wall 10 ft 10 ft File No. 5576.0 NOTES: 1. These are minimum shoring pressures to be used for traffic and equipment surcharges. Shoring pressures from construction activities or equipment that produce larger or different surcharge loadingpatterns than that shown should be determined by the shoring designer using geotechnical computational methods. Surcharge = 600 psf Figure 18 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Excavation Backfill Details EXCAVATION BACKFILL BELOW ROADWAYS & PAVED AREAS NOTES: 1. Not to Scale. 2. See report text for material recommendations and compaction requirements. 3. Foundation material is required where trench bottoms are unstable or where disturbed by construction activity. FOUNDATION MATERIAL (SEE NOTE) PIPE EMBEDMENT TRENCH BACKFILL PAVEMENT SECTION CLASS 2AB (OR CLSM) CLASS 2AB (OR CLSM) 12" MIN. FOUNDATION MATERIAL (OR 6" MIN. CLSM) GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (12" MIN. OVERLAP) SECTION REPLACEMENT (PER CITY SPECIFICATIONS) 25% PIPE Ø (MIN. 6") EXCAVATION BACKFILL BELOW AREAS OTHER THAN ROADWAYS & PAVED AREAS FOUNDATION MATERIAL (SEE NOTE) PIPE EMBEDMENT TRENCH BACKFILL CLASS 2AB (OR CLSM) CLEAN EXCAVATED TRENCH SPOILS 12" MIN. FOUNDATION MATERIAL (OR 6" MIN. CLSM) GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (12" MIN. OVERLAP) 25% PIPE Ø (MIN. 6") SURFACE RESTORATION (MATCH EXISTING) Figure 19 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Vertical Soil Pressure Due to Live Loads VERTICAL SOIL PRESSURE (psf) H20 + 50% IMPACT LOADING 1000 HE I G H T O F C O V E R ( f t ) 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 250 12 14 16 500 750 17501250 1500 2000 File No. 5576.0 NOTES: 1. Apply vertical soil pressure to diameter of pipeline (horizontal projection) to calculate vertical pipe load. 2. H20 + 50% IMPACT LOADING: Simulates a highway load of a 20-ton truck with a 50% impact factor to account for the dynamic effects of traffic. 3. Modified from "Buried Pipe Design," Moser, A.P. and Folkman, S. Mcgraw Hill, New York, 2008. Figure 20 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Marston's Load Coefficients for Trench Conditions H/B 2 .1 1 3 5 4 10 100 C 1.0 432 2 5 1 3 5 4 10 100 NOTES: 1. Marston's load coefficient is used to calculate vertical soil loads on rigid pipes installed by open-cut trenching. Refer to report text for soil loads on flexible pipes. 2. Modified from "Buried Pipe Design," Moser, A.P. and Folkman, S. Mcgraw Hill, New York, 2008. - Compacted Granular Backfill (Class 2 AB) - Excavated Fill Soil W = ( C )(  )( B² ) W = Vertical soil load on rigid pipe due to trench backfill (lb/ft)  = Unit weight of trench backfill or overlying soil (pcf) H = Depth of backfill (ft) B = Width of trench (ft) LEGEND: Figure 21 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Marston's Load Coefficients for Embankment Conditions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C NOTES: 1. Marston's load coefficient is used to calculate vertical soil loads on rigid pipes installed due to embankment loading. Refer to report text for soil loads on flexible pipes. 2. Modified from "Buried Pipe Design," Moser, A.P. and Folkman, S. Mcgraw Hill, New York, 2008. - Load Coefficient W = ( C )( )( B² ) W = Vertical soil load on rigid pipe due to embankment (lb/ft)  = Unit weight of embankment fill (pcf) H = Depth of embankment fill (ft) B = Diameter of pipe (ft) LEGEND: H/B Figure E´ = S - E´ c pzc 22 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Composite Modulus of Soil Reaction - E'c 1.5 2.0 2.5 4.0 5.0 S for various B:D ratiosE' E'TW PZ C 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 > 5.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.45 3.0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.98 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.15 1.15 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.081.75 1.50 1.45 1.20 1.252.00 1.60 1.40 Modified from Jeyapalan (2001) File No. 5576.0 TW H = Depth of Cover B = Width of Trench E´ = Material Modulus Pipe Zone (e.g. Sand) E´ = Material Modulus Trench Wall (e.g. Native Soil or Fill) PZ D = Diameter of Pipe Figure 23 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Hydrostatic Uplift NOT TO SCALE WEIGHT OF STRUCTURE HYDROSTATIC UPLIFT PRESSURE STRUCTURE/BACKFILL FRICTION FACTOR u = 0.35 NOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALE WEIGHT OF STRUCTURE HYDROSTATIC UPLIFT PRESSURE BOUYANT WEIGHT OF BACKFILL (see report text) 20 o 20 o EXTERIOR PERIMETER LIP BOUYANT WEIGHT OF BACKFILL (see report text) DESIGN GROUNDWATER LEVEL DESIGN GROUNDWATER LEVEL STRUCTURE WITHOUT EXTERIOR PERIMETER LIP STRUCTURE WITH EXTERIOR PERIMETER LIP Appendix A Figure DESCRIPTION MOISTURE CONDITION Reference: ASTM D2488, Table 3 - Criteria for Describing Moisture Condition DRY MOIST WET CRITERIA Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Damp but no visible water Visible free water, usually soil is below water table A-1 (1 of 2)July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Boring Log Legend DESCRIPTION CONSTITUENT DESCRIPTIONS TRACE FEW LITTLE SOME MOSTLY CRITERIA less than 5% 5% to 10% 15% to 25% 30% to 45% 50% to 100% Reference: ASTM D2488, Note 15 SANDS AND GRAVELS RELATIVE DENSITY Reference: Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R., SOIL MECHANICS IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1967. Page 341 Table 45.1 and pp. 347 Table 45.2. VERY LOOSE LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE SILTS AND CLAYS CONSISTENCY 0-4 4-10 10-30 30-50 50+ SPT, N VERY SOFT SOFT MEDIUM STIFF STIFF VERY STIFF HARD 0-0.25 0.25-0.50 0.50-1.00 1.00-2.00 2.00-4.00 >4.00 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, tsf 0-2 2-4 4-8 8-15 15-30 30+ SPT, N Depth of free groundwater first noted seeping into boring during drilling Depth of free groundwater measured in boring after drilling KEY TO TEST BORING LOGS IN APPENDIX B File No. 5576.0 Reference: Modified from Heuer, R.E., 1974, Important ground parameters in soft ground tunneling, Subsurface exploration for underground excavation and heavy construction, New England College, Henniker, New Hampshire, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, P. 41-55. GROUND BEHAVIOR Ground that can be excavated without initial support to shallow depths (typically less than 10 feet) and where shoring can be installed before the ground starts to move. For example, unfissured hard clay when not highly overstressed. Ground of which chunks or flakes begin to fall off excavation walls. If raveling starts within a few minutes of excavation then it is "fast" raveling; otherwise, it is "slow" raveling. Silts and sands with clay binder may be fast raveling. Stiff fissured clays may be slow or fast raveling depending upon the degree of overstress. Ground that squeezes or plastically extrudes into excavations without visible fracturing. Can occur at shallow to medium depth in very soft to medium stiff clay, and can occur in stiff to hard clay under high overstress. Ground consisting of clean dry granular material (e.g., sand and gravel) that moves by gravity to its angle of repose. Ground in a fluid-like condition (e.g., a disturbed mixture of predominantly silt, sand and/or gravel with water), that flows across pressure gradients. Ground that expands in volume due to the absorption of water (e.g., clays). CLASSIFICATION Firm Raveling Squeezing Running Flowing Swelling NOTES: 1. Boring locations are approximate. 2. All borings were made with a CME 55 drill rig using 6-inch-diameter hollow stem augers. Lines separating strata in the logs represent approximate boundaries and are dashed where strata change depth is less certain. Strata change may be gradual. See figures in Appendix C for grain size definitions and nomenclature. 3. Penetration Resistance (blows/ft.) are the last 12" of an 18" drive using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches per blow unless noted otherwise. The Penetration Resistance values noted on the logs are actual blows per foot of penetration for the respective sampler type (i.e., MCS sampler penetration resistance blow counts have not been reduced to SPT sampler "N" values). 3" O.D. Shelby Tube 2.5" I.D./3" O.D. Modified California sampler (MCS) with steel liners 1.4" I.D./2" O.D. Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586) sampler (SPT) Grab sample Figure A-1 (2 of 2)July 2017 CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING GROUP SYMBOLS AND GROUP NAMES Gravels with Fines > 12% fines Clean Sands < 5% fines Sands with Fines > 12% fines Primarily organic matter, dark color and organic odor Inorganic Inorganic Organic Organic HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS FINE-GRAINED SOILS 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve COARSE-GRAINED SOILS More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit > 50 GRAVELS More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve SANDS 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve PI plots on or above "A" line PI plots below "A" line < 0.75 Fines classify as ML or MH Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 Fines classify as ML or MH Fines classify as CL or CH PI > 7 plots on or above "A" line PI < 4 plots below "A" line Liquid limit-not dried Liquid limit-oven dried Fines classify as CL or CHD C D A E < 0.75 J J E K,L,M,P K,L,M,Q CH PT MH OH K,L,MFat clay Organic Silt Organic Clay Elastic silt Peat K,L,M K,L,M,N K,L,M,O Well-graded sand Poorly graded gravel Poorly graded sand F,G,H GROUP NAME SOIL CLASSIFICATION CL OL ML SM SC SW SP GM GC Lean clay K,L,M Organic Silt Organic Clay K,L,MSilt Silty sand Clayey sand Clayey gravel Silty gravel G,H,I G,H,I F,G,H GP GW GROUP SYMBOL I I F B Clean Gravels < 5% fines C Well-graded gravel F Liquid limit-not dried Liquid limit-oven dried PLASTICITY Reference: Sowers, George F., Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering, 4th ed., Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York. 1979, Page 83 Table 2:10. Term If soil contains > 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. If soil contains > 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML (silty clay). If soil contains 15% to 29% plus No. 200,add "with sand" or "with gravel", whichever is predominant. D Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75mm) sieve. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name.* Gravels with 5% to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay Sands with 5% to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay Cu=E D 60 Cc= 10 D C B A 6010 (D x D 30 )2 L J K H I G F If soil contains > 30% plus No.200, predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. If soil contains > 30% plus No.200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. PI > 4 and plots on or above "A" line. PI < 4 or plots below "A" line. PI plots on or above "A" line. PI plots below "A" line. N O P Q M NOTES: D Nonplastic Slightly plastic Medium plastic Highly plastic 0-3 Very low Falls apart easily PI Dry Strength Field Test 3-15 Slight 15-30 Medium 30 or more High Easily crushed with fingers Difficult to crush Impossible to crush with fingers *See figures in Appendix C for grain size definitions and nomenclature. The largest particle that could have been sampled from the test borings is a function of the diameter of the boring, drill bit, and sampler. Intact cobble- and boulder-size particles, if any, are too large to have been able to retrieve from the test borings. Therefore, there may have been larger particles (e.g., cobble- and boulder-size) in the soils than were observed in samples and drill cuttings from the borings. Consequently, cobbles logged in the test borings, if any are also inferred from the drill-rig behavior during drilling and from observations of freshly-broken gravel-size particles in samples and cuttings. SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit < 50 ECu > 4 and 1 < Cc < 3 Cu > 6 and 1 < Cc < 3 E KEY TO TEST BORING LOGS IN APPENDIX B (Cont'd) City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Boring Log LegendFile No. 5576.0 Figure NOTES: 1. Modified from "Use of Piezometer Cone Data", ASCE Specialty Conference In Situ 86: Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D., and Greig, J. 2. A Soil behavior type (SBT), undrained shear strength and SPT N60 energy ratio shown on the CPT log are interpretations generated by the CPT-Pro software based on empirical relationships derived in the following references: P.K. Robertson, R.G. Campanella, D. Gillespie, and J. Greig, 1986, Use of Piezometer Cone Data, Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference In Situ '86: Use of ln Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering; pp. 1263-1280. P.K. Roberston, 1990, Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal.27(l), pp. 151- 158. T. Lunne. P.K. Robertson, and J.J.M. Powell, 1997, Cone Penetration in Geotechnical Practice. Taylor and Francis Publishing. A.2 July 2017 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Cone Penetration Test LegendFile No. 5576.0 KEY TO PROJECT CONE PENETROMETER TEST (CPT) SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE 1 - Sensitive fine grained 2 - Organic material 3 - Clay 4 - Silty clay to clay 5 - Clayey silt to silty clay 6 - Sandy silt to clayey silt LEGEND: 7 - Silty sand to sandy silt 8 - Sand to silty sand 9 - Sand 10 - Gravelly sand to sand 11 - Very stiff fine grained (overconsolidated/cemented) 12 - Sand to clayey sand (overconsolidated/cemented) Appendix B PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E 3 25 20 15 5 10 blows/ft.TYP E SA M P L E N O . feet DE P T H GR O U N D W A T E R Figure kips/ft.²UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H DESCRIPTION LIQ U I D L I M I T GRAIN SIZE %MO I S T U R E lbs./ft.³DR Y D E N S I T Y Gra v e l (># 4 s i e v e ) Fin e s (<# 2 0 0 s i e v e ) % % %PL A S T I C I T Y I N D E X DIRECT SHEAR p.s.f.Co h e s i o n Int e r n a l Fri c t i o n A n g l e Sa n d (#4 t o # 2 0 0 s i e v e ) 2 NO T E S (psi) Airport Apron:3 inches asphalt concrete B-1 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Log of Boring B-1 LOCATION: LOG OF BORING B-1 (see Figure 2) 1 Drilled 5/17/2017 using a CME 55, 6" diameter hollow stem augers, and a 30" drop by 140 lb. automatic sampling hammer. 2 See report text and figures in Appendices A and D for definitions, lab test results, and additional soil descriptions. 3 Free groundwater was measured at a depth of 9' prior to boring backfilling on 5/17/2017. See notes in Figure A-1, Appendix A. 1 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM) - tan - angular gravel - moist CLAYEY SAND (SC) - olive gray - little silt - trace angular gravel - very loose - moist 1 2 2 3 2 LEAN CLAY (CL) and SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM) - blue-gray - medium plastic and nonplastic - very soft and loose - wet SILTY CLAYEY SAND (SM/SC) - gray - few gravel - very loose - wet - raveling borehole LEAN CLAY (CL) - green-gray - few sand - little silts - medium plastic - medium stiff to stiff - wet 5 4 (100) (125) (300) BORING LOG CONTINUES ON FIGURE B-1 (2 OF 2) LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) - olive-gray with yellow-brown and white mottling - little silt - medium plastic - stiff to medium stiff - wet6 15 173557 25 8523 10817 NPNV (1 of 2) 50 45 40 30 35 TYP E SA M P L E N O . feet DE P T H GR O U N D W A T E R kips/ft.²UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H DESCRIPTION LIQ U I D L I M I T GRAIN SIZE %MO I S T U R E lbs./ft.³DR Y D E N S I T Y Gra v e l (># 4 s i e v e ) Fin e s (<# 2 0 0 s i e v e ) % % %PL A S T I C I T Y I N D E X DIRECT SHEAR p.s.f.Co h e s i o n Int e r n a l Fri c t i o n A n g l e Sa n d (#4 t o # 2 0 0 s i e v e ) 55 Figure NO T E S PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E blows/ft. July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Log of Boring B-1 LOG OF BORING B-1 (continued) 1 See notes on Figure B-1 (1 of 2). 1 BORING LOG CONTINUED FROM FIGURE B-1 (1 of 2) 7 9 LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) - olive-gray with yellow-brown and white mottling - little silt - medium plastic - stiff to medium stiff - wet B-1 (2 of 2) BOTTOM OF BORING AT 36.5 FEET 8 4 23 36 6733 PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E 3 25 20 15 5 10 blows/ft.TYP E SA M P L E N O . feet DE P T H GR O U N D W A T E R Figure kips/ft.²UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H DESCRIPTION LIQ U I D L I M I T GRAIN SIZE %MO I S T U R E lbs./ft.³DR Y D E N S I T Y Gra v e l (># 4 s i e v e ) Fin e s (<# 2 0 0 s i e v e ) % % %PL A S T I C I T Y I N D E X DIRECT SHEAR p.s.f.Co h e s i o n Int e r n a l Fri c t i o n A n g l e Sa n d (#4 t o # 2 0 0 s i e v e ) 2 NO T E S Note: Concrete was encountered at a depth of 2.5 feet in all three borings. Airport Apron B-2 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Log of Borings B-2.1, B-2.2, B-2.3 LOCATION: LOG OF BORINGS B-2.1, B-2.2, B-2.3 (see Figure 2) 1 Drilled 5/17/2017 using a CME 55, 6" diameter hollow stem augers, and a 30" drop by 140 lb. automatic sampling hammer. 2 See report text and figures in Appendices A and D for definitions, lab test results, and additional soil descriptions. 3 No free groundwater was encountered prior to boring backfilling on 5/17/2017. See notes in Figure A-1, Appendix A. 1 CONCRETE BOTTOM OF BORING AT 2.5 FEET (DRILLING REFUSAL) PE N E T R A T I O N RE S I S T A N C E 3 25 20 15 5 10 blows/ft.TYP E SA M P L E N O . feet DE P T H GR O U N D W A T E R Figure kips/ft.²UN C O N F I N E D CO M P R E S S I V E ST R E N G T H DESCRIPTION LIQ U I D L I M I T GRAIN SIZE %MO I S T U R E lbs./ft.³DR Y D E N S I T Y Gra v e l (># 4 s i e v e ) Fin e s (<# 2 0 0 s i e v e ) % % %PL A S T I C I T Y I N D E X DIRECT SHEAR p.s.f.Co h e s i o n Int e r n a l Fri c t i o n A n g l e Sa n d (#4 t o # 2 0 0 s i e v e ) 2 NO T E S Airport Apron:7 inches asphalt concrete B-3 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Log of Boring B-3 LOCATION: LOG OF BORING B-3 (see Figure 2) 1 Drilled 5/17/2017 using a CME 55, 6" diameter hollow stem augers, and a 30" drop by 140 lb. automatic sampling hammer. 2 See report text and figures in Appendices A and D for definitions, lab test results, and additional soil descriptions. 3 Free groundwater was measured at a depth of 9.5' prior to boring backfilling on 5/17/2017. See notes in Figure A-1, Appendix A. 1 CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC) - olive-gray with yellow-brown mottling - little silt - angular gravel - loose - moist1 2 2 6 12 FAT CLAY (CH) - blue-gray to dark gray - few sand - little silt - medium plastic - very soft - moist to wet 4 6 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM) - blue-gray to dark gray - little clay - very loose - wet 5 2 BOTTOM OF BORING AT 26.5 FEET 4669 190 26 ° 62283 7515 30 21 °1636 38 1646 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - olive to blue-gray with yellow-brown with mottling - little silt - medium plastic - soft to medium stiff - wet pu s h e d Appendix C Appendix D Figure For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils. Liquid Limit - LL ML or OL 10 Equation of "U"-line: Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7, then PI=0.9(LL-8) Equation of "A"-line: Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5, then PI=0.73(LL-20) Pla s t i c i t y I n d e x - P I 1074 0 0 20 30 60 40 50 CL or OL CL-ML 16 4030 MH or OH 6050 8070 CH or OH "U"LINE "A"LINE 12090 130 140 150 170160 70 100 80 90 100 110 110 120 180 190 200 130 140 150 160 C-1 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Plasticity Index TEST SYMBOL SAMPLE NO.DEPTH (ft) LIQUID LIMIT - LL PLASTICITY INDEX - PI USCS GROUP SYMBOL*     B-1-2 5-6½ 35 17 CL B-1-4 15-18 NV NP CH B-3-2 5-6½ 69 46 CH B-3-6 25-26½ 36 20 CL * Classification of fines < 0.425mm     Pe r c e n t R e t a i n e d b y W e i g h t 1000 100 10 1 .1 .01 .001 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0 3 3/4 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 140 20012 10 Pe r c e n t P a s s i n g b y W e i g h t Grain Size, mm U.S. STANDARD SIEVE No. BOULDERS U.S. SIEVE SIZE IN INCHES GRAVEL COARSE FINE COARSE HYDROMETER MEDIUM FINE SAND SILT CLAYCOBBLESFINES NOTE: The largest particle (grain) size that could have been sampled from our borings by our sample barrels is a function of the inside diameter of the sample barrels used (see Figure A-1). Therefore, there may be larger particles (e.g., coarse gravel, cobbles or boulders) in the soils sampled than reflected on the boring logs and grain size distribution curves provided in this report. C-2 Figure July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Grain Size B-1-7 30-31½ TEST SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE NO. DEPTH (ft) B-3-4 15-16½ CL USCS GROUP SYMBOL SM Figure 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Sh e a r S t r e s s , p s f 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Normal Load, psf C-4 July 2017File No. 5576.0 City of Palo Alto WQCP Primary Outfall Line Design Palo Alto, California Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Direct Shear TEST SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE NO. DEPTH (ft) APPARENT COHESION (p.s.f.) INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE (degrees) GRAPH LINE BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST AVE. DRY DENSITY (pcf)/ MOISTURE CONTENT (%)   B-3-3 10-13 190 26 62/28 62/33 B-3-6 25-26½ 30 21 75/15 75/29      RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 124 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Introduction On December 22, 2017 the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment (Lead Agency) released for a 30-day public review a Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Regional Water Quality Control Plant New Outfall Project (SCH# 2017122060). The Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the response to comments on the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are informational documents prepared by the Lead Agency that must be considered by decision-makers before approving the proposed project and that must reflect the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15090). This section summarizes and responds to the comments and questions on the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated by the City to public agencies and the public as required by CEQA. As discussed below in Response to Comments, edits to the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration have incorporated the comments where appropriate. With these edits, this Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration does not describe a project having any new or substantially more severe impacts than those identified and analyzed in the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of a Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required. This section contains a copies of the comment letter submitted during the public review period on the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the individual responses to those comments. The written comment letter is designated with a number in the upper left-hand corner of the letter. Within the written comment letter, individual comments are labeled with the designated numbers in the margin. Immediately following the comment letter is an individual response to each numbered comment. Where responses have resulted in changes to the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, these changes are shown in the response and also appear in this document as underlined or strike-out text. Commenters The following organizations/persons provided written comments on the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City: 1.California State Lands Commission Attachment C RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 130 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Response to Comment A-1 This comment serves as an introduction to the California State Lands Commission’s (Commission) clarification of jurisdiction over the project site. According to the comment, the Commission has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungraded tidelands, submerges lands, and the beds of navigable lakes and waterways. Additionally, the comment states that the Commission granted the existing lease to the City on August 15, 2014 and that the City must obtain an amendment to the existing lease. Based on this comment, the City of Palo Alto is in the process of obtaining an amendment to the existing lease. This comment continues by including a brief description of the project and request that the City consider the ensuing comments. This comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigation Negative Declaration. This comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for their consideration in reviewing the project. Response to Comment A-2 This comment states that the Project area is on State sovereign land under the jurisdiction of the Commission and asks that the Commission be recognized under “Other Public Agencies” in the Project Description and in Appendix B as an agency that requires a lease amendment for the project. It continues to say that all land use descriptions should identify the Commission as a landowner and the project site as a public land. In response to this comment the following revisions have been made : Page 14 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)  BCDC Permit San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB)  Section 401 Water Quality Certification  Existing RWQCP National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)  Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)  Review and Approval of Construction Safety Phasing Plan RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 131 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA)  Plan Review City of Palo Alto  Encroachment Permit waived California State Lands Commission  Lease Amendment Page 82 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Palo Alto is located in the northern part of Santa Clara County, in the portion of the Bay Area known as the Mid-Peninsula. The City shares a boundary with San Mateo County and six cities. The project site is located near the Palo Alto Baylands, starting at the RWQCP, and running through the existing levee adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport. The project site terminates at an unnamed slough within the San Francisco Bay. The project site is leased by the City from the California State Lands Commission and is considered a public land. Section 2 of Appendix B: Based on the anticipated need to complete work within waters of San Francisco Bay and the shoreline, the following resource regulatory agencies have potential jurisdiction within the Study Area:  San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)  San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)  California State Lands Commission Response to Comment A-3 This comment acknowledges that if Mitigation Measure BIO-1, avoidance of special-status plant species, is not feasible then seed collection, replanting, and transplantation of plant species shall be performed. The comment continues that the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration does not acknowledge whether the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) support this measure and whether an Incidental Take Permit would be required. Although three special-status plant species have the potential to exist within the project site, none of these species have been observed on-site by the project biologists. Furthermore, these agencies were circulated the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and none of the agencies RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 132 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 commented on the document or proposed mitigation. While suitable habitat for California seablite is present within the project area, it is not likely to occur due to the level of historic disturbance in the project area, and the mitigation measures are included out of an abundance of caution for the protection of this extremely rare species. Regulatory permit applications were submitted to the SFRWQB, Corps, and BCDC prior to the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration being released. Shortly after the public review period for the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration the Corps sent a letter dated February 6, 2018 to the USFWS requesting formal Section 7 consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 related to Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, California Seablite, California Ridgeway’s Rail (formerly California Clapper Rail), and Western Snowy Plover. The Corps also sent a letter dated February 6, 2018 to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requesting initiation of informal Section 7 consultation for potential impacts to Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon and Central California Coast ESU steelhead and respective critical habitats pursuant to the ESA of 1973. Each letter from the Corps expresses support of the avoidance and minimization measures required of the proposed project. AS stated in the consultation letter from the Corps of Engineers “We have concluded that the project is not likely to adversely affect California sea-blite based on its limited occurrences known only at reintroduction sites in San Francisco Bay and the avoidance measures proposed.” Therefore, no federal Incidental Take coverage is warranted or being sought for California seablite. The California Endangered Species Act applies only to “take” of endangered species. In the unlikely event that California seablite is found on-site prior to construction, and Incidental Take Permit will be applied for prior to implementation of mitigation measures. Furthermore, the comment mentions that page 46 of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration references the incorporation of MM BIO-7, but that Mitigation Measure Bio-7 is not included in the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This was an inadvertent typo and has been corrected in the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to read: c) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on 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? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would involve some temporary work within federally protected wetlands, subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and waters of the San Francisco Bay, which would both be regulated by the RWQCB under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. As shown in Figure 9, Temporary Biological Resources Impacts, the project would result in temporary impacts to 0.13 acre of non- tidal seasonal wetlands and 0.06 acre of non-wetland tidal waters. Impacts from trenching and outfall pipe installation to wetlands and waters are therefore potentially significant. However, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation measure BIO-76. Response to Comment A-4 This comment states that given the potential for underwater and airborne noise impacts to special-status species within or near the project site, the Commission recommends the City consult with the necessary regulatory agencies to ensure appropriate mitigation measures are included. The initial installation of the sheet piles would occur at low tide, when the site naturally dewaters to a level of 3 inches or less. In this environment the project site is not able to support any special-status fish. Furthermore, once the RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 133 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 sheet piles are installed all future work would occur within this same water level and therefore, would not result in significant underwater noise impacts. Additionally, all in-water work would occur within September 1 and November 30 to avoid the windows for listed fish species. Regulatory permit applications were submitted to all necessary regulatory agencies prior to release of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Shortly after the public review period for the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration the Corps sent a letter dated February 6, 2018 to NMFS requesting initiation of informal Section 7 consultation for potential impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon and Central California Coast ESU steelhead and respective critical habitats pursuant to the ESA of 1973. The Corps has determined that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon and Central California Coast ESU steelhead and respective critical habitats. The Corps has determined that the proposed action would have minimal adverse impact on EFH for species managed under the Pacific coast salmon fishery management plans (FMP), the Pacific groundfish FMP, and the coastal pelagic FMP, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1855(b ). This determination is based on proposed avoidance and minimization measures. Additionally, when work occurs, fish species utilizing the area should be able to find ample and suitable foraging areas in and along the adjacent areas. Post construction, fish species will return to feed; therefore, potential adverse effects are temporary and minor. However, to ensure all necessary avoidance measures are followed, the following change to Mitigation Measure BIO-5 on page 49 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been incorporated. This change does not constitute new mitigation for a new significant impact; it is merely clarifying and amplifying existing mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 All in-water work (i.e., in tidal areas at the unnamed slough) shall be conducted between June 15 and November 30 and will incorporate all avoidance measures listed in the regulatory permits. Installation of sheet piles in tidal waters, if necessary, shall occur by the use of a vibratory hammer during low tide. If impact pile driving is necessary, an evaluation of potential hydroacoustic impacts to fish shall be required, and if necessary additional measures shall be employed to ensure that underwater sound is reduced to levels that are below those that will cause injury to fish. Such additional measures may include:  Hydroacoustic monitoring by a sound engineer during in water pile driving work.  Use of a “soft start” to clear fish from the area of acoustic effect.  Use of a wood cushion block between the hammer and the pile.  Use of a bubble curtain or other similar technique to reduce underwater noise.  Complete all impact pile driving work at low tide.  Limiting the number of pile strikes in a day to reduce the cumulative sound pressure impacts to fish. RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 134 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Response to Comment A-5 This comment states that portions of the project site will be affected by sea level rise and encourages the City to address potential impacts, strategies to address sea-level rise, and incorporate modifications to project design if necessary. According to the Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles decision, the court ruled that neither questions on the Appendix G checklist nor provisions of the CEQA guidelines can properly be construed to require assessment of the impacts of existing environmental hazards on the project. The decision draws an explicit distinction between the project’s exacerbation of environmental hazards and the effects of users of the project and structures in the project of preexisting environmental hazards. It holds that to the extent that such questions may encompass the latter effects, the questions do not relate to environmental impacts under CEQA and cannot support an argument that the effects of the environment on the project must be analyzed in the environmental document. The court applied this ruling regarding sea level rise and emphasized that fact the environmental document was not required to discuss the impact of sea level rise on the project. Therefore, this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required to discuss sea level rise. However, as a part of the City’s lease amendment application to the Commission it will address the Commission’s requirements related to sea level rise, including a long-term monitoring program to track shoreline changes and monitor climate change-related impacts (e.g., sea-level rise, storms, high tides, etc.). Response to A-6 This comment states that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration should mention that all cultural resources on State Sovereign land are vested in the state and under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission (Pub. Resources Code § 6313). The comment continues to state that the City should consult with Staff Attorney Jamie Garrett should any cultural resources be discovered during construction. It continues to request that a mitigation measure be included in the IS/MND’s Mitigation and Monitoring Report. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will reflect the revisions made herein. The following revisions have been made within the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Section E. Cultural Resources, Page 51 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: INTRODUCTION: As the project site is located on State sovereign land, all historic, cultural, or archaeological resources discovered are vested in the state and under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission (Public Resources Code § 6313). The following Cultural Resources analysis is based in part on the Historical Resources Study prepared by Tom Origer & Associates in September 2017 (Appendix C). The following edit has been made to Mitigation Measure CULT-1on Page 57 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This change does not constitute new mitigation for a new significant impact; it is merely clarifying and amplifying existing mitigation. Mitigation Measure CULT-1 If buried materials are encountered, all soil disturbing work shall be halted at the location of RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 135 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 any discovery until a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist completes a significance evaluation of the find(s) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36CFR60.4) and CEQA guidelines (§15064.5[f]), and the State Lands Commission Attorney has been contacted to consult. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire-affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). The final disposition of any archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources recovered on-site under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission shall be approved by the Commission. Response to Comment A-7 This comment states that the IS/MND should include posting signs to notify the public that a portion of the Bay Trail will be closed and that a detour is available, as well as including construction fencing around staging areas. As mentioned on page 105 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, in Section P. Transportation and Traffic: d) Would the proposed project impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated in the Project Description, the proposed project would require the temporary closure of the Bay Trail for approximately two weeks. However, the City would install detour signs prior to the start of construction to direct pedestrian and bicycle traffic to adjacent segments of the Bay Trail. Pedestrian and bicycle access would also be available across Embarcadero Road during project construction with the implementation of the Traffic Control Plan included in Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1. The proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements would not impede the development of any planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Potentially significant impacts related to the function of these facilities would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1. Furthermore, a measure included in Mitigation Measure Traffic-1 states:  The temporary traffic control/detour portion of the project shall include one additional detour sign posted at the bicycle/pedestrian bridge across San Francisquito Creek between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Users approaching from East Palo Alto need to be directed to the detour route. Therefore, no additional public notice should be required beyond that already planned once construction begins. Furthermore, the staging area as delineated on Figure 3 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 136 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 Negative Declaration is already a fenced, enclosed space and is anticipated to continue to function as such throughout the construction phase. Response to Comment A-8 This comment states that the IS/MND lacks a supporting discussion regarding potential impacts on delayed or reduced access to the airport due to construction activities affecting Embarcadero Road. The comment continues to state that the IS/MND also does not discuss how the temporary airport closure would impact airport operations. Finally, the comment states that Embarcadero Road and the airport area also located on State sovereign land under the jurisdiction of the Commission. As described in the sections below, the project may result in minor delays in traffic along Embarcadero Road; however access to the airport would still be feasible as no road closures would occur. Page 10 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: The proposed project would require a minimal amount of daily truck trips and would utilize the U.S. Route 101 Freeway via Embarcadero Road. The proposed project would not close any roads during construction. A traffic management plan would be prepared that would leave one lane open for through traffic, with flaggers controlling traffic, where the new outfall pipe crosses Embarcadero Road. Construction activities in this area would be limited to 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Emphasis added) Page 104 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: b) Would the proposed project cause a roadway segment to drop below its level of service standard, or deteriorate operations that already operate at a substandard level of service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated above, construction traffic (equipment and materials transport and daily worker traffic) would slightly increase traffic on local roads during the temporary construction phase of the proposed project. The temporary construction-related traffic would not result in a noticeable increase in traffic on local roads and is not expected to reduce the LOS for any roadway segment. Large vehicles transporting equipment and materials to the project site could cause slight delays for travelers as the construction vehicles stop to unload. The only temporary lane closure would be during trenching within Embarcadero Road, which would only last for four weeks. However, the closure of this lane would represent a potentially significant impact. In addition to the temporary nature of this work, Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 would require the construction contractor to prepare a Traffic Control Plan and one lane would remain open during all construction activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1, potentially significant impacts related to intersection level of service would be reduced to less than significant. A traffic management plan would be prepared that would leave one lane open for through traffic at all times, with flaggers controlling traffic, where the new outfall pipe crosses Embarcadero Road. The partial road closure would still allow for vehicles to pass through the project site. Furthermore, the temporary closure of the airport runway would only occur for a limited amount of time and would not significantly alter air traffic. Page 106 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: RWQCP New Outfall Project Page 137 Final Initial Study Checklist March 2018 k) Would the proposed project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be installed along the perimeter of the Airport, and would include work within the runway safety zone. Work within this area would require runway closures and nighttime construction work would be utilized to reduce the number of runway closures. As described in the Project Description, the City is required to submit a Construction Safety Phasing Plan to the FAA for review and approval. The proposed project would therefore not result in a significant safety risk due to change in air traffic patterns, and impacts would be less than significant. Approval of the project and a Construction Safety Phasing Plan by the FAA is required in accordance with federal regulation and would ensure that the runway closure would not affect air traffic patterns and would not result in a significant safety risk to a change in air traffic patterns; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. In response to this comment, the following revisions have been made within the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Section P. Transportation and Traffic, Page 106 of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: k) Would the proposed project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be installed along the perimeter of the Airport, and would include work within the runway safety zone. Work within this area would require runway closures and nighttime construction work would be utilized to reduce the number of runway closures. As described in the Project Description, the City is required to submit a Construction Safety Phasing Plan to the FAA for review and approval. Approval of the Construction Safety Phasing Plan by the FAA is required in accordance with federal regulation and would ensure that the runway closure would not affect air traffic patterns and would not result in a significant safety risk to a change in air traffic patterns. The proposed project would therefore not result in a significant safety risk due to change in air traffic patterns, and impacts would be less than significant. Response to Comment A-9 This comment provides a closing statement and provides the contact information for relevant staff at the State Lands Commission. This comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comment will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for their consideration in reviewing the project. Attachment D TITLE SHEET AND PROJECT LOCATION C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ n i c k . l a z a r a k i s \ d m s 2 0 4 4 7 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - G - 0 1 . d w g NIC K L A Z A R A K I S 8 / 3 / 2 0 1 7 4 : 2 6 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* 1668037.00-G-01.dwg G-01 KVC KVC XL CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) NEW 63-INCH OUTFALL PROJECT OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) PROJECT LOCATION CITY OF PALO ALTO RWQCP LOCATION MAP PROJECT LOCATION AREA MAP CITY OF PALO ALTO AIRPORT EMBARCADERO ROADEM B A R C A D E R O W A Y AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING EMBARCADERO ROAD CITY OF PALO ALTO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT Attachment E CIVIL/GENERAL SYMBOLS PIPING SYMBOLS DETAIL SECTION ABBREVIATIONS TOP OF SLABT.O.S. GATE VALVEGV INV GP GEN GALV HT HB HVAC HORIZ HP IE ID GND INVERT GUARD POST VITRIFIED CLAY PIPEVCP UNDERGROUNDUG TYPICAL VENT VERTICAL WELDED STEEL WIDTH; WIDE WITHOUT WITH WELDED WIRE MESH WELDED WIRE FABRIC WEATHER PROTECTED VENT THROUGH ROOF TYP VERT V WS WP VTR W W/O W/ WWM WWF GENERATOR GALVANIZE HEIGHT HORIZONTAL HOSE BIBB INSIDE DIAMETER HORSEPOWER GROUND INVERT ELEVATION HEATING, VENTILATING & AIR CONDITIONING POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH-GAUGE STAINLESS STEEL, SANITARY SEWER APPROX CONST EP, EOP EXP JT EXIST, (E) FIN GD C FRP DI DIA FF & Ø L " @ AC ARCH ALUM BFV BM BFP BF AVG AB CI CB BFPV BLDG CLR CY L CMP CIP CONT CONN CONC DIP DIM DWG (D) COL EA EL ENCL ELEC ETC EQUIP ENGR FT EXT (F) FM FH FCA FC GPD FLEX FLGD GS GPM CENTERLINE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC THK.THICK SQ.SQUARE MPT MALE PIPE THREAD DUCTILE IRON DIAMETER TOP OF PAVEMENTT.O.P. MANUFACTURERMFR FINISHED FLOOR MONITORING WELLMW PIPE POWER POLE PROPERTY LINE POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH PRESSURE GAUGE ASSEMBLY RELOCATE RADIUS RIGHT-OF-WAY REFERENCE REDUCE (R) RAILROAD REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE RAINWATER LEADER PROPOSED SECTION SHEET SCHEDULE REQUIRED SIMILAR SQUARE INCHES STANDARD SPECIFICATION TYPE THRUST BLOCK SWITCH BOARD SURFACE TELEPHONE TEMPORARY BENCH MARK REINFORCING (-MENT) P PSIG PSI PP PL PG RCP (R) R REF RED RWL R/W RR PROP AND AT ANGLE ALUMINUM BENCH MARK BLIND FLANGE AVERAGE APPROXIMATE (-LY) BUTTERFLY VALVE BACKFLOW PREVENTER ARCHITECT (-URAL) ASPHALT CONCRETE ANCHOR BOLT, AGGREGATE BASE INCH SUPERSCRIPT PHASE, DIAMETER SECT SHT, SH SCHED REQ'D SIM STD SS IN2 SPEC TB SWBD T SURF TEL TBM CAST IRON CATCH BASIN BUILDING CLEAR (-ANCE) CUBIC YARD CAST IRON PIPE CONCRETE DIMENSION DEMOLISH DRAWING DUCTILE IRON PIPE COLUMN EACH ENCLOSURE ELECTRIC (-AL) ELEVATION ET CETERA EQUIPMENT ENGINEER FUTURE FEET (FOOT) EXTERIOR FLOW METER FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FLANGED COUPLING ADAPTER FLEXIBLE COUPLING EXPANSION JOINT EDGE OF PAVEMENT CONTINU (-ED, -OUS) CONSTRUCT (-TION) CONNECT (-S, -TION) CORRUGATED METAL PIPE BACKFLOW PREVENTER VALVE REINF FLANGED FLEXIBLE JUNCTION BOXJB LIGHTING MAXIMUM MATERIAL MANHOLE MODIFIED LTG MGD LCP MAX MJ MH MATL, MTL (M) NORTH MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURER MINIMUM NOT TO SCALE NORMALLY OPEN MFR N MISC MIN N.T.S. NO NC NFC NPSH MECHANICALMECH LOCAL CONTROL PANEL NET POSITIVE SUCTION HEAD NORMALLY CLOSED MECHANICAL JOINT MILLION GALLONS PER DAY GALVANIZED STEEL GALLONS PER MINUTE GALLONS PER DAY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NEW ON CENTER NOMINAL OC N/A NOM (N) OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER NOT APPLICABLE FINISH GRADE FLOW LINE DIRECTION UNDISTURBED EARTH (IN SECTION) ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT (IN PLAN) TRAFFIC BOLLARD SIGN TREE/SHRUB CHAINLINK FENCE BURIED CABLE MARKER BUILDING GUY WIRE SPOT ELEVATION INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR INDEX CONTOUR LIGHT POWER POLE CENTERLINE GENERAL CIVIL FIRE HYDRANT MANHOLE CATCH BASIN SLOPING GRADE (IN PLAN) TO BE DEMOLISHED PROJECT BENCHMARK AGGREGATE BASE (IN SECTION) CONCRETE EDGE OF PAVEMENT (IN PLAN) X X 120 E E x 35.5 (E) NEW EXISTING LOW HIGH LOW HIGH BM (E) AC (E) AB (E) CONC VALVE SYMBOLS 3-WAY PLUG INSULATED PIPE FLEXIBLE HOSE THERMOMETER PRESSURE SWITCH FUNNEL DRAIN PRESSURE GAUGE W/PROTECTOR BACK PRESSURE CONTROL & PROTECTOR RELIEF VALVE/VENT MANUAL AIR VENT PIPELINE FLUSHING COCK PRESSURE GAUGE W/GAUGE COCK PRESSURE GAUGE W/GAUGE COCK PLUG OR BLIND FLANGE 3-WAY SOLENOID MOTORIZED OPERATED VALVE SCREWED OR SOCKETWELD FLANGED OR GROOVED PIPE COUPLING BELL AND SPIGOT OR MECHANICAL SCREWED OR SLIP ON JOINTS ELBOW-REDUCING FLEXIBLE CONNECTOR REDUCER-ECCENTRIC FLEXIBLE COUPLING FLANGED COUPLING ADAPTER REDUCER-CONCENTRIC CONNECTION PINCH ANGLE CHECK DIAPHRAGM BUTTERFLY GATE GLOBE VALVES BALL PLUG HOSE BIBB NEEDLE ORIFICE JOINTS FITTINGS WELDED CROSS UNION STRAINER T M S PS S M SINGLE LINE DOUBLE LINE PLAN PLAN PLAN SINGLE LINE ELEVATION OH OHOVERHEAD POWER LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE RUNWAY SAFETY AREA FO FOFIBER OPTICS STORM DRAIN (FUTURE) BURIED ELECTRICAL 120 R/W R/W FO FO OH OH E E X X PIPELINE (E) ACASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT (IN SECTION) TREE TO BE REMOVED 18.00 BLOW OFF VALVE AIR RELEASE VALVE BO BLOW OFF VALVE 1 C8 A C3 CLEAN OUT CO A AIR OR PNEUMATIC VALVE OR STORM DRAIN WATER (FUTURE) SD SDSDSD W WWATERWW BLOCK WALL SPECIAL (SOLENOID, PRESS. RED., PRESS. REG., & POWER OPERATED) STORM DRAINSD SURVEY CONTROL REFERENCE SYMBOLS HORIZONTAL DATUM: THE PROJECT HORIZONTAL DATUM IS BASED UPON THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83), CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM ZONE 3, EPOCH 2010.00, U.S. SURVEY FEET. VERTICAL DATUM: VERTICAL CONTROL AND ELEVATION VALUES OBTAINED DURING THE INITIAL CONTROL SURVEY WERE ON NAVD88 DATUM. BENCHMARK NOTE: VERTICAL CONTROL ADJUSTMENT IS BASED ON REY ENGINEERS TOPO.MAIN CONTROL POINT IS A NAIL IN THE CURB AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE GOLF CLUB. NAIL IS LABELED AS REY #10 (#1530). UTILITY IDENTIFICATION: THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN WERE TAKEN FORM THE RECORDS OF THE CONTROLLING AGENCIES. NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY IS ASSUMED BY THE AUTHORITY ENGINEER AND/OR THE CONTROLLING AGENCIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXISTENCE AND/OR LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL USA, PHONE: 811, AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. DETAIL DESIGNATION SHEET DRAWN ON DETAIL DESIGNATION SHEET DRAWN ON ARV AVV - AIR RELEASE VALVE WELDED STEEL PIPEWSP STATIONSTA LDCC LOW DENSITY CELLULAR CONCRETE HDPE HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA THRESHOLD SAFETY AREA RUNWAY SAFETY AREA TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA ROFA TSS RSA TOFA RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONERPZ CLSM CONTROLLED LOW STRENGTH MATERIAL TSS P/LPROPERTY LINE EASEMENT RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA P/L RSA ROFA ROFA RPZ RSA ROFA ROFA RPZ THRESHOLD SAFETY AREA TSS SHEET INDEX G-01 TITLE SHEET AND PROJECT LOCATION G-02 GENERAL NOTES, SYMBOLS, LEGEND, SURVEY CONTROL, AND SHEET INDEX G-03 STAGING AREA AND AIRPORT RUNWAY PROTECTION AREAS C-01 OUTFALL NO.1 KEY PLAN C-02 STA 3+47 TO STA 8+00 PLAN AND PROFILE C-03 STA 8+00 TO STA 15+50 PLAN AND PROFILE C-04 STA 15+50 TO STA 22+00 PLAN AND PROFILE C-05 STA 22+00 TO STA 27+49 PLAN AND PROFILE C-06 NEW RENZEL PUMP C-07 RENZEL PUMP ROOM BYPASS UPGRADE C-08 OUTFALL NO. 1 CIVIL DETAILS I C-09 OUTFALL NO. 1 CIVIL DETAILS II C-10 OUTFALL NO.1 CIVIL DETAILS III C-11 RENZEL CIVIL DETAILS S-01 OUTFALL BOX MODIFICATIONS E-01 ELECTRICAL LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS E-02 ELECTRICAL SINGLE-LINE E-03 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN E-04 ELECTRICAL FACILITY SITE PLAN E-05 UV BUILDING PLAN E-06 ELECTRICAL DETAILS E-07 ELECTRICAL WIRING DIAGRAMS I-01 PROCESS AND INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM LEGEND I-02 PROCESS AND INSTRUMENTATION SUMP PUMP AND OUTFALL GENERAL NOTES, SYMBOLS, LEGEND, SURVEY CONTROL, AND SHEET INDEX 1668037.00-G-02.dwg G-02 KVC KVC XL C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ n i c k . l a z a r a k i s \ d m s 2 0 4 4 7 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - G - 0 2 . d w g NIC K L A Z A R A K I S 8 / 9 / 2 0 1 7 1 0 : 1 4 A M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* STAGING AREA AND AIRPORT RUNWAY PROTECTION AREAS NOTES : 1. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR REQUIREMENTS IN AIRPORT RUNWAY PROTECTION AREAS. PLAN 1"=100' 0 100 200 1668037.00-G-03.dwg G-03 XL NCL JCB C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ n i c k . l a z a r a k i s \ d m s 2 0 4 4 7 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - G - 0 3 . d w g NIC K L A Z A R A K I S 8 / 4 / 2 0 1 7 1 0 : 0 0 A M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* OUTFALL NO. 1 (E) 36" EMERGENCY OUTFALL RPZ DIMENSIONS: 250' x 450' x 1000' TSS DIMENSIONS: 400' x 3800' x 10200 SEE RPZ DIMENSIONS FOR REFERENCE TAX I W A Y G TAX I W A Y G TAX I W A Y G TAXIWAY A TAX I W A Y Z CONTRACTOR STAGING AREA EMBARCADERO ROAD CHLORINE CONTACT TANK MAINTENANCE BUILDING UV STRUCTURE UV ELECTRICAL ROOM REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT CITY OF PALO ALTO AIRPORT AIRPORT CONTROL TOWER AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING AIRPORT NEW PAVEMENT PRIOR TO THIS PROJECT AIRPORT NEW PAVEMENT PROJECT STAGING AREA OUTFALL NO. 1 KEY PLAN KEY PLAN SHEET C - 0 3 SHE E T C - 0 5 SHE E T C - 0 2 SHEET C - 0 4 1"=100' 0 100 200 1668037.00-C-01.dwg C-01 XL NCL JCB C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ n i c k . l a z a r a k i s \ d m s 2 0 4 4 7 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 1 . d w g NIC K L A Z A R A K I S 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 7 3 : 0 3 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* 63"Ø OUTFALL NO. 1 (E) 36" EMERGENCY PIPE EMBARCADERO ROAD CHLORINE CONTACT TANK MAINTENANCE BUILDING UV STRUCTURE UV ELECTRICAL ROOM REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT CITY OF PALO ALTO AIRPORT PAVED SEE DETAIL 2 ON C-08 UNPAVED SEE DETAIL 3 ON C-08 PAVED SEE DETAIL 2 ON C-08 ST A : 4 + 0 7 . 0 7 (E) E L E C L I N E EL E V U N K ST A : 3 + 5 2 . 3 5 (E) C O M L I N E EL E V U N K ST A : 4 + 8 0 . 3 0 (E) 8 " W A T E R L I N E EL E V U N K ST A : 4 + 6 6 . 8 6 (E) S A N I T A R Y S E W E R EL E V U N K UNPAVED STA: 3+47 I.E.: 0.8' EL E V A T I O N STATION -5 0 5 10 15 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 SLOPE: 0.0000 STA 3+47 TO STA 8+00 PLAN AND PROFILE NOTES: 1. THE (E) 36" EMERGENCY OUTFALL AND (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 HAVE THE SAME HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT BETWEEN STA 3+47 AND STA 5+75. CONTRACTOR SHALL DEMO (E) 36" EMERGENCY OUTFALL BETWEEN THESE STATIONS. NEAR STATION 5+75, PLUG (N) END OF (E) 36" EMERGENCY OUTFALL WITH CONCRETE. SEE SPECIFCATIONS FOR PHASING REQUIREMENTS. 2. FENCE SHALL BE REPLACED PER CITY OF PALO ALTO AIRFIELD PERIMETER FENCING AND GATE UPGRADES PROJECT DESIGN DRAWING. PLAN PROFILE 200 1"=40' 40 60 SE E S H E E T C - 0 3 8+ 0 0 MA T C H L I N E S T A SE E S H E E T C - 0 3 8+ 0 0 VE R T . 1 " = 5 ' 0 5 HORIZ. 1"=40' 0 20 40 60 1668037.00-C-02.dwg C-02 XL NCL JCB CONNECT TO (E) OUTFALL BOX. SEE S-01 (E) OUTFALL BOX, MAX W.L. 15' IE: -0.2± RIM: 16.4± (E) GRADE ON PIPE CENTER LINE (N) 63" HDPE OUTFALL NO.1 C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ k e v i n . c a s t i l l o \ d m s 2 0 4 4 7 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 2 . d w g K E V I N C A S T I L L O 8 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 7 5 : 1 4 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING (E) 36" EMERGENCY OUTFALL. SEE NOTE 1. (E) 54" OUTFALL (E) 36" EMERGENCY OUTFALL 63" HDPE OUTFALL NO. 1 TREE 449 TREE 405 TREE 406 CHLORINE CONTACT TANK (CCT) MAINTENANCE BUILDING UV STRUCTURE UV ELECTRICAL ROOM EM B A R C A D E R O R O A D EMB A R C A D E R O R O A D AIRPORT FUTURE PAVING PRIOR TO THIS PROJECT (E) FENCE REMOVE AND REPLACE SEE NOTE 2 CCT OUTLET BOX AIRPORT FUTURE PAVING PROJECT STAGING AREA TREE 404, REMOVE TREE 448, REMOVE TREE 447, REMOVE STA 8+00 TO STA 15+50 PLAN AND PROFILE NOTES: 1. SEE DRAWING G-03 FOR CONTRACTOR STAGING AREA. 2. FENCE SHALL BE REPLACED PER CITY OF PALO ALTO AIRFIELD PERIMETER FENCING AND GATE UPGRADES PROJECT DESIGN DRAWING. PLAN PROFILE 200 1"=40' 40 60 1668037.00-C-03.dwg C-03 XL NCL JCB SEE S H E E T C - 0 2 8+0 0 MA T C H L I N E S T A 8 + 0 0 SE E S H E E T C - 0 2 MA T C H L I N E S T A 1 5 + 5 0 SE E S H E E T C - 0 4 VE R T . 1 " = 5 ' 0 5 HORIZ. 1"=40' 0 20 40 60 (N) 63" HDPE OUTFALL NO.1 AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING ACCESS MH SEE DETAIL 1 C-09 (E) GRADE ON PIPE CENTER LINE C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ k e v i n . c a s t i l l o \ d m s 2 0 4 4 7 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 3 . d w g K E V I N C A S T I L L O 8 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 7 5 : 0 3 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* PROPOSED FUTURE LEVEE CREST AFTER THIS PROJECT ELEV: 16' EXISTING LEVEE CREST ELEV: 10'± HDPE BEND 500' RADIUS SE E S H E E T C - 0 4 15+ 5 0 63" HDPE OUTFALL NO. 1 (E) FENCE, REMOVE AND REPLACE AS NEEDED. SEE NOTE 2 (E) FENCE, REMOVE AND REPLACE AS NEEDED. SEE NOTE 2 (E) FENCE, REMOVE AND REPLACE AS NEEDED. SEE NOTE 2 1 C- 0 9 REMOVE AND REPLACE FENCE AS NEEDED. SEE NOTE 2 STA 15+50 TO STA 22+00 PLAN AND PROFILE 1668037.00-C-04.dwg C-04 XL NCL JCB NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUTE 4" HDPE DRAIN LINE, FROM THE COMBINATION VALVE, IN THE SAME TRENCH AS OUTFALL NO. 1 TO THE DISCHARGE. SLOPE DRAIN LINE TOWARDS BAY DISCHARGE. PROVIDE MIN 3' OF COVER ON DRAIN LINE. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE CUSTOM HDPE BEND SEE SPEC FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 3. FENCE SHALL BE REPLACED PER CITY OF PALO ALTO AIRFIELD PERIMETER FENCING AND GATE UPGRADES PROJECT DESIGN DRAWING. PLAN PROFILE 200 1"=40' 40 60 VE R T . 1 " = 5 ' 0 5 HORIZ. 1"=40' 0 20 40 60MA T C H L I N E S T A 1 5 + 5 0 SE E S H E E T C - 0 3 MA T C H L I N E S T A 2 2 + 0 0 SE E S H E E T C - 0 5 SE E S H E E T C - 0 3 15+ 5 0 SEE S H E E T C - 0 5 22+0 0 (E) GRADE ON PIPE CENTER LINE PROPOSED FUTURE LEVEE CREST AFTER THIS PROJECT ELEV: 16' (N) 63" HDPE OUTFALL NO. 1 ACCESS MH SEE DETAIL 2 C-09 1' MIN CLEARANCE (E) 54" OUTFALL NO. 2 HDPE BEND RADIUS: 300' C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ k e v i n . c a s t i l l o \ d m s 2 0 4 4 7 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 4 . d w g K E V I N C A S T I L L O 8 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 7 2 : 4 9 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* PROTECT (E) ELECTRICAL BOX PROTECT (E) 54" OUTFALL NO. 2 FINISH GRADE 4" HDPE DRAIN LINE, SEE NOTE 1 HDPE BEND RADIUS: 500' COMBINATION HORIZ AND VERT BEND 3°26'52" VERT DEFLECTION 4" COMBINATION VALVE SEE DETAIL 3 C-09 63" HDPE OUTFALL NO. 1 DEMO (E) ABANDONED STORM DRAIN AS NEEDED CAUTION: PROTECT (E) ELEC DUCT BANK IN PLACE (E) FENCE, REMOVE AND REPLACE AS NEEDED. SEE NOTE 3 EXISTING LEVEE CREST ELEV: 10'± 2 C- 0 9 EL E V A T I O N STATION -5 0 5 10 15 20 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 WETLANDS PROVIDE 2' COVER MIN REINFORCED CONCRETE CAP SEE DETAIL 1 ON C-08 BC: 23+46 I.E.: 0.5' EC/BC: 23+66 I.E.: -0.3'EC: 23+86 I.E.: -1.1' SLOPE: -0.0050 SLOPE: -0.0012 STA 22+00 TO STA 27+49 PLAN AND PROFILE 1668037.00-C-05.dwg C-05 XL NCL JCB NOTES: 1. INSTALL DUCKBILL CHECK VALVE AT END OF 63" HDPE OUTFALL NO.1 ALIGNMENT, SEE DETAIL 4 ON C-08. 2. FENCE SHALL BE REPLACED PER CITY OF PALO ALTO AIRFIELD PERIMETER FENCING AND GATE UPGRADES PROJECT DESIGN DRAWING. 3. UNNAMED SLOUGH WATER LEVELS: MHHW: 7.3', MLLW: -0.2', AND HIGHEST OBSERVED WATER LEVEL: 9.2'. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUTE 4" HDPE DRAIN LINE IN THE SAME TRENCH AS OUTFALL NO. 1 TO THE DISCHARGE. SLOPE DRAIN LINE TOWARDS BAY DISCHARGE. PROVIDE MIN 3' OF COVER ON DRAIN LINE. PLAN PROFILE 200 1"=40' 40 60 VE R T . 1 " = 5 ' 0 5 HORIZ. 1"=40' 0 20 40 60MA T C H L I N E S T A 2 2 + 0 0 SE E S H E E T C - 0 4 SE E S H E E T C - 0 4 22 + 0 0 EFFLUENT MONITORING STATION, SEE ELEC DRAWINGS AND DETAIL 5 C-10 (E) GRADE ON PIPE CENTER LINE (E) 60" STORM DRAIN C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ k e v i n . c a s t i l l o \ d m s 2 0 4 4 7 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 5 . d w g K E V I N C A S T I L L O 8 / 9 / 2 0 1 7 6 : 4 4 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* (E) 54" OUTFALL NO. 2 (E) 60" STORM DRAIN PROPOSED FUTURE LEVEE CREST AFTER THIS PROJECT ELEV: 16' EXISTING LEVEE CREST ELEV: 10'± (E) FENCE (E) 54" OUTFALL NO. 2 HDPE BEND RADIUS: 300' 63" HDPE OUTFALL NO. 1 EFFLUENT MONITORING STATION, SEE ELEC DRAWINGS AND DETAIL 3 C-10 PROVIDE CHECK VALVE ON (E) 54" OUTFALL NO. 2 SEE DETAIL 5 C-08 UNNAMED SLOUGH TO SAN FRANCISCO BAY SEE NOTE 3 4" HDPE DRAIN LINE, SEE NOTE 4 (E) FENCE. REMOVE AND REPLACE AS NEEDED SEE NOTE 2 (E) FENCE. REMOVE AND REPLACE AS NEEDED SEE NOTE 2 NEW RENZEL PUMP C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ n i c k . l a z a r a k i s \ d m s 2 2 6 3 6 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 6 . d w g N I C K L A Z A R A K I S 8 / 4 / 2 0 1 7 9 : 1 5 A M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* 1668037.00-C-06.dwg C-06 XL NCL JCB 1/4"=1'-0" 30 6 1/4"=1'-0" 30 6 AA - - ASECTION PLAN NOTES: 1. POTHOLE EXISTING PIPE AT LOCATION OF NEW HDPE FITTING. CONFIRM DEPTH OF CONNECTION AND DETERMINE PRECISE BEND ANGLE OF FITTING PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF HDPE SHOP DRAWINGS. PROVIDE THRUST BLOCK AS SHOWN ON C-11. 1/4"=1'-0" 30 6 - BSECTION B B - C - C RENZEL PUMP ROOM BYPASS UPGRADE C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ n i c k . l a z a r a k i s \ d m s 2 2 6 3 6 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 7 . d w g N I C K L A Z A R A K I S 8 / 4 / 2 0 1 7 9 : 3 7 A M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* 1668037.00-C-07.dwg C-07 XL NCL JCB - ASECTION DEMO PLAN A - A - BSECTION PLAN B - B 3/8"=1'-0" 0 2 4 3/8"=1'-0" 0 2 4 3/8"=1'-0" 0 2 4 3/8"=1'-0" 0 2 4 NOTES: 1. PIPING AND EQUIPMENT THAT IS REMOVED AND WHICH IS NOT SHOWN TO BE RELOCATED OR SALVAGED SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY THE CONTRACTOR. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME (E) SUPPORTS TO BE DEMOLISHED ARE SIMILAR TO THE SUPPORTS REPLACING THEM. 3. ALL NEW PIPING ON THIS SHEET SHALL BE 12"Ø WELDED STEEL. SEE SECTION 40 27 00. OUTFALL NO. 1 CIVIL DETAILS I C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ n i c k . l a z a r a k i s \ d m s 2 2 6 3 6 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 8 . d w g N I C K L A Z A R A K I S 8 / 4 / 2 0 1 7 1 1 : 0 3 A M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* 1668037.00-C-08.dwg C-08 XL NCL JCB C-02, C-03 2TRENCH DETAIL FOR HDPE OUTFALL (PAVED) SCALE: NONE C-03, C-04, C-05 3TRENCH DETAIL FOR HDPE OUTFALL (UNPAVED) SCALE: NONE C-05 1TRENCH DETAIL FOR HDPE OUTFALL (REINF CONC CAP) SCALE: NONE C-05 4CHECK VALVE AT (N) HDPE OUTFALL - 6CHECK VALVE MOUNTING HARDWARE SCALE: NONE 1/2"=1'-0" 0 31 2 C-05 5CHECK VALVE AT (E) CMP OUTFALL 1/2"=1'-0" 0 31 2 5'-0"x5'-0" INNER DIMENSION PRECAST VAULT HDPE OUTFALL NOTES: 1. ALL JOINTS SHALL BE WATERTIGHT, INSTALL NEOPRENE GASKETS OR RAM-NECK. 2. COVER SHALL BE STAINLESS STEEL AND H20 LOAD RATED. COVER SHALL BE SPRING LOADED HINGED WITH TWO DOORS AND BE WATERTIGHT. 3. PROVIDE 1" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER AROUND PIPE PENETRATION THROUGH CAST-IN-PLACE SLAB. 1'-0" SQ SUMP 4" 4" COVER, SEE NOTE 2 3'-6" 2'- 6 " 6" TYP 7'- 4 " 7'-4" 24" HDPE FLANGE ADAPTER AND 316SS BACKUP RING, SEE NOTE 3 FINISHED GRADE CAST-IN-PLACE SLAB HDPE OUTFALL 5'-0"x5'-0" (ID) PRECAST VAULT 4" 12" OR 6" EXTENSION SECTIONS 3" 9" COVER, SEE NOTE 2 1'- 0 " MI N 8"MI N #5 @ 12", EW 3" BOT CLR 1'- 0 MI N C L R BACKFILL PER SHEET C-08 5'-0"x5'-0" INNER DIMENSION PRECAST VAULT HDPE OUTFALL NOTES: 1. ALL JOINTS SHALL BE WATERTIGHT, INSTALL NEOPRENE GASKETS OR RAM-NECK. 2. COVER SHALL BE STAINLESS STEEL AND H20 LOAD RATED. COVER SHALL BE SPRING LOADED HINGED WITH TWO DOORS AND BE WATERTIGHT. 3. PROVIDE 1" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER AROUND PIPE PENETRATION THROUGH CAST-IN-PLACE SLAB. 1'-0" SQ SUMP 4" 4" COVER, SEE NOTE 2 3'-6" 2'- 6 " 6" TYP 7'- 4 " 7'-4" 24" HDPE FLANGE ADAPTER AND 316SS BACKUP RING, SEE NOTE 3 FINISHED GRADE CAST-IN-PLACE SLAB HDPE OUTFALL 5'-0"x5'-0" (ID) PRECAST VAULT 4" 12" OR 6" EXTENSION SECTIONS 3" 9" COVER, SEE NOTE 2 1'- 0 " MI N 8"MI N #5 @ 12", EW 3" BOT CLR BACKFILL PER SHEET C-08 1'- 0 " 1'- 6 " M A X 4" 3" 2" G.V. DIA. APPROVED DIELECTRICS MUST BE USED AT CONNECTIONS OF ALL DISSIMILAR 3" 4" AIR VAC 3" AIR VAC 2" AIR VAC SIZE METALS FOR PIPING AN APPURTENANCES. NOTE: 1. COVER AFTER FABRICATION HOT DIP GALVANIZED SPLIT IN TWO HALVES 10 GA. STEEL PIPE 1/2 " CONC. SLAB TABLE OF VALUES 48" SQUARE 42" SQUARE 36" SQUARE OF COVER BASE DIM. 36" 32" 30" OF COVER HEIGHT 24" 20" 18" OF COVER DIAMETER FITTINGS PIPING & 2" 3" 4" TYP 1/2"Ø HOLES (TYP) 2 HINGES ACCESS DOOR LINE OF LID RECEPTACLE ANCHORS W/FEMALE 3/8"Ø S.S. CAPSULE 6-1"Ø HOLES HE I G H T LOCKABLE PROVIDE (TYP) 2"x2"x3/16"x1-1/2" ANGLE180° HDPE OUTFALL BACKFILL PER SHEET C-08 GATE VALVE FINISHED GRADE HDPE FLANGE ADAPTER AND 316SS BACKING RING FUSED BRANCHED SADDLE 1" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER HASP COMBINATION VALVE SECTION VACUUM RELIEF VALVE COMBINATION AIR AND4" HDPE DRAIN LINE. SEE NOTE 2 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUTE 4" HDPE DRAIN LINE THROUGH CONCRETE SLAB WITH 1" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER. CONTRACOR SHALL ROUTE THE 4" HDPE DRAIN LINE IN THE SAME TRENCH AS OUTFALL NO. 1 TO THE DISCHARGE. SLOPE TOWARDS SAN FRANCISCO BAY DISCHARGE. OUTFALL NO. 1 CIVIL DETAILS II C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ n i c k . l a z a r a k i s \ d m s 2 2 6 3 6 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 9 . d w g N I C K L A Z A R A K I S 8 / 4 / 2 0 1 7 1 0 : 3 5 A M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* 1668037.00-C-09.dwg C-09 XL NCL JCB C-03 1BELOW GRADE ACESS MANHOLE 0 3 1/2"=1'-0" 1 2 - ASECTION 0 3 1/2"=1'-0" 1 2 A - A C-05 2ABOVE GRADE ACESS MANHOLE 0 3 1/2"=1'-0" 1 2 - BSECTION 0 3 1/2"=1'-0" 1 2 B - B C-04 3COMBINATION VALVE AND ENCLOSURE SCALE: NONE 12 " 6" 2" DIAMETER GALVANIZED STEEL POLE WITH GALVANIZED STEEL CAP ON TOP 12" DIAMETER CONCRETE FOOTING 11" x 17" SIGN 3" M I N 3'- 0 " 4" INSERTA TEE. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS EXISTING GRADE (E) 54"Ø RCP OUTFALL NO. 2 4" PVC C900 HDPE FLANGE ADAPTER AND 316SS BACKING RING EXISTING GRADE (N) 63"Ø HDPE OUTFALL NO. 1 4" GS PIPE 3'- 0 " 4" FUSED BRANCH SADDLE OUTFALL NO. 1 CIVIL DETAILS Ill C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ n i c k . l a z a r a k i s \ d m s 2 2 6 3 6 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 1 0 . d w g N I C K L A Z A R A K I S 8 / 3 / 2 0 1 7 4 : 4 3 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* 1668037.00-C-10.dwg C-10 XL KVC JCB C-02 1STANDARD DETAIL SCALE: NONE C-02 2STANDARD DETAIL SCALE: NONE C-05 4SHALLOW BURIED SIGN SCALE: NONE C-05 3METER PROBE INSERTION ON OUTFALL NO. 2 SCALE: NONE C-05 5METER PROBE INSERTION ON OUTFALL NO. 1 SCALE: NONE 8" ON BACKFILL TO SUPPORT BLOCKS 2" x 6" x 12" LONG REDWOOD OR TREATED WOOD 2" SQUARE OPERATING NUT VALVE BOX.AS REQUIRED VALVE BOX WITH EXTENSIONS PRECAST CONCRETE TYPE C.I. SCREW TYPE (SHOWN) OR CONCRETE VALVE SUPPORT CENTERING RING NO. 4 EXTENSION STEM 12 " 8" SOIL. NON-BEARING VERTICAL SURFACES SHALL BE FORMED. BEARING AREAS SHOWN IN TABLE ARE BASED UPON 200 PSI CONDITIONS ARE OTHERWISE. CAPACITY. BEARING AREAS SHALL BE ADJUSTED IF PIPE TEST PRESSURE AND 2500 PSF SOIL BEARING AND JOINTS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAR OF CONCRETE. 2. THRUST BLOCKS SHALL BE POURED AGAINST UNDISTURBED THRUST BLOCK SOIL BEARING AREAS, SQ. FT. Bend 52 36 29 23 18 13 9 6 4 2 NOTES: 24 20 18 16 14 12 10 36 25 21 16 13 9 7 Dia., In. 4 8 6 Pipe or Tee Plug,Cap 1 4 2 90 28 20 16 13 10 7 5 15 10 6 5 8 7 5 4 3 4 3 2 2 1 22-1/2 Bend 45 1 3 2 1 2 1 Bend 1 1 1 Bend 11-1/4 PROVIDE THRUST BLOCKS WHERE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.3. 9" VARIES PAVED AREASUNIMPROVED AREAS 12" O.D.+24" MAX. PIPE SIZE PER PLAN BEDDING MATERIAL COMPACT TO 90% RELATIVE DENSITY NATIVE BACKFILL WARNING TAPE, CONTINUOUS COMPACT TO 95% RELATIVE DENSITY 6" 12" (M I N ) 9" MIN. THICKNESS AGGREGATE BASE 95% COMPACTION 6" SADDLE TAP FOR DI PIPE. THREAD-O-LET FOR WELDED STEEL PIPE. PIPELINE SCH 80 GS NIPPLE (TYP) AIR RELEASE VALVE (SEE SPECIFICATION 40 27 00) ISOLATION VALVE (SEE SPECIFICATION 40 27 00) 12 " 6" 6" 6" MIN.6 3/4"6" MIN. H = H E I G H T 4" PIPE STANCHION W/ BASE PLATE, ANVIL FIG. 63, TYPE T, OR EQUAL 1/2 " M A X NS G BASEPLATE SEE TABLE ON RIGHT TYPE 1 SUPPORT SCALE: NONE (SEISMIC RESTRAINT) ANCHOR BOLTSBASE PLATE MEMBER 3/8"X8"X8" H (MAX) 1'-6" LOCATION RENZEL PUMP ROOM 4 - 3/4", EMBED 6", 1-1/2" EDGE DISTANCE CCT OUTLET BOX 1'-6"3/8"X12"X30"* ADJUSTABLE PIPE SADDLE SUPPORT WITH U-BOLT, ANVIL FIG 265, OR EQUAL 3/16" MIN 10 - 3/4", EMBED 8", 3" EDGE DISTANCE *PROVIDE SPECIAL FABRICATION FOR BASE PLATE AT DISCHARGE BOX. TYPE 2 SUPPORT PIPE SUPPORT MAY BE ORIENTATED IN ANY DIRECTION. DO NOT CUT OR WELD AFTER GALVANIZING. BOTTOM PIPE STRAP. PIPE AND REDUCER AND WELD 3" STEEL PIPE DIRECTLY TO AS AN ALTERNATE, IF ADJUSTMENT IS NOT NECESSARY, DELETE FLOOR, WALL, NSG, 1" MAX AT EDGES ROUND CORNERS 4 TACK WELDS PIPE, 3" LONG 3" STD. STL. PIPE STRAP 3/8" PL. 4" WIDE PIPE STRAP 1/4" X 2" AT 90 LOCATION 1. NOTES: 3. 2. BASE PLATE, LOCK WASHER 5/8" BOLT, NUT, & PIPE 2 1/2" EXTRA STRONG 5/8" THROUGH BOLT LOCK WASHER WITH NUT & STEEL PIPE. ATTACH DIRECTLY MI N . PLUS PIPE O.D./2. HEIGHT LESS THAN 9" TO BASE PL. WHEN 3" EXTRA STRONG MALLEABLE IRON REDUCER STEEL PIPE WASHERS, DOUBLE WITH LOCK ANCHOR BOLTS NUTTED AT SLAB 2" ANCHOR BOLTS 3/8 X 18 X 18 BASE PLATEH (MAX.) 2'-9" (TYP) MEMBER 4 - 1", EMBED 9" H = H E I G H T H/2 , 6 " M I N . 6" T H R E A D 1/4 " 1/2 " C 1/4 1/4 3/8 X 12 X 121'-6"4 - 3/4", EMBED 6"CCT OUTLET BOX OR CEILING SEE TABLE RENZEL PUMP ROOM SCALE: NONE (SEISMIC RESTRAINT) RENZEL CIVIL DETAILS C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ n i c k . l a z a r a k i s \ d m s 2 2 6 3 6 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 1 1 . d w g N I C K L A Z A R A K I S 8 / 3 / 2 0 1 7 4 : 3 6 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* 1668037.00-C-11.dwg C-11 XL NCL JCB C-06 3BURIED GATE VALVE OPERATOR SCALE: NONE C-06 1TRENCH SECTION FOR PIPES UNDER 24" DIAMETER SCALE: NONE C-06 5TYPICAL THRUST BLOCK INSTALLATION DETAIL SCALE: NONE C-06 4CONCRETE CURB SCALE: NONE C-06 2COMBINATION VALVE DETAIL SCALE: NONE (E) REINF 1'-0" CJ BETWEEN (N) CONC & (E) WALL, SEE NOTE 2 1'- 0 " 1'-0" #4 @ 12" (2) - #5 E GRADE EL. 8.00± (12) - # 5, EQUALLY SPACED, SEE NOTE 5 #5 @ 12", EF (N) REBAR, SEE NOTE 1 2'- 0 " 5'- 8 " OP E N I N G F O R 6 3 " O D P I P E & S E A L 1'- 2 " NOTES: 1. MATCH NEW REBAR SIZE AND SPACING WITH EXISTING REBAR. COUPLE EXISTING REBAR TO NEW REBAR WITH BAR COUPLERS, LENTON, OR EQUAL, AND TERMINATE NEW BARS WITH STANDARD HOOKS OR BAR TERMINATORS, LENTON, OR EQUAL, AS NECESSARY. 2. REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE WALL AND SLAB AROUND (N) PENETRATION PER SECTIONS. REMOVE REBAR AND REPLACE PER NOTE 1. ROUGHEN CONSTRUCTION JOINT WITH EPOXY BONDING AGENT. 3. PIPE PENETRATION OPENING CENTERLINE TO MATCH CENTERLINE OF EXISTING 54" PIPE. 4. CONTRACTOR TO EXCAVATE SOILS AROUND ENTIRE STRUCTURE TO REMOVE ALL EARTH LOADS DURING CONSTRUCTION. 5. CONTRACTOR TO HOOK REBAR 180° OR PROVIDE BAR TERMINATORS AT ENDS AS NECESSARY IN CONGESTED REBAR AREAS. (N) REBAR, SEE NOTE 1(E) REINF CJ BETWEEN (N) CONC & (E) SLAB, SEE NOTE 2 #5 @ 12", EF #5, EF E GRADE EL. 8.00± 9" OPENING FOR 63" OD PIPE B -B A - A T/ WALL EL. 16.00 T/ WALL EL. 16.00 C EL., SEE NOTE 3L 1'- 2 " 8'-2" 6'-0"1'-1"1'-1" (10) - # 5, EQUALLY SPACED, SEE NOTE 5 (N) REBAR, SEE NOTE 1 (E) REINF #5 @ 12", EF 9'-8" 9"1'-3"5'-8" OPENING FOR 63" OD PIPE & SEAL 1'-3"9" 9" 2'- 0 " ELEVATION SECTION A SECTION B (E) CONCRETE (N) CONCRETE HYDROPHILIC WATERSTOP STARTER WALL CJ W/ HYDROPHILIC WATERSTOP HYDROPHILIC WATERSTOP (4) - #5 OPENING BARS, EF REINF, SEE SECTION A REINF, SEE SECTION B OUTFALL BOX MODIFICATIONS C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ n i c k . l a z a r a k i s \ d m s 2 0 4 4 7 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - S - 0 1 . d w g N I C K L A Z A R A K I S 8 / 9 / 2 0 1 7 1 0 : 0 3 A M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (N) OUTFALL NO. 1 (700-HDPE-1001) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 *90% DESIGN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION* 1668037.00-S-01.dwg S-01 JLB JLB JDS PIPE PENETRATION DETAIL 0 3 1/2"=1'-0" 1 2 DISTR MANUFACTURER MOTOR CONTROL CENTER MANHOLE MOTOR OPERATED VALVE MISCELLANEOUS NORMALLY CLOSED MOTOR STARTER MOUNTING MOUNTED MANUFACTURER'S ASSOC. NOT IN CONTRACT NOT TO SCALE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL P2. MOTOR CIRCUIT PROTECTOR NORMALLY OPEN, NUMBER MANUAL TRANSFER SWITCH NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE THIS IS A GENERALIZED LEGEND SHEET. THIS CONTRACT MAY NOT USE ALL INFORMATION SHOWN. NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF CONFLICTS IN EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS ARE DISCOVERED OR IF PROBLEMS ARISE DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS, LACK OF INFORMATION OR ANY OTHER REASON. NO PAYMENT WILL BE MADE FOR CHANGES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN FAVORABLY REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEER. THESE DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY; EXACT LOCATIONS OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER. THE INSTALLATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS OR DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE LATEST EDITIONS OF ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND UTILITY COMPANY STANDARDS. CONTACT THE UTILITY COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES AND VERIFY THEIR REQUIREMENTS. CONDUIT SIZE AND FILL SHALL BE AS INDICATED. WHERE NO SIZE IS SHOWN, THE CONDUIT SHALL BE SIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING CODE ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION. WHERE NO FILL IS INDICATED, THE FILL SHALL BE 2#12. PROVIDE 3/16 INCH NYLON PULL ROPE IN EACH EMPTY CONDUIT. PLAN NOTES: P1. ELAPSED TIME METERETM FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL GENERAL NOTES: G1. FACP FDR FEEDER G3. G2. NTS NIC NO DISTRIBUTION PANEL DOUBLE POLE, DOUBLE THROW DOUBLE POLE, SINGLE THROW ELECTRICAL HANDHOLE ELECTRIC, ELECTRICAL EHH EQ EQPT EFFL ENCL EMERG ELEM ELEC EL, ELEV EFFLUENT ENCLOSURE EQUIPMENT EQUAL ELEVATION ELEMENTARY EMERGENCY EA EF DWG (E) DP DPDT DPST DN DRAWING EXISTING EXHAUST FAN EACH DISTRIBUTION DOWN NC NEMA NEUT NEC NEUTRAL MTS (N) MTD MTG NEW MH MOV MS MIN MISC MINIMUM MFR MCP MAX MCC MAXIMUM LOWER CASE LETTERS ADJACENT TO A SWITCH OR LIGHT FIXTURE INDICATE A SWITCHED CIRCUIT. FOR FOUR LAMP FLUORESCENT FIXTURES WIRED IN PAIRS WITHIN EACH FIXTURE, THE "a" SWITCH CONTROLS THE OUTER LAMPS AND THE "b" SWITCH CONTROLS THE INNER LAMPS; WIRE 3 LAMP FIXTURES SIMILARLY. P3. P4. WATERTIGHT TRANSFORMER WATER TREATMENT PLANT INFORMATION SHOWN MAY NOT BE ALL INCLUSIVE. SEE ALSO ANSI C37.2, Y1.1, Y32.2, AND Y32.9. VERIFY ALL COLOR REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ORDERING MATERIALS. REFER TO THE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS FOR CERTAIN CONTROL DIAGRAMS AND EXACT LOCATIONS OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND FOR CERTAIN CONNECTIONS TO BE MADE TO ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS. G6. G5. G4. XFMR WT WTP TEMPERATURE TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND UNIT HEATER ULTRA VIOLET TYPICAL VOLT-AMPERES VAR-HOUR WIRE, WATTS VERTICAL VOLTS TWISTED SHIELDED PAIR WATTHOUR METER VOLT AMPERES REACTIVE VOLTMETER SWITCH VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE WEATHER RESISTANT WATTHOUR DEMAND METER VS WHDM WR W WHM VERT VH VAR VFD UG UV VA V UH TEMP TSP TYP TEL FA T FLUORESCENT FEET, FOOT FREQUENCY GALVANIZED FORWARD GENERATOR HYDROGEN PEROXIDE HAND-OFF-REMOTE HORSEPOWER HORIZONTAL HANDHOLE HAND-OFF-AUTOMATIC HIGH VOLTAGE INPUT/OUTPUT INCANDESCENT INDICATING LIGHT HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM KILOVOLTS KILOAMPERES KILOVOLT AMPERES LIGHTING PANEL KILOWATT HOURS LOW PRESSURE SODIUM KILOWATTS JUNCTION BOX GALVANIZED RIGID STEEL ABBREVIATIONS KILOVOLT AMPERES REACTIVE THOUSANDS OF CIRCULAR MILS KILOVOLT AMPERES REACTIVE INSTRUMENT, INSTRUMENTATION HERTZ (CYCLES PER SECOND) FULL VOLTAGE, NON REVERSING HUMAN MACHINE INTERFACE GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER FULL VOLTAGE, REVERSING LIGHTING CONTROL PANEL MILLIAMPERES COMMUNICATION HANDHOLE COMMUNICATION MANHOLE CONTROL POWER TRANSFORMER CONTINUED, CONTINUATION CURRENT TRANSFORMER CWP DISC DIAG DIA DC CS CT CR CP COLD WATER PIPE DIAGRAM DIRECT CURRENT DISCONNECT DIAMETER CONTROL SWITCH CONTROL RELAY CONTROL PANEL CO CPT CONT COMM COND CMH CKT CHH CL CONDUIT ONLY CONDUCTOR COMMUNICATION CHLORINE CIRCUIT LPS LT(S) (M) mA LTG LIGHT(S) MODIFIED LIGHTING LP LCP KWH KW KV KVARH KVAR KVA HOURS KCMIL KA I/O JB AUTO/MANUAL CONTROLLER CIRCUIT BREAKER AUX. CONTACT, AMERICAN WIRE GAGE CLOSED WHEN BREAKER IS OPEN AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH CONDUIT, CONTACTOR CONTROL CABLE, CLOSING COIL BARE COPPER GROUND C CC CB CAB CAP BLDG BCG b CABINET CIRCUIT BREAKER CAPACITOR BUILDING AT AWG AUX AUTO ATS APPROX AS A/M ANN AMMETER TRIP AUTOMATIC AUXILIARY APPROXIMATE ANNUNCIATOR AMMETER SWITCH HV IND LT INCAND INSTR HZ HTR HPS HORIZ HP HEATER H O HMI HOR HOA 22 HH GND GRS GEN GFI GROUND CIRCUIT BREAKER AUX. CONTACT, AMMETER, AMPERES ALTERNATING CURRENT ANALOG TO DIGITAL CLOSED WHEN BREAKER IS CLOSED AMPERES INTERRUPTING CAPACITY ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR ADJUSTABLE FREQUENCY DRIVEAFD AIC ALT AL AFF ADJ AF A/D AC ALUMINUM ALTERNATOR ADJUSTABLE AMPERE FRAME a A FVNR FWD GALV GA FVR GAUGE (F) FU FREQ FT FUSE FUTURE FLUOR PLC PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC 3/4"C-3#12 RECTIFIER SMOKE DETECTOR SECTION SUPPLY FAN SHEET SOLID NEUTRAL SIGNAL SWITCH SYNCHRONIZING SWITCHGEAR SWITCHBOARD SPECIFICATIONS SECONDS, SECONDARY SINGLE POLE, DOUBLE THROW TERMINAL BOX, TERMINAL BOARD STAINLESS STEEL, SOLID STATE SIGNAL HANDHOLE TELEPHONE CABINET SWBD SWGR SYNC TB TC SPDT SPECS SW SS SF SN SIG SHH SHT SECT SEC SD PANEL CONTROLLER PANELBOARD RELOCATE RELOCATED RECEPTACLE POWER ROOM REQUIRED RESET TIMER PRESSURE SWITCH SILICON CONTROLLED REVOLUTIONS PER MINUTE POLYVINYL CHLORIDE REPEAT CYCLE TIMER POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH PRIMARY RT SCR RM RPM RCPT (RLD) REQD RCT PS PWR (RL) PVC PSI PNLBD PRI PNL PHOTOELECTRIC PHASE POWER FACTOR ALKALINITY PHOTOELECTRIC CELL PULLBOX, PUSHBUTTON MEASURE OF ACIDITY OR POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT PH PF pH PE PEC PB PD PLAN SYMBOLS OH ELEMENTARY DIAGRAM SYMBOLS TRANSIENT VOLTAGETVSSSURGE SUPPRESSOR FINISHED FLOORFF FLEX FLEXIBLE OVERHEAD OVER TEMPERATURE THERMAL OVERLOAD RELAY OH OL OT CONDUIT AND WIRE LAYOUT FOR LIGHTING AND RECEPTACLES NOT SHOWN. PROVIDE PER NEC. NUMBER OF CIRCLES DOES NOT REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF CONDUITS IN THE ENCASEMENT. DELAYED ELEMENTARY DIAGRAMS NAMEPLATE INSCRIPTIONS. NUMBERS AND LETTERS IDENTIFY DEVICE. DEVICE. ANY ADDITIONAL NAMEPLATES ARE LIGHT, SELECTOR SWITCH, ETC. INDICATE THE "NORMAL" STATUS OF SWITCHES OR CONTACTS IS LEGEND PLATE REQUIREMENT FOR THAT PARTICULAR INDICATED ON ELEVATIONS WITH THE REQUIRED UNDERLINED WORDS SHOWN AT A PUSHBUTTON, E3 E2 THE SHELF POSITION. E1 CLOSED * ** OPEN TO CLOSE ON REACHING LIMIT CLOSE ON LEAVING LIMIT TIMED CONTACTS CLOSED DELAYED LIMIT SWITCHES NORMALSYMBOL CLOSED OPEN OPEN CLOSED TO DELAYED DELAYED OPEN SENSING SWITCHES RISING CLOSE ON FALLING TEMPERATURE PRESSURE LEVEL SENSED VARIABLE FLOW ON THE OTHER DIAGRAM IF OMITTED, THEN THE SPEC. NORMALLY CLOSED CONTACT SPARE CONTACTS APPLY. REQUIREMENTS REGARDING SPARE CONTACTS ON RELAY. ON THIS DIAGRAM CROSS REFERENCE TO NORMALLY OPEN CONTACT ANOTHER DIAGRAM SINGLE LINE SYMBOLS MOTOR STARTER NUMBER INDICATES NEMA SIZE POWER CIRCUIT BREAKER DRAWOUT ABOVE 1500V RATING AS NOTED * 2-2, 3, 0, 0 EMH EHH SHH SEMI CIRCLE DENOTES DOWNWARD CONDUIT RISER COMBINATION MOTOR STARTER FIBER OPTICFO ** GROUND CONNECTION SWITCH, 3 POLE EXCEPT WHERE NOTED. RATING IN AMPERES AS NOTED AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH 3 POLE, RATING AS NOTED SHUNT TRIP FUSE FUSE CUTOUT CIRCUIT BREAKER, 3 POLE EXCEPT WHERE NOTED. RATING IN AMPERES AS NOTED. IF TWO RATINGS APPEAR (EG. 100/625) THEN DEVICE IS MCP; NUMERATOR IS CONTINUOUS CURRENT RATING & DENOMINATOR IS INSTANTANEOUS TRIP SETTING. CURRENT TRANSFORMER VOLTAGE TRANSFORMER POWER OR DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER RATING AS NOTED MOTOR. NUMBER INDICATES HORSEPOWER GENERATOR CONTROL PACKAGE PROVIDED WITH THE DRIVEN EQUIPMENT BUS STAB ON MCC OR SWITCHGEAR, CORD & PLUG CONNECTION FOR MOTORS THERMAL OVERLOAD A - AMMETER V - VOLTMETER WH - WATTHOUR METER GS - GROUND FAULT SENSOR AMMETER SWITCH VOLTMETER SWITCH ELEMENTARY DIAGRAM REFERENCE NUMBER KIRK KEY INTERLOCK POWER RECEPTACLE FOR PORTABLE EQUIPMENT RELAY DEVICE FUNCTION, # PER ANSI NUMBER C37.2 TERMINATOR / POTHEAD SPLICE, TERMINATION CAPACITOR - KVAR INDICATED AFD - ADJUSTABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE SS - SOLID STATE STARTER AFD WITH BYPASS CONTACTOR, CONTACTOR NEMA SIZE AS INDICATED SURGE PROTECTIVE DEVICE SS STARTER WITH BUILT-IN FULL SPEED CONTACTOR FUSE. RATING IN AMPERES ELAPSED TIME METER MOTOR CONTROL DEVICE COIL. PREFIX NUMBER, WHEN USED, DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN DEVICES OF THE SAME TYPE. ALT - ALTERNATOR CR - CONTROL RELAY GR - GENERAL RELAY ISR - INTRINSICALLY SAFE RELAY LR - LATCH RELAY SV - SOLENOID VALVE PR - PROBE RELAY TD - TIME DELAY RELAY INDICATING LIGHT PUSH-TO-TEST INDICATING LIGHT COLORS: A - AMBER B - BLUE C - CLEAR G - GREEN R - RED N - NEON W - WHITE Y - YELLOW SINGLE POLE SWITCH NORMALLY OPEN / CLOSED EMERGENCY PUSHBUTTON NORMALLY OPEN / CLOSED PUSHBUTTON NORMALLY OPEN / CLOSED SWITCH 1-POLE / 3-POLE MULTI-POSITION SELECTOR SWITCH HAND-OFF-AUTOMATIC SWITCH X-INDICATES CONTACTS CLOSED HAND-OFF-REMOTE SWITCH X-INDICATES CONTACTS CLOSED TERMINAL CONTROL POWER TRANSFORMER MOTOR HEATER CIRCUIT BREAKER, MCP 1-POLE / 3-POLE GROUND CONNECTION CONTACT NORMALLY OPEN / CLOSED BUS STAB ON MCC; CORD & PLUG CONNECTION FOR MOTORS THERMAL OVERLOAD BUZZER BELL HORN TR - TIMING RELAY OVERHEAD POWER LINE UNDERGROUND CONDUIT UNDERGROUND DUCT LINE (CONCRETE ENCASEMENT) NOTE P4 UNDERGROUND DIRECT BURIAL CONDUITS NOTE P4 MULTIPLE CONDUIT RUN CONDUIT CONCEALED IN FLOOR CONDUIT CONCEALED IN WALL OR CEILING CONDUIT EXPOSED CALLOUT INDICATING CONDUIT SIZE, NUMBER OF WIRES AND WIRE SIZE CALLOUT INDICATING CONDUIT PER SCHEDULE CONDUIT RUN, HATCH MARKS INDICATE NO. OF #12 CONDUCTORS NO HATCH MARKS IS 2#12 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED HOME RUN TO PANELBOARD OR AS INDICATED FLEXIBLE CONDUIT CONDUIT RUN, BROKEN AND CONTINUED ON SAME SHEET OR AS NOTED CONDUIT WITH SEAL FITTING CAP ON CONDUIT STUB OPEN CIRCLE DENOTES UPWARD CONDUIT RISER INDICATES REMOVAL FIRE ALARM CONDUIT TELEPHONE CONDUIT 120V SURFACE MOUNTED PANELBOARD 120V FLUSH MOUNTED PANELBOARD MOTOR DISCONNECT SAFETY SWITCH MANUAL MOTOR STARTER CONTROL STATION EQUIPMENT MOUNTING STAND GROUND ROD AND BOX INSTRUMENT ELECTRIC MANHOLE / POWER HANDHOLE / SIGNAL HANDHOLE INTRUSION REMOTE KEY PAD INTRUSION DOOR SWITCH SECURITY ALARM PANEL SINGLE POLE SWITCH 2 = 2 POLE, 3 = 3 WAY, 4 = 4 WAY, K = KEY OPERATED WR = WEATHER RESISTANT D = DIMMER P = SWITCH WITH PILOT LIGHT SINGLE POLE SWITCH (NOTE P2) FLUORESCENT FIXTURE (NOTE P2) FLUORESCENT FIXTURE WITH NIGHT LIGHTING (UNSWITCHED) OR FLUORESCENT FIXTURE WITH SELF-CONTAINED EMERGENCY BALLAST/BATTERY WALL/CEILING MOUNTED FIXTURE WALL/CEILING MOUNTED FIXTURE NIGHT LIGHTING (UNSWITCHED) POLE MOUNTED FIXTURE WALL/CEILING MOUNTED EXIT LIGHT - DIRECTIONAL ARROW WHERE INDICATED, SHADED AREA INDICATES ILLUMINATED FACE EMERGENCY LIGHT WITH SELF CONTAINED BATTERY LIGHT FIXTURE IDENTIFICATION SINGLE RECEPTACLE, 120V SINGLE RECEPTACLE, 240V DUPLEX WALL RECEPTACLE, 120V WR = WEATHER RESISTANT G = GROUNDED IG = ISOLATED GROUND GF = GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER DOUBLE DUPLEX WALL RECEPTACLE, 120V DUPLEX FLOOR RECEPTACLE, 120V MULTI-OUTLET ASSEMBLY WITH SINGLE RECEPTACLE, 120V SPACING (X INCHES) AS NOTED, MOUNTING HEIGHT AS NOTED RECEPTACLE, 480V WALL/CEILING MOUNTED JUNCTION BOX FLOOR RECESS MOUNTED JUNCTION BOX THERMOSTAT, WALL MOUNTED WALL TELEPHONE OUTLET (+12") DATA WALL OUTLET TELE-DATA WALL OUTLET FLOOR OUTLETS FIRE ALARM PULL STATION FIRE ALARM FLASHING LIGHT FIRE ALARM HORN BELL BUZZER HEAT DETECTOR SMOKE DETECTOR FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL PROXIMITY SENSOR WALL SENSOR S SECURITY SYSTEM CONDUIT INSTRUMENT 12' #11 AMP/FRAME EQUIPMENT CONNECTION 480V SURFACE MOUNTED PANELBOARD 480V FLUSH MOUNTED PANELBOARD ANTENNA X " CONDUIT ID JIM V O N D E R A H E 8 / 8 / 2 0 1 7 4 : 5 6 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA RWQCP OUTFALL REPLACE-RAHAB 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 RFB RFB SS ELECTRICAL LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS E-01 1668037.00-E-01.dwg pw : \ \ k j c e - p w . b e n t l e y . c o m : k j c e - p w \ D o c u m e n t s \ C l i e n t s \ P a l o A l t o , C i t y o f C A \ R W Q C P O u t f a l l R e p l a c e - R e h a b _ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 \ 1 0 - D e s i g n \ 1 0 . 0 6 - D r a w i n g s \ E l e c t r i c a l \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - E - 0 1 SINGLE-LINE DIAGRAM - (E) MOTOR CONTROL CENTER MCC-UVF A MF 402 75 0 K W D I E S E L ST A N D B Y G E N E R A T O R 800AF 700AT MA I N P O W E R DIS T R I B U T I O N P A N E L "M P D " 401 1200AF 1000AT 1000A, 3P SO L A R S Y S T E M INV E R T E R 403 SU B M E R S I B L E P U M P SP - 9 1 0 404 405 406 GA T E G - 1 0 1 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 GA T E G - 1 0 2 GA T E G - 1 0 3 GA T E G - 1 0 4 GA T E G - 1 0 5 GA T E G - 1 0 6 GA T E G - 2 0 1 GA T E G - 2 0 2 GA T E G - 3 0 1 418 HMCP 15 419 2 EX H A U S T F A N OV E R H E A D C R A N E FO R C O N T I N U A T I O N SE E A B O V E AU T O M A T I C HA R M O N I C FIL T E R S SP A R E 423A 424 FO R C O N T I N U A T I O N SE E B E L O W MCC-UVF 480V, 3Ø, 4W, 1400A BUS, 65kAIC1000/5 1200AF 1000AT SATS FOR CONTINUATION SEE DRAWING E-2 MCC-UVF 480V, 3Ø, 4W, 1400A BUS, 65kAIC 100A 400E 30A,3P (TYP. UON) 100AF 20AT 30A 1 STANDBY GENERATOR'S ACCESSORIES INCLUDE JACKET WATER HEATER, LIGHTING, RECEPTACLE, BATTERY CHARGER AND BATTERIES. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS (DIV. 16) FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL BREAKERS SHALL BE THREE POLE. THIS SINGLE-LINE DOES NOT SHOWN COMPLETE REQUIRED CONDUIT AND CABLE FOR THE UV EQUIPMENT. REFER TO DRAWING E-15 FOR DETAILED REQUIREMENTS FOR THE UV EQUIPMENT INTERCONNECTIONS. REFER TO CABLE AND CONDUIT SCHEDULES SHOWN ON DRAWING E-19, E-20 & E-21 FOR CONDUIT AND CABLE DETAILS. PROVIDE REQUIRED PT's AND CT's FOR COMPLETE FUNCTIONS OF THE MULTI-FUNCTION ELECTRONIC METER. MAIN BUS WITH 100% FULL CAPACITY NEUTRAL. THIS ATS SHALL BE PROGRAMMED TO PROVIDE AUTOMATIC POWER TRANSFER AND MANUAL POWER RE-TRANSFER TO MATCH EXISTING OPERATIONS OF EXISTING ATS. SEE DIV. 16 FOR DETAILS. SHEET NOTES: 2 1 2 (TYP.) 400 425 15 15 VFD RE C Y C L E D WA T E R P U M P # 1 RE C Y C L E D WA T E R P U M P # 2 3 3 422 100AF 50AT XFMR-A 30kVA,3Ø 208/120V LIG H T I N G P A N E L "LP U V " UPS 5KVA PO W E R P A N E L "LP U P S " 426 417 GA T E G - 4 0 2 GA T E G - 3 0 2 416 GA T E G - 4 0 1 420 100AF 70AT WE L D I N G R E C E P T A C L E 48 0 V , 5 0 A , 3 P 421 100AF 20AT P-4 0 1 P-4 0 2 P-4 0 6 P-4 0 7 P-4 0 8 P-4 0 9 P-4 1 0 P-4 1 1 P-4 1 3 P-4 1 4 P-4 1 5 P-4 1 6 P-4 1 7 P-4 1 8 P-4 1 9 P-4 2 0 P-4 2 1 P-4 2 3 A P-4 2 5 P-4 2 6 P-4 2 2 P-4 2 2 A P-4 2 5 A P-4 2 6 A CC 1 1 3 CC 1 0 2 CC 1 0 6 CC 1 0 1 CC 1 1 0 CC 1 1 1 CC 1 0 3 CC 1 0 7 CC 1 0 4 CC 1 0 8 CC 1 0 5 CC 1 0 9 CC 1 1 4 CC 1 1 2 CC 1 1 5 CC 1 1 6 CC 1 1 7 100AF 40AT 100AF 100AT 100AF 20AT 100AF 20AT 100AF 20AT 100AF 20AT 100AF 20AT 100AF 20AT 100AF 20AT 100AF 20AT 100AF 20AT 100AF 20AT 100AF 20AT 100AF 20AT 100AF 30AT 100AF 30AT 4 4 CC 1 2 5 CC 1 2 6 GA T E , S G - 9 0 1 GA T E , S G - 9 0 2 400 FU T U R E B A N K 1 D 401 MAIN POWER DISTRIBUTION PANEL "MPD" 800A, 480V/277, 3Ø, 4W, 65KAIC 800AF 700AT P-4 0 1 P-4 4 0 BA N K 1 A PDC ID 402 P-4 4 1 BA N K 1 B PDC IA 403 P-4 4 2 BA N K 1 C PDC IB 404 P-4 4 3 PDC IC 405 P-4 4 4 BA N K 2 A PDC 2D 406 P-4 4 5 BA N K 2 B PDC 2A 407 P-4 4 6 PDC 2B 408 P-4 4 7 PDC 2C 409 P-4 4 8 PDC 3D FU T U R E B A N K 2 D FU T U R E B A N K 3 D BA N K 2 C BA N K 3 A 410 P-4 4 9 BA N K 3 B PDC 3A 411 P-4 5 0 PDC 3B 412 P-4 5 1 PDC 3C BA N K 3 C 413 P-4 5 2 PDC 4D FU T U R E B A N K 4 D BA N K 4 A 414 P-4 5 3 BA N K 4 B PDC 4A 415 P-4 5 4 PDC 4B 416 P-4 5 5 PDC 4C BA N K 4 C HY D R A L I C S Y S T E M NO . 1 417 P-4 5 6 30A HSC 2 418 P-4 5 7 30A MA I N F E E D E R F R O M MC C - U V F 40A 40A 40A 40A 40A 40A 40A 40A 40A 40A 40A 40A 40A 40A 40A 40A HY D R A L I C S Y S T E M NO . 2 HSC 1 60A, 3P 60A,3P (TYP OF 12) 5 6 5 6 P-4 0 0 E 30A, 3P 30A, 3P 423B 100A P-4 2 3 B PRIMARY STANDBY 7 7 VFD 3% LINE REACTOR 1 DATA LINK 5 P-4 1 2 CC 1 3 7 GA T E G - 1 0 8 P-4 2 4 60 dv/dt 30A,3P (TYP. UON) 20A VFD 5% LINE REACTOR SCALE: NT SINGLE LINE DRAWING IS BASED ON 2008 'UV DISINFECTION FACILITY' PROJECT 20A JIM V O N D E R A H E 8 / 8 / 2 0 1 7 5 : 0 0 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA RWQCP OUTFALL REPLACE-RAHAB 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 SS RFB SS ELECTRICAL SINGLE-LINE DIAGRAM E-02 1668037.00-E-02.dwg pw : \ \ k j c e - p w . b e n t l e y . c o m : k j c e - p w \ D o c u m e n t s \ C l i e n t s \ P a l o A l t o , C i t y o f C A \ R W Q C P O u t f a l l R e p l a c e - R e h a b _ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 \ 1 0 - D e s i g n \ 1 0 . 0 6 - D r a w i n g s \ E l e c t r i c a l \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - E - 0 2 JIM V O N D E R A H E 8 / 8 / 2 0 1 7 5 : 0 6 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA RWQCP OUTFALL REPLACE-RAHAB 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 SS RFB SS ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN E-03 1668037.00-E-03.dwg pw : \ \ k j c e - p w . b e n t l e y . c o m : k j c e - p w \ D o c u m e n t s \ C l i e n t s \ P a l o A l t o , C i t y o f C A \ R W Q C P O u t f a l l R e p l a c e - R e h a b _ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 \ 1 0 - D e s i g n \ 1 0 . 0 6 - D r a w i n g s \ E l e c t r i c a l \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - E - 0 3 1"=100' 0 100 200 SITE PLAN (1) 1"C WITH 2#10, 1#10G (E) OUTFALL CONNECTION W/(2) NEW MOTORIZED GATE VALVES (N) EFFLUENT MONITORING STATION W/ (2)pH/TEMP SENSORS AND (2) DO SENSORS (1) 2"C WITH FIBER( 6 STRANDED SINGLE MODE) (E) CHLORINE CONTACT TANK OUTLET BOX W/(N) SUMP PUMP (E) CHLORINE STATION & UV ELECTRICAL ROOM EHH4 AND SHH4 EHH6 AND SHH6 EHH8 AND SHH8 EHH10 AND SHH10 ALL EHH AND SHH PENITRATIONS NEED TO BE SEALED FOR MOISTURE AND CRITTER PREVENTION. NOTES: SEE SHEET E-04 FOR CONTINUATION EHH5 AND SHH5 EHH7 AND SHH7 EHH9 AND SHH9 SS JIM V O N D E R A H E 8 / 8 / 2 0 1 7 5 : 1 1 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA RWQCP OUTFALL REPLACE-RAHAB 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 SS JEV SS ELECTRICAL FACILITY SITE PLAN E-04 1668037.00-E-04.dwg (E) MAINTENANCE BLDG. & WAREHOUSE UV DISINFECTION (E) OLD CHLORINE TANK CHLORINE STATION0 1"=1' 1 2 3 SITE PLAN (N) OUTFALL CONDUIT RUN REFER TO SHEET E-03 FOR CONTINUATION (E) OUTFALL CONNECTION (E) CHLORINE STATION & UV ELECTRICAL ROOM REFER TO SHEET E-05 FOR INTERNAL LAYOUT. (N) (1) 2"C WITH FIBER; FOR OUTFALL ANALYZERS (N) (1) 2"C WITH FIBER; (1) 2"C #2VFD CABLE + GND FOR SUMP PUMP (N) (1) 1"C 8#14 FOR SUMP PUMP AND LEVEL SWITCH. (N) (1) 1"C, 4#14, FOR THE OPEN/CLOSE GATE SWITCHES (E) CHLORINE CONTACT TANK 2' x 2' EHH1 WITH 480V POWER FOR SUMP PUMP AND OUTFALL VALVES. (N) (2) 1"C,2#10, 1#10G FOR 240V POWER AT OUTFALL ANALYZER NEW SUMP PUMP (60HP) START/STOP & LOS SWITCH FOR SUMP PUMP 2' x 2' CHH1 WITH 120V POWER FOR SUMP PUMP CONTROLS AND OUTFALL GATE VALVES. 2' x 2' SHH1 FIBER FOR OUTFALL PIPE ANALYZERS. LSL CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY CONDUIT RUN INTO BUILDING VIA AVAILABLE CONDUITS IN EXISTING MANHOLES. CONTRACTOR TO FOLLOW NEC GUIDLINES WITH REGARDS TO PROPERLY COMBINING CONDUIT RUNS AS NEEDED. (E) STANDBY GENERATOR THESE CONDUITS ARE TO BE RUN ABOVE GROUND AND PROPERLY ATTACHED TO THE SIDE OF THE (E) CHLORINE TANK. UNDERGROUND CONDUIT RUNS (TYP) 2' x 2' EHH3 2' x 2' CHH3 2' x 2' EHH2 2' x 2' CHH2 2' x 2' SHH2 (N) MOTORIZED GATE VALVE (TYP) DISCONNECT SWITCH (TYP) (N) (1) 1"C WITH 2#10, 1#10G FOR 240V POWER AT OUTFALL ANALYZER SPARE CONDUITS P-403 AND P-404 TO BE USED FOR VFD (P-910) , VALVE ACUATORS (SG-901 & SG-902) AND EFFLUENT MONITORING STATION. P-403: 2"C., #2 VFD CABLE + GND P-404" 2"C., 2#10, 1#10G, 12#12, 2#12G SPARE CONDUITS IC-157 TO BE USED FOR EFFLUENT MONITORING STATION FIBER. IC-157: 2"C., FIBER, 4#14 TERMINATE VENDOR CABLES IN JUNCTION BOX ME D I U M V O L T A G E ( 1 5 K V ) LO A D C E N T E R L C 9 MO T O R C O N T R O L C E N T E R M C C - U V F MAIN CONTROL PANEL MCP-1 LV 600V PULLBOX LVPP-1 MV 15KV PULLBOX MVPP-1 INST. PULLBOX IPP-1 UNDERGROUND PULLBOX H2 LOADING (TYPICAL) TO STANDBY GENERATOR PULLBOX MVPP-2 MAIN POWER DISTRIBUTION PANEL MPD DN CONTINUED ON SHEET E-04 SPARE CONDUITS P-403 AND P-404 TO BE USED FOR VFD (P-910) , VALVE ACUATORS (SG-901 & SG-902) AND EFFLUENT MONITORING STATION. P-403: 2"C., #2 VFD CABLE + GND P-404" 2"C., 2#10, 1#10G; 6#12, 1#12G; SPARE CONDUITS IC-157 TO BE USED FOR EFFLUENT MONITORING STATION FIBER. IC-157: 2"C., FIBER, 12#14 HAND RAIL (TYP) 2"C., #2 VFD CABLE + GROUND (FROM VFD TO PUMP) 1-1/2"C., 3#2, #8GND (FROM MCC TO VFD) BOTTOM OF SUMP PUMP VFD WALL MOUNTED AT 2.75' (ANCHORED PER MANUFACTURERS REQUIREMENTS) JIM V O N D E R A H E 8 / 8 / 2 0 1 7 5 : 3 0 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA RWQCP OUTFALL REPLACE-RAHAB 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 SS RFB SS ELECTRICAL UV BUILDING PLAN E-05 1668037.00-E-05.dwg pw : \ \ k j c e - p w . b e n t l e y . c o m : k j c e - p w \ D o c u m e n t s \ C l i e n t s \ P a l o A l t o , C i t y o f C A \ R W Q C P O u t f a l l R e p l a c e - R e h a b _ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 \ 1 0 - D e s i g n \ 1 0 . 0 6 - D r a w i n g s \ E l e c t r i c a l \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - E - 0 5 PLANT TRU E SITE PLAN 1/4"=1'-0" 30 6 SHEET NOTES: 1 ADD I/O MODULES AS REQUIRED. ASSUME CONTRACTOR TO REPLACE MANAGE SWITCH TO CONNECT FIBER. 2 ASSURE SPARE FIBER STRANDS LANDED ON PATCH PANEL TERMINATIONS. 12 CHIP AWAY EXISTING ENCASEMENT FAR ENOUGH TO MAKE CLEAN INTERCEPT, LEAVING UN-INTERCEPTED CONDUIT INTACT. POUR NEW ENCASEMENT ONLY AFTER TESTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE JOINT WITH A FULL-SIZED MANDREL AND SWAB. INTERCEPT TO OCCUR AFTER SCE REMOVES CONDUCTORS. 1. 2. 3. NOTES: CONDUCTOR GROUNDING BARE COPPER CAST IRON TRAFFIC COVER ADJUST TO FINISHED GRADE CAST IRON GRADE RING EMBOSSED "GROUND ROD" FINISHED GRADE 2" 2" 4"MI N . 12 " MIN. DIA. 10-3/8" GROUND ROD 3/4"X10'-0" COPPER-CLAD STEEL CONDUIT PRECAST CONCRETE BOX PEA GRAVEL BARE COPPER GROUNDING CONDUCTOR GROUND CONNECTOR BURNDY TYPE GAR, COMPACTED EARTH GD OR GK 9" MIN. DIA. 18 " M I N 3/8 " MI N 1/4 " 3/8 " MI N POWER SIGNAL/CONTROL 3" 1/4" 1 1/2" MIN 1/4" MIN 3" MIN CONDUITS CONDUITS COMPACTED BACKFILL FINISHED GRADE #4 REBAR AT 2'-0" O.C. CONDUIT TIE WIRE AT EACH SPACER LOCATION PLASTIC SPACERS MIN (1) PER LAYING LENGTH AND AT 5'-0" O.C. MAX #4 x 2' REBAR ANCHOR AT 2'-0" O.C. (TY P U N L E S S NO T E D ) CONCRETE ENCASEMENT. SEE NOTE 1. SUPPORT STRUCTURE 1/4" SS BOLTS 3/8" SS J-HOOK SS KELLEM GRIP TO SUPPORT CABLE MFR CABLE 2" 2" 2" 2" 8" 2" 2" 2'- 4 " 6" WARNING TAPE COMPACTED FILL SUB-GRADE COMPACTION IS PER SPECIFICATION 02301 SIGNAL CONDUIT (SIZE AS REQUIRED) SAND POWER CONDUIT (SIZE AS REQUIRED) GRAVEL OR FILL DIRT FINISHED GRADE SAW CUT EDGES 1 CUBIC YARD DRAIN GRAVEL 3" DIA. OPENING CONDUIT END BELLS FLUSH GROUTEDPULLING IRONS OPPOSITE EACH DUCT BANK (#4 BAR) CABLE RACKS AS REQUIRED 12" SECTION, P-2000 EMBEDDED IN EACH WALL WITH CABLE RACKS AS REQUIRED PRECAST UTILITY VAULT 444-L4 OR EQUAL WITH 24" x 24" x 24" OUTSIDE MEASUREMENTS SQUARE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED STEEL ACCESS HATCH WITH HINGES AND LOCKS H-20 LOAD RATED PROBE VENDOR CABLE LENGTH AS REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION ADAPTER FITTING - 10 FIELD MOUNTED ANALYZER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 2" GRS PIPE CONDUIT FOR POWER CABLES 3' X 3' CONCRETE PAD LEVEL SENSOR ACCESS LADDER JUNCTION BOX - 8GUARDRAIL EQUIPMENT MOUNTING SST BOX WITH PATCH PANEL & MANAGE SWITCH - 9TYPICAL CONDUIT ENTRY INTO BLDG FLEXIBLE COUPLING NOTE 1 THICKENED SLAB IF NECCESSARY PVC OR RMC CONDUIT NOTE 1: UL LISTED FLEXIBLE COUPLING IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT. UNDERGROUND CONC ENCASEMENT - 1BARE COPPER CONNECTION GROUND ROD AND BOX WITH - 2EXISTING CONDUIT - 3CONCRETE ENCASED TRENCH DETAIL - 4KELLEM GRIP CABLE SUPPORT DETAIL TYPICAL INTERCEPT OF - 5TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL - 6TYPICAL HANDHOLE DETAIL - 7SUMP PUMP LEVEL SENSOR - 11FIBER OPTIC ANALYZER LAYOUT CONTROL STATION (START/STOP) - 12 CONTROL STATION (LOCKOUT STOP) JIM V O N D E R A H E 8 / 8 / 2 0 1 7 5 : 3 4 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA RWQCP OUTFALL REPLACE-RAHAB 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 JEV JEV SS ELECTRICAL DETAILS E-06 1668037.00-E-06.dwg L3L2L1 1FU 120V 480V M T3 T2 T1 100A 3P 480V, 3Ø, 60 HZ SUBMERSIBLE PUMP P-910 CR-4 RUNNING TO PLC 4-20mA SPEED INDICATION TO PLC 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 DV/DT FILTER CR-3 FAILURE TO PLC 5% LINE REACTOR NEMA 1 GASKETED HS-910BJIM V O N D E R A H E 8 / 8 / 2 0 1 7 5 : 3 9 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA RWQCP OUTFALL REPLACE-RAHAB 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 JEV JEV SS ELECTRICAL WIRING DIAGRAMS E-07 1668037.00-E-07.dwg SUBMERSIBLE PUMP CONTROL WIRING ELECTROMAGNETIC OR SONIC (GUIDED) SOFTWARE OR DATALINK CAPILLARY TUBE PNEUMATIC ELECTRICAL SIGNAL ROTAMETER WITH INTEGRAL VALVE LINES SQUARE ROOT D - HYDRAULIC O - H - NONLINEAR OR BIAS LOW SELECTING HIGH SELECTING SUMMING DIFFERENCE Z AXIS INTEGRAL PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC CONTROL FUNCTION COMPUTER EXPONENTIAL GENERAL INSTRUMENT OR FUNCTION SYMBOLS DISCRETE INSTRUMENTS SHARED DISPLAY, SHARED CONTROL PRESENCE POSITION, DIMENSIONZ FIELD MOUNTED CONNECTED (DIFFERENT VOLTAGES ARE SPECIFICALLY NOTED) DISCRETE INPUT DISCRETE OUTPUT 120 VAC ELECTRICAL SERVICE INSTRUMENT AIR SUPPLY (NOTE 4) INSTRUMENT SERVICES PLC INPUT/OUTPUT ANALOG INPUT ANALOG OUTPUT NOT CONNECTED BEHIND THE PANEL INACCESSIBLE OR MAIN PROCESS UNCLASSIFIED FINAL TO OPERATOR ACCESSIBLE PRIMARY LOCATION NORMALLY MECHANICAL OR ELECTRICAL BW24" PIPE SIZE IN INCHES PIPE SYSTEM SECONDARY PROCESS ALARM DAMPER USER'S CHOICE INDICATE LIGHT USER'S CHOICE GLASS, VIEWING DEVICE ORIFICE, RESTRICTION SENSOR (PRIMARY ELEMENT) SWITCH RECORD WELL UNCLASSIFIED MULTIFUNCTION POINT (TEST) CONNECTION J-1: IDENTIFICATION LETTERS (SEE TABLE BELOW) MODIFIER FLOW PRIMARY ELEMENTS THERMAL MASS FLOWMETER POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT TYPE PRIMARY ELEMENT TURBINE OR PROPELLER-TYPE ROTAMETER WEIR J-6: HANDSWITCH DESIGNATOR (SEE BELOW) FUNCTION OUTPUT SUCCEEDING LETTERS USER'S CHOICE J-5: PANEL NUMBER FLUME J-4: FUNCTION BLOCK (SEE TABLE BELOW) PASSIVE FUNCTION READOUT OR USER'S CHOICE SLUICE GATE OR SLIDE GATE AVERAGING PITOT TUBE VENTURI TUBE SINGLE PORT PITOT TUBE OR PITOT-VENTURI TUBE ORIFICE PLATE REFERENCE TO A SPECIFIC ELEMENTARY INTERLOCK. NUMBER IS THE CROSS STRATEGY DESCRIBED IN THE SPECS DIAGRAM OR TO A SPECIFIC CONTROL FH - T - FILLED SYSTEM, DIAPHRAGM SEAL CONNECTION RADIATION OR SONIC SENSING TYPICAL CONNECTION DIRECT CONNECTION TO PROCESS TEMPERATURE ELEMENT WITH WELL SHADING INDICATES PORT TO BE CLOSED DURING NORMAL OPERATION. DOT INDICATES PORT TO BE CLOSED DURING ALTERNATE OPERATION. VALVE OPERATORS IN-LINE DEVICE MOTOR PRESSURE BALANCED DIAPHRAGM AV - DIAPHRAGM WATER LINE AIR VALVE FILTER FLEXIBLE COUPLING *F - CYLINDER OPERATOR SOLENOID VALVE SOLENOID RUBBER EXPANSION JOINT DRAIN PURGE THERMOMETER WELL FIRE HYDRANT TRAP PINCH VALVE VALVES WELDED CAP DIAPHRAGM SEAL EQUIPMENT FLANGED COUPLING ADAPTER REDUCER BLIND FLANGE Y STRAINER SCREWED CAP TEE FLANGE UNION DIAPHRAGM VALVE BUTTERFLY VALVE PLUG VALVE GLOBE VALVE CHECK VALVE GATE VALVE GRAVITY FLOW VERTICAL TURBINE PUMP MIXER SUBMERSIBLE PUMP PUMP BLOWER PUMP METERING PUMP PUMP PROGRESSIVE CAVITY ROTARY PUMP PERISTALTIC PUMP AIR RELIEF VALVE LEVEL PROBE AIR RELEASE CHEMICAL DIFFUSER HB CALIBRATION CYLINDER PULSATION DAMPER EDUCTOR/INJECTOR THIS IS A GENERALIZED LEGEND SHEET. SEE ALSO ISA S5.1, S5.3 AND S7.3. INSTRUMENTS MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK ON PID ARE FURNISHED WITH THE EQUIPMENT. REFER TO ISA RP7.7 FOR INSTRUMENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS. 1. 2. 3. 4. NOTES: HYDRAULIC J-4 FUNCTION BLOCK DESIGNATORS ROOT EXTRACTION UNSPECIFIED FUNCTION I - P - E - A - B - * PNEUMATIC ANALOG BINARY VOLTAGE CURRENT DIVIDING MULTIPLYING DERIVATIVE CONVERT: RESISTANCE (ELECT) ELECTROMAGNETIC, SONIC R - DIGITAL OPEN-CLOSE-AUTO HAND-OFF-REMOTE FORWARD-REVERSE J-6 HANDSWITCH DESIGNATORS S-ST F-R HOA HOR START-STOP HAND-OFF-AUTO OCA LR OC OPEN-CLOSE LOCAL-REMOTE TO OPERATOR ACCESSIBLE AUXILIARY LOCATION CONVERT DRIVER, ACTUATOR, CONTROL ELEMENT INSTRUMENT SYMBOL IDENTIFIERS J-3: VENDOR DESIGNATOR (NOTE 3) USER'S CHOICE MULTI VARIABLE WEIGHT, FORCE UNCLASSIFIED EVENT, STATE, VIBRATION, MECHANICAL ANALYSIS X Y W V U USER'S CHOICE RADIATION TEMPERATURE QUANTITY SPEED, FREQUENCY PRESSURE, VACUUM S T R O Q P X AXIS Y AXIS INTEGRATE, TOTALIZE SAFETY CURRENT (ELECTRICAL) LEVEL USER'S CHOICE MOISTURE POWER TIME, TIME SCHEDULE L N M K J I DENSITY HAND VOLTAGE FLOW RATE USER'S CHOICE F H G D C E TIME RATE OF CHANGE MOMENTARY SCAN DIFFERENTIAL RATIO (FRACTION) FIRST LETTER ANALYSIS BURNER, COMBUSTION INITIATING VARIABLE A B MEASURED OR J-3 MODIFIER J-2: LOOP NUMBER MIDDLE, INTERMEDIATE OR LOUVER UNCLASSIFIED VALVE, DAMPER, RELAY, COMPUTE, TRANSMIT MULTIFUNCTION UNCLASSIFIED MULTIFUNCTION OPEN CONTROL STATION USER'S CHOICE CONTROL LOW USER'S CHOICE CLOSED HIGH SONIC FLOWMETER MAGNETIC FLOWMETER FLOW TOTALIZING INDICATOR TARGET TYPE SENSOR FLOW NOZZLE VORTEX SENSOR HOSE BIBB CONNECTION RUPTURE DISK, VACUUM RUPTURE DISK, PRESSURE MISCELLANEOUS FLOW STRAIGHTENING VANE PRESSURE REDUCING REGULATING VALVE, LO = LOCKED OPEN LC = LOCKED CLOSED EXTERNAL PRESSURE TAP PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE FC = FAIL CLOSED FO = FAIL OPEN 4-WAY VALVE ANGLE VALVE 3-WAY VALVE ** BACK PRESSURE REGULATING VALVE, SELF-CONTAINED BALL VALVE NEEDLE VALVE PLUG (COCK) SELF-CONTAINED PRESSURE REDUCING REGULATOR WITH A/M AUTO-MANUAL FLEXIBLE TANK CONNECTION BRAIDED METAL HOSE DUCKBILL CHECK VALVE METAL BELLOWS STATIC MIXER ORIFICE PLATE OR PLATE TYPE STATIC MIXER CHEMICAL PIPING FLEXIBLE CONNECTION/ FLEXIBLE HOSE VERTICAL TURBINE PUMP HEAD VERTICAL TURBINE PUMP T-HEAD VERTICAL TURBINE PUMP CAN VERTICAL TURBINE PUMP INTAKE DOUBLE CONTAINMENT LTR SHT REFERENCES ENTERING/LEAVING SHEET EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION EQUIPMENT ASSET NUMBER FROM/TO SYSTEM TO/FROM SYSTEM REFERENCES ENTERING/LEAVING SHEET SYSTEM SYSTEM JIM V O N D E R A H E 8 / 8 / 2 0 1 7 5 : 4 3 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA RWQCP OUTFALL REPLACE-RAHAB 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 JEV JEV SS PROCESS & INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM LEGEND I-01 1668037.00-I-01.dwg 3 MGD 60 HP (N) SUMP PUMP SP-910 12 " D I P 6X12 12" DIP 12" HDPE LSL 903 12" HDPE TO FRESHWATER MARSH FROM (E) CCT TSH 910 MSH 910 LAL 903 LOW LEVEL SI 910 % SPEED XA 910 FAIL XI 910 RUN SC 910 HIK 910 HS 910B LOS ZSO 901 ZSC 901 ZSO 901 OPEN ZSC 901 CLOSE SG-901 TO SAN- FRANCISCO BAY TO SAN- FRANCISCO BAY SG-902 AE 904 DO AIT 904 AI 904 DO AE 905 pH/TEMP AIT 905 TI 905A TEMP AI 905B pH AE 906 DO AIT 906 AE 907 pH/TEMP AIT 907 TI 907A TEMP AI 907B pH (E) OUTFALL BOX (E) OUTLET BOX (E) 54" RCP (E) 54" RCP 63" HDPE63" HDPE 6" 2" EFFLUENT MONITORING STATION SUMP VFD 48 0 V 12 0 V HMI 12 0 V ZSO 902 ZSC 902 ZSO 902 OPEN ZSC 902 CLOSE AI 906 DO 12 0 V HS 910A S-ST 12 0 V HS 901 S-ST HS 902 S-ST JIM V O N D E R A H E 8 / 8 / 2 0 1 7 5 : 4 7 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 AUGUST 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA RWQCP OUTFALL REPLACE-RAHAB 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 JEV JEV SS PROCESS & INSTRUMENTATION SUMP PUMP AND OUTFALL I-02 1668037.00-I-02.dwg pw : \ \ k j c e - p w . b e n t l e y . c o m : k j c e - p w \ D o c u m e n t s \ C l i e n t s \ P a l o A l t o , C i t y o f C A \ R W Q C P O u t f a l l R e p l a c e - R e h a b _ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 \ 1 0 - D e s i g n \ 1 0 . 0 6 - D r a w i n g s \ I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - I - 0 2 TITLE SHEET AND PROJECT LOCATION 1668037.00-G-01.dwg G-01 XL KVC CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) EXISTING 54" OUTFALL REHABILITATION PROJECT OUTFALL NO. 2 (700-RCP-1002) PROJECT LOCATION LOCATION MAP PROJECT LOCATION AREA MAP CITY OF PALO ALTO AIRPORT EMBARCADERO ROADEM B A R C A D E R O W A Y AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING EMBARCADERO ROAD C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ k e v i n . c a s t i l l o \ d m s 2 0 4 4 6 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - G - 0 1 . d w g K E V I N C A S T I L L O 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 7 1 : 0 6 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 JULY 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (E) OUTFALL NO. 2 (700-RCP-1002) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 90% SUBMITTAL, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF PALO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) CIVIL/GENERAL SYMBOLS PIPING SYMBOLS DETAIL SECTION ABBREVIATIONS TOP OF SLABT.O.S. GATE VALVEGV INV GP GEN GALV HT HB HVAC HORIZ HP IE ID GND INVERT GUARD POST VITRIFIED CLAY PIPEVCP UNDERGROUNDUG TYPICAL VENT VERTICAL WELDED STEEL WIDTH; WIDE WITHOUT WITH WELDED WIRE MESH WELDED WIRE FABRIC WEATHER PROTECTED VENT THROUGH ROOF TYP VERT V WS WP VTR W W/O W/ WWM WWF GENERATOR GALVANIZE HEIGHT HORIZONTAL HOSE BIBB INSIDE DIAMETER HORSEPOWER GROUND INVERT ELEVATION HEATING, VENTILATING & AIR CONDITIONING POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH-GAUGE STAINLESS STEEL, SANITARY SEWER APPROX CONST EP, EOP EXP JT EXIST, (E) FIN GD C FRP DI DIA FF & Ø L " @ AC ARCH ALUM BFV BM BFP BF AVG AB CI CB BFPV BLDG CLR CY L CMP CIP CONT CONN CONC DIM DWG (D) COL EA EL ENCL ELEC ETC EQUIP ENGR FT EXT (F) FM FH FCA FC GPD FLEX FLGD GS GPM CENTERLINE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC THK.THICK SQ.SQUARE MPT MALE PIPE THREAD DUCTILE IRON DIAMETER TOP OF PAVEMENTT.O.P. MANUFACTURERMFR FINISHED FLOOR MONITORING WELLMW PIPE POWER POLE PROPERTY LINE POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH PRESSURE GAUGE ASSEMBLY RELOCATE RADIUS RIGHT-OF-WAY REFERENCE REDUCE (R) RAILROAD REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE RAINWATER LEADER PROPOSED SECTION SHEET SCHEDULE REQUIRED SIMILAR SQUARE INCHES STANDARD SPECIFICATION TYPE THRUST BLOCK SWITCH BOARD SURFACE TELEPHONE TEMPORARY BENCH MARK REINFORCING (-MENT) P PSIG PSI PP PL PG RCP (R) R REF RED RWL R/W RR PROP AND AT ANGLE ALUMINUM BENCH MARK BLIND FLANGE AVERAGE APPROXIMATE (-LY) BUTTERFLY VALVE BACKFLOW PREVENTER ARCHITECT (-URAL) ASPHALT CONCRETE ANCHOR BOLT, AGGREGATE BASE INCH SUPERSCRIPT PHASE, DIAMETER SECT SHT, SH SCHED REQ'D SIM STD SS IN2 SPEC TB SWBD T SURF TEL TBM CAST IRON CATCH BASIN BUILDING CLEAR (-ANCE) CUBIC YARD CAST IRON PIPE CONCRETE DIMENSION DEMOLISH DRAWING COLUMN EACH ENCLOSURE ELECTRIC (-AL) ELEVATION ET CETERA EQUIPMENT ENGINEER FUTURE FEET (FOOT) EXTERIOR FLOW METER FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FLANGED COUPLING ADAPTER FLEXIBLE COUPLING EXPANSION JOINT EDGE OF PAVEMENT CONTINU (-ED, -OUS) CONSTRUCT (-TION) CONNECT (-S, -TION) CORRUGATED METAL PIPE BACKFLOW PREVENTER VALVE REINF FLANGED FLEXIBLE JUNCTION BOXJB LIGHTING MAXIMUM MATERIAL MANHOLE MODIFIED LTG MGD LCP MAX MJ MH MATL, MTL (M) NORTH MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURER MINIMUM NOT TO SCALE NORMALLY OPEN MFR N MISC MIN N.T.S. NO NC NFC NPSH MECHANICALMECH LOCAL CONTROL PANEL NET POSITIVE SUCTION HEAD NORMALLY CLOSED MECHANICAL JOINT MILLION GALLONS PER DAY GALVANIZED STEEL GALLONS PER MINUTE GALLONS PER DAY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NEW ON CENTER NOMINAL OC N/A NOM (N) OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER NOT APPLICABLE FINISH GRADE FLOW LINE DIRECTION UNDISTURBED EARTH (IN SECTION) ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT (IN PLAN) TRAFFIC BOLLARD SIGN TREE/SHRUB CHAINLINK FENCE BURIED CABLE MARKER BUILDING GUY WIRE SPOT ELEVATION INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR INDEX CONTOUR LIGHT POWER POLE CENTERLINE GENERAL CIVIL FIRE HYDRANT MANHOLE CATCH BASIN SLOPING GRADE (IN PLAN) TO BE DEMOLISHED PROJECT BENCHMARK AGGREGATE BASE (IN SECTION) CONCRETE EDGE OF PAVEMENT (IN PLAN) X X 120 E E x 35.5 (E) NEW EXISTING LOW HIGH LOW HIGH BM (E) AC (E) AB (E) CONC VALVE SYMBOLS 3-WAY PLUG INSULATED PIPE FLEXIBLE HOSE THERMOMETER PRESSURE SWITCH FUNNEL DRAIN PRESSURE GAUGE W/PROTECTOR BACK PRESSURE CONTROL & PROTECTOR RELIEF VALVE/VENT MANUAL AIR VENT PIPELINE FLUSHING COCK PRESSURE GAUGE W/GAUGE COCK PRESSURE GAUGE W/GAUGE COCK PLUG OR BLIND FLANGE 3-WAY SOLENOID MOTORIZED OPERATED VALVE SCREWED OR SOCKETWELD BELL AND SPIGOT OR MECHANICAL SCREWED OR SLIP ON JOINTS ELBOW-REDUCING FLEXIBLE CONNECTOR REDUCER-ECCENTRIC FLEXIBLE COUPLING FLANGED COUPLING ADAPTER REDUCER-CONCENTRIC CONNECTION PINCH ANGLE CHECK DIAPHRAGM BUTTERFLY GATE GLOBE VALVES BALL PLUG HOSE BIBB NEEDLE ORIFICE FITTINGS WELDED CROSS UNION STRAINER T M S PS S M SINGLE LINE DOUBLE LINE PLAN SINGLE LINE ELEVATION OH OHOVERHEAD POWER LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY P/LPROPERTY LINE EASEMENT FO FOFIBER OPTICS STORM DRAIN (FUTURE) BURIED ELECTRICAL 120 R/W R/W FO FO P/L OH OH E E X X PIPELINE (E) ACASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT (IN SECTION) TREE TO BE REMOVED 18.00 BLOW OFF VALVE AIR RELEASE VALVE BO BLOW OFF VALVE 1 C8 A C3 CLEAN OUT CO A AIR OR PNEUMATIC VALVE OR STORM DRAIN WATER (FUTURE) SD SDSDSD W WWATERWW BLOCK WALL SPECIAL (SOLENOID, PRESS. RED., PRESS. REG., & POWER OPERATED) STORM DRAINSD REFERENCE SYMBOLS DETAIL DESIGNATION SHEET DRAWN ON DETAIL DESIGNATION SHEET DRAWN ON ARV AVV - AIR RELEASE VALVE STATIONSTA RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA THRESHOLD SAFETY AREA RUNWAY SAFETY AREA TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA ROFA TSS RSA TOFA RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONERPZ FLANGED OR GROOVED PIPE COUPLING BELL AND SPIGOT OR MECHANICAL JOINTS PLAN PLAN BASIS OF BEARINGS HORIZONTAL CONTROL AND COORDINATE VALUES ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CCS83, ZONE 3, NAD83(2011), EPOCH2010.00. VERTICAL CONTROL VERTICAL CONTROL AND ELEVATION VALUES OBTAINED DURING THE INITIAL CONTROL SURVEY WERE ON THE NAVD 88 DATUM. SURVEY CONTROL GENERAL G-01 TITLE SHEET AND PROJECT LOCATION G-02 GENERAL NOTES, SYMBOLS , LEGEND, SURVEY CONTROL AND SHEET INDEX CIVIL C-01 (E) 54" OUTFALL KEY PLAN C-02 (E) 54" OUTFALL PLAN AND PROFILE STATION 0+00 TO 7+50 C-03 (E) 54" OUTFALL PLAN AND PROFILE STATION 7+50 TO 14+00 C-04 (E) 54" OUTFALL PLAN AND PROFILE STATION 14+00 TO 21+34 C-05 CIVIL DETAILS I SHEET INDEX GENERAL NOTES, SYMBOLS, LEGEND, SURVEY CONTROL AND SHEET INDEX 1668037.00-G-02.dwg G-02 KVC KVC C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ k e v i n . c a s t i l l o \ d m s 2 0 4 4 6 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - G - 0 2 . d w g K E V I N C A S T I L L O 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 7 1 : 0 7 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 JULY 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (E) OUTFALL NO. 2 (700-RCP-1002) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 90% SUBMITTAL, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (E) 54" OUTFALL KEY PLAN 1668037.00-C-01.dwg C-01 XL KVC KEY PLAN SHEET C-02 SHEET C-03 SH E E T C - 0 4 1"=100' 0 100 200 C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ k e v i n . c a s t i l l o \ d m s 2 0 4 4 6 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 1 . d w g K E V I N C A S T I L L O 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 7 1 : 0 8 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 JULY 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (E) OUTFALL NO. 2 (700-RCP-1002) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 90% SUBMITTAL, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CHLORINE CONTACT TANK CITY OF PALO ALTO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT UV ELECTRICAL ROOM CITY OF PALO ALTO AIRPORT AIRPORT CONTROL TOWER MAINTENANCE BUILDING OUTFALL BOX AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING E M B A R C A D E R O R OA D EM B A R C A D E R O R O A D UV DISINFECTION BUILDING (N) 63" OUTFALL (700-HDPE-1001) (E) 54" OUTFALL PLAN AND PROFILE STATION 0+00 TO 7+50 C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ k e v i n . c a s t i l l o \ d m s 2 0 4 4 6 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 2 . d w g K E V I N C A S T I L L O 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 7 1 : 0 5 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 JULY 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (E) OUTFALL NO. 2 (700-RCP-1002) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 90% SUBMITTAL, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1668037.00-C-02.dwg C-02 XL KVC PLAN PROFILE 200 1"=40' 40 60 MA T C H L I N E S T A SE E S H E E T C - 0 3 7+ 5 0 SE E S H E E T C - 0 3 7+ 5 0 VE R T . 1 " = 5 ' HORIZ. 1"=40' 0 20 40 60 0 4 8 (E) 54" RCP OUTFALL (E) GRADE (N) 63" HDPE OUTFALL (E) CHLORINE CONTACT TANK CITY OF PALO ALTO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT UV ELECTRICAL ROOM UV DISINFECTION BUILDING 84" PLANT EFFLUENT LINE PLA N T E X I T OUTFALL BOX 48" OUTLET BOX 48" 54" CITY OF PALO ALTO AIRPORT (E) OUTFALL BOX RIM 16.4 +/- IE 0.8' +/- (E) OUTFALL BOX IE -0.2 +/- EM B A R C A D E R O R O A D (E) 54" RCP OUTFALL (E) 54" (E) 48" REHABILITATE PIPE JOINTS PER SPEC BETWEEN 0+00 AND 14+50 -5 0 5 10 15 -5 0 5 10 15 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 8+50 X X X X X X X X X X X E E E E E E E E E E E CO M CO M CO M CO M CO M CO M AT T - C AT T - C AT T - C AT T - C 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 (E) 54" OUTFALL PLAN AND PROFILE STATION 7+50 TO 14+00 C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ k e v i n . c a s t i l l o \ d m s 2 0 4 4 6 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 3 . d w g K E V I N C A S T I L L O 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 7 1 : 0 8 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 JULY 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (E) OUTFALL NO. 2 (700-RCP-1002) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 90% SUBMITTAL, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1668037.00-C-03.dwg C-03 XL KVC PLAN PROFILE 200 1"=40' 40 60 MA T C H L I N E S T A SE E S H E E T C - 0 4 14 + 0 0 SE E S H E E T C - 0 4 14+ 0 0 VE R T . 1 " = 5 ' HORIZ. 1"=40' 0 20 40 60 0 4 8 (E) 54" RCP OUTFALL SE E S H E E T C - 0 2 7+ 5 0 MA T C H L I N E S T A SE E S H E E T C - 0 2 7+ 5 0 (E) 54" RCP OUTFALL (E) GRADE WETLANDS (E) MANHOLE (E) MANHOLE REHABILITATE PIPE JOINTS PER SPEC BETWEEN 0+00 AND 14+50 (N) 63" HDPE OUTFALL X X XX X X X X X X X X E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+0 0 15+ 0 0 -5 0 5 10 15 -5 0 5 10 15 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 15+50 (E) 54" OUTFALL PLAN AND PROFILE STATION 14+00 TO 21+34 C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ k e v i n . c a s t i l l o \ d m s 2 0 4 4 6 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 4 . d w g K E V I N C A S T I L L O 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 7 1 : 0 9 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 JULY 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (E) OUTFALL NO. 2 (700-RCP-1002) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 90% SUBMITTAL, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1668037.00-C-04.dwg C-04 XL KVC PLAN PROFILE 200 1"=40' 40 60 VE R T . 1 " = 5 ' HORIZ. 1"=40' 0 20 40 60 0 4 8 (E) 54" RCP OUTFALL SE E S H E E T C - 0 3 14+ 0 0 MA T C H L I N E S T A SE E S H E E T C - 0 3 14 + 0 0 (N) 54" HDPE OUTFALL (E) 54" RCP OUTFALL (E) 60" STORM DRAIN (E) GRADE WETLANDS WETLANDS WETL A N D S (E) 60" STORM DRAIN IE -0.6' +/- (E) MANHOLE REHABILITATE PIPE JOINTS PER SPEC BETWEEN 0+00 AND 14+50 -5 0 5 10 15 -5 0 5 10 15 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 21+50 X XX X X X X X X X E E E E 21+3 4 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+0 0 20+0 0 21+0 0 24+00 27+27 WEKO-SEAL INTERNAL JOINT SEAL RETAINING BAND (E) RUBBER GASKET (E) 54" RCP BELL & SPIGOT JOINT JOINT TEST VALVE RETAINING BAND CIVIL DETAILS I 1668037.00-C-05.dwg C-05 XL KVC C2-4 1EXIST. RCP JOINT REHABILITATION DETAIL SCALE: NONE C:\ b m s \ p w e - u s e a s t - 0 0 5 \ k e v i n . c a s t i l l o \ d m s 2 0 4 4 6 \ 1 6 6 8 0 3 7 . 0 0 - C - 0 5 . d w g K E V I N C A S T I L L O 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 7 1 : 1 0 P M 4 3 2 1 0 0 USE OF DOCUMENTS NO.REVISION DATE 25mm BY SCALES 1" CHECKED DESIGNED DRAWN 0 DATE SHEET OF FILE NAME JOB NO. D E F G HABC IF THIS BAR IS NOT DIMENSION SHOWN, ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE INCORPORATED DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS ©. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants © 1668037.00 JULY 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP) (E) OUTFALL NO. 2 (700-RCP-1002) 2350 MISSION COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SUITE 525 SANTA CLARA, CA 95054 90% SUBMITTAL, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION City of Palo Alto (ID # 9226) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/21/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Annual Office Limit Ordinance (Second Reading) Title: SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) to add a new Section Imposing an An nual Office Limit and Setting Forth Related Regulations, and to Repeal the Respective Regulations From Chapter 18.85 (Interim Zoning Ordinances). This Ordinance is Within the Scope of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certified and Adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution No. 9720 (FIRST READING: April 30, 2018 PASSED: 5 -4) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council conduct a second reading and adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A). BACKGROUND On April 30, 2018, the City Council reviewed and adopted on first reading a draft ordinance amending Chapter 18.40 and repealing interim regulations in Chapter 18.85 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (staff report #9175). The motion below passed, moved by Council Member Scharff and seconded by Council Member Wolbach, with a 5-4 vote (DuBois, Fine, Holman, and Kou voting no). A. Adopt an Ordinance amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code to establish Annual Office Limit (AOL) regulations to replace the interim regulations, replacing in Section 18.40.190 (c)(2), “non-office” with “non-office annual limit land”; B. Find the action within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan EIR certified on November 13, 2017; and City of Palo Alto Page 2 C. Return the Ordinance to Council within two to four years. The Ordinance has been modified to incorporate the Council’s changes cited in section A above. The summary of the Action Minutes are available online at the following link: https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64903 for additional details. Attachments: Attachment A - Ordinance Amending Annual Office Limit (PDF) 1 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 18.85.200 (Annual Office Limit) to Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Imposing an Office Annual Limit of 50,000 Net New Square Feet in Designated Areas of City, and Repealing Those Provisions Related to the Annual Office Limit in Chapter 18.85 (Interim Zoning Ordinances) The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The City of Palo Alto has long been considered the birthplace of Silicon Valley. With its proximity to Stanford University, its international reputation, its deep ties to technology firms, its highly rated public school system and its ample public parks, open space and community centers, Palo Alto continues to serve as a hub for technology-based business. B. Palo Alto is considered one of Silicon Valley's most desirable office markets. Average commercial rental rates increased significantly from 2013 to 2015. In 2013 the average monthly rental rate citywide for office was $4.57 per square foot. That rate increased to $5.12 per square foot in 2015. C. As a result, prior to adoption of the interim annual office limit in 2015, the City saw a steady increase of new Office and Research and Development (R&D) projects. According to data submitted by the City to support the Valley Transportation Authority’s Congestion Management Plan (CMP), since 2001, the City has added 234,002 of net new square feet of office/R& D development in the California Avenue area; 315,586 in the downtown area, and 46,210 in the El Camino Real corridor. D. The rate of change has been faster than anticipated, resulting in changes in the character of the City’s commercial districts. The changes have also resulted in additional parking demand, traffic, and greenhouse gas emissions, and negatively impact the City’s jobs/housing ratio. E. Based on the CMP data, there have been six years since 2001 in which more than 50,000 net new square feet of Office/R&D development have been entitled in these districts combined, and these six years include the last two fiscal years (2014 and 2015) prior to adoption of the interim annual office limit. F. Record high monthly rental rates for office space and low vacancy rates suggest that the rapid pace of development is likely to continue, putting pressure on sites that are not currently developed to their maximum potential, and contributing to a feeling in the community that the character of the City’s commercial districts are changing too fast. G. Based on the above findings, the City adopted interim annual office limit regulations by Ordinance No. 5357, later extended by Ordinance No. 5417, which applied to 2 three fiscal years (FY 2016-2018). Under these interim regulations, the pace of Office/R&D development in the covered areas has moderated. H. Continuing the annual office limit serves the public interest and general welfare, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and objectives, including improving the jobs to housing imbalance by limiting the growth of employment-generating development. SECTION 2. A new Section 18.40.190 (Annual Office Limit) is added to Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: 18.40.190 Annual Office Limit (a) Applicability The regulations set forth in this Section shall apply to all Office Annual Limit Land Uses that are established by new construction or through the conversion of existing development (b) Definitions For purposes of this Section, the following terms shall have the definitions below: (1) “Office Annual Limit Area” means the area shown in Exhibit A (attached to Ordinance No. ______), comprising portions of the commercial districts of Downtown, the California Avenue Area and the El Camino Real corridor. (2) “Office Annual Limit Land Uses” shall include any of the following uses, each as defined in Section 18.04.030, in the Office Annual Limit Area: (A) Research and Development; (B) Administrative Office Services; (C) General Business Office; (D) Medical Office greater than 5,000 net new square feet; and (E) Professional Office. (c) Office Annual Limit No more than 50,000 net new square feet of Office Annual Limit Land Uses per fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) shall be approved by the City in the Office Annual Limit Area. (1) The 50,000 square foot limit imposed by this Section shall not apply to exempt projects as defined in subsection (d) of this Section and such projects shall not be counted towards this limit. However, if an exempt medical office project under subsection (d)(1) or exempt City office use under subsection (d)(3) is subsequently converted to a non-exempt Office Annual Limit Land Use, the associated square footage shall be counted toward the 50,000 square foot limit for the fiscal year in which the conversion is requested or occurs. 3 (2) The 50,000 square foot limit shall apply to existing building area previously used by non-office annual limit land uses and converted to any of the Office Annual Limit Land Uses. (3) The removal of existing Office Annual Limit Land Uses through demolition or conversion shall increase the amount of capacity available for allocation in that fiscal year by the amount of square footage removed. (4) Unallocated square footage of Office Annual Limit Land Uses shall be carried over to the next fiscal year and be available for allocation until the end of that fiscal year only. (5) Notwithstanding subsections (3) and (4) above, at no time shall the annual office limit for a single fiscal year exceed 100,000 square feet. (6) This restriction shall be in addition to any other applicable growth restriction including but not limited to Comprehensive Plan Policy L-1.10. In the event multiple policies apply to a project, the policy most restrictive of growth shall apply. (d) Exemptions The following projects shall be exempt from the Office Annual Limit established by this Section, provided that only one exemption shall be permitted per project site. (1) Small Projects. Projects comprised of 2,000 net new square feet or fewer of Office Annual Limit Land Uses, including accessory office space that is incidental to and customarily associated with a principal use or facility. This exemption shall be increased to 5,000 net new square feet or fewer where the net new square footage is devoted to Medical Office or nonprofit office use with a deed restriction to maintain the use for and by a nonprofit organization. (2) Self-Mitigating Projects. Projects that would both: (1) provide rental housing for more workers than would be employed in the project; and (2) provide substantial transportation demand management strategies (individually or in cooperation with other projects or programs) to improve the current parking and traffic conditions. (3) City Office Space. New office space used by the City of Palo Alto. (e) Economic Hardship Waiver or Adjustment An applicant may request that the requirements of this Section be adjusted or waived based on a showing that applying the requirements of this Section would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting evidence to support a waiver or modification request under this Section and shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim, including all supporting technical documentation. 4 Any such request under this section shall be submitted to the Director together with an economic analysis or other supporting documentation and shall be acted upon by the City Council. (f) Allocation of Office Square Footage for Projects Subject to the Office Annual Limit (1) Office development capacity for Office Annual Limit Land Uses shall be allocated upon approval of a planning entitlement, or a building permit or Certificate of Use and Occupancy if no planning entitlement is required, in the order that the projects are approved. (A) If a planning entitlement approved by the Director is appealed to the City Council, the project shall be allowed to retain the office allocation provided that the Director’s approval decision is upheld by City Council. If the City Council overturns the Director’s approval decision and denies the project, the office allocation shall be forfeited and made available to other projects. (B) If the planning entitlement or building permit with which the project received an office allocation expires, the office allocation shall be forfeited and made available to other projects. A project that received an office allocation at issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the purposes of converting existing developed non-office space to one or more Office Annual Limit Land Uses, shall forfeit its office allocation if the related building permit expires and the office allocation will be made available to other projects. However, if the expiration of the planning entitlement or building permit occurs in a later fiscal year than when the office allocation was made, the forfeited office allocation will only be made available to other projects if it would not cause the annual office limit for that fiscal year to exceed 100,000 square feet. (2) If more than one project will be considered for approval on the same day, then the project with the earliest initial submittal date shall have priority in receiving office allocation. (3) Projects that cannot be approved due to the Office Annual Limit being reached for that fiscal year shall be considered for approval the following fiscal year. (g) Implementation The Director shall have the authority to adopt rules or procedures for the efficient and equitable implementation of these regulations. SECTION 3. Sections 18.85.200 through 18.85.270, all of which pertain to the Annual Office Limit in Chapter 18.85 (Interim Zoning Ordinances) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. Supersede. This Ordinance supersedes any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. 5 SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council finds that the environmental impacts of this Ordinance were disclosed, analyzed and evaluated as part of that certain Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Plan Update considered and certified by the City Council on November 13, 2017, by Resolution Nos. 9720 and 9721 (“EIR”). The City Council considered the EIR prior to taking action on this Ordinance, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), together with state and local regulations implementing CEQA. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Assistant City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto (ID # 8977) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/21/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Appeal of Approval Verizon Wireless Small Cell Antenna (Cluster I) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI -JUDICIAL: The City Council Will Consider Appeals of the Planning and Community Environment Director’s Decision to Approve Eleven (11) Tier 3 Wir eless Communication Facility Permits to Establish Small Cell Wireless Communication Antennas and Equipment on Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way Near the Following Addresses: Node #129: CPAU Pole# 3121 (near 2490 Louis Road APN 127 -30-062), Node #130: CPAU Pole #2461 (near 2802 Louis Road APN 127 -28-046), Node #131: CPAU Pole #3315 (near 891 Elbridge Way APN 127 -26-067), Node #133E: CPAU Pole #2856 (near 949 Loma Verde APN 127 -24-020), Node #134: CPAU Pole #2964 (near 3409 Kenneth Dr APN 127 -09-028), Node #135: CPAU Pole # 3610 (near 795 Stone Ln APN 127 -47-001), Node #137: CPAU Pole #3351 (near 3090 Ross Rd APN 127 -52-031), Node #138: CPAU Pole #2479 (near 836 Colorado Av APN 127-27-063), Node #143: CPAU Pole #3867 (near 419 El Verano Av APN 132-15-017), Node #144: CPAU Pole #1506 (near 201 Loma Verde Av APN 132 - 48-015), Node #145: CPAU Pole #3288 (near 737 Loma Verde Av APN 127 -64- 039) Environmental Assessment: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Class 3, Guidelines Section 15303. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and take one of two actions: 1) Deny the appeals and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decisions to approve the eleven (11) Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits consistent with a recommendation by the Architectural Review Board and based upon the findings and conditions of approval described in the Record of Land Use Action City of Palo Alto Page 2 (Attachment A); or, 2) Grant the appeals in part, approving the Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits and requiring radio equipment for one or more nodes to be placed in underground vaults where sufficient space exists in the sidewalk right of way, subject to updated conditions of approval in Attachment B; and, direct staff to update project-related findings and conditions as appropriate. Note: The City received seven separate appeals of the 11 wireless permits approved by the Director. To facilitate consideration of these appeals, they are all being considered in one, consolidated public hearing. Executive Summary Wireless communication providers are expanding their networks through small cell technology throughout the region. To date, Palo Alto has six (6) active formal Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit applications and one active (1) Preliminary Architectural Review application requesting approximately 54 new nodes under consideration in residential and commercial areas. The formal applications are from Vinculums and Crown Castle, both on behalf of Verizon and AT&T is requesting Preliminary Architectural Review.1 The first batch of small cell nodes, referenced as Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1, was recently approved by the Director following a recommendation by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and was subsequently appealed by concerned residents. While appellants have varying reasons for opposition to the project, those that support the network expansion object to pole -mounted radio equipment and request the Council require underground vaulting. Undergrounding radio equipment is not supported by the applicant due to concerns about damage to their equipment in flood zones, employee safety when servicing equipment , lack of sufficient space in certain locations, and their inability to meet the City’s noise threshold from noise that would be generated by the ventilation fans and sump pumps necessary when equipment is placed underground. Verizon has represented to staff that it is exploring whether there are engineering solutions available that would bring underground vaults into compliance with the City’s noise thresholds. Federal regulations have preempted significant review elements from local governments, but the City retains authority over issues such as aesthetics, screening, and noise, and has developed specific criteria with which to evaluate these applications. Importantly, these applications are subject to federal application processing timelines and decisions on the applications are needed at the hearing, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. 1 These numbers include preliminary applications submitted for early input from the Architectural Review Board as well as formal applications seeking City approval. City of Palo Alto Page 3 During the ARB review and prior to the Director’s determination, various City departments identified constraints on vaulting radio equipment, including location in the flood zone, and the presence of rolled curb sidewalks. Based in part on these constraints, staff and the ARB recommended approval of the pole-mounted equipment as proposed by the applicant. Several ARB members expressed a preference for vaulted equipment, however, and further expressed dismay that many constraints precluding vaulting appeared to arise from City policies. Since the ARB hearing and the Director’s decision, staff has determined that – from the City’s perspective – placing equipment underground could be acceptable within flood zones and on rolled curb sidewalks, provided the designs comply with City standards and the vaulted equipment can meet the City’s noise threshold. The applicant is currently updating its vaulting analysis to reflect this updated information. This analysis may show that there are site-specific constraints such as other underground equipment or tree roots that could preclude undergrounding at specific locations.2 Additionally, even if vaulting is physically feasible and determined to be an aesthetically superior solution, the applicant has asserted that it would not comply with the City’s noise threshold; thus, the applicant would need to engineer a solution or the City would need to reconsider the applications after additional environmental review of noise impacts had been prepared. It is anticipated that the City Council’s action on this appeal will inform staff’s review of future applications related to the small cell deployment throughout the City. Background The subject appeals relate to applications filed by Vinculums on behalf of Verizon Wireless to install eleven (11) small cell nodes located within the Mid-Town, South of Mid-Town, St. Claire Gardens, and Palo Verde neighborhoods. This application grouping has been referenced as Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1. In total, Vinculums/Verizon proposes to install ninety-three (93) nodes in various neighborhoods and commercial areas within the City. The additional node locations will be identified and clustered together into a series of applications; Clusters 2 and 3 representing an additional twenty-two (22) nodes, have already been filed. In addition to Verizon Wireless, other carriers are seeking City approval to install nodes in the public right of way. Crown Castle has three additional Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit applications on file to install sixteen (16) nodes downtown and in other neighborhoods. These other Clusters and applications are not the subject of the appeal hearing; however, the Council’s action on the 2 The applicant’s updated analysis of undergrounding was not available at the time this staff report was prepared. Staff has requested that the applicant provide the analysis to the City Council and the public at least 72 hours in advance of the hearing. When the City receives the material, it will be posted on the Council agenda website for this meeting. City of Palo Alto Page 4 subject nodes will inform staff’s review of other pending and future applications. Each node in the subject application would operate independently from one another and requires its own ‘Tier 3’ Wireless Communication Facility permit, as defined under the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Seven (7) of the originally proposed eighteen (18) small cell wireless nodes in Cluster 1 were removed by the applicant from consideration by the Director due to ongoing vaulting feasibility studies or other applicant -driven technical reasons. It is anticipated that the applicant may move forward with applications for these nodes in the future. The eleven (11) small cell nodes that are subject to the appeal are listed as follows:  Node #129: CPAU Pole# 3121 (near 2490 Louis Road APN 127-30- 062)  Node #130: CPAU Pole #2461 (near 2802 Louis Road APN 127-28-046)  Node #131: CPAU Pole #3315 (near 891 Elbridge Way APN 127-26-067)  Node #133E: CPAU Pole #2856 (near 949 Loma Verde Avenue APN 127-24-020)  Node #134: CPAU Pole #2964 (near 3409 Kenneth Drive APN 127-09-028)  Node #135: CPAU Pole # 3610 (near 795 Stone Lane APN 127-47-001)  Node #137: CPAU Pole #3351 (near 3090 Ross Road APN 127-52-031)  Node #138: CPAU Pole #2479 (near 836 Colorado Avenue APN 127-27-063)  Node #143: CPAU Pole #3867 (near 419 El Verano Avenue APN 132-15-017)  Node #144: CPAU Pole #1506 (near 201 Loma Verde Avenue APN 132-48-015) and  Node #145: CPAU Pole #3288 (near 737 Loma Verde Avenue APN 127-64-039). The antennas and associated pole mounted equipment for each of the eleven (11) nodes are proposed to attach to either existing wood utility poles or require replacement wood utility poles,3 as discussed in the Project Description (Attachment C). A non-live, temporary mock-up of the Director-approved design can be found on Pole #7423 (1350 Newell Road, across the street from the Palo Alto Art Center). This current project design does not include underground vaulting of any equipment for the reasons provided in Verizon’s February 5, 2018 Vault Feasibility Reports (Attachment D).4 The project plans and renderings of the proposed facilities are included in Attachment E. Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110 Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Permit applications are p rocessed in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) section 18.42.110, which sets forth application requirements, standard conditions of approval and required findings. Tier 3 WCF permit applications are subject to the WCF development standards, the Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020, and the Conditional Use Permit findings in PAMC Section 3 Node #129 and Node #133E propose replacement of the existing wood utility poles. 4 These reports rely in part on constraints communicated by City departments, many of which the City has re - evaluated and clarified after the ARB meeting, as noted above. City of Palo Alto Page 5 18.76.010. Applications are reviewed and acted upon by the Director, and subject to appeal to the City Council. Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996: Significant Coverage Gap and Least Intrusive Means The Telecommunications Act of 1996 recognizes the traditional zoning authority of local governments, while also precluding local governments from prohibiting, or having the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless services. Courts have interpreted this to mean that a local government may not deny an application that proposes to (1) close a significant gap in services using (2) the least intrusive means available. This balances the national interest in deploying wireless services with the local interest in planned and orderly development. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location that most closely conforms to the local values a p ermit denial would otherwise serve. In other words, while local governments may enforce local values, they have limited authority to deny an application where alternative means of closing a significant gap in service are technically infeasible or otherwise unavailable. Alongside the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and associated plans and policies, the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110, architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d), and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) express the local values that guide consideration of a WCF application. Local governments are not to regulate the specific equipment proposed by an applicant, but are to evaluate if and how that equipment complies with local values. Prohibition of Unreasonable Discrimination The Telecommunications Act also precludes a local agency’s wireless facility siting decisions from having the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless service or unreasonably discriminating among wireless service providers. Further, under state law, a utility is required to provide any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to its utility poles. The FCC Shot Clock and Tolling Agreements WCF permit applications have a unique application process involving a “shot clock” timeline, whereby a decision on each node must take place within a “reasonable” timeframe. This timeframe is presumed to be 150 days for Tier 3 projects, though the applicant and City may agree to extend or “toll” the timeframe in which the City must act. The City and applicant have agreed to a number of time extensions since the application was filed; the current shot clock deadeline for Cluster 1 is May 21, 2018. Preemption re: Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”). Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, federal regulations preempt state and local governments from regulating RF emissions generated by wireless communications facilities; state and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC City of Palo Alto Page 6 Guidelines. Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines. To this end, the City hired an Independent Consultant, Telecom Law Firm PC (“TLFPC”) to evaluate the planned radio frequency emissions for each of the 11 nod es. The evaluation was based on:  antenna specifications,  sector directionality,  frequency, bands,  pole heights,  distances to adjacent 1-story and 2-story residences and  additional factors outlined in the TLFPC’s memos for each node. TLFPC also peer-reviewed Verizon’s radio frequency safety engineering reports for each site produced by the applicant’s consultant, Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers. The TLFPC memos outline the height and distance of the control zone around each antenna and TLFPC evaluated that each node was found to comply with the FCC Guidelines. A post - installation analysis will also occur for each node as provided for in Condition of Approval #24 RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION. Master License Agreement (MLA) Each small cell node is required to comply at all times with the terms and conditions in a City Council approved Master License Agreement (MLA). The relevant MLA for Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 was executed on June 27, 2016 and is entitled Master License Agreement for Use of City-Controlled Space on Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles and in Conduits (“MLA”) between the City of Palo Alto and GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership, DBA Verizon Wireless (Contract No. C16165156). The City Manager’s Report to Council for the MLA can be found at the following weblink: http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52893, which includes agreement terms, obligations, prohibitions, and expiration parameters. Public Hearings and Director’s Decisions The Architectural Review Board and members of the public discussed Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 at three meetings. The Board had mixed views on the application, but the majority favored undergrounding radio equipment in vaults. In response, the applicant prepared a vault feasability analysis that concluded nodes located in the flood zone area and in some other lcoations outside of the flood zone, could not be undergrounded due to water intrusion or other reasons. As mentioned above, the Verizon’s February 5, 2018 Vault Feasibility Reports are included in Attachment D. At the time of the ARB’s recommendation and Director’s determination, staff accepted the results of these reports based on expressed siting constraints and objectives of various City departments. As discussed in this report, staff now believes the vaulting analysis is incomplete and vaulting may be feasible at more sites, however, there may City of Palo Alto Page 7 be other reasons for rejecting vaulting at some lo cations. This perspective is discussed in greater detail below. The ARB recommended approval of the project that is included in this packet and as approved by the Director, which includes pole-mounted mecahnical equipment using the box shroud design (see drawings, Attachment E). Staff reports and meeting minutes are linked below: May 18, 2017: Preliminary Architectural Review (17PLN-00033)  Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57840  Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-62/  Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58269 December 7, 2017: First Formal Review (17PLN-00169)  Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62427  Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-73-2/  Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63794 March 15, 2018: Second Formal Review (17PLN-00169)  Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63883  Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2/  Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64584 Director’s Decisions Corresponding with the recommendations of the Architectural Review Board from March 15, 2018, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the eleven (11) small cell nodes with detailed conditions of approval on March 26, 2018 (Attachment F). These Director’s approvals were granted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 18.42.110 (c)(3), 18.42.110 (h)(1), 18.42.110 (h)(2), 18.42.110 (i), and 18.42.110 (j). These decisions were based on the review of all information contained within the project file, all public comments received prior to the decision, and the review of the proposal in comparison to applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, as well as zoning and other municipal code requirements. Appeal Process PAMC Section 18.77.075 indicates that an appealed Director’s Decision is placed on the Council Consent Calendar within 45 days of the filing of an appeal. The City normally employs a two - step appeal process, in which the City Council is first asked to uphold the Planning D irector’s decision on its consent calendar, and a public hearing is only scheduled upon request of the City Council. If scheduled for consent, the Council may decide to pull an item off Consent if at least three Councilmembers concur (PAMC 18.77.070(f)). Given the significant public interest in City of Palo Alto Page 8 these applications, staff elected to forgo the aforementioned consent calendar process and noticed the seven appeals for a public hearing. At the hearing, the City Council will be asked to receive public testimony (including testimony from the applicant and the appellants) and to uphold, modify or reverse the Director’s decisions on the WCF nodes. Discussion The Director’s determination in Attachment F evaluates the project to the applicable WCF standard requirements for Tier 3 WCFs and presents the Director’s findings for approval. Support for pole-mounted equipment was granted based on constraints that were identified by the City and applicant, industry practices that discourage vaulting for improved employee safety and more efficient equipment maintenance, and environmental conditions within vaults that are not always conducive to electronics. The proposed nodes were also designed with a mechanical cover that would be painted to match the color of the wood utility pole and placed on the pole in a manner that draws the least amount of attention to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. In some instances, additional landscaping is required to better screen the equipment, but clearly the mechanical screening is visible, as are the antennas. Fundamentally, the proposed WCF represent a communication utility and were approved for placement on existing or replaced utility poles. Issues Raised on Appeal Seven (7) appeals were filed seeking to overturn or modify the Directo r’s approval (Attachment G). Some appellants focused on a node in proximity to their residence, others appealed all nodes in the Cluster. A summary of the appeal statements received is provided below: 1. Appeal 18-AP-2, submitted by Herc Kwan, specifically focuses on Node #129: CPAU Pole# 3121 (near 2490 Louis Road). In summary, the appellant urges City Council to overturn the Director’s Decision on Node #129. Specifically, the appellant requested for all of the equipment, except for the antenna, to be located underground in flush to grade vaults without protruding elements and to ensure that any installed equipment complied with the City’s noise requirements. The appellant questions the methodology and reasoning for Verizon not pursuing vaulting of equipment in the February 5, 2018 Vault Feasibility Report for Node #129, citing that the node location is not in a flood zone. The appellant also raised concerns about aesthetics and lack of screening, noise, future expansion, loss of property values, if there is a significant gap in coverage relative to the proximity to a macro wireless site, fire hazard and other safety topics, and implementation of the City’s policy of undergrounding of utilities. 2. Appeal 18-AP-3, submitted by Francesca Lane Kautz, specifically focuses on Node #143: CPAU Pole #3867 (near 419 El Verano Avenue). In summary, the appellant urges City Council to overturn the Director’s Decision on Node #143. Specifically, the appellant requests for all of the City of Palo Alto Page 9 equipment, including the antenna, to be located underground and cites the City’s high voltage service vaulting under sidewalks. As alternatives to undergrounding small cell nodes, the appellant requests location of nodes on or near utility substations, on City -owned structures, and/or commercial or industrial buildings. The appellant questions the visual simulation, citing that the equipment would not be hidden by landscaping and that the antenna would be above the tree canopy. The appellant also raised concerns regarding implementation of t he City’s policy of undergrounding of utilities, as well as liability, health and safety if the wood utility poles with the equipment fall under earthquake or fire scenarios. The appellant encourages design innovation and use of a superior, less intrusive project design. 3. Appeal 18-AP-4, submitted by Christopher Linn, specifically focuses on Node #130: CPAU Pole #2461 (near 2802 Louis Road). In summary, the appellant urges City Council to overturn the Director’s Decision on Node #130. Specifically, the appellant requested for all of the equipment, except for the antenna, to be located underground in flush to grade vaults without protruding elements and to ensure that any installed equipment complied with the City’s noise requirements. The appellant questions the methodology and reasoning for Verizon not pursuing vaulting of equipment in the February 5, 2018 Vault Feasibility Report for Node #130, which cites sewer lines and the flood zone as reasons for not vaulting. The appellant urges the selection of node locations that allow for vaulting. The appellant also raised concerns about aesthetics and lack of screening, the proximity to a macro wireless site5, and unequitable loss of property values in comparison with other areas with underground utilities. 4. Appeal 18-AP-5, submitted by Jeanne Fleming on behalf of United Neighbors, appeals all eleven (11) nodes. In summary, the appellant urges City Council to overturn the Director’s Decision on all nodes. Specifically, the appellant requested for all of th e equipment, except for the antenna, to be located underground. The appellant questions the methodology and reasoning for Verizon not pursuing vaulting of equipment, especially when other utility vaulting has already occurred in the neighborhoods in Cluste r 1. The appellant cites examples of how other cities and carriers have installed antennas and associated equipment fully underground. The appellant urges consideration of fully water-proof radios as one example of removing a vaulting impediment due to potential water damage. The appellant urges consideration of vaulting in flush to grade vaults without protruding elements, and cites examples of Verizon vaulting installations in other cities, as well as City of Palo Alto utility vaults in sidewalks. The appellant cites the City of Palo Alto’s recent letter in regard to SB649 that was in support of 5 On January 22, 2018, the City Council considered a license agreement with GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership dba Verizon Wireless for placement of a new macro site on an existing PG&E tower located on City - Owned property at 1082 Colorado Avenue, near Colorado Avenue and Simpkins Court. The license allows for Verizon to file an application, but the Planning Department has not received an application on this site for Verizon to date. Please refer to CMR 8590 for further information at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62815. City of Palo Alto Page 10 maintaining local government’s ability to implement local ordinances regarding aesthetics, noise, and other topics as they pertain to wireless applications. The ap pellant indicates support of ramping up for 5G, but that cost savings to Verizon should not be included as a design consideration. 5. Appeal 18-AP-6, submitted by RK Parthasarathy, specifically focuses on Node #134: CPAU Pole #2964 (near 3409 Kenneth Drive). In summary, the appellant urges City Council to overturn the Director’s Decision on Node #134 in two ways. First, the appellant requests elimination of Node #134, citing proximity to a macro wireless site.6 Second, if not eliminated, the appellant requested for all of the equipment for Node #134, except for the antenna, to be located underground in flush to grade vaults without protruding elements and to ensure that any installed equipment complied with the City’s noise requirements. The appellant indi cated that there appeared to be enough space for vaulting. The appellant raised concerns about design compliance with aesthetic-related ordinances and a lack of screening. The appellant also raised concerns regarding physical and fire hazards and risk pose d by the equipment if the pole fell in the street or on their home under fire or disaster scenarios. The appellant also raised concerns about property value and already experiencing site constraints due to existing power lines/easements. 6. Appeal 18-AP-7, submitted by Russell Targ and Patricia Targ, appeals all eleven (11) nodes. In summary, the appellants raise numerous points and concerns and urge City Council to reverse any allowance of the use of utility poles for the small cell node installations. Th e appellants object, claim, and appeal action and proposed action under which the City of Palo Alto allows the use of public sidewalks for installation of power supplies for 4G and/or 5G towers and/or the installation of communication devices on public utility poles or publicly owned easements or rights of way. Additionally, the appellants raised concerns about not receiving notice of the proposed node(s)/deprived of due process and that the small cell nodes would create dangerous public property. The appellants cite risk from batteries and other equipment to explosion, object to the provision of power supply, object to transference of liability from telecommunications industry to tax payers, cite nondisclosure of material facts, unlawful taking, loss of property value, and ADA violations for those that are electromagnetically sensitive. The appeal is supplemented with two public comments submitted by Harry Lehmann in the form of two letters. The first letter, authored by Harry Lehmann and dated July 19, 2017 , discusses radiation injury liability shifts to the State from telecommunication companies if SB 649 were passed. The second letter, authored by Beatrice Golomb of UC San Diego and dated August 18, 2017, discusses opposition to SB 649 due to health proble ms and injury associated with electromagnetic radiation. 6 Per above, the Planning Department has not received an application from Verizon for the 1082 Colorado Avenue location to date. City of Palo Alto Page 11 7. Appeal 18-AP-8, submitted by Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs, appeals all eleven (11) nodes. In summary, the appellant urges City Council to overturn the Director’s Decision and deny all nodes. Additionally, the appellants also ask that “privately-owned Close Proximity Microwave Radiation-emitting Antennas (CPMRA) and ancillary equipment” not be allowed in or within 1,500 feet of residential zones, ask for an amendment to the Palo Alto Municipa l Code to allow installations only in commercial and industrial zones and to establish an effective 1,500 setback from various land uses and zones, and to only allow installations if there is a significant gap in coverage proven by substantial evidence in the public record. The appellants raise numerous points and concerns, including cumulative CEQA impacts associated with anticipated small cell node installations throughout Palo Alto residential neighborhoods, no significant gap in Verizon coverage, the need to find other least intrusive means, the duty of the City of Palo Alto to regulate the operations of towers, financial damages/reduced property values, proximity of nodes to homes, disability rights and prevention of access barriers, health concerns, a conflict of interest of technical subconsultant Hammett & Edison, transfer of injury liability to the City of Palo Alto and taxpayers, and unreasonable failure of City staff to respond to public inquiries. Responses to Issues Raised on Appeal Below are staff responses to the appeal statements. The applicant has also provided a letter documenting its response to the appeals, which is included with this report as Attachment H. Aesthetics and Above Ground Design Alongside the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and associated plans and policies, the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.42.110, the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d), and the conditional use permit findings in Section 18.76.010(c) express the local values that form the analytical baseline for considering approval of a WCF. All provide guidance on aesthetics, especially in regard to streetscape design, orderly and cohesive utility design, tree protection, a project relating to its context, reducing the size of a WCF , and other matters. The design of the antenna bayonet shroud, the design of the shrouding for the pole mounted equipment, pole replacement, colors/materials, and landscaping are all topics for Council consideration. Identifying alternative node locations is also an option. The ARB reviewed four different radio screening alternatives and, while preferring undergrounding, identified a pole-mounted design that meet the code requirements and achieved the objectives of concealing, to the extent feasible, the radio equipment. Five different antenna screening alternatives were considered, including pole replacement, and the ARB identified a preferred design aesthetic. These recommendations were memorialized in the Director’s determination. Many, but not all, of the appellants accept the antenna placement atop the wood utility poles City of Palo Alto Page 12 and proposed “bayonet shroud” antenna screening. The pole-mounted radio equipment is a clear area of disagreement, however, and many in the community have expressed a strong interest in the radio equipment being placed underground. While some appellants have objected that pole-mounted equipment will interfere with the City’s long-term plans to underground all utilities, this issue is anticipated in Section 7.2 of the parties’ MLA, whi ch requires to the wireless carrier to relocate its equipment at the request of the City. Underground Vaulting of Equipment The applicant prepared a vault feasibility analysis that City staff reviewed prior to the ARB hearing and the Director’s decision. In this analysis, the applicant found that some of the nodes included in the original application might meet criteria to permit vaulting and the applicant removed those nodes from the Cluster 1 application for further study of whether vaults could be designed in compliance with the City’s noise thresholds. The remaining nodes that represent Cluster 1 were rejected for vaulting by the applicant based on various factors, including, the node’s location in the flood zone, proximity to other City utilities, impacts to tree roots, sidewalk-related constraints, or other factors. Since the ARB’s review and Director’s determination, staff has further analyzed the constraints on undergrounding communicated to the applicant by City staff. Prior guidance to the applicant required flood proof vaults in the flood zone. Another constraint related to the rolled curb in some locations of the City and a desire to not interfere with that design aesthetic. Given the community’s strong interest in undergrounding, staff has sinc e re-evaluated these constraints. Based on this review, staff believes that rolled sidewalk curbs are not a constraint. The City maintains a construction detail that provides for a transition from a flat curb face to a rolled curb (and vice versa). For vaults throughout the City, including the flood zone, the City restricts access under the street right of way to preserve space for future City infrastructure, but the City does allow vaults under the sidewalk. Moreover, these vaults do not need to be flood p roof.7 The applicant has been advised of this position and staff expects to receive an updated vaulting analysis following the release of this report. Beyond these two issues, the City may have other interests in restricting vaulting in some locations due to protecting tree roots or preserving space for further root growth in support of the City’s urban forest. The City has several vaults underground supporting its utility infrastructure. Much of this infrastructure is not sensitive to water intrusion. However, since 1996, as discussed in CMR 182:96 on the City’s Padmount Equipment Policy (Utility Rule and Regulation #1 -3 (b)(3) & (4)), 7 City staff have clarified that the AE10.5 designation applicable to some of the proposed node sites relates to tidal floods, which, in the absence of a barrier such as a levee, have a 1% chance of occurrence in any given year. The current FEMA designations did not account for existing flood protection barriers, because these barriers did not meet FEMA standards; nonetheless, they do provide effective protection. As a result, staff believe that a flood event has a very low chance of occurrence, and the minute risk of such an event should not render undergrounding of equipment infeasible in the AE10.5 flood zone. City of Palo Alto Page 13 the City has had a policy to locate electrical equipment above ground level and place the cables and conduits below ground level. The reason for this is similar to the applicant’s interest and includes employee safety, ease of maintenance, and longer performance from the equipment. From time to time, the City will underground under certain conditions. The applicant reports their equipment could not withstand the temperature and condensation that would result from an underground vault without required sump pumps and ventilation fans. The applicant is also opposed to locating vaults in the flood zone area because its equipment cannot be submerged in water in the event of a 100-year flood. Even if vaulting were pursued for these nodes, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate compliance with an established noise threshold the City’s uses to assess impacts of a project on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As currently designed with the pole-mounted equipment, the nodes generate no noise. The project as approved by the Director supports the CEQA findings of the project being exempt from CEQA review. However, if vaulting is required and the applicant is unable to meet the noise threshold of significance, the City would be required to prepare an environmental impact report and possibly a statement of overriding consideration to allow the placement of the WCF. To implement an underground vaulting requirement, where the Council determines that vaulting is feasible, staff has identified a list of new conditions that could be imposed on the project in Attachment B. Verizon has asserted in its response to the appeal statements a variety of legal objections to vaulting generally (Attachment H). Staff will separately advise the Council on the legal risks associated with these objections in a confidential memorandum. The Council may also consider, subject to constraints of federal law, whether to deny any node locations that cannot feasibly be vaulted or explore certain conditions where pole -mounted equipment may be appropriate. Council’s direction on this application will inform how City staff addresses other similar requests to expand small cell wireless networks throughout the City. Other Issues Comments regarding the health safety effects of electromagnetic radiation from this equipment are beyond the scope of Council consideration to the extent the wireless provider meets federal standards, which has been confirmed by both the applicant’s and the City’s consultants. In addition, the City will require a post-installation evaluation to confirm compliance. Also, while understandable that individual property owners may object to citing a node near their home, no evidence has been submitted that objectively concludes these facilities negatively impact property values. Other concerns regarding exploding batteries, fire hazards, or utility poles falling in earthquakes or fires, do not rise to a level of elevated risk for area residents. The structural integrity of each existing utility pole has been reviewed by the City’s utility engineers and where a pole is found to not be structurally sou nd, a replacement pole is required. With respect to claims that the applicant has not adequately established City of Palo Alto Page 14 significant gaps in coverage, as discussed above, the existence of a gap in coverage may support an argument by the applicant that the City cannot deny an application under Federal law. The absence of a gap in coverage is not, however, a basis for denying the subject applications. At least one appellant expresses concern about a conflict of interest with an expert firm used to evaluate compliance with FCC standards, lack of public notice about the project and lack City responsiveness. However, the administrative record clearly refutes these claims. Finally, allegations relating to takings claims and liability transference do not stand up to scrutiny and ignores the previously approved MLA between the City and the wireless provider. Experiences of Other Jurisdictions Staff has researched and contacted other jurisdictions regarding their experiences with small cell wireless projects in the right of way. This information is provided in Attachment I, which may be supplemented with additional information received after the publication of this report. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on May 11, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the Council meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 7, 2018 which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Staff received a significant number of public comments and inquiries by telephone and email. In addition to the points, concerns, and topics raised by appellants, staff notes that many additional members of the public have spoken in favor of and in opposition to one or more of the eleven (11) nodes, either through their public testimony at the previous Architect ural Review Board meetings or through direct public correspondence. Public correspondence can be found at the following weblink: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4106. Policy Implications The proposed project, whether approved with pole-mounted or vaulted equipment, is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, except that vaulted equipment may require additional review under the Comprehensive Plan EIR. Project review to the required findings will determine project approval based on local criteria appropriate conditions to impose on the project. The Council’s action on this project will inform staff’s review of other applications currently under view and future application filings. The Council is advised to understand the risks related to application processing timelines and litigation that is occurring in other jurisdictions related City of Palo Alto Page 15 in part to equipment undergrounding and project denial. Resource Impact The costs of project review by all staff and consultants are recovered under a cost-recovery agreement with Verizon and Vinculums. Pursuant to the City’s MLA, Verizon would pay the City a License fee for mounting communication equipment on utility poles of $270.00/pole/year (Utility Rate Schedule E-16: Unmetered Electric Service). In accordance with the MLA, Condition of Approval #41 requires Verizon to post a performance bond, letter of credit or other security instrument, to ensure that nodes are maintained as shown on the project plans and are properly maintained. Environmental Review The eleven (11) nodes were analyzed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Gui delines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The eleven (11) nodes, as designed, are exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section 15303, Class 3 of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) in that t he projects propose to install small cell wireless communication equipment in small structures that can be attached to utility poles. The exceptions to the use of this Categorical Exemption are not appicable for the following reasons: the attachment of telecommunications equipment to utility poles is commonplace, including in residential neighborhoods; where appropriate, the equipment would be camouflaged, concealed, or screened through integrated design with the utility poles and the existing environment surrounding each location; other small cell and DAS facilities, both existing and proposed, are not in the same locations as the eleven (11) nodes, and therefore cumulative impacts will not be significant. The aforementioned Categorical Exemption is applicable to nodes implementing the current project design, but it should be noted that any further project design changes may need to be reevaluated under CEQA. This may be relevant if undergrounding radio equipment is required as the applicant has indicated an inability to meet the City’s noise threshold. If the applicant is unable to comply, it is possible an environmental impact report may be required, which may include a need for a statement of overriding considerations . Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) Attachment B: Draft Conditions of Approval Requiring Vaulting of Equipment (DOCX) Attachment C: Applicant Project Description (received February 26, 2018) (PDF) Attachment D: Vinculums Vault Feasibility Reports (dated February 5, 2018) (PDF) Attachment E: Project Plans (dated February 26, 2018) (DOCX) Attachment F: Director's Approval Letter (dated March 26, 2018) (PDF) Attachment G: Appeals (dated April 9, 2018) (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 16 Attachment H: Applicant Response to Appeals (dated May 2, 2 018) (PDF) Attachment I: Case Studies from Other Jurisdictions (DOCX) Attachment J: Vinculums Vault Specifications (dated February 5, 2018) (PDF) Attachment K: Example Vault Installation Photo (dated 2017) (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED ACTION NO. _______: RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION VINCULUMS-VERIZON CLUSTER 1 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY [FILE 17PLN-00169] On May ___, 2018, the Council upheld the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s March 26, 2018 decision to approve the Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit Applications (File 17PLN-00169) making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On May 23, 2017, Vinculums filed for Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit Applications for the use of eighteen (18) wood utility poles located within the public right of way in the City of Palo Alto; as of March 15, 2018, the number of locations under consideration was reduced to eleven (11), as follows:  Node #129: CPAU Pole# 3121 (near 2490 Louis Road APN 127-30- 062)  Node #130: CPAU Pole #2461 (near 2802 Louis Road APN 127-28-046)  Node #131: CPAU Pole #3315 (near 891 Elbridge Way APN 127-26-067)  Node #133E: CPAU Pole #2856 (near 949 Loma Verde APN 127-24-020)  Node #134: CPAU Pole #2964 (near 3409 Kenneth Drive APN 127-09-028)  Node #135: CPAU Pole # 3610 (near 795 Stone Ln APN 127-47-001)  Node #137: CPAU Pole #3351 (near 3090 Ross Rd APN 127-52-031)  Node #138: CPAU Pole #2479 (near 836 Colorado Av APN 127-27-063)  Node #143: CPAU Pole #3867 (near 419 El Verano Av APN 132-15-017)  Node #144: CPAU Pole #1506 (near 201 Loma Verde Av APN 132-48-015) and  Node #145: CPAU Pole #3288 (near 737 Loma Verde Av APN 127-64-039). B. Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit Applications following review by the Architectural Review Board on March 15, 2018. Notices of the Director’s decision were mailed notifying neighbors of the decision on March 26, 2018. The action is contained in the CMR #8977. C. Within the prescribed timeframe, seven (7) appeals of the Director’s Decisions were filed by Palo Alto residents:  18‐AP‐2, Herc Kwan, Node #129: CPAU Pole# 3121 (near 2490 Louis Road)  18‐AP‐3, Francesca Lane Kautz, Node #143: CPAU Pole #3867 (near 419 El Verano Avenue)  18‐AP‐4, Christopher Linn, Node #130: CPAU Pole #2461 (near 2802 Louis Road)  18‐AP‐5, Jeanne Fleming on behalf of United Neighbors, all eleven (11) nodes  18‐AP‐6, RK Parthasarathy, Node #134: CPAU Pole #2964 (near 3409 Kenneth Drive)  18‐AP‐7, Russell Targ and Patricia Targ, all eleven (11) nodes  18‐AP‐8, Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs, all eleven (11) nodes NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The eleven (11) nodes, as designed, are exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section 15303, Class 3 of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) in that the projects propose to install small cell wireless communication equipment in small structures that can be attached to utility poles. The exceptions to the use of this Categorical Exemption are not appicable for the following reasons: the attachment of telecommunications equipment to utility poles is commonplace, including in residential neighborhoods; where appropriate, the equipment would be camouflaged, concealed, or screened through integrated design with the utility poles and the existing environment surrounding each location; other small cell and DAS facilities, both existing and proposed, are not in the same locations as the eleven (11) nodes, and therefore cumulative impacts will not be significant. SECTION 3. Approval Findings. These City Council approvals are granted based upon adherence to the process required by Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110(c)(3) and Section 18.42.110(h). In accordance with PAMC 18.42.110(h)(2) and as outlined below, the project complies with PAMC 18.42.110(i) Development Standards, complies with PAMC 18.42.110(j) Conditions of Approval, and the Architectural Review Findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) and Conditional Use Permit Findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c) can be made for the project. Tier 3 WCF Permit Development Standards PAMC 18.42.110(i) Each of the 11 approved nodes complies with the Development Standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110(i)(1) through (11) because: (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible. The proposed Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) employs a design that balances aesthetic considerations and reduces, to the extent feasible, the small cell’s footprint on the utility pole. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure. The project applicant presented four design options for pole mounted mechanical equipment. The overall size and dimensions varied, but the approved design was selected for its concealment and integration with pole design, in addition to overall reduction in mass and size. The antennas require a bayonet extension or pole replacement, but the height of the antennas extends to the minimum height necessary for effective transmission. (3) Shall be screened from public view. The proposed mechanical equipment, bayonet extensions and antennas are screened from public view with metal shrouds that will be painted to match existing or proposed utility poles. Sites with sparse street trees are conditioned to have additional trees planted to further screen the WCF from view. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site. The small cell nodes will be located on wood utility poles. The proposed shroud and concealment approach is consistent and compatible with other equipment screening on utility poles. NOT YET APPROVED (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code. No significant landscaping or parkway planting will be disturbed or lost. Additionally, amenity trees are identified in the project plans for the following nodes to improve screening: Node 130 (2 trees), Node 131 (1 tree), Node 133-E (1 tree), Node 143 (1 tree), Node 144 (2 trees), and Node 145 (1 tree). (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area. Proposed mechanical equipment and antennas will be concealed with shrouds colored to the extent feasible to match existing or proposed utility poles. The placement and orientation of each node’s mechanical equipment has been evaluated to minimize visual impacts and, to the extent feasible, blend in with the surrounding area. (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached. This provision does not apply to the subject project. (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required. This provision does not apply to the subject project. No WCR is proposed to be located on a historic structure or site. (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district. The proposed facility is not building mounted and, therefore, this provision does not apply to the subject application. (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height. None of the proposed WCF’s extend beyond 65 feet in height. Most antennas are located at or around 55 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This provision does not apply to the subject project. The proposed small cell nodes are all located on public property, which is not subject to setback requirements. Tier 3 WCF Permit Conditions of Approval PAMC 18.42.110(j) Each of the 11 approved nodes complies with PAMC Section 18.42.110(j) because the referenced Wireless Communication Facility standard conditions of approval are incorporated into the specific conditions of approval for this project 17PLN-00169. NOT YET APPROVED Architectural Review Findings PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) All of the architectural review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) can be made because: (1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. As conditioned, the proposed project complies with applicable local regulations for WCF’s, specifically the development requirements of PAMC 18.42.110 (i). There are no applicable design guidelines or coordinated area plan that is relevant to this project. There are several policies in the city’s comprehensive plan that relate to preserving the character and enjoyment residential neighborhoods and wireless communication facilities are not precluded from locating in residential districts. The city’s zoning code provides a process to permit WCF’s that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. None of the proposed small cell nodes are located on a historic resource and, as conditioned, each has been designed to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood to the extent feasible. The proposed facilities are located on utility poles that typically have equipment boxes, transformers, cable runs and other features to support a variety of utility service providers. The comprehensive plan includes Program L9.11.2, which provides that the city identifies city-owned properties where combinations of wireless facilities can be co-located, assuming appropriate lease agreements are in place. The subject antennas are subject to an approved Master License Agreement approved by the City Council in June 2016. Based on the foregoing and information contained in the administrative record, the proposed project complies with this finding. (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: A. Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community. The project includes the establishment of mechanical equipment, antennas and associated cabling. As conditioned, the small cell nodes are designed to balance the aesthetic interests to minimize the visibility of the WCF in the smallest footprint reasonable. The sites are located on utility poles distributed throughout portions of the city and are not intended to be occupied or visited structures. B. Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant. The proposed small cell nodes are attached to existing or planned replacement utility poles. There WCFs are not located on historic resources and are not located in any area recognized by the city for its historic character. C. Is consistent with context based design criteria of the applicable zone district. There is context based design criteria for RM zone district where some of the nodes are located, however, these standards typically relate to building mass, façade treatment, entries, open space, site planning, parking and related matters that are not related to the subject small cell nodes. As conditioned, the proposed WCFs, however, are designed to blend into the environmental to the extent possible with integrated screening techniques and matching exterior surfaces to the color of existing or planned utility poles. NOT YET APPROVED D. Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations. As conditioned, the proposed WCFs are designed to blend in with the existing environment, are located on existing or replacement utility poles and will be painted to match the structures they will be located upon. The proposed equipment is not an atypical use of the utility poles which provides a variety of communication utility services and would not impact the scale, mass or character of adjacent land uses. E. Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The proposed project does not include residential uses and placement of WCFs on utility poles does not disrupt living conditions in adjacent residential areas. Some residents may benefit from improved wireless coverage. (3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding. The proposed project includes the placement of mechanical equipment, cabling, antennas and screening material. The components necessarily by design and function must be integrated and employ appropriate construction techniques. The proposed materials and colors have been reviewed and, as conditioned, determined appropriate for the utility use planned for with the proposed WCFs. The propose material and colors were selected to blend in with the surrounding environment. (4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). As conditioned, the proposed project has been designed in compliance with local, state and federal safety standards, construction techniques and clearances required to allow for the ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The design is functional for its intended use and includes components necessary for its operation and screening. (5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. As a condition of approval, the project requires screen trees at certain small cell node locations. While subject to review and approval from the City’s Urban Forestry division, the variety of trees proposed include Forest Pansy, Blue Atlas Cedar, Dodonea Viscosa, Crape Myrtle, Shamel Ash, Drake Elm, Live Oaks (Quercus Wislizenii); and Hackberry. These trees are consistent and appropriate to the local conditions and support the desired habitat in these areas. (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The proposed project draws energy from the city’s utility service, requires no water, employs appropriate landscaping where required to enhance screening and is designed with material appropriate to the proposed utility use. NOT YET APPROVED Conditional Use Permit Findings PAMC Section 18.76.010(c) All of the conditional use permit findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c) can be made because: (1) The project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. As conditioned, the project involves the construction of 11 small cell nodes to provide wireless service in certain coverage areas of the city. The federal government has preempted local jurisdictions from denying projects based on electromagnetic radiation generated by these WCFs. However, local governments can impose conditions to verify compliance with federal thresholds, which has been incorporated into this approval. The mechanical equipment and antennas are located on existing or planned to be replaced, utility poles. These structures provide a range of communication services to Palo Alto residents. The proposed WCF is consistent with this service objective and is placed in a matter that is designed to blend in with the environment to the extent feasible. The utility poles have been evaluated and determined to be able to support the increased weight and for those poles not suitable, replacement poles are planned. The equipment is placed at an appropriate height and will not interfere with motorists, pedestrians or cyclists. No noise will be emitted from any of the proposed equipment. Based on the foregoing and other information contained in the administrative record, it is found that the proposed project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. (2) The project is located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). Wireless Communication Facilities are permitted uses in the residential district. The city’s zoning code provides a process to permit WCF’s that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. None of the proposed small cell nodes are located on a historic resource and, as conditioned, each has been designed to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood to the extent feasible. The proposed facilities are located on utility poles that typically have equipment boxes, transformers, cable runs and other features to support a variety of utility service providers. The comprehensive plan includes Program L9.11.2, which provides that the city identifies city-owned properties where combinations of wireless facilities can be co-located, assuming appropriate lease agreements are in place. The subject antennas are subject to an approved Master License Agreement approved by the City Council in June 2016. Based on the foregoing and information contained in the administrative record, the proposed project in consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. Conditions of Approval Planning Division 1. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. The nodes shall be built in compliance with the approved plans and associated application materials on file with the Planning Division for 17PLN-00169, except as modified by these conditions of approval. Any additional azimuths, antennas or equipment shown on the project plans beyond that mentioned in the application materials are not approved. The aforementioned plans and materials include:  Color Sample Board, received June 27, 2017.  Project Description, received February 26, 2018.  Project Plans, titled “PALO ALTO SMALL CELL CLUSTER 1,” received February 26, 2018.  Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, titled “Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell Base Stations - Noise Levels at Eleven Pole Locations (Cluster 1) • Palo Alto, California,” dated February 22, 2018 as received February 26, 2018.  Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, titled and dated as follows: a. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 133-E), 949 Loma Verde Avenue • Palo Alto, California, dated February 22, 2018 as received February 26, 2018 b. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 129) 2490 Louis Road • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. c. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 130) 2802 Louis Road • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. d. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 131) 891 Elbridge Way • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. e. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 134) 3409 Kenneth Drive • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. f. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 135) 795 Stone Lane • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. g. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 137) 3090 Ross Road • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. h. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 138) 836 Colorado Avenue • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. i. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 143) 419 El Verano Avenue • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. j. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 144) 201 Loma Verde Avenue • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. k. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 145) 737 Loma Verde Avenue • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. 2. ANTENNAS. The antenna model numbers, tilts, and azimuths shall remain consistent between the permit plan set and the Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated as received February 26, 2018 (Node 133-E) and December 21, 2017 (all other Nodes). 3. NODES EXCLUDED. This approval does not include Nodes 127, 139, 146, 136, 140, 141, and 147, as the applicant elected to not pursue these nodes at this time and these nodes were removed by the applicant from the Project Plans, dated received February 26, 2018. NOT YET APPROVED 4. BATTERY BACK-UP UNITS EXCLUDED. This approval does not contain battery back-up units and associated heat exchangers, as this equipment was removed by the applicant from the Project Plans, dated received February 26, 2018. The proposed design is considered concealment/camouflage for purposes of the Spectrum Act, and battery backups shall not be installed at any node without application for the appropriate WCF permit, consistent with PAMC Section 18.42.110(c). 5. APPROVAL OF NODE ALTERNATE. This approval does not include Node 133, as Alternate Node 133-E is approved as an alternate. 6. USE OF EXISTING POLES OR POLE REPLACEMENTS. Pole replacement is required if existing poles do not meet structural and loading requirements. All pole replacements are approved – Node 129 and Node 133-E. All existing poles to remain shall be returned to plumb. 7. PAINT COLOR FOR CONDUIT AND EQUIPMENT. Each node shall be painted to match most closely the color of the adjacent pole as shown on the Color Sample Board, dated received June 27, 2017. If a pole is replaced, the conduit and equipment shall be painted “Railroad Ties.” 8. ANTENNA CANISTER/BAYONET SHROUD OR POLE REPLACEMENT/CAP MOUNT. Each node shall utilize the “Taper Shroud” shown as on Sheet CT-2 of the plan set, unless the node is listed for pole replacement and the associated cap mount format. No sky shall be seen through the mounting and attachment equipment for the antennas. 9. VAULTING OF EQUIPMENT. This approval does not include any vaulting of equipment listed to be pole mounted, as vaulting was found to be infeasible at the approved locations. 10. POLE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SHROUD. Each node shall utilize the “Box Shroud” as shown on Sheet CT-4 for any pole mounted equipment. 11. POLE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT STANDOFF DISTANCE. The standoff distance for the pole mounted equipment shall not exceed five (5) inches. 12. POLE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT ORIENTATION. All nodes shall maintain required climbing space. Pole mounted-equipment shall not face directly toward adjacent private property or extend over sidewalks. The Director of Planning and Community Environment may approve minor modifications to equipment orientation in order to address any resource, technical, or utilities engineering-related site constraints based upon field conditions. 13. AMENITY TREES FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING. New amenity trees proposed on private property are not a part of this approval. All nodes shall incorporate new amenity trees in the right of way where possible in order to provide for additional screening of pole mounted equipment and conduit. All new amenity trees shall be listed in the “New Tree Table” on Node Sheets A-1. Amenity trees are identified for the following nodes: Node 130 (2 trees), Node 131 (1 tree), Node 133-E (1 tree), Node 143 (1 tree), Node 144 (2 trees), and Node 145 (1 tree). 14. EXPLANATORY AND OTHER SAFETY SIGNAGE. The recommended explanatory signage described in the Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated as received February 26, 2018 (Node 133-E) and December 21, 2017 (all other Nodes), shall be incorporated into the NOT YET APPROVED permit plan set. Signage shall comply with any relevant requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. All radio frequency signage shall comply with FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this Site as required by the FCC. 15. PERMITTING. This approval letter, including the associated conditions of approval, shall be printed on the plan sets submitted for encroachment and street work permit review. Encroachment permit and streetwork permit plan sets shall include accurate locations of driveways, curb lines, utilities, and other existing conditions. 16. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The project establishes the site specific camouflage, concealment and stealth elements for each approved new node, and for that node only. 17. PERMITTING BY OTHERS. This approval does not include approval or permitting by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and/or other entities that may have additional permitting authority separate from the City of Palo Alto. 18. PLANNING FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a permit final inspection by the Public Works and/or Building Departments. Any revisions during the construction process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; landscaping, equipment, and hard surface locations. Contact the Planning Department to schedule this inspection. 19. NODE MAINTENANCE. All aspects of the small cell node shall be well maintained at all times and replaced, if necessary, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 20. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED PLANS. The Director of Planning and Community Environment may approve minor modifications to the approved project plans relevant to initial installation, such as replacement of wood utility poles, if determined to be necessary to address any minor resource, technical, or utilities engineering-related site constraints based upon field conditions. Any further modifications, additions and intensification of use (i.e. additional antennas, equipment substitutions, adjustments in location or height) may require review and approval as specified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code prior to construction. Please see PAMC Section 18.42.110(c) for more information. 21. NOISE ORDINANCE AND NOISE POLICIES. The project shall comply with all noise standards specified in Municipal Code Chapter 9.10.050 and the noise-related policies in Chapter 4 (Natural Environment) of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. 22. REMOVAL OF ABANDONED EQUIPMENT. Any components of the Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) that cease to be in use for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, Wireless Communications Service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that WCF. No new permits shall be approved until the abandoned WCF or applicable components are removed. NOT YET APPROVED 23. AS-BUILT PLANS. An as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all Transmission Equipment and all utilities, shall be submitted to the Planning Division within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. 24. RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION. The applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets Federal Communications Commission standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with the FCC's radio frequency emission standards shall be submitted to the Planning Division within one year of commencement of operation. The report shall have a methodology section outlining instrumentation, measurement direction, heights and distances, and other protocols outlined in FCC Bulletin OET 65. The report shall include a list and identify any nearby RF sources, nearby reflecting surfaces or conductive objects that could produce regions of field intensification, antenna gain and vertical and horizontal radiation patterns, type of modulation of the site, polarization and emissions orientation(s) of the antenna(s), a log of all equipment used, and a map and list of all locations measured indicating the maximum power observed and the percentage of the FCC Uncontrolled/General Population guidelines at the measurement location. At the applicant’s expense, the City may elect to have a City-staff observer during the measurements, may elect to receive raw test measurements by location provided in electronic format to the observer, and may elect to have the report independently peer reviewed prior to report acceptance. Applicant may be required to submit these reports periodically for the life of the project, as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 25. INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant’s expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 26. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Code, any permit issued under this Code, and all other applicable federal, state and local laws (including without limitation all building code, electrical code and other public safety requirements). Any failure by the City to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and regulations. 27. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event an encroachment and/or street work permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. A written request for a one-year extension shall be submitted prior to the expiration date in order to be considered by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. NOT YET APPROVED 28. REVOCATION. The Director of Planning and Community Environment may revoke any WCF permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any conditions of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a permit shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. Fire Department 29. FIRE CODE. This project shall comply with the 2016 CFC and local Fire Code ordinance/requirements. 30. ELECTRICAL DISCONNECT. The project shall label the main electrical disconnect. 31. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGISTRATION FORM. A Hazardous Materials Registration Form is required to be submitted and approved prior to bringing any hazardous materials on site. Forms also available at http://www.unidocs.org 32. SIGNS. The project shall provide warning signs at locations where workers and general public may be exposed to RF exposure above the federal Maximum Permissible Level. 33. CONTACT INFORMATION. Each site shall have at least one sign per owner/service provider that indicates the company’s name, site # and 24 hour emergency number. Transportation Division 34. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS: Include site-specific traffic control plans which conform to the latest version of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) with plans submitted for a Street Work Permit or Encroachment Permit. Temporary traffic control plans will be reviewed as part of the Street Work and/or Encroachment Permit. Approval of the planning entitlement does not constitute approval of any temporary traffic control plans. 35. VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CLEARANCES: At least 1.5-feet horizontal clearance shall be provided between any new or relocated equipment and the adjacent face of curb or edge of traveled way for any public roadway, driveway, or alley, unless 16-feet vertical clearance is provided between equipment and the top of adjacent travel way. In no circumstance shall less than 10-feet vertical clearance be provided between adjacent sidewalk, path, or walkway grade. Public Works-Urban Forestry Department 36. NEW AMENITY TREE PLANTING AND WATERING. The applicant shall coordinate with the Urban Forestry Department to finalize all amenity tree species, locations, and box sizes prior to permit in order for all trees to be accurately noted on the plans for permit. The applicant shall make a one-time only standard contribution to the Urban Forestry Fund in the amount of $650 per tree for Urban Forestry to plant and then water the respective tree during the tree establishment period. NOT YET APPROVED 37. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall retain a certified arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees, as shown in the approved plan set. 38. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 39. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. Utilities-Water, Gas, Wastewater Department 40. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS. The applicant shall comply with all the Water, Gas, and Wastewater Department requirements noted during plan review. Utilities-Electrical Department 41. MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT. Each small cell node will comply at all times with the terms and conditions in the Master License Agreement for Use of City-Controlled Space on Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles and in Conduits (“MLA”) between the City of Palo Alto and GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership, DBA Verizon Wireless, executed on June 27, 2016 (Contract No. C16165156). A security instrument, such as a Performance Bond or Letter of Credit, shall be provided in accordance with Section 14.0 of the Master License Agreement prior to encroachment or street work permit issuance. 42. LOADING CALCULATIONS. All sites shall include pole loading calculations. 43. ATTACHMENTS. All attachments for equipment must be in the 12, 3, 6, or 9 o’clock positions as shown on the approved plans. 44. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 45. PRIOR TO WORK. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 46. IDENTIFICATION OF UTILITIES. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. NOT YET APPROVED 47. UTILITITY DISCONNECTION. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. Public Works-Engineering Department 48. PERMIT REVIEW. Public Works shall determine the number of encroachment permits and associated street work permits, if any, that can be processed in a batch. The applicant will be required to apply for all necessary permits including: Street Work and Encroachment Permit applications. All required applications shall be in the submittal package for Public Works. Any necessary traffic control plans will also be submitted in the permit application packet. These necessary permit applications and requirements are available from Public Works on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/default.asp. All traffic control plans associated with each proposal location shall be reviewed by Transportation Division under Planning & Community Environment. Public Works will route all traffic control plans for Transportation review when associated Street Work and Encroachment permits are submitted. 49. TRENCH WORK AND FIBER OPTIC CONDUIT. All trench work and placement of fiber optic conduit shall adhere to City of Palo Alto Public Works specifications. Refer to City of Palo Alto Public Works Conduit Location Detail Telecommunications Drawing No. 402. This detail will provide specifics for placement of conduit in both residential and commercial areas. Any deviation from City Standards and Regulations must be approved by Public Works and all other applicable Departments. 50. EASEMENTS. All existing easements shall be indicated on plan submittal to Public Works for necessary permits. Any proposed items in existing Public Utility Easement areas shall be approved by CPA Utilities and Public Works Engineering. This can be covered under an Encroachment Permit. Include a note on site plan indicating whether easements are present for each location. 51. FLOOD ZONE. Notes shall be included on the Site Plan and/or Grading and Drainage Plan that includes the FIRM panel number, flood zone designation, BFE elevation and the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD). You may access project specific information on Public Works Storm water website. See Flood zone Lookup under the attached link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/stormwater/floodzones.asp NOT YET APPROVED 52. PLAN SET NOTES. The following notes shall be added to the plan set for permits: a. Include the sidewalk width for each location on site plans. b. Add a note to the plans that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk, alley or parking lot to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians and vehicles. The contractor must cone or tape-off the work area while still leaving adequate room for pedestrians and vehicles to safely pass. If the contractor’s work area leaves insufficient sidewalk or alley space for safe pedestrian and vehicle passage, the contractor must apply to Public Works for an encroachment permit to close the sidewalk or alley.” c. Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same.” d. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work.” e. The following note shall be included on the Site Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. f. The following note shall be included on the Site Plan: “The contractor shall be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public-right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” g. The following note shall be included on the Site Plan: “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.” NOT YET APPROVED 53. CURB CONDITION. Each location shall identify curb type on plans. Indicate whether or not a site has a rolled curb or a standard curb/gutter. In the instance of the rolled curb, all equipment shall be removed from the transition slope area of the rolled curb. The equipment shall be on one plane. 54. UTILITIES. Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas meters, etc., shall be located within the project site but accessible from the street. Any new or relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department. 55. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION. The permit plans shall include the City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan.” The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 56. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. The plans shall clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as trenching, sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, utility laterals or crane. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 57. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER. In the event existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters, driveway approaches, or street areas in the public right-of-way are disturbed as part of this project, the applicant shall repair or replace those sidewalks, curbs, gutters, driveway approaches, or street areas as directed by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor NOT YET APPROVED APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Attachment B Draft Conditions of Approval Requiring Vaulting of Equipment (Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169) MODIFY CONDITION OF APPROVAL #9: 9. VAULTING OF EQUIPMENT. This approval requires vaulting of equipment, except the antenna, power disconnect, and conduit, at all locations determined by City Council to be feasible as the least intrusive means for deployment of small cell nodes. a) The one or more vaults per node proposed for installation shall be of the smallest possible size(s) necessary to accommodate the small cell node equipment and accessory infrastructure. b) Vault locations shall not impede access to adjacent private property and shall be within the right of way, as verified by a survey. c) Vault locations shall be consistent with City policy that requires privately-owned underground infrastructure to be installed backwards from the curb line or otherwise reserves under the travel lanes in the right of way for City use. Any exceptions to this placement policy shall be approved by the Director of Public Works and Director of Utilities. d) Vault locations shall be confirmed by the project arborist that they do not damage adjacent trees on private property. Vault locations shall be placed in a location that maintains the integrity of the root growing space for adjacent trees on private property and street trees. The Urban Forestry Master Plan requires no net loss in tree canopy. Existing street trees shall be shown on the site plan and no street trees shall be removed due to vault siting or construction, unless approved by the City’s Urban Forester and replaced in accordance with the City’s Tree Technical Manual. Existing landscaping shall be shown on the site plan or a landscaping plan and shall be replaced if lost during construction. e) Vaults and associated over-excavation and backfill shall attend to Public Works, Wastewater, Gas, Water, Electrical and Urban Forestry requirements for clearance from underground utilities, structural and geotechnical requirements, and tree protection. f) Vault covers, access lids, and vents shall be flush with existing grade, as approved by the Director of Public Works. There shall be no above-ground protrusions from the vault(s) or venting into the right of way. g) Vault covers, access lids, and vents shall be of a weather resistant material and ADA compliant, including in regard to providing a slip resistant surface. h) Vault covers, access lids, and vents shall be earth tone or within the same color and texture family as the adjacent sidewalk to as closely resemble City standard vaulting as possible. i) If necessary, nodes adjacent to rolled curbs shall transition to a standard curb in a manner consistent with City of Palo Alto Standard Detail 138 Type A to Type B Curb & Gutter Transition. j) A noise report shall be submitted for verification that all vaulted equipment will comply with the noise standards specified in Municipal Code Chapter 9.10.050 and the noise-related policies in Chapter 4 (Natural Environment) of the Comprehensive Plan. The noise-related policies in the Comprehensive Plan also work together to prevent exceedance of any of the following noise-related CEQA thresholds, which would be considered a potentially significant CEQA impact: a. The potential to 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. b. The potential to cause the Ldn to increase by 3 Db or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB. c. The potential to cause and increase of 3 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB. k) Vault information shall be provided on the site plan, sections, elevations, and details sheets submitted for encroachment permits and street work permits. The plans shall include all drainage to curb information, vault specifications, dimensions and depths of the vaults and excavation, venting/cooling and pumping/discharge specifications, as well as supplemental detail drawings for all equipment that will be placed in the vault. ADD NEW CONDITION OF APPROVAL #__: __. In the event the applicant is unable to place equipment underground at a node in compliance with the City’s noise thresholds, the applicant may elect to remove the node from the application and seek new approval after conducting additional environmental review. DELETE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL #10, #11, #12, AND #13 FOR NODES THAT ARE NOT DENIED AND NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE UNDERGROUND VAULTS FOR RADIO EQUIPMENT. 10. POLE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SHROUD. Each node shall utilize the “Box Shroud” as shown on Sheet CT-4 for any pole mounted equipment. 11. POLE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT STANDOFF DISTANCE. The standoff distance for the pole mounted equipment shall not exceed five (5) inches. 12. POLE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT ORIENTATION. All nodes shall maintain required climbing space. Pole mounted-equipment shall not face directly toward adjacent private property or extend over sidewalks. The Director of Planning and Community Environment may approve minor modifications to equipment orientation in order to address any resource, technical, or utilities engineering-related site constraints based upon field conditions. 13. AMENITY TREES FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING. New amenity trees proposed on private property are not a part of this approval. All nodes shall incorporate new amenity trees in the right of way where possible in order to provide for additional screening of pole mounted equipment and conduit. All new amenity trees shall be listed in the “New Tree Table” on Node Sheets A-1. Amenity trees are identified for the following nodes: Node 130 (2 trees), Node 131 (1 tree), Node 133-E (1 tree), Node 143 (1 tree), Node 144 (2 trees), and Node 145 (1 tree). Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 1 of 26 February 26, 2017 Verizon Wireless – Project Description Cluster 1 February 26, 2018 Verizon Wireless is seeking approval for the design of proposed small cell attachments to wood poles owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) under the Master License Agreement (“MLA”) entered between the two parties in June 2016. This application for Architectural Review encompasses the first “cluster” or grouping of small cells located in the public Right-of-Way (“ROW”) and contains eleven (11) proposed nodes on wood utility poles in the Mid-town, South of Mid-Town, St. Claire Gardens and Palo Verde neighborhoods. Current Design for Consideration Verizon Wireless’ currently proposed design is the direct result of feedback from the December 7, 2017 Architectural Review Board hearing where Verizon was asked to install equipment underground to the greatest extent feasible. Verizon has evaluated all fifteen (15) original locations from this cluster and is requesting to move forward on eleven (11) poles where vaulting has been determined to be infeasible. Details of the assessment process are provided below in the “Vaulting” section. All pole mounted equipment including antennas and shrouding will be painted to match the pole. We have worked closely with Urban Forestry to propose amenity trees, which will provide additional screening where none currently exists. Each small cell is served by both fiber and electrical power; in most cases, this is accomplished via an aerial drop on the pole. Pole Top Design The currently proposed design for these eleven (11) poles consists of one (1) narrow four-foot cylindrical antenna, with a one-foot cable concealment cage underneath. For existing utility poles, the antenna will be elevated on a seven-foot pole top “bayonet” extension. For replacement utility poles, the antenna will be placed directly on top of the pole using a one-foot mount. At the December 7, 2017 hearing, consensus from the ARB was for a more streamlined appearance between the pole and the antenna. Various shrouding options have been presented at the front of the plan set. Verizon has received approval to modify the “mock” small cell, located adjacent to 1350 Newell Rd. with the addition of the Tapered Bayonet radio shroud. At this time, Verizon Wireless now seeks direction from the ARB on a final preferred design for the pole top configuration. Radio Design On the side of the pole, Verizon Wireless will mount three (3) required radios (“RRUs”), an AC conversion panel, a small fiber demarcation unit and diplexers. From among the four (4) options presented at the December 7, 2017 hearing, the Architectural Review Board preferred a streamlined “Box Shroud” which would conceal the three vertically-stacked radios, associated ancillary equipment and cabling within a single shroud of uniform width and depth. Since the December 7 ARB hearing, a new, smaller model of RRU has become available for network use, which further reduces the volume of the pole mounted equipment and associated shroud. Additionally, the bracket standoff from the pole has been reduced from the originally proposed maximum of 12 inches, to no more than the 4-inch required minimum separation (“belt gap”) from the pole. The various shrouding options to conceal the Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 2 of 26 February 26, 2017 pole mounted equipment have been presented at the front of the plan set, in both drawing and photo sim form. Verizon also will be modifying the “mock” small cell, with the addition of the “Box Shroud”. At this time, Verizon Wireless now seeks direction from the ARB on a final preferred shroud design for the pole mounted equipment. Vaulting At the Architectural Review Board on December 7, 2017, staff was directed to have Verizon Wireless propose underground equipment to the greatest extent feasible. To assess feasibility, Verizon scrubbed the technically viable search area of thirty feet (30') from each primary pole. Once that distance is exceeded, the network no longer operates as designed. Additionally, all viable alternate poles for each node were reviewed. To determine feasibility of placing the equipment in an underground vault at each pole, the scope and conditions listed below were used: Scope 1) Size of vault and associated excavation Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'- 7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter 2) Search distance from pole of 30’ radius. Conditions The following conditions restrict the placement of a vault: 1. Proposed vault location interferes with existing underground utilities as identified by field conditions or from maps provided by the City of Palo Alto. 2. Vault or its associated excavation would encroach on private property. 3. Proposed vault is located within a Flood Plain. 4. Proposed vault location is unable to comply with state, federal or city safety standards. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 3 of 26 February 26, 2017 5. Preservation of trees: Excavation cannot occur within a minimum distance of 10’ of an established street tree. Additionally, Section 1.39 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual confirms that trenching within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is injurious to roots and tree health and is prohibited. The TPZ extends a minimum distance of the dripline, per Section 1.36 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Section 2.15 of the outlines prohibited activities within the TPZ, including foundation digging, utility trenching, paving, or any other excavation. Privately owned trees are also considered for protection. 6. Noise generated from vault is unable to comply with City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan noise standards. It was only after thoroughly evaluating each node that Verizon determined vaulting is infeasible on 11 proposed locations. Separate vaulting reports have been submitted for review. Landscaping Verizon Wireless has worked closely with our project arborist, Urban Forestry and Planning to propose trees in the public Right-of-Way, where deemed appropriate that will help to screen the proposed equipment from various surrounding views. The proposed trees have been added to the Site Plan (page A-1 of each node) and a New Tree Table placed beside the Existing Tree Table for ease of reference. Careful consultation with Urban Forestry resulted in the species selection and size. Color As currently conceived, wood pole designs would require all pole mounted equipment, including conduits to encase the fiber and power, to be painted brown to blend closely with the color of the existing pole. Upon review of existing small cells in Palo Alto, and the proposed utility poles for this cluster, it seemed appropriate to select various shades of brown to more closely match the existing poles. In recognition that brown is not just brown, paint samples (Kelly Moore: Railroad Ties KMA67, Log Cabin KMA76 and Clay Bath KM4595) are included in Exhibit F – Proposed Paint Samples. These are a digital approximation of the color and actual samples have been provided with our application. Design Evolution of Project Over the last year and a half, Verizon Wireless has been working with the City to refine the design for its small cells. As detailed below, the most critical design changes to reduce overall volume and footprint of equipment, as well as eliminate any noise producing elements. Again, in its current proposal, a new and smaller radio has become available for network use, which reduces overall volume of any pole mounted equipment: • Original Design: Configuration 1 (original design with backup battery): approx. 68 cu. ft. • Revised Mock Sun Shroud Design (no battery, only pole mounted): approx. 14.3 cu. ft. • Currently Proposed Box Shroud (with new, smaller radio): approx. 16.0 cu. ft. Beginning in the Fall of 2016, Verizon attended two Development Review Committee meetings to discuss the preliminary design for small cells. Subsequently, the mock site constructed to the Palo Alto Art Center was built to obtain feedback from staff and members of the public. Application for Preliminary Review was filed in Jan. 2017 for Cluster 1, after which Verizon Wireless attended additional DRC meetings. Staff feedback from these meetings has also been critical in evolving the design. For Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 4 of 26 February 26, 2017 example, a thoughtful discussion during one DRC resulted in a close collaboration with the Project Arborist, Urban Forestry and Planning to propose new amenity trees where none currently exist. The project was heard for Preliminary Review by the ARB on May 18, 2017. Feedback generally centered on shrouding the cabling between the radios to create a more streamlined appearance in the equipment and the “Sun Shield” design was constructed in September of 2017. The currently proposed “Box Shroud” is a further iteration of that design, requested at the December 7, 2017 formal ARB hearing. Design feedback from the public remains a top priority for Verizon in its endeavors to site small cells. To begin early with Cluster 1, Verizon Wireless sent notices to owners and occupants within over six hundred-fifty (650') for a March 30, 2017 community meeting, held at the Palo Alto Art Center. In addition, a personalized package was sent to each residence directly adjacent to a node, even if across the street (usually 3-6 packages per node). Community feedback was obtained both at the meeting and through direct contact where residents reached out. The most major concern expressed by residents related to noise-producing equipment of any kind. There were also a smaller percentage of residents who felt very strongly that the tradeoff for some noise was worth the security of emergency battery backup during a disaster resulting in major power loss. Verizon ultimately made the decision to remove the emergency batteries to eliminate the noise. The project, as proposed, has no noise producing components. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 5 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit A – Coverage Maps Coverage Map – Cluster 1: Labels The map below depicts the nodes from Cluster 1, and the existing macro sites. For clarity, coverage is depicted on subsequent maps. Blue circles represent a proposed node that would transmit signal in all directions. “Pie-shaped” proposed sites represent small cell nodes with fewer than three (3) sectors, i.e. the antenna has a directional signal pattern that is not in all directions. Map of Labels: Streets, Node Numbers, Existing Macro Sites with Names Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 6 of 26 February 26, 2017 Existing coverage area – proposed small cells in Cluster 1 turned OFF. Coverage Map – Cluster 1: Existing Coverage Only existing coverage provided by “macro” sites is shown (Cluster 1 small cells turned off). For clarity, site names and numbers are shown on the previous map. Blue circles represent a proposed node that would transmit signal in all directions. “Pie-shaped” proposed sites represent small cell nodes with fewer than three (3) sectors, i.e. the antenna has a directional signal pattern that is not in all directions. As demonstrated by the map, coverage is marginal or poor in many locations. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 7 of 26 February 26, 2017 Coverage Map – Cluster 1: Proposed Coverage The map below depicts the additional coverage provided from the proposed nodes in Cluster 1 (small cells turned on). Existing coverage provided by “macro” sites is also shown. For clarity, site names and numbers are shown on the first map page. Blue circles represent a proposed node that would transmit signal in all directions. “Pie-shaped” proposed sites represent small cell nodes with fewer than three (3) sectors, i.e. the antenna has a directional signal pattern that is not in all directions. As demonstrated by the map, coverage is significantly improved in many locations with the addition of small cells. Proposed Coverage – small cells in Cluster 1 turned ON. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 8 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit B – Small Cell Selection Process Pole Selection Based on the need to provide network coverage and capacity, Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency engineers identify target locations or “nodes” throughout the city to improve and optimize network performance. Because small cells provide service over a small area, approximately six hundred (600) to twelve hundred (1200) feet, there is less flexibility in how far they can be moved from a defined engineering target. As a result, there are a limited number of existing structures, i.e. existing wood utility poles or streetlights that will meet the required engineering objective for any given small cell node. Each proposed node is visited by a team to identify existing city-owned structures available for attachment within the target engineering area. During this fielding walk, guidelines are applied by City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering, as well as Verizon Wireless Engineering, Real Estate and Construction to determine the most suitable pole, subsequently identified as the “primary” location. Much of the design for the pole-mounted equipment has been dictated by regulatory agencies, such as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The criteria used to select a pole have been compiled into the Small Cell Siting Guidelines below. The Alternative Site Analysis for each small cell area are contained in Exhibit C—Node Level Alternate Pole Analysis, which provides an inventory of available poles and their viability. Collocation with Other Small Cells As mentioned above, the first step when a location is identified by Engineering, is to visit the area and assess suitable structures for attachment. In some cases, there may be an existing WCF or small cell located on a utility pole in the area. While it may appear to make sense to collocate on the same pole as an existing WCF, this is not feasible for many reasons. First, Right-of-Way poles are small and can only support limited equipment. Placing additional equipment on a pole will very likely exceed the structural limits of the pole and block required climbing space. Additionally, interference can present a problem in locating different carriers’ equipment on the same structure. Some carrier antennas and frequencies used need significant separation to avoid interference and most ROW poles don’t have enough space to allow for this separation. We are also striving to provide the most seamless aesthetic design possible. Having multiple carriers on a pole means more antennas and more equipment boxes on the pole. For these reasons, Verizon Wireless has not proposed collocation on an existing WCF. Additional Considerations Beyond the Engineering Criteria, pole selection is based on a thoughtful consideration of the surrounding environment, optimizing for existing favorable site features such as landscaping and tree foliage and wherever possible, reducing the impact on views from streets as well as adjacent residences. Poles located in private residential easements (e.g. backyards) and close proximity to second story windows were avoided whenever possible. As these Alternative Site Analyses demonstrate, many seemingly suitable poles must be eliminated for engineering or other reasons. In fact, as these examples demonstrate, there is quite often only one suitable pole for a small cell within a designated coverage area. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 9 of 26 February 26, 2017 Small Cell Siting Guidelines The standards contained below in the Small Cell Siting Guidelines working document have been developed by compiling the criteria and constraints of various regulating agencies. In siting small cells, Verizon Wireless is required to adhere to the standards of the California Public Utilities Commission (General Order 95 Requirements, Rule 94); the engineering and real estate requirements of property owner City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU); Development Standards for wireless communication facility (WCF) locations from PAMC §18.42.110(i); and the Architectural Review Findings of PAMC §18.76.020. Criteria have been further adjusted as city staff from Planning, Urban Forestry, CPAU, and the Art Department have all made time to attend site walks with Verizon Wireless real estate, engineering and construction teams in their fielding efforts. Additionally, previous small cell and DAS installations in the City of Palo Alto were analyzed to consider previous findings and recommendations by staff, the public and reviewing bodies. Engineering Criteria Nature of Small Cells--small cells differ from traditional “macro” cells in that their miniature quality dictates that they can only move a very small distance (measured in feet) and still serve their intended purpose. Verizon Wireless engineering proposed locations are fielded using the criteria below to select a utility pole or streetlight from existing city infrastructure: City of Palo Alto Utility (Pole Owner) Pole Attachment Mandates • All Attachments must meet California Public Utilities General Order 95 o Clear climbing space – minimum of 90-degree quadrant o Clearances between power conduction and/or other attachments (min. 6') o Required distances for separation between pole and equipment (min. 4") o Required distances for separation between equipment o Minimum height of attachment • City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) prioritizes the provision of service to its customers. The siting of attachments on poles is secondary and therefore: o No attachments allowed on poles with primary power risers o No attachments allowed on poles with transformers or other special equipment o Primary Line and Buck (primary power lines attaching to the pole at 90 degrees or in perpendicular fashion) situations have a modified climbing space requirement, requiring more pole real estate than otherwise required under CA Public Utility Code o Various other situations where the provision of electrical service would be compromised by attachment City of Palo Alto Utility Preferences (in order of importance) 1. Guy stubs - Poles that do not have any electrical or communications; they simply provide a structural tie point for a guy wire for a neighboring pole Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 10 of 26 February 26, 2017 2. Poles with overhead secondary power conductors only – Secondary power (typically) being the second from the top level of power on the pole and which provides residential power (120/240 Volts AC) 3. Primary dead-end poles – A pole at the end of a line of poles which no poles further down the line 4. Primary poles with no transformers downstream on the poles to end of line of poles 5. Primary poles with no electric utility equipment on the poles on either side of the proposed pole Development Criteria Development Standards from PAMC §18.42.110(i) • Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible • Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure • Be screened from public view • Be architecturally compatible with the existing site • Be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code • An Antenna, Base Station, or Tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the Antenna, Base Station, or Tower into the surrounding area Planning and Residential Considerations • Poles preferred in the public Right-of-Way are selected. Poles on Public Utility Easements are not generally selected for attachment • Prioritize poles which have tree foliage close to help camouflage the pole mounted equipment • Prioritize poles that are located near evergreen trees, rather than deciduous trees • Select a location for ground based emergency battery equipment that meets standards identified in Tree Technical Manual • Face the pole mounted equipment away from direct views of the adjacent home, toward the street when no foliage is present to hide the equipment • Consolidate equipment to reduce the visual clutter; move the ground mounted equipment onto the pole when there is not enough Right-of-Way or deemed too obtrusive to the residents • In general, prefer locations mid-block instead of at more visible corners/intersections • Determine the most advantageous location that is least disruptive to views from both pedestrian and the adjacent residences Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 11 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit C – Node Level Alternate Pole Analysis Below is an analysis of each node in Cluster 1 and the poles available for attachment. Poles within the search area are designated as either viable alternates or eliminated for the various reasons outlined in the Alternative Site Analysis for each node below. SF PALO ALTO 129 Alternative Site Analysis Per the analysis below, the currently proposed pole is the only one viable for attachment to provide service for this node. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 129-A Metal Street Light 251 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 129-B Wood Utility Pole 3129 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clear climbing space. There is not enough climbing space on this pole to safely allow a VZW attachment. Additionally, the pole is located near a more visible corner along Louis Rd and therefore would is more visible than the primary pole. 129-C Wood Utility Pole 3207 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 129-D Wood Utility Pole 3120 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, not selected as primary because high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 129-E Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 129-F Wood Utility Pole 3208 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 129-G Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 12 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 130 Alternative Site Analysis Per the analysis below, the currently proposed pole is the only one viable for attachment to provide service for this node. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 130-A Wood Utility Pole 2462 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 130-B Metal Street Light 281 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 130-C Wood Utility Pole 2460 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 130-D Wood Utility Pole 4016 Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement) are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. 130-E Wood Utility Pole 2430 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 130-F Wood Utility Pole 2463 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 13 of 26 February 26, 2017 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 131-A Wood Utility Pole 3316 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary power riser located on pole. 131-B Wood Utility Pole 3317 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary power riser located on pole. 131-C Metal Street Light N/A Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 131-D Wood Utility Pole 3314 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary as it is more visible from all directions than the corner location selected. It is first alternate candidate. 131-E Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 131-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 131-G Wood Utility Pole 3313 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. SF PALO ALTO 131 Alternative Site Analysis Per the alternative site analysis below, the currently proposed pole is one of two viable for small cell attachment to provide service for this node. While the primary pole is located on a corner, it was selected because it is far more naturally screened than the first alternate, which is in a highly visible location just within the landscape area between two residences. The existing large trees are at the far side of the yards adjacent to the alternate and no planter strip exists where amenity trees could be added. This is a great example of the kind of prioritization involved in choosing between two technically viable poles. In this case, the corner location provides service via a less obtrusive pole. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 14 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 133 Alternative Site Analysis Two poles were viable in this service area. Both poles have similar settings along Loma Verde Ave, located between two residences, rather than directly in front of one. The selected primary pole better meets the engineering objective and appeared to be less visible when traversing Loma Verde Ave, but at the request of Planning & Community Environment, the viable alternate pole has also been included for review. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 133-A Wood Utility Pole 2858 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 133-B Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 133-C Wood Utility Pole 3304 Not Viable CPAU Engineering A power line crossover takes place at this corner and does not allow enough space for attachment. Additionally, high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines 133-D Wood Utility Pole 2859 Not Viable CPAU Engineering A power line crossover takes place at this corner and does not allow enough space for attachment. Additionally, high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines 133-E Wood Utility Pole 2856 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable. It is first alternate candidate. 133-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 133-G Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement) are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. 133-H Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 133-I Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 15 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 134 Alternative Site Analysis Two poles were viable in this service area. Both poles have similar settings along Kenneth Dr. The selected primary pole better meets the engineering objective and is located less intrusively between two residences, rather than directly in front of one. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 134-A Metal Street Light 345 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from seconary power. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 134-B Wood Utility Pole 2965 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. 134-C Wood Utility Pole 2963 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 134-D Wood Utility Pole 2962 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary. It is first alternate candidate. 134-E Wood Utility Pole 2966 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is leaning, too short and surrounded by tree clutter and therefore could not meet the engineering objective for this area. 134-F Metal Street Light 341 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 16 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 135 Alternative Site Analysis Three existing pole locations were viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node. Two are located along the water district canal, mid-bock and so are more preferred. The taller of the poles was selected as it does not require replacement. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 135-A Wood Utility Pole 3611 Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole location is viable, but the existing structure does not provide enough height to meet the required engeering objective. It is the first alternate candidate and would require replacement with a taller pole to provide the required level of service. 135-B Wood Utility Pole 3371 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary power riser located on pole. 135-C Metal Street Light 342 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 135-D Wood Utility Pole 3609 Viable Planning/Visibility Concerns The pole is technically viable, but was not preferred as it is located on a high visibility corner. It is the second alternate candidate. 135-E Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 135-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from seconary power. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 135-G Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 135-H Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, GO95 requires distance form communication lines, therefore attachment is not feasible. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 17 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 137 Alternative Site Analysis Two poles were viable to meet the engineering objective at this location. The proposed primary was selected for its location between two residences with firmly established trees for screening on either side. The first alternate candidate is viable and meets the engineering objectives, but is located on a highly visible corner and so was not selected as primary. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 137-A Wood Utility Pole 3349 Viable Planning Pole is viable from an engineering perspective, but its highly visible location at an intersection, with only moderate screening, makes it the first alternate candidate. 137-B Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, pole is too far north to meet required engineering objectives. 137-C Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, the pole is surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the engineering objective for this area. 137-D Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable Planning Poles located outside of the Public ROW, within a public utility easement, are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to the resident. Could not get pole number as it is located in backyard. 137-E Wood Utility Pole 3352 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. It would require replacement with a taller pole. 137-F Wood Utility Pole 3353 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 137-G Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 137-H Wood Utility Pole 3554 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clear climbing space. There is not enough climbing space on this pole to safely allow a VZW attachment. Additionally, the pole is somewhat too far so the south to meet the required engineering objective and is highly visible. 137-I Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 137-J Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require a minimum distance from communication lines, which could not be met on this pole. Additionally, not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. The pole is also surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the required enginering objectives. 137-K Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, the pole is surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the required enginering objectives. GO95 requires a minimum distance from communication lines, which could not be met on this pole. 137-L Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, the pole is surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the required enginering objectives. GO95 requires a minimum distance from communication lines, which could not be met on this pole. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 18 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 138 Alternative Site Analysis Two poles were viable to meet the engineering objective for this area. The pole selected as primary is located between two residences and within a tree to take advantage of natural screening. The first alternate is also viable, but was not selected as primary, because it lacks natural screening. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 138-A Wood Utility Pole 2478 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole. Additionally, a primary riser is located on the pole. Neither allows attachment. 138-B Metal Street Light 85 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. There is also too much tree clutter surrounding this pole, so it would not meet the engineering objective for this area. 138-C Wood Utility Pole 2477 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary riser located on pole. Additionally, pole is slightly to far east to meet the intended engineering objectives. 138-D Metal Street Light 83 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 138-E Wood Utility Pole 2480 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary as it has less natural screening. 138-F Wood Utility Pole 2481 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is viable from a structural perspective, but is too close the west to meet the required engineering objective. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 19 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 143 Alternative Site Analysis Only one pole was available to meet the required engineering objective and was selected as the primary. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 143-A Wood Utility Pole 3866 Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement), as opposed to the Public ROW, are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. Could not get pole number as it is located in yard. 143-B Wood Utility Pole 3889 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 143-C Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement), as opposed to the Public ROW, are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. Could not get pole number as it is located in backyard. 143-D Metal Street Light 18 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 143-E Wood Utility Pole 3995 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short give the surrounding tree clutter and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. 143-F Wood Utility Pole 3996 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole location is viable, but was not selected as primary, as it is short and likely would require replacement to meet the required engineering objective. The pole partially resides in the driveway of the adjacent resident and would not be selected for attachment. 143-G Metal Street Light 323 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 143-H Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 143-I Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable Planning Pole appears to be located on private property (residential easement), rather than Public ROW, and would only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. It is located within the yard of the resident. 143-J Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 143-K Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 20 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 144 Alternative Site Analysis Only one pole was viable for attachment within the targeted coverage area. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 144-A Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 144-B Wood Utility Pole 1521 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Existing AT&T utilities conflict with attachment. 144-C Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 144-D Wood Utility Pole 1507 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on the pole. 144-E Wood Utility Pole 1508 Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement), rather than in the Public ROW, are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. 144-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 144-G Metal Street Light 304 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Significant tree clutter surround light and would not meet engineering objectives. 144-H Metal Street Light 311 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 144-I Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 21 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 145 Alternative Site Analysis Two poles were viable to meet the engineering objective for this node. The primary was selected because it better meets the engineering target. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 145-A Wood Utility Pole 3292 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary. It is first alternate candidate. The pole was recently replaced and the old transfer pole still exists. 145-B Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, there is too much tree clutter surrounding this pole, so it would not meet the engineering objective for this area. 145-C Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on the pole. 145-D Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 145-E Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Existing AT&T utilities conflict with attachment. 145-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 145-G Wood Utility Pole 3290 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary riser located on pole. 145-H Wood Utility Pole 3289 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Pole is for communications only and not electrical transmission. Additionally, it is too short to meet the required engineering objectives. 145-I Wood Utility Pole 3285 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary riser located on pole. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 22 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit D – List of Cluster 1 Nodes Cluster 1 contains eleven (11) proposed small cell nodes. Node #Address of Adjacent APN Proposed Antenna Shroud Proposed Radio Shroud Color - Pole Mounted Equipment - Kelly Moore CPAU Pole # Adjacent APN Public ROW Zoning Class Source for Power & Fiber Height of Existing Height of Proposed (including Antenna) Pole Replace Required (YES/NO) SF PALO ALTO 129 2490 LOUIS RD Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 3121 12730062 R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-1"55'-2"YES SF PALO ALTO 130 2802 LOUIS RD Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 2461 12728046 R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-0"55'-1"NO SF PALO ALTO 131 891 ELBRIDGE WY Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 3315 12726067 R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-10"55'-11"NO SF PALO ALTO 133 925 LOMA VERDE AVE Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 2857 12724023 R-1 Aerial Drop 44'-2"56'-7"YES SF PALO ALTO 133-E (Alternate) 929 LOMA VERDE AVE Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 2856 12724020 R-1 Aerial Drop 44'-2"56'-7"YES SF PALO ALTO 134 3409 KENNETH DR Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Clay Bath 2964 12709028 R-1 (7000) Aerial Drop 39'-1"51'-4"NO SF PALO ALTO 135 795 STONE LN Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 3610 12747001 R-1 (8000) Aerial Drop 42'-10"54'-11"NO SF PALO ALTO 137 3090 ROSS RD Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 3351 12752031 R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-8"55'-9"NO SF PALO ALTO 138 836 COLORADO AVE Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Log Cabin 2479 12727063 R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-2"55'-3"NO SF PALO ALTO 143 419 EL VERANO AVE Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Log Cabin 3867 13215017 R-1 U/G Vault N36 38'-3"50'-4"NO SF PALO ALTO 144 201 LOMA VERDE AVE Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Log Cabin 1506 13248015 RM-30 Aerial Drop 42'-10"53'-11"NO SF PALO ALTO 145 737 LOMA VERDE AVE Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Log Cabin 3288 12764039 RM-15 Aerial Drop 43'-3"55'-4"NO Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 23 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit E – Map of Cluster 1 Configurations Cluster 1 contains eleven (11) proposed small cell nodes in the Midtown, Palo Verde and St. Claire Gardens neighborhoods. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 24 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit F – Proposed Paint Samples All pole mounted equipment will be painted to nearest shade of brown to the existing pole (all Kelly Moore durable metal paint). Railroad Ties (KMA67) Log Cabin (KMA76) Clay Bath (KM4595) Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 25 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit G – Model Small Cell Location Verizon Wireless has constructed a non-operational “mock” site for public and staff viewing, which is updated with the most recent proposed shrouds. The central location adjacent to 1350 Newell, across from the Palo Alto Art Center was selected in conjunction with CPAU, because that particular pole has no overhead transmission. Additionally, Verizon Wireless has selected the auditorium at the Palo Alto Art Center as a location to host community meetings. Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 26 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit H – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.110(d)(8) provides: “For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline.” Verizon Wireless cannot submit a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed small cell facilities on Palo Alto utility poles under the Spectrum Act for the following reasons: 1. Spectrum Act “Substantial Change” Criteria Are Indeterminate Spectrum Act “substantial change” criteria theoretically allow the expansion of a wireless facility in the Right-of- Way by ten feet in height and six feet in width. However, any such expansion cannot defeat existing “concealment elements” of the facility (see 47 C.F.R. §1.40001). Verizon Wireless small cells are designed with vertically integrated and oriented radio equipment as well as a vertical cylindrical antenna that matches the shape and size of the utility pole to which it is mounted. It is not clear what increase in size, if any, could be accomplished without defeating the concealment elements of the Verizon Wireless design. 2. Modifications To The Verizon Wireless Small Cell Allowed Under The Spectrum Act Must Comply With Health And Safety Requirements (CPUC G.O. 95) The Spectrum Act accommodates regulations for health and safety, such as the requirements of G.O. 95, that are generally observed by the City. G.O. 95 places strict limitations on the placement of attachments on utility poles. Specifically, continuous climbing space must be maintained in one quadrant of the pole from top to bottom. A six- foot separation is required between antennas and transmission lines. Equipment must be more than seven feet from the ground, and pole capacity must be restricted to accommodate the structural limitations of each pole. These limitations severely restrict the modifications that can be made to the Verizon Wireless small cell and would likely prevent modifications of the scale allowed under the Spectrum Act. Any modification that requires the replacement of the utility pole, for structural reasons or lack of space, is disqualified as an eligible facility request under the Spectrum Act. In nearly all cases, Palo Alto utility poles are near capacity and cannot accommodate modifications of the dimensions allowed under the Spectrum Act. 3. Verizon Wireless Has No Plans To Modify Its Small Cell Design And Any “Spectrum Act” Modification Would Be Speculative Verizon Wireless cannot predict the customer demand or technological changes that would lead to a modification of the proposed small cell design. Similarly, Verizon Wireless cannot predict what another utility or wireless provider may propose to add or attach to a utility pole. In the same way, the City cannot be obligated to pre- approve hypothetical designs as “eligible facility requests” under the Spectrum Act that may or may not defeat existing concealment or violate health and safety laws. 4. Hypothetical Maximum Build-Out Under The Spectrum Act Is Irrelevant To Required Approval Findings For Verizon Wireless Small Cells While theoretically interesting, the potential future expansion of a project is not the subject of any of the 16 Architectural Review findings nor the two conditional use findings required for approval of the Verizon Wireless small cell design under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Projects must be evaluated as proposed and not on future hypothetical modification. There are no reasonably foreseeable modifications to the proposed Verizon Wireless small cell design that can be reviewed by the City at this time. Simply put, speculation cannot form the basis for any findings. Similarly, speculative future modifications do not constitute the substantial evidence required to deny approval of a wireless facility under federal law. For all of the reasons stated above, Verizon Wireless will not revise plans to show a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of its small cell project. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 129 Page 1 SF Palo Alto 129 2490 Louis Rd Executive Summary– Vault Feasibility Report Summary: The proposed location for SF Palo Alto 129 is located in the Public Right of Way, adjacent 2490 Louis Rd. The proposed small cell is located within the Flood Zone, as identified by FEMA, and underground vaulting of equipment is infeasible. There is one viable alternate pole for this proposed node, also located the Flood Zone. Further details to follow. Report Contents: Page 1: Summary Page 2: Vault Specifications Page 3: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Primary Pole Page 4: Parcel Report – Primary Pole Page 5: Surveyor Report – Primary Pole Page 6: Vault Feasibility in Flood Zone – Primary Pole Page 7: Summary of Alternate Poles Page 8: Palo Alto Groundwater Map (Flood Zone Designation) Page 9: Zoom View – Pole Locations on Flood Zone Map Page 10: City of Palo Alto Requirements for Flood Zones Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 129 Page 2 Vaulting Feasibility Report Site Name: SF PALO ALTO 129 Site Pole Located: Public Right of Way, Adjacent to 2490 Louis Rd Vault Dimension Requirements: Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 129 Page 3 30-Foot Vault Search Area Along Louis Rd: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 129 Page 4 The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 is listed on the Palo Alto Parcel Report for the adjacent APN, 127-30-062: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 129 Page 5 The elevation in AMSL (above mean sea level) of the base of the pole has been certified to be 10.77' AMSL by a State of California Professional Land Surveyor in a 1-A Accuracy Certification. This can be found on page T-2 of the plan sets. The AMSL at the pole base can also be found on page T-1 of the plan set under “Site Information”. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 129 Page 6 Vault Infeasibility within Flood Zone The AMSL at the base of the pole is 10.77'. The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 signifies a FEMA Flood Zone level of 10.5 AMSL. A visual example related to this proposed small cell is below, to demonstrate that in the event of flooding, the underground vault would fill completely with water: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 129 Page 7 Analysis of Vault Feasibility - Alternate Utility Poles SF PALO ALTO 129 Alternative Site Analysis In the Cluster 1 resubmittal dated 12/21/2017, Vinculums included an alternate site analysis for each node. For SF Palo Alto 129, only one pole location was determined as viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node, so there are no alternates for review. The original map and ASA of alternates reviewed is included below Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 129-A Metal Street Light 251 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 129-B Wood Utility Pole 3129 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clear climbing space. There is not enough climbing space on this pole to safely allow a VZW attachment. Additionally, the pole is located near a more visible corner along Louis Rd and therefore would is more visible than the primary pole. 129-C Wood Utility Pole 3207 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 129-D Wood Utility Pole 3120 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, not selected as primary because high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 129-E Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 129-F Wood Utility Pole 3208 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 129-G Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 129 Page 8 Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map The Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map demonstrates, by marking with green stripes, the Flood Zone for San Francisquito Creek and Bay tidal floodplains mapped by FEMA. Both the primary pole and its alternate lie within the Flood Zone. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 129 Page 9 Zoom of Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map: The proposed primary pole lies within the Flood Zone, designated by the green lines. Conclusion: Underground Vault Infeasible As described above, Verizon Wireless is unable to locate equipment in underground vaults in a Flood Zone. The proposed pole and its associated alternate pole for attachment are both located within the Flood Zone, as identified by FEMA. A vault cannot be located within a Flood Zone as Verizon Wireless’ radio equipment will not operate under water. The proposed vault is not sealed and thus not completely waterproof; there is absolutely no means of “flood proofing” a vault to house radio equipment. The vault comes equipped with sump pumps in the event of minor water intrusion. In the event of a flood where the water levels have been documented to rise above ground level, there is no mechanical ability to disperse water out of the vault. This would result in the radios inside the vault to be fully submerged in water and unable to operate. Given the infeasibility of a vault at this location, Verizon Wireless has proposed pole mounted equipment with a “box” style shroud. Pole mounted equipment begins at 9'-0" on the pole, located well above the Flood Zone. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 129 Page 10 City of Palo Alto Requirements for Utilities within Flood Zone The City of Palo Alto website contains helpful information regarding placement utilities in Flood Zones: "Other provisions require openings in areas below flood level to allow water to enter and exit, flood proofing of utilities below the flood level, etc." Source: City of Palo Alto Website – Q&A About Flood Zones: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=176. Additionally, comment #A2 from the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works received in Jan. 2018 matches the same criteria, that all proposed equipment in an underground vault shall be flood proofed. As previously mentioned, there is no way to flood proof underground vaults for radio equipment. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 130 Page 1 SF Palo Alto 130 2802 Louis Rd Executive Summary– Vault Feasibility Report Summary: The proposed location for SF Palo Alto 130 is located in the Public Right of Way, adjacent 2802 Louis Rd. The proposed small cell is located within the Flood Zone, as identified by FEMA, and underground vaulting of equipment is infeasible. There is one viable alternate pole for this proposed node, also located the Flood Zone. Further details to follow. Report Contents: Page 1: Summary Page 2: Vault Specifications Page 3: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Primary Pole Page 4: Parcel Report – Primary Pole Page 5: Surveyor Report – Primary Pole Page 6: Vault Feasibility in Flood Zone – Primary Pole Page 7: Summary of Alternate Poles Page 8: Palo Alto Groundwater Map (Flood Zone Designation) Page 9: Zoom View – Pole Locations on Flood Zone Map Page 10: City of Palo Alto Requirements for Flood Zones Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 130 Page 2 Vaulting Feasibility Report Site Name: SF PALO ALTO 130 Site Pole Located: Public Right of Way, Adjacent to 2802 Louis Rd Vault Dimension Requirements: Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 130 Page 3 30-Foot Vault Search Area Along Louis Rd: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 130 Page 4 The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 is listed on the Palo Alto Parcel Report for the adjacent APN-127-28-046: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 130 Page 5 The elevation in AMSL (above mean sea level) of the base of the pole has been certified to be 8.98' AMSL by a State of California Professional Land Surveyor in a 1-A Accuracy Certification. This can be found on page T-2 of the plan sets. The AMSL at the pole base can also be found on page T-1 of the plan set under “Site Information”. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 130 Page 6 Vault Infeasibility within Flood Zone The AMSL at the base of the pole is 8.98'. The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 signifies a FEMA Flood Zone level of 10.5 AMSL. A visual example related to this proposed small cell is below, to demonstrate that in the event of flooding, the underground vault would fill completely with water: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 130 Page 7 Analysis of Vault Feasibility - Alternate Utility Poles SF PALO ALTO 130 Alternative Site Analysis In the Cluster 1 resubmittal dated 12/21/2017, Vinculums included an alternate site analysis for each node. For SF Palo Alto 130, only one pole location was determined as viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node, so there are no alternates for review. The original map and ASA of alternates reviewed is included below: Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 130-A Wood Utility Pole 2462 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 130-B Metal Street Light 281 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 130-C Wood Utility Pole 2460 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 130-D Wood Utility Pole 4016 Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement) are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. 130-E Wood Utility Pole 2430 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 130-F Wood Utility Pole 2463 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 130 Page 8 Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map The Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map demonstrates, by marking with green stripes, the Flood Zone for San Francisquito Creek and Bay tidal floodplains mapped by FEMA. Both the primary pole and its alternate lie within the Flood Zone. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 130 Page 9 Palo Alto Shallow Zoom of Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map: The proposed primary pole lies within the Flood Zone, designated by the green lines. Conclusion: Underground Vault Infeasible As described above, Verizon Wireless is unable to locate equipment in underground vaults in a Flood Zone. The proposed pole and its associated alternate pole for attachment are both located within the Flood Zone, as identified by FEMA. A vault cannot be located within a Flood Zone as Verizon Wireless’ radio equipment will not operate under water. The proposed vault is not sealed and thus not completely waterproof; there is absolutely no means of “flood proofing” a vault to house radio equipment. The vault comes equipped with sump pumps in the event of minor water intrusion. In the event of a flood where the water levels have been documented to rise above ground level, there is no mechanical ability to disperse water out of the vault. This would result in the radios inside the vault to be fully submerged in water and unable to operate. Given the infeasibility of a vault at this location, Verizon Wireless has proposed pole mounted equipment with a “box” style shroud. Pole mounted equipment begins at 9'-0" on the pole, located well above the Flood Zone. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 130 Page 10 City of Palo Alto Requirements for Utilities within Flood Zone The City of Palo Alto website contains helpful information regarding placement utilities in Flood Zones: "Other provisions require openings in areas below flood level to allow water to enter and exit, flood proofing of utilities below the flood level, etc." Source: City of Palo Alto Website – Q&A About Flood Zones: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=176. Additionally, comment #A2 from the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works received in Jan. 2018 matches the same criteria, that all proposed equipment in an underground vault shall be flood proofed. As previously mentioned, there is no way to flood proof underground vaults for radio equipment. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 131 Page 1 SF Palo Alto 131 891 Elbridge Way Executive Summary– Vault Feasibility Report Summary: The proposed location for SF Palo Alto 131 is located in the Public Right of Way, adjacent to 891 Elbridge Way. The proposed small cell is located within the Flood Zone, as identified by FEMA, and underground vaulting of equipment is infeasible. There is one viable alternate pole for this proposed node, also located the Flood Zone. Further details to follow. Report Contents: Page 1: Summary Page 2: Vault Specifications Page 3: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Primary Pole Page 4: Parcel Report – Primary Pole Page 5: Surveyor Report – Primary Pole Page 6: Vault Feasibility in Flood Zone – Primary Pole Page 7: Summary of Alternate Poles Page 8: Parcel Report – Alternate Pole Page 9: Palo Alto Groundwater Map (Flood Zone Designation) Page 10: Zoom View – Pole Locations on Flood Zone Map Page 11: City of Palo Alto Requirements for Flood Zones Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 131 Page 2 Vaulting Feasibility Report Site Name: SF PALO ALTO 131 Site Pole Located: Public Right of Way, Adjacent to 891 Elbridge Way Vault Dimension Requirements: Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 131 Page 3 30-Foot Vault Search Area along Elbridge Way: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 131 Page 4 The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 is listed on the Palo Alto Parcel Report for the primary pole, adjacent APN, 127-26-067: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 131 Page 5 The elevation in AMSL (above mean sea level) of the base of the pole has been certified to be 8.48' AMSL by a State of California Professional Land Surveyor in a 1-A Accuracy Certification. This can be found on page T-2 of the plan sets. The AMSL at the pole base can also be found on page T-1 of the plan set under “Site Information”. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 131 Page 6 Vault Infeasibility within Flood Zone The AMSL at the base of the pole is 8.48'. The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 signifies a FEMA Flood Zone level of 10.5 AMSL. A visual example related to this proposed small cell is below, to demonstrate that in the event of flooding, the underground vault would fill completely with water: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 131 Page 7 Analysis of Vault Feasibility - Alternate Utility Poles SF PALO ALTO 131 Alternative Site Analysis In the Cluster 1 resubmittal dated 12/21/2017, Vinculums included an alternate site analysis for each node. For SF Palo Alto 131, two pole locations were determined as viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node. Candidate 131-D was initially determined to be a viable alternate. As requested by the City of Palo Alto, we will also review its viability for vaulting. The original map and ASA of alternates reviewed is included below: Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 131-A Wood Utility Pole 3316 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary power riser located on pole. 131-B Wood Utility Pole 3317 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary power riser located on pole. 131-C Metal Street Light N/A Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 131-D Wood Utility Pole 3314 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary as it is more visible from all directions than the corner location selected. It is first alternate candidate. 131-E Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 131-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 131-G Wood Utility Pole 3313 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 131 Page 8 Parcel Map – 127-59-022 The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 is listed on the Palo Alto Parcel Report for the only alternate pole SF PALO ALTO 134-D, adjacent to 3110 Louis Rd: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 131 Page 9 Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map The Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map demonstrates, by marking with green stripes, the Flood Zone for San Francisquito Creek and Bay tidal floodplains mapped by FEMA. Both the primary pole and its alternate lie within the Flood Zone. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 131 Page 10 Zoom of Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map: The proposed primary pole, as well as the alternate, both lie within the Flood Zone, designated by the green lines. Conclusion: Underground Vault Infeasible As described above, Verizon Wireless is unable to locate equipment in underground vaults in a Flood Zone. The proposed pole and its associated alternate pole for attachment are both located within the Flood Zone, as identified by FEMA. A vault cannot be located within a Flood Zone as Verizon Wireless’ radio equipment will not operate under water. The proposed vault is not sealed and thus not completely waterproof; there is absolutely no means of “flood proofing” a vault to house radio equipment. The vault comes equipped with sump pumps in the event of minor water intrusion. In the event of a flood where the water levels have been documented to rise above ground level, there is no mechanical ability to disperse water out of the vault. This would result in the radios inside the vault to be fully submerged in water and unable to operate. Given the infeasibility of a vault at this location, Verizon Wireless has proposed pole mounted equipment with a “box” style shroud. Pole mounted equipment begins at 9'-0" on the pole, located well above the Flood Zone. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 131 Page 11 City of Palo Alto Requirements for Utilities within Flood Zone The City of Palo Alto website contains helpful information regarding placement utilities in Flood Zones: "Other provisions require openings in areas below flood level to allow water to enter and exit, flood proofing of utilities below the flood level, etc." Source: City of Palo Alto Website – Q&A About Flood Zones: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=176. Additionally, comment #A2 from the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works received in Jan. 2018 matches the same criteria, that all proposed equipment in an underground vault shall be flood proofed. As previously mentioned, there is no way to flood proof underground vaults for radio equipment. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 133 Page 1 SF Palo Alto 133 925 Loma Verde Ave Executive Summary – Vault Feasibility Report Summary: The proposed location for SF Palo Alto 133 is located in the Public Right of Way, adjacent to 925 Loma Verde. The proposed small cell is located within the Flood Zone, as identified by FEMA, and underground vaulting of equipment is infeasible. There is one viable alternate pole for this proposed node, also located the Flood Zone. Further details to follow. Report Contents: Page 1: Summary Page 2: Vault Specifications Page 3: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Primary Pole Page 4: Parcel Report – Primary Pole Page 5: Surveyor Report – Primary Pole Page 6: Vault Feasibility in Flood Zone – Primary Pole Page 7: Summary of Alternate Poles Page 8: Parcel Report – Alternate Pole Page 9: Palo Alto Groundwater Map (Flood Zone Designation) Page 10: Zoom View – Pole Locations on Flood Zone Map Page 11: City of Palo Alto Requirements for Flood Zones Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 133 Page 2 Vaulting Feasibility Report Site Name: SF PALO ALTO 133 Site Pole Located: Public Right of Way, Adjacent to 925 Loma Verde Ave Vault Dimension Requirements: Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 133 Page 3 30-Foot Vault Search Area along Loma Verde Ave: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 133 Page 4 The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 is listed on the Palo Alto Parcel Report for the adjacent APN, 127-24-023: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 133 Page 5 The elevation in AMSL (above mean sea level) of the base of the pole has been certified to be 7.0' AMSL by a State of California Professional Land Surveyor in a 1-A Accuracy Certification. This can be found on page T-2 of the plan sets. The AMSL at the pole base can also be found on page T-1 of the plan set under “Site Information”. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 133 Page 6 Vault Infeasibility within Flood Zone The AMSL at the base of the pole is 7.0'. The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 signifies a FEMA Flood Zone level of 10.5 AMSL. A visual example related to this proposed small cell is below, to demonstrate that in the event of flooding, the underground vault would fill completely with water: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 133 Page 7 Analysis of Vault Feasibility - Alternate Utility Poles SF PALO ALTO 133 Alternative Site Analysis In the Cluster 1 resubmittal dated 12/21/2017, Vinculums included an alternate site analysis for each node. For SF Palo Alto 133, two pole locations were determined as viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node. Candidate 134-E was initially determined to be a viable alternate. As requested by the City of Palo Alto, we will also review its viability for vaulting. The original map and ASA of alternates reviewed is included below. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 133-A Wood Utility Pole 2858 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 133-B Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 133-C Wood Utility Pole 3304 Not Viable CPAU Engineering A power line crossover takes place at this corner and does not allow enough space for attachment. Additionally, high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines 133-D Wood Utility Pole 2859 Not Viable CPAU Engineering A power line crossover takes place at this corner and does not allow enough space for attachment. Additionally, high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines 133-E Wood Utility Pole 2856 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable. It is first alternate candidate. 133-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 133-G Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement) are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. 133-H Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 133-I Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 133 Page 8 Parcel Map – 127-24-020 The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 is listed on the Palo Alto Parcel Report for the only alternate pole SF PALO ALTO 133-E, adjacent to 949 Loma Verde Ave. The alternate pole is located within a Flood Zone. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 133 Page 9 Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map The Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map demonstrates, by marking with green stripes, the Flood Zone for San Francisquito Creek and Bay tidal floodplains mapped by FEMA. Both the primary pole and its alternate lie within the Flood Zone. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 133 Page 10 Zoom of Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map: The proposed primary pole, as well as the alternate, both lie within the Flood Zone, designated by the green lines. Conclusion: Underground Vault Infeasible As described above, Verizon Wireless is unable to locate equipment in underground vaults in a Flood Zone. The proposed pole and its associated alternate pole for attachment are both located within the Flood Zone, as identified by FEMA. A vault cannot be located within a Flood Zone as Verizon Wireless’ radio equipment will not operate under water. The proposed vault is not sealed and thus not completely waterproof; there is absolutely no means of “flood proofing” a vault to house radio equipment. The vault comes equipped with sump pumps in the event of minor water intrusion. In the event of a flood where the water levels have been documented to rise above ground level, there is no mechanical ability to disperse water out of the vault. This would result in the radios inside the vault to be fully submerged in water and unable to operate. Given the infeasibility of a vault at this location, Verizon Wireless has proposed pole mounted equipment with a “box” style shroud. Pole mounted equipment begins at 9'0" on the pole, located well above the Flood Zone. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 133 Page 11 City of Palo Alto Requirements for Utilities within Flood Zone The City of Palo Alto website contains helpful information regarding placement utilities in Flood Zones: "Other provisions require openings in areas below flood level to allow water to enter and exit, flood proofing of utilities below the flood level, etc." Source: City of Palo Alto Website – Q&A About Flood Zones: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=176. Additionally, comment #A2 from the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works received in Jan. 2018 matches the same criteria, that all proposed equipment in an underground vault shall be flood proofed. As previously mentioned, there is no way to flood proof underground vaults for radio equ Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 134 Page 1 SF Palo Alto 134 3409 Kenneth Dr Executive Summary – Vault Feasibility Report Summary: The proposed location for SF Palo Alto 134 is located in the Public Right of Way, adjacent to 3409 Kenneth Dr. The proposed small cell is located within the Flood Zone, as identified by FEMA, and underground vaulting of equipment is infeasible. There is one viable alternate pole for this proposed node, also located the Flood Zone. Further details to follow. Report Contents: Page 1: Summary Page 2: Vault Specifications Page 3: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Primary Pole Page 4: Parcel Report – Primary Pole Page 5: Surveyor Report – Primary Pole Page 6: Vault Feasibility in Flood Zone – Primary Pole Page 7: Summary of Alternate Poles Page 8: Parcel Report – Alternate Pole Page 9: Palo Alto Groundwater Map (Flood Zone Designation) Page 10: Zoom View – Pole Locations on Flood Zone Map Page 11: City of Palo Alto Requirements for Flood Zones Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 134 Page 2 Vaulting Feasibility Report Site Name: SF PALO ALTO 134 Site Pole Located: Public Right of Way, Adjacent to 3409 Kenneth Dr Vault Dimension Requirements: Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 134 Page 3 30-Foot Vault Search Area along Kenneth Dr: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 134 Page 4 The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 is listed on the Palo Alto Parcel Report for the primary pole, adjacent to APN 127-09-028: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 134 Page 5 The elevation in AMSL (above mean sea level) of the base of the pole has been certified to be 4.75' AMSL by a State of California Professional Land Surveyor in a 1-A Accuracy Certification. This can be found on page T-2 of the plan sets. The AMSL at the pole base can also be found on page T-1 of the plan set under “Site Information”. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 134 Page 6 Vault Infeasibility within Flood Zone The AMSL at the base of the pole is 4.75'. The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 signifies a FEMA Flood Zone level of 10.5 AMSL. A visual example related to this proposed small cell is below, to demonstrate that in the event of flooding, the underground vault would fill completely with water: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 134 Page 7 Analysis of Vault Feasibility - Alternate Utility Poles SF PALO ALTO 134 Alternative Site Analysis In the Cluster 1 resubmittal dated 12/21/2017, Vinculums included an alternate site analysis for each node. For SF Palo Alto 134, two pole locations were determined as viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node. Candidate 134-D was initially determined to be a viable alternate. As requested by the City of Palo Alto, we will also review its viability for vaulting. The original map and ASA of alternates reviewed is included below. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 134-A Metal Street Light 345 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from seconary power. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 134-B Wood Utility Pole 2965 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. 134-C Wood Utility Pole 2963 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 134-D Wood Utility Pole 2962 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary. It is first alternate candidate. 134-E Wood Utility Pole 2966 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is leaning, too short and surrounded by tree clutter and therefore could not meet the engineering objective for this area. 134-F Metal Street Light 341 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 134 Page 8 Parcel Map – 127-09-031 The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 is listed on the Palo Alto Parcel Report for the only alternate pole SF PALO ALTO 134-D, adjacent to 3393 Kenneth Dr: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 134 Page 9 Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map The Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map demonstrates, by marking with green stripes, the Flood Zone for San Francisquito Creek and Bay tidal floodplains mapped by FEMA. Both the primary pole and its alternate lie within the Flood Zone. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 134 Page 10 Zoom of Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map: The proposed primary pole, as well as the alternate, both lie within the Flood Zone, designated by the green lines. Conclusion: Underground Vault Infeasible As described above, Verizon Wireless is unable to locate equipment in underground vaults in a Flood Zone. The proposed pole and its associated alternate pole for attachment are both located within the Flood Zone, as identified by FEMA. A vault cannot be located within a Flood Zone as Verizon Wireless’ radio equipment will not operate under water. The proposed vault is not sealed and thus not completely waterproof; there is absolutely no means of “flood proofing” a vault to house radio equipment. The vault comes equipped with sump pumps in the event of minor water intrusion. In the event of a flood where the water levels have been documented to rise above ground level, there is no mechanical ability to disperse water out of the vault. This would result in the radios inside the vault to be fully submerged in water and unable to operate. Given the infeasibility of a vault at this location, Verizon Wireless has proposed pole mounted equipment with a “box” style shroud. Pole mounted equipment begins at 8'2" on the pole, located well above the Flood Zone. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 134 Page 11 City of Palo Alto Requirements for Utilities within Flood Zone The City of Palo Alto website contains helpful information regarding placement utilities in Flood Zones: "Other provisions require openings in areas below flood level to allow water to enter and exit, flood proofing of utilities below the flood level, etc." Source: City of Palo Alto Website – Q&A About Flood Zones: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=176. Additionally, comment #A2 from the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works received in Jan. 2018 matches the same criteria, that all proposed equipment in an underground vault shall be flood proofed. As previously mentioned, there is no way to flood proof underground vaults for radio equ Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 1 SF Palo Alto 135 795 Stone Lane Executive Summary – Vault Feasibility Report Summary: The proposed location for SF Palo Alto 135 is located in the Public Right of Way, adjacent to 795 Stone Lane. All possible vault locations are not feasible due to an existing Santa Clara Valley Water District Storm Drain Channel, prohibited excavation within an existing Tree Protection Zone, sidewalk conditions that do not meet City requirements for vault placement on sloped and rolled curbs, as well as not meeting ADA requirements. There are two viable alternate poles to review in this search ring. Further details to follow. Report Contents: Page 1: Summary Page 2: Vault Specifications Page 3: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Primary Pole Page 4-6: Ground View and Feasibility Analysis – Primary Pole Search Area Page 7: Summary of Alternate Poles Page 8: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Alternate Pole Page 9: Ground View and Feasibility Analysis – Alternate Pole Search Area Page 10: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Alternate Pole Page 11-12: Ground View and Feasibility Analysis – Alternate Pole Search Area Page 13-15: Department of Public Works Comments & Standards Regarding Vaults Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 2 Vaulting Feasibility Report Site Name: SF PALO ALTO 135 Site Pole Located: Public Right of Way, Adjacent to 795 Stone Lane Vault Dimension Requirements: Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 3 30-Foot Vault Search Area along Stone Ln: The search area for the proposed vault location is a diameter of 5' to 30' from the existing pole location. Verizon Wireless engineering will allow a distance of 100' for the coaxial cable from the antenna to the radio before the network no longer operates as designed. To calculate the viable distance for a proposed vault, we must subtract the following from the allowable 100-foot distance: 1) CPAU requires a minimum setback of 5' from an existing pole to a vault location; 2) Antenna height to base of pole≈50'; 3) A 10' length of cable is required within the vault so radios can be elevated for maintenance; 4) City of Palo Alto standards for underground work require boring of ≈12' below grade. The result is conservatively a viable distance of ≈25-30' from each CPAU pole to locate a vault. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 4 30-Foot Vault Search Area – along Stone Ln – Detailed View: The following conditions prohibit the placement of an underground vault along Stone Lane: 1. The pole is located within the Santa Clara Valley Water District Storm Channel Drain, which precludes the undergrounding of equipment as well as placement of ground mounted equipment (See Photo 1). 2. Vault must maintain a 5' setback from the selected utility pole per CPAU. 3. Excavation cannot occur within 10' of an established street tree, per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works’ comment #B5 dated Jan. 2018. Additionally, Section 1.39 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual confirms that trenching within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is injurious to roots and tree health and is prohibited. The TPZ extends a minimum distance of the dripline, per Section 1.36 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Section 2.15 of the outlines prohibited activities within the TPZ including foundation digging, utility trenching, paving, or any other excavation. The existing Modesto Ash has a trunk diameter of 36" and a dripline of 30'; excavation for a vault would not be allowed within that dripline (see page A-1 of the plan set for tree details and location). Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 5 4. The sidewalk along Stone Lane in this area has an excessive slope and rolled curb (see Photo 2). Vaults must be located outside the transition slope and on a level plane per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works’ comment #B16 dated Jan. 2018. 5. Vaults sump pump requires tubes that discharge water into the street; these tubes cannot be placed in a rolled curb, as it creates a trip hazard. Supporting Visuals Photo 1: Primary pole located along SCVWD Storm Drain Channel Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 6 Photo 2: Excessive sidewalk slope and rolled curb, which does not allow for vault placement. Conclusion: Underground Vault Infeasible As described above, the various site conditions and sidewalk layout do not provide adequate space to install an underground vault. Placement of a vault would impede Santa Clara Valley Water District operations at the Storm Drain Channel. Additionally, the Tree Protection Zone for trees within the viable search area is so large to prevent excavation. The sidewalk conditions do not meet City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works’ requirements regarding transition slopes and rolled curbs. Given the infeasibility of a vault at this location, Verizon Wireless has proposed pole mounted equipment with a “box” style shroud. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 7 Analysis of Vault Feasibility - Alternate Utility Poles SF PALO ALTO 135 Alternative Site Analysis In the Cluster 1 resubmittal dated 12/21/2017, Vinculums included an alternate site analysis for each node. For SF Palo Alto 135, three existing pole locations were determined as viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node. Candidates 135-A and 135-D were initially determined to be viable alternates. As requested by the City of Palo Alto, we will also review their viability for vaulting. The original map and ASA of alternates reviewed is included below: Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 135-A Wood Utility Pole 3611 Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole location is viable, but the existing structure does not provide enough height to meet the required engeering objective. It is the first alternate candidate and would require replacement with a taller pole to provide the required level of service. 135-B Wood Utility Pole 3371 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary power riser located on pole. 135-C Metal Street Light 342 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 135-D Wood Utility Pole 3609 Viable Planning/Visibility Concerns The pole is technically viable, but was not preferred as it is located on a high visibility corner. It is the second alternate candidate. 135-E Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 135-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from seconary power. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 135-G Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 135-H Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, GO95 requires distance form communication lines, therefore attachment is not feasible. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 8 30-Foot Vault Search Area for Alternate – SF PALO ALTO 135-A: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 9 30-Foot Vault Search Area for Alternate – SF PALO ALTO 135-A – Detailed View: The following conditions prohibit the placement of an underground vault at this alternate pole: 1. The pole is located within the Santa Clara Valley Water District Storm Channel Drain, which precludes the undergrounding of equipment as well as placement of ground mounted equipment. 2. Vault must maintain a 5' setback from existing utility poles per CPAU. 3. The sidewalk along Stone Lane in this area has an excessive slope and rolled curb. Vaults must be located outside the transition slope and on a level plane per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works’ comment #B16 dated Jan. 2018. 4. Vaults sump pump requires tubes that discharge water into the street; these tubes cannot be placed in a rolled curb, as it creates a trip hazard. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 10 30-Foot Vault Search Area for Alternate – SF PALO ALTO 135-D: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 11 30-Foot Vault Search Area for Alternate – SF PALO ALTO 135-D – Detailed View: The following conditions prohibit the placement of an underground vault at this alternate pole: 1. Vault must maintain a 5' setback from the selected utility pole per CPAU. 2. The sidewalk in this area has an excessive slope and rolled curb. Vaults must be located outside the transition slope and on a level plane per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works’ comment #B16 dated Jan. 2018. 3. Vaults sump pump requires tubes that discharge the into the street; these tubes cannot be placed in a rolled curb, as it creates a trip hazard. 4. ADA Ramp located at corner – vault cannot be located within a transition slope. 5. Excavation cannot occur within 10' of an established street tree, per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works’ comment #B5 dated Jan. 2018. Additionally, Section 1.39 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual confirms that trenching within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is injurious to roots and tree health and is prohibited. The TPZ extends a minimum distance of the dripline, per Section 1.36 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Section 2.15 of the outlines prohibited activities within the TPZ including foundation digging, utility trenching, paving, or any other excavation. The two large existing trees have driplines that extend well beyond the 10-foot minimum; excavation for a vault would not be allowed within that dripline. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 12 Conclusion: Underground Vault Infeasible As described above, the various site conditions and sidewalk layout do not provide adequate space to install an underground vault. Placement of a vault would impede the facilities of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, not meet ADA requirements for access to the sidewalk, safety standards regarding curb safety and required distance from established street trees. Given the infeasibility of a vault at this location, Verizon Wireless has proposed pole mounted equipment with a “box” style shroud. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 13 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 14 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 135 Page 15 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 137 Page 1 SF Palo Alto 137 3090 Ross Rd Executive Summary – Vault Feasibility Report Summary: The proposed location for SF Palo Alto 137 is located in the Public Right of Way, adjacent to 3090 Ross Rd. All possible vault locations are not feasible due to existing sidewalks and curb conditions; existing infrastructure such as street lights and driveways; or excavation encroaching within an existing tree drip line. There is one viable alternate pole to review in this search ring. Further details to follow. Report Contents: Page 1: Summary Page 2: Vault Specifications Page 3: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Primary Pole Page 4-5: Ground View and Feasibility Analysis – Primary Pole Search Area Page 6-7: Summary of Alternate Poles Page 8: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Alternate Pole Page 9-10: Ground View and Feasibility Analysis – Alternate Pole Search Area Page 11-13: Department of Public Works Comments & Standards Regarding Vaults Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 137 Page 2 Vaulting Feasibility Report Site Name: SF PALO ALTO 137 Site Pole Located: Public Right of Way, Adjacent to 3090 Ross Rd Vault Dimension Requirements: Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 137 Page 3 30-Foot Vault Search Area along Ross Rd: The search area for the proposed vault location is a diameter of 5' to 30' from the existing pole location. Verizon Wireless engineering will allow a distance of 100' for the coaxial cable from the antenna to the radio before the network no longer operates as designed. To calculate the viable distance for a proposed vault, we must subtract the following from the allowable 100-foot distance: 1) CPAU requires a minimum setback of 5' from an existing pole to a vault location; 2) Antenna height to base of pole≈50'; 3) A 10' length of cable is required within the vault so radios can be elevated for maintenance; 4) City of Palo Alto standards for underground work require boring of ≈12' below grade. The result is conservatively a viable distance of ≈25-30' from each CPAU pole to locate a vault. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 137 Page 4 30-Foot Vault Search Area – along Ross Rd – Detailed View: The following conditions prohibit the placement of an underground vault at the primary pole along Ross Road: 1. Vault must maintain a 5' setback from the selected utility pole per CPAU. 2. Residential driveways are located on both sides of the pole that preclude vault placement. 3. An existing street light precludes placement of a vault in that area. 4. Excavation cannot occur within 10' of an established street tree, per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works comment #B5 dated Jan. 2018. Additionally, Section 1.39 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual confirms that trenching within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is injurious to roots and tree health and is prohibited. The TPZ extends a minimum distance of the dripline, per Section 1.36 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Section 2.15 of the outlines prohibited activities within the TPZ including foundation digging, utility trenching, paving, or any other excavation. The existing Modesto Ash to the northwest has a trunk diameter of 32" and a dripline of 26'-8”; excavation for a vault would not be allowed within that dripline (see page A-1 of the plan set for tree details and location). 5. Excavation cannot occur within 10' of an established street tree, per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works comment #B5 dated Jan. 2018. Additionally, Section 1.39 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual confirms that trenching within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is injurious to roots and tree health and is prohibited. The TPZ extends a minimum distance of the dripline, per Section 1.36 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Section 2.15 of the outlines prohibited activities within the TPZ including foundation digging, utility trenching, paving, or any other excavation. The existing Modesto Ash to the southeast has a trunk diameter of 22" and a dripline of 18'-4"; excavation for a vault would not be allowed within that dripline (see page A-1 of the plan set for tree details and location). Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 137 Page 5 6. The sidewalk along Stone Lane in this area has an excessive slope and rolled curb (see Photo 2). Vaults must be located outside the transition slope and on a level plane per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works comment #B16 dated Jan. 2018. 7. Vaults sump pump requires tubes that discharge the into the street; these tubes cannot be placed in a rolled curb, as it creates a trip hazard. Supporting Visuals Photo 1: Excessive sidewalk slope and rolled curb does not allow for vault placement. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 137 Page 6 Analysis of Vault Feasibility - Alternate Utility Poles SF PALO ALTO 137 Alternative Site Analysis In the Cluster 1 resubmittal dated 12/21/2017, Vinculums included an alternate site analysis for each node. For SF Palo Alto 137, two existing pole locations were determined as viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node. Candidates 137-A were initially determined to be viable alternates. As requested by the City of Palo Alto, we will also review their viability for vaulting. The original map and ASA of alternates reviewed is included below: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 137 Page 7 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 137-A Wood Utility Pole 3349 Viable Planning Pole is viable from an engineering perspective, but its highly visible location at an intersection, with only moderate screening, makes it the first alternate candidate. 137-B Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, pole is too far north to meet required engineering objectives. 137-C Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, the pole is surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the engineering objective for this area. 137-D Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable Planning Poles located outside of the Public ROW, within a public utility easement, are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to the resident. Could not get pole number as it is located in backyard. 137-E Wood Utility Pole 3352 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. It would require replacement with a taller pole. 137-F Wood Utility Pole 3353 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 137-G Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 137-H Wood Utility Pole 3554 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clear climbing space. There is not enough climbing space on this pole to safely allow a VZW attachment. Additionally, the pole is somewhat too far so the south to meet the required engineering objective and is highly visible. 137-I Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 137-J Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require a minimum distance from communication lines, which could not be met on this pole. Additionally, not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. The pole is also surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the required enginering objectives. 137-K Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, the pole is surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the required enginering objectives. GO95 requires a minimum distance from communication lines, which could not be met on this pole. 137-L Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, the pole is surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the required enginering objectives. GO95 requires a minimum distance from communication lines, which could not be met on this pole. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 137 Page 8 30-Foot Vault Search Area for Alternate – SF PALO ALTO 137-A: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 137 Page 9 30-Foot Vault Search Area for Alternate – SF PALO ALTO 137-A – Detailed View: The following conditions prohibit the placement of an underground vault at this alternate pole: 1. Vault must maintain a 5' setback from the selected utility pole per CPAU. 2. The sidewalk along Stone Lane in this area has an excessive slope and rolled curb (see Photo 1). Vaults must be located outside the transition slope and on a level plane per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works comment #B16 dated Jan. 2018. 3. Vaults sump pump requires tubes that discharge water into the street; these tubes cannot be placed in a rolled curb, as it creates a trip hazard. 4. Excavation cannot occur within 10' of an established street tree, per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works comment #B5 dated Jan. 2018. Additionally, Section 1.39 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual confirms that trenching within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is injurious to roots and tree health and is prohibited. The TPZ extends a minimum distance of the dripline, per Section 1.36 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Section 2.15 of the outlines prohibited activities within the TPZ including foundation digging, utility trenching, paving, or any other excavation. The existing street trees have large trunks; excavation for a vault would not be allowed within that dripline. 5. ADA Ramp located at corner – vault cannot be located within transition slope. 6. Rectangular vaults must be placed outside of a curved sidewalk area. Supporting Photos Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 137 Page 10 Photo 1: Excessive sidewalk slope and rolled curb does not allow for vault placement. Conclusion: Underground Vault Infeasible As described above, the various site conditions and sidewalk layout do not provide adequate space to install an underground vault. The sidewalk conditions, including the ADA ramp, do not meet City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works’ requirements regarding transition slopes and rolled curbs. Proximity to existing trees would not allow the required distance from established street trees and their Tree Protection Zones for excavation. Given the infeasibility of a vault at this location, Verizon Wireless has proposed pole mounted equipment with a “box” style shroud. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 137 Page 11 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 137 Page 12 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 137 Page 13 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 138 Page 1 SF Palo Alto 138 836 Colorado Ave Executive Summary – Vault Feasibility Report Summary: The proposed location for SF Palo Alto 138 is located in the Public Right of Way, adjacent to 836 Colorado Ave. The proposed small cell is located within the Flood Zone, as identified by FEMA, and underground vaulting of equipment is infeasible. There is one viable alternate pole for this proposed node, also located the Flood Zone. Further details to follow. Report Contents: Page 1: Summary Page 2: Vault Specifications Page 3: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Primary Pole Page 4: Parcel Report – Primary Pole Page 5: Surveyor Report – Primary Pole Page 6: Vault Feasibility in Flood Zone – Primary Pole Page 7: Summary of Alternate Poles Page 8: Parcel Report – Alternate Pole Page 9: Palo Alto Groundwater Map (Flood Zone Designation) Page 10: Zoom View – Pole Locations on Flood Zone Map Page 11: City of Palo Alto Requirements for Flood Zones Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 138 Page 2 Vaulting Feasibility Report Site Name: SF PALO ALTO 138 Site Pole Located: Public Right of Way, Adjacent to 836 Colorado Ave Vault Dimension Requirements: Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 138 Page 3 30-Foot Vault Search Area along Colorado Ave: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 138 Page 4 The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 is listed on the Palo Alto Parcel Report for the primary pole, adjacent to APN 127-27-063: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 138 Page 5 The elevation in AMSL (above mean sea level) of the base of the pole has been certified to be 9.86' AMSL by a State of California Professional Land Surveyor in a 1-A Accuracy Certification. This can be found on page T-2 of the plan sets. The AMSL at the pole base can also be found on page T-1 of the plan set under “Site Information”. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 138 Page 6 Vault Infeasibility within Flood Zone The AMSL at the base of the pole is 9.86'. The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 signifies a FEMA flood plain level of 10.5 AMSL. A visual example related to this proposed small cell is below, to demonstrate that in the event of flooding, the underground vault would fill completely with water: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 138 Page 7 Analysis of Vault Feasibility - Alternate Utility Poles SF PALO ALTO 138 Alternative Site Analysis In the Cluster 1 resubmittal dated 12/21/2017, Vinculums included an alternate site analysis for each node. For SF Palo Alto 138, two pole locations were determined as viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node. Candidate 138-E was initially determined to be a viable alternate. As requested by the City of Palo Alto, we will also review its viability for vaulting. The original map and ASA of alternates reviewed is included below: Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 138-A Wood Utility Pole 2478 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole. Additionally, a primary riser is located on the pole. Neither allows attachment. 138-B Metal Street Light 85 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. There is also too much tree clutter surrounding this pole, so it would not meet the engineering objective for this area. 138-C Wood Utility Pole 2477 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary riser located on pole. Additionally, pole is slightly to far east to meet the intended engineering objectives. 138-D Metal Street Light 83 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 138-E Wood Utility Pole 2480 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary as it has less natural screening. 138-F Wood Utility Pole 2481 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is viable from a structural perspective, but is too close the west to meet the required engineering objective. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 138 Page 8 Parcel Map – 127-26-062 The Flood Plain designation of AE 10.5 is listed on the Palo Alto Parcel Report for the only alternate pole SF PALO ALTO 138-E, adjacent to 830 Colorado Ave: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 138 Page 9 Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map The Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map demonstrates, by marking with green stripes, the Flood Zone for San Francisquito Creek and Bay tidal floodplains mapped by FEMA. Both the primary pole and its alternate lie within the Flood Zone. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 138 Page 10 Zoom of Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map: The proposed primary pole, as well as the alternate, both lie within the Flood Zone, designated by the green lines. Conclusion: Underground Vault Infeasible As described above, Verizon Wireless is unable to locate equipment in underground vaults in a Flood Zone. The proposed pole and its associated alternate pole for attachment are both located within the Flood Zone, as identified by FEMA. A vault cannot be located within a Flood Zone as Verizon Wireless’ radio equipment will not operate under water. The proposed vault is not sealed and thus not completely waterproof; there is absolutely no means of “flood proofing” a vault to house radio equipment. The vault comes equipped with sump pumps in the event of minor water intrusion. In the event of a flood where the water levels have been documented to rise above ground level, there is no mechanical ability to disperse water out of the vault. This would result in the radios inside the vault to be fully submerged in water and unable to operate. Given the infeasibility of a vault at this location, Verizon Wireless has proposed pole mounted equipment with a “box” style shroud. Pole mounted equipment begins at 9'-0" on the pole, located well above the flood plain. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 138 Page 11 City of Palo Alto Requirements for Utilities within Flood Zone The City of Palo Alto website contains helpful information regarding placement utilities in Flood Zones: "Other provisions require openings in areas below flood level to allow water to enter and exit, flood proofing of utilities below the flood level, etc." Source: City of Palo Alto Website – Q&A About Flood Zones: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=176. Additionally, comment #A2 from the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works received in Jan. 2018 matches the same criteria, that all proposed equipment in an underground vault shall be flood proofed. As previously mentioned, there is no way to flood proof underground vaults for radio equipment. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 143 Page 1 SF Palo Alto 143 419 El Verano Ave Executive Summary – Vault Feasibility Report Summary: The proposed location for SF Palo Alto 143 is located in the Public Right of Way, adjacent to 419 El Verano Ave. All possible vault locations are not feasible due to prohibited excavation within an existing Tree Protection Zone, sidewalk conditions that do not meet City requirements for vault placement on sloped and rolled curbs, as well as placement that would impede the adjacent residents’ driveway. There are no viable alternate poles to review in this search ring. Further details to follow. Report Contents: Page 1: Summary Page 2: Vault Specifications Page 3: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Primary Pole Page 4-5: Ground View and Feasibility Analysis – Primary Pole Search Area Page 6: Summary of Alternate Poles Page 7-9: Department of Public Works Comments & Standards Regarding Vaults Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 143 Page 2 Vaulting Feasibility Report Site Name: SF PALO ALTO 143 Site Pole Located: Public Right of Way, Adjacent to 419 El Verano Ave Vault Dimension Requirements: Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 143 Page 3 30-Foot Vault Search Area along El Verano: The search area for the proposed vault location is a diameter of 5' to 30' from the existing pole location. Verizon Wireless engineering will allow a distance of 100' for the coaxial cable from the antenna to the radio before the network no longer operates as designed. To calculate the viable distance for a proposed vault, we must subtract the following from the allowable 100-foot distance: 1) CPAU requires a minimum setback of 5' from an existing pole to a vault location; 2) Antenna height to base of pole≈50'; 3) A 10' length of cable is required within the vault so radios can be elevated for maintenance; 4) City of Palo Alto standards for underground work require boring of ≈12' below grade. The result is conservatively a viable distance of ≈25-30' from each CPAU pole to locate a vault. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 143 Page 4 30-Foot Vault Search Area - along El Verano – Detailed View: The following conditions prohibit the placement of an underground vault along El Verano: 1. Vault must maintain a 5' setback from the selected utility pole per CPAU. 2. The sidewalk in this area has an excessive slope and rolled curb (see Photo 1). Vaults must be located outside the transition slope and on a level plane per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works comment #B16 dated Jan. 2018. 3. Vaults sump pump requires tubes that discharge water into the street; these tubes cannot be placed in a rolled curb, as it creates a trip hazard and violates OSHA standards. 4. Vaults cannot impede a resident’s driveway. 5. Excavation cannot occur within 10' of an established street tree, per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works comment #B5 dated Jan. 2018. Additionally, Section 1.39 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual confirms that trenching within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is injurious to roots and tree health and is prohibited. The TPZ extends a minimum distance of the dripline, per Section 1.36 of the Palo Alto Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 143 Page 5 Tree Technical Manual. Section 2.15 of the outlines prohibited activities within the TPZ including foundation digging, utility trenching, paving, or any other excavation. The existing Southern Magnolia has a trunk diameter of 20" and a dripline of 16'-8”; excavation for a vault would not be allowed within that dripline (see page A-1 of the plan set for tree details and location). 6. An existing street light precludes placement of a vault in that area. Supporting Visuals Photo 1: Excessive sidewalk slope and rolled curb, which does not allow for vault placement. Conclusion: Underground Vault Infeasible As described above, the various site conditions and sidewalk layout do not provide adequate space to install an underground vault. Placement of a vault would impede the adjacent resident’s driveway. Additionally, the Tree Protection Zone for trees within the viable search area is so large to prevent excavation. The sidewalk conditions do not meet City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works’ requirements regarding transition slopes and rolled curbs. Given the infeasibility of a vault at this location, Verizon Wireless has proposed pole mounted equipment with a “box” style shroud. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 143 Page 6 Analysis of Vault Feasibility - Alternate Utility Poles SF PALO ALTO 143 Alternative Site Analysis In the Cluster 1 resubmittal dated 12/21/2017, Vinculums included an alternate site analysis for each node. For SF Palo Alto 143, only the primary pole is viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node. The original map and ASA of alternates reviewed is included below: Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 143-A Wood Utility Pole 3866 Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement), as opposed to the Public ROW, are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. Could not get pole number as it is located in yard. 143-B Wood Utility Pole 3889 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 143-C Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement), as opposed to the Public ROW, are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. Could not get pole number as it is located in backyard. 143-D Metal Street Light 18 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 143-E Wood Utility Pole 3995 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short give the surrounding tree clutter and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. 143-F Wood Utility Pole 3996 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole location is viable, but was not selected as primary, as it is short and likely would require replacement to meet the required engineering objective. The pole partially resides in the driveway of the adjacent resident and would not be selected for attachment. 143-G Metal Street Light 323 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 143-H Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 143-I Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable Planning Pole appears to be located on private property (residential easement), rather than Public ROW, and would only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. It is located within the yard of the resident. 143-J Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 143-K Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 143 Page 7 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 143 Page 8 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 143 Page 9 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 1 SF Palo Alto 144 201 Loma Verde Ave Executive Summary – Vault Feasibility Report Summary: The proposed location for SF Palo Alto 144 is located in the Public Right of Way, adjacent to 201 Loma Verde Ave. All possible vault locations are not feasible due to existing underground utilities, ADA requirements and encroaching within an existing tree drip line. There are no viable alternate poles to review in this search ring. Further details to follow. Report Contents: Page 1: Summary Page 2: Vault Specifications Page 3: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Primary Pole Page 4-10: Ground View and Feasibility Analysis – Primary Pole Search Area Page 11: Summary of Alternate Poles Page 12-14: Department of Public Works Comments & Standards Regarding Vaults Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 2 Vaulting Feasibility Report Site Name: SF PALO ALTO 144 Site Pole Located: Public Right of Way, Adjacent to 201 Loma Verde Ave Vault Dimension Requirements: Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 3 30-Foot Vault Search Area along Loma Verde Ave and Emerson St: The search area for the proposed vault location is a diameter of 5' to 30' from the existing pole location. Verizon Wireless engineering will allow a distance of 100' for the coaxial cable from the antenna to the radio before the network no longer operates as designed. To calculate the viable distance for a proposed vault, we must subtract the following from the allowable 100-foot distance: 1) CPAU requires a minimum setback of 5' from an existing pole to a vault location; 2) Antenna height to base of pole≈50'; 3) A 10' length of cable is required within the vault so radios can be elevated for maintenance; 4) City of Palo Alto standards for underground work require boring of ≈12' below grade. The result is conservatively a viable distance of ≈25-30' from each CPAU pole to locate a vault. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 4 30-Foot Vault Search Area – Part 1: along Loma Verde – Detailed View: The following conditions prohibit the placement of an underground vault along Loma Verde Ave: 1. Vault must maintain a 5' setback from the selected utility pole per CPAU. 2. Vault cannot be placed in transition slope of ADA ramp. 3. Existing mailbox on corner impedes placement of a vault. 4. Excavation cannot occur within 10' of an established street tree, per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works’ comment #B5 dated Jan. 2018. Additionally, Section 1.39 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual confirms that trenching within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is injurious to roots and tree health and is prohibited. The TPZ extends a minimum distance of the dripline, per Section 1.36 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Section 2.15 of the outlines prohibited activities within the TPZ including foundation digging, utility trenching, paving, or any other excavation. The existing Modesto Ash has a trunk diameter of 13" and a dripline of 10'-10"; excavation for a vault would not be allowed within that dripline (see page A-1 of the plan set for tree details and location). 5. A 12" diameter PCC Storm Pipeline is located along the entire curb edge of Loma Verde Ave (see Utility Map 1 below). 6. Existing utility laterals to the northeast of the pole require setbacks per CPUC GO128 (Rules for Underground Electric Supply and Communication Systems). Additionally, this area is outside the acceptable distance of 25-30' from the pole. 7. Residence to northeast has entry/walkway that cannot be blocked (it is also outside the acceptable search area). Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 5 Supporting Visuals Utility Map 1: Existing utility laterals along Loma Verde Ave. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 6 Photo 2: ADA Ramp and Existing Mailbox Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 7 30-Foot Vault Search Area – Part 2: along Loma Verde – Detailed View: The following conditions prohibit the placement of an underground vault along Emerson St: 1. ADA Ramp located at corner – vault cannot be located within transition slope. 2. Vault cannot be placed in front of fire hydrant, serviced by high pressure water main per CPUC GO128 (Rules for Underground Electric Supply and Communication Systems). See Utility Map 1 below. 3. The sidewalk along Stone Lane in this area has an excessive slope and rolled curb (see Photo 2). Vaults must be located outside the transition slope and on a level plane per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works’ comment #B16 dated Jan. 2018. 4. Vaults sump pump requires tubes that discharge water into the street; these tubes cannot be placed in a rolled curb, as it creates a trip hazard. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 8 Supporting Visuals Utility Map 1: High Pressure Water Service to Existing Fire Hydrant Along Emerson Ave. High Pressure Water Lateral to Fire Hydrant Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 9 Underground Utility Map from Plan Set (Page A-1.1): In addition to the City utility map above, underground utilities are also depicted on page A- 1.1 of the Plan Set. Photo 1: Excessive sidewalk slope, rolled curb and existing fire hydrant does not allow for vault placement. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 10 Conclusion: Underground Vault Infeasible As described above, the various site conditions and sidewalk layout do not provide adequate space to install an underground vault. Placement of a vault would violate CPUC GO128 (Rules for Underground Electric Supply and Communication Systems), ADA requirements for access to the sidewalk, safety standards regarding curb safety and required distance from established street trees. Given the infeasibility of a vault at this location, Verizon Wireless has proposed pole mounted equipment with a “box” style shroud. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 11 Analysis of Vault Feasibility - Alternate Utility Poles SF PALO ALTO 144 Alternative Site Analysis In the Cluster 1 resubmittal dated 12/21/2017, Vinculums included an alternate site analysis for each node. For SF Palo Alto 143, only the primary pole is viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node. The original map and ASA of alternates reviewed is included below: Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 144-A Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 144-B Wood Utility Pole 1521 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Existing AT&T utilities conflict with attachment. 144-C Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 144-D Wood Utility Pole 1507 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on the pole. 144-E Wood Utility Pole 1508 Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement), rather than in the Public ROW, are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. 144-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 144-G Metal Street Light 304 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Significant tree clutter surround light and would not meet engineering objectives. 144-H Metal Street Light 311 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 144-I Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 12 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 13 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 144 Page 14 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 1 SF Palo Alto 145 737 Loma Verde Ave Executive Summary – Vault Feasibility Report Summary: The proposed location for SF Palo Alto 145 is located in the Public Right of Way, adjacent to 737 Loma Verde Ave. All possible vault locations are not feasible due to existing underground utilities and encroachment within an existing tree drip line. There is one viable alternate pole to review in this search ring. Further details to follow. Report Contents: Page 1: Summary Page 2: Vault Specifications Page 3: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Primary Pole Page 4-7: Ground View and Feasibility Analysis – Primary Pole Search Area Page 8: Summary of Alternate Poles Page 9: Aerial View – Vault Search Area Near Alternate Pole Page 10-11: Ground View and Feasibility Analysis – Alternate Pole Search Area Page 12-14: Department of Public Works Comments & Standards Regarding Vaults Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 2 Vaulting Feasibility Report Site Name: SF PALO ALTO 145 Site Pole Located: Public Right of Way, Adjacent to 737 Loma Verde Ave Vault Dimension Requirements: Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 3 30-Foot Vault Search Area along Loma Verde Ave: The search area for the proposed vault location is a diameter of 5' to 30' from the existing pole location. Verizon Wireless engineering will allow a distance of 100' for the coaxial cable from the antenna to the radio before the network no longer operates as designed. To calculate the viable distance for a proposed vault, we must subtract the following from the allowable 100-foot distance: 1) CPAU requires a minimum setback of 5' from an existing pole to a vault location; 2) Antenna height to base of pole≈50'; 3) A 10' length of cable is required within the vault so radios can be elevated for maintenance; 4) City of Palo Alto standards for underground work require boring of ≈12' below grade. The result is conservatively a viable distance of ≈25-30' from each CPAU pole to locate a vault. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 4 30-Foot Vault Search Area – along Loma Verde – Detailed View: The following conditions prohibit the placement of an underground vault at the primary pole along Loma Verde Ave: 1. Vault must maintain a 5' setback from the selected utility pole per CPAU. 2. Excavation cannot occur within 10' of an established street tree, per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works’ comment #B5 dated Jan. 2018. Additionally, Section 1.39 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual confirms that trenching within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is injurious to roots and tree health and is prohibited. The TPZ extends a minimum distance of the dripline, per Section 1.36 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Section 2.15 of the outlines prohibited activities within the TPZ including foundation digging, utility trenching, paving, or any other excavation. The existing Camphor tree has a trunk diameter of 19" and a dripline of 15'-10”; excavation for a vault would not be allowed within that dripline (see page A-1 of the plan set for tree details and location). 3. Excavation cannot occur within 10' of an established street tree, per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works’ comment #B5 dated Jan. 2018. Additionally, Section 1.39 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual confirms that trenching within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is injurious to roots and tree health and is prohibited. The TPZ extends a minimum distance of the dripline, per Section 1.36 of the Palo Alto Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 5 Tree Technical Manual. Section 2.15 of the outlines prohibited activities within the TPZ including foundation digging, utility trenching, paving, or any other excavation. The existing Hackberry has a trunk diameter of 10" and a dripline of 10'; excavation for a vault would not be allowed within that dripline (see page A-1 of the plan set for tree details and location). 4. The adjacent private redwood is a Protected Tree species in the City of Palo Alto. 5. Utility laterals to service the adjacent apartment building lie along the entire sidewalk, which impedes placement of a vault. See supporting Utility Map 1 below. Supporting Visuals Utility Map 1: Laterals servicing the adjacent apartment building run along the entire length of adjacent sidewalk. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 6 Underground Utility Map (Underground Utility Map from Plan Set (Page A-1.1): In addition to the City utility map above, underground utilities are also depicted on page A-1.1 of the Plan Set: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 7 Photo 1: Existing utilities impede vault placement. Photo 2: Existing utilities impede vault placement. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 8 Analysis of Vault Feasibility - Alternate Utility Poles SF PALO ALTO 145 Alternative Site Analysis In the Cluster 1 resubmittal dated 12/21/2017, Vinculums included an alternate site analysis for each node. For SF Palo Alto 145, two existing pole locations were determined as viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node. Candidate 145-A was initially determined to be a viable alternate. As requested by the City of Palo Alto, we will also review the alternate viability for vaulting. The original map and ASA of alternates reviewed is included below: Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 145-A Wood Utility Pole 3292 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary. It is first alternate candidate. The pole was recently replaced and the old transfer pole still exists. 145-B Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, there is too much tree clutter surrounding this pole, so it would not meet the engineering objective for this area. 145-C Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on the pole. 145-D Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 145-E Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Existing AT&T utilities conflict with attachment. 145-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 145-G Wood Utility Pole 3290 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary riser located on pole. 145-H Wood Utility Pole 3289 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Pole is for communications only and not electrical transmission. Additionally, it is too short to meet the required engineering objectives. 145-I Wood Utility Pole 3285 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary riser located on pole. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 9 30-Foot Vault Search Area for Alternate – SF PALO ALTO 145-A: Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 10 30-Foot Vault Search Area for Alternate – SF PALO ALTO 145-A – Detailed View: The following conditions prohibit the placement of an underground vault at this alternate pole: 1. Vault must maintain a 5' setback from the selected utility pole per CPAU. 2. The walkway of the adjacent residence precludes vault placement (See Photo 1). 3. The vault cannot be placed within a driveway. 4. Excavation cannot occur within 10' of an established street tree, per City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works’ comment #B5 dated Jan. 2018. Additionally, Section 1.39 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual confirms that trenching within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is injurious to roots and tree health and is prohibited. The TPZ extends a minimum distance of the dripline, per Section 1.36 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Section 2.15 of the outlines prohibited activities within the TPZ including foundation digging, utility trenching, paving, or any other excavation. The two large existing trees have driplines that extend well beyond the 10-foot minimum; excavation for a vault would not be allowed within that dripline. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 11 Supporting Visuals Photo 1: Existing walkway impede vault placement Conclusion: Underground Vault Infeasible As described above, the various site conditions and sidewalk layout do not provide adequate space to install an underground vault. The extensive presence of existing utilities impedes the placement of a vault. Existing driveways and trees prevent vault placement at an alternate. Given the infeasibility of a vault at this location, Verizon Wireless has proposed pole mounted equipment with a “box” style shroud. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 12 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 13 Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN-00169 SF PALO ALTO 145 Page 14 Attachment E Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to City Council Members. Hardcopies are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on at City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Project Plans may also be viewed online: Please visit the Project Website here to review the February 26, 2018 Project Plans:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3999&TargetID=319 Additional application materials, including superseded project plan sets, can be found online by visiting the City’s Building Eye: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “250 Hamilton Avenue” and open the record for 17PLN-00169 by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” The February 26, 2018 Project Plans are named: “17PLN-00169 Cluster 1 Resubmittal Plans 02-26-18 FULL PLAN SET” (76MB) OR for smaller file sizes: “17PLN-00169 Cluster 1 Resubmittal Plans 02-26-18 1 of 4” (27MB) “17PLN-00169 Cluster 1 Resubmittal Plans 02-26-18 2 of 4” (27MB) “17PLN-00169 Cluster 1 Resubmittal Plans 02-26-18 3 of 4” (23MB) “17PLN-00169 Cluster 1 Resubmittal Plans 02-26-18 4 of 4” (17MB) Note: The address for this application 17PLN-00169 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the utility poles and streetlights that are proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses.   18‐AP‐2  Herc Kwan, Node #129: CPAU Pole# 3121   (near 2490 Louis Road)            18‐AP‐3  Francesca Lane Kautz, Node #143: CPAU Pole #3867   (near 419 El Verano Avenue)          18‐AP‐4  Christopher Linn, Node #130: CPAU Pole #2461   (near 2802 Louis Road)            18‐AP‐5  Jeanne Fleming on behalf of United Neighbors   All eleven (11) nodes          18‐AP‐6  RK Parthasarathy, Node #134: CPAU Pole #2964   (near 3409 Kenneth Drive)          18‐AP‐7  Russell Targ and Patricia Targ  All eleven (11) nodes          18‐AP‐8  Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs  All eleven (11) nodes        MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 155 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010 May 2, 2018 VIA EMAIL Mayor Liz Kniss Vice Mayor Eric Filseth City Council Members Tom DuBois, Adrian Fine, Karen Holman, Lydia Kou, Greg Scharff, Greg Tanaka and Cory Wolbach City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Verizon Wireless Response to Appeals Tier 3 Wireless Facility Permit 17PLN-00169 Eleven Small Cells in the Public Right-of-Way Council Agenda May 21, 2018 Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth and Council Members: We write on behalf of Verizon Wireless to urge you to uphold the recommendation of the Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment of eleven small cells in the Palo Alto right-of-way (the “Approved Facilities”). Verizon Wireless has worked closely with the City to design small cells that will pose minimal impact while bringing improved network service to Palo Alto residents, workers and visitors. In addition to three hearings before the ARB, Verizon Wireless hosted community meetings and made several improvements to the small cell design based on the feedback received. The Approved Facilities comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) and meet all other requirements for approval. The appeals challenging the Director’s approval are without merit. We urge you to reject them and uphold the Director’s well- reasoned approval. I. The Project. The Approved Facilities, placed on existing utility poles, have been designed to pose minimal impact to the adjacent neighborhoods. Verizon Wireless will mount one four-foot tall cylindrical antenna on top of each of eleven wood utility poles. To comply Palo Alto City Council May 2, 2018 Page 2 of 12 with State regulations, the antennas must be elevated six feet above electric supply lines.1 The entire pole-top extension will be concealed by a narrow seven-foot “bayonet shroud” with a tapered design chosen by the ARB that provides a smooth transition from the pole to the antenna base. Two of the eleven poles require replacement due to insufficient structural capacity. In these cases, the replacement pole will be seven feet taller in order to meet required antenna separation from electrical lines. For all eleven small cells, associated equipment will be placed on the side of each pole, stacked vertically between eight and nineteen feet. This equipment includes three small remote radio units (“RRUs”), three very small diplexers and a fiber demarcation box. To achieve better integration with the appearance of the pole, all of this equipment will be concealed within a single, slender vertical “box shroud.” A small cutoff switch box will be placed below the shroud. Visible components will be painted a color that matches the particular wood pole. At six locations with inadequate tree screening, Verizon Wireless will plant one or two new street trees. Both the antenna bayonet shroud and the equipment box shroud were selected by the ARB, and Verizon Wireless has updated its mock-up facility at 1350 Newell Road to reflect the latest design for the Approved Facilities. Photographs of the mock-up facility are attached as Exhibit A. A map showing the locations of the eleven Approved Facilities is attached as Exhibit B. Verizon Wireless hosted a community meeting to present preliminary small cell plans for this area on March 30, 2017. Community support for the Approved Facilities is clear in the 430 text messages of support received as documented in a letter from a Verizon Wireless Director attached as Exhibit C. II. The Approved Facilities Meet All PAMC Standards and Findings for a Tier 3 Wireless Facility Permit. As confirmed in the Director’s approval, all of the Approved Facilities comply with the PAMC’s wireless facility standards. All equipment is confined to a utility pole, height is increased by the minimum required to comply with state regulations, and Verizon Wireless has revised the design to include a new smaller RRU and eliminate battery backup power – all choices that enable the smallest footprint possible and minimize height, mass and size. PAMC §§ 18.42.110(i)(1), 18.42.110(i)(2). Placed on existing utility infrastructure with pole-top extensions and equipment concealed within shrouds, the Approved Facilities are screened from public view, compatible with the existing site, and camouflaged through screening techniques. PAMC §§ 18.42.110(i)(3), 18.42.110(i)(4), 18.42.110(i)(6). The pole-mounted small cells involve no impact to existing landscaping, and in fact, Verizon Wireless will plant new street trees at six locations. PAMC §§ 18.42.110(i)(5). 1 See Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 Rule 94.4(C). Palo Alto City Council May 2, 2018 Page 3 of 12 The Approved Facilities also meet relevant architectural review findings required for a Tier 3 wireless facility permit. By concealing pole-top extensions and equipment within shrouds selected by the ARB and painted to match the wood poles, the Approved Facilities provide harmonious transitions in scale and mass and pose no impact to adjacent uses. PAMC § 18.76.020(d)(2)(D). Shrouds are custom-manufactured to present an appearance consistent with other utility pole elements, with attention to high aesthetic quality and compatible materials. PAMC § 18.76.020(d)(3). Pole-mounted equipment poses no impact to pedestrians or bicyclists. PAMC § 18.76.020(d)(4). New drought-resistant street trees at six locations will enhance the surroundings. PAMC § 18.76.020(d)(5). The Approved Facilities likewise meet required conditional use permit findings. Because each of the eleven small cells comply with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) guidelines for radio frequency (“RF”) exposure, emit no noise and pose no impact to pedestrian or vehicle circulation, there will be no detriment to public health, safety, welfare or convenience. PAMC § 18.76.010(c)(1). In fact, the Approved Facilities will provide an important public benefit through improved broadband wireless service for residents, visitors and emergency service personnel. The Approved Facilities are also consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and purposes of zoning regulations. PAMC § 18.76.010(c)(2). The PAMC allows wireless facilities in residential zones, and Verizon Wireless’s small cells will be placed on City-owned poles pursuant to a license agreement, as encouraged by Comprehensive Plan Program L9.11.2. Because the Approved Facilities meet all PAMC standards and findings for approval of a Tier 3 wireless facility permit, the Council should uphold the Director’s approval. III. Other Applicable Law. While the City’s review of this project is governed primarily by the PAMC, it must also comply with federal and state law. This includes the federal Telecommunications Act and Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code. We explain below how these laws constrain the City’s discretion. A. Federal Law The federal Telecommunications Act generally preserves local land use authority over wireless facilities, but places significant limits on such local authority. Among other restrictions, denial of a wireless facility must be based on substantial evidence. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). As interpreted under controlling federal court decisions, this means that a local government’s decision to deny a wireless facility application must be based on requirements set forth in the local code and supported by evidence in the record. See Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 2005) (denial of application must be “authorized by applicable local regulations and supported by a reasonable amount of evidence”). While a local government may regulate the Palo Alto City Council May 2, 2018 Page 4 of 12 placement of wireless facilities based on aesthetics, mere generalized concerns or opinions about aesthetics or compatibility with a neighborhood do not constitute substantial evidence upon which a local government could deny a permit. See City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 101 Cal. App. 4th 367, 381 (2002). Two other provisions of the Telecommunications Act are potentially relevant here. The Act also provides that local governments may not regulate wireless facilities based on their RF emissions, see 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), and may not discriminate unreasonably between providers of functionally equivalent services. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). As we explain below, granting the relief sought in the appeals would run afoul of one or more of these provisions. B. State Law Verizon Wireless is a telephone corporation under California law, and thus has a statewide franchise to place its equipment in the public rights-of-way pursuant to Section 7901 of the California Public Utilities Code. Section 7901 provides that: Telegraph or telephone corporations may construct lines of telegraph or telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State, and may erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway or interrupt the navigation of the waters. While the City retains authority to “exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed,” such control must, “at a minimum, be applied to all entities in an equivalent manner.” Pub. Util. Code § 7901.1(a), (b). Under these provisions, the City may not require Verizon Wireless to prove the technical need for the small cells, or impose burdens – such as vaulting its equipment – not applied to other wireless carriers. IV. The Appeals Have No Merit, and This Council Should Uphold the Director’s Approval. Seven appeals were filed challenging the Director’s approval. As we explain, none of the appellants raise substantial evidence to warrant denial of the application or any other relief. For this reason and others, granting any of the relief requested in the appeals would violate the rights of Verizon Wireless under state and federal law. A. Summary of the Appeals Three of the seven appeals challenge all of the Approved Facilities. These include the appeals of Russell and Patricia Targ, Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs, Palo Alto City Council May 2, 2018 Page 5 of 12 and Jeanne Fleming. The Targ and Downs appeals are based primarily on concerns about the alleged dangers of RF emissions,2 while the Fleming appeal argues that the City should require all of the equipment to be installed in underground vaults. The other four appeals are limited to individual small cells. These include the appeals of Herc Kwan (node 129), Franchesca Lane Kautz (node 143), Christopher Linn (node 130), and RK Parthasarathy (node 134). The Kwan appeal argues that the equipment should be vaulted, that his house is not in a flood hazard zone, and that the small cell will lower his property values and may pose a fire risk. He also argues that there is no significant gap in Verizon Wireless coverage at his house, and that the small cell is unnecessary because Verizon Wireless plans to install a “macro” facility at 1082 Colorado Avenue, 0.8 miles away. The Kautz and Linn appeals largely overlap, both focused on a desire for the City to move existing utilities underground, which they assert will be difficult or impossible if Verizon Wireless installs its equipment on utility poles. The Kautz appeal also questions the structural safety of the pole in a fire or earthquake, but the pole is over a block away and on a different street than the Kautz residence. Ms. Kautz also asserts that landscaping will not screen the pole-top antenna from view, and purports to state objections on behalf of neighbors who live much closer to the pole and supposedly have good Verizon Wireless service. The Linn and Parthasarathy appeals also argue, like the Kwan appeal, that the new macro facility at 1082 Colorado Avenue renders the small cells closest to their residences unnecessary. The Parthasarathy appeal also argues that the City should require vaulting of the equipment, and raises concerns that the facility poses “potential physical and fire hazards” and expresses concern about the “potential implications to our property value.” B. RF Emissions Comply with Federal Limits and Have No Bearing on the City’s Review of the Approved Facilities. The Targ and Downs appeals are based on concerns over RF emissions and the alleged effects of such emissions on property values. Local governments are specifically precluded under federal statute from considering any alleged health or environmental effects of RF emissions of proposed wireless facilities “to the extent such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions.” 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). In this case, RF exposure reports prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers confirm that the maximum exposure level at ground level from any of the Approved Facilities will be 3.1 percent – or 32 times below – FCC exposure guidelines. 2 The Targ appeal also complains of lack of notice, and both the Targ and Downs appeals raise certain other issues that are either proxies for their primary concern about RF emissions (such as the alleged impact on property values) or raised in other appeals. Palo Alto City Council May 2, 2018 Page 6 of 12 Moreover, federal preemption goes beyond decisions that are explicitly based on RF emissions. It also bars efforts to circumvent such preemption through some proxy concern such as effects on property values. See, e.g., AT&T Wireless Servs. of Cal. LLC v. City of Carlsbad, 308 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1159 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (in light of federal preemption, “concern over the decrease in property values may not be considered as substantial evidence if the fear of property value depreciation is based on concern over the health effects caused by RF emissions”); Calif. RSA No. 4, d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. Madera County, 332 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1311 (E.D. Cal. 2003). Where, as here, a wireless facility will comply with FCC guidelines, health concerns, or any proxy for health concerns, cannot justify denial of the Approved Facilities. These unfounded concerns3 are preempted by federal law because the Approved Facilities comply with FCC guidelines, and these grounds for appeal must be rejected. C. Placing Equipment in Underground Vaults is Not Feasible and Requiring It Would be Unlawful. The Fleming appeal is focused entirely on the argument that the City should require Verizon Wireless to place its radio equipment in underground vaults rather than mounting it on the pole, and several other appeals echo this argument. After review of extensive evidence on this issue, the ARB recommended against vaulting, and the Director agreed, expressly finding: “This approval does not include any vaulting of equipment listed to be pole mounted, as vaulting was found to be infeasible at the approved locations.” Approval letter from Director of Planning and Community Environment, March 26, 2018, p. 6. That finding was correct. As described in the eleven vaulting feasibility analyses submitted to the City, Verizon Wireless determined that due to location constraints unique to each site, vaults are not feasible for any of the Approved Facilities. These constraints include: 1. Physical Constraints Placing the equipment underground would require very large vaults that would seldom if ever fit Palo Alto’s narrow sidewalks. To accommodate the required three RRUs and provide required space for workers to service the equipment, a vault 8 feet 2 inches long and 5 feet 8 inches wide is required. Intake and exhaust vents must be placed at both ends, each 2.5 feet long and 2.5 feet wide. Additionally, to reduce the risk of water intrusion, two sump pumps must be placed below a vault along with a drywell. Sump pumps release water into the nearby gutter. The total excavation area required to install all of this equipment is 18 feet long, 3 A study of local cities including Palo Alto previously submitted to the City by Joint Venture Silicon Valley, working with local realtor associations, found that proximity to wireless facilities does not affect home values or sale prices. See Wireless Facilities Impact on Property Values, Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network, November 2012. Palo Alto City Council May 2, 2018 Page 7 of 12 10 feet wide and 8 feet 1 inch deep. A photograph of a Verizon Wireless vault in the Santa Cruz right-of-way is attached as Exhibit D. Numerous factors preclude placement of vaults involving such excavation in Palo Alto. To meet technical requirements,4 vaults must be within 30 feet of the pole that hosts the antenna, and cannot encroach on either the street or adjacent private property. This leaves only a narrow strip of right-of-way within 30 feet of the pole, but much of that is ruled out by a host of other constraints. Existing underground utilities, including water and sewer lines, pose a major impediment to excavation and permanent vaults. City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) requires that vaults be located at least five feet away from its utility poles. Vaults cannot be placed near street light poles, in driveways or in storm drain channels. Near designated protected or street trees, excavation may not intrude on tree protection zones which extend at least to the tree dripline area, or 10 times the diameter of the trunk at 4.5 feet. See Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual §§ 1.13, 1.36, 1.39, 2.15. In addition, adjacent property owners often install landscaping, fences or other improvements in public rights-of-way, and required excavation may interfere with these private improvements. As one example, the Santa Cruz vault required partially relocating a private fence, as illustrated in Exhibit D. Finally, even if there were sufficient space for such large vaults, the significant excavation required would pose a serious disruption for nearby residents. Citing this and other concerns, the staff report to the ARB stated that staff “remains unconvinced that vaulting is a preferential form of screening in residential areas.” See ARB Staff Report ID # 8632, March 15, 2018, p. 3. 2. Noise In response to feedback from Palo Alto residents in a community meeting, whose overwhelming concern was potential noise from the equipment, Verizon eliminated proposed battery backup units which were the only source of noise. Consequently, the Approved Facilities will generate no noise. In contrast, vaults require air circulation through ventilation systems that generate noise. To date, Verizon Wireless has not been able to obtain assurances that the required ventilation equipment will comply with the stringent noise standard in Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, Policy N-6.1.5 4 The relatively low-wattage RRUs must be mounted close to antennas to avoid excessive loss of signal strength due to long cable runs. The maximum distance between antennas and RRUs is 100 feet. Subtracting the pole height and required undergrounding depth results in a 30-foot radius. Distances in excess of 100 feet require oversize cable nearly twice as thick as standard cable (increasing diameter from 7/8 inches to 1 5/8 inches). There is generally inadequate space to run the six oversize cables mounted in two six-inch diameter conduits up the length of a utility pole. 5 This composite “day-night” average Ldn standard sets 60 dBA Ldn as the guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas, with a 10 dBA penalty during nighttime hours. By definition, sound from a continuous noise source will be 6.4 dBA higher when expressed in Ldn. Palo Alto City Council May 2, 2018 Page 8 of 12 3. Water The six proposed small cells closest to the bay are within flood hazard zones designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and underground radios would be submerged in a flood event. Several appeals argue that CPAU installs water meters and electrical cables underground, but this is comparing apples to oranges. Unlike some underground utility equipment and protected cables, RRUs that contain radios and other sensitive electronic equipment would be ruined if submerged. Verizon Wireless has received correspondence from Ericsson, the manufacturer of the radios used by Verizon Wireless, that the warranty would not cover Verizon Wireless in such circumstances.6 The Fleming appeal raised the prospect of using water-resistant Ericsson radio units that have recently been deployed in manholes in Switzerland. The waterproof radios are low-wattage with antennas that provide only a small bubble of coverage in public plaza areas. These low-powered radios are not appropriate for use by Verizon Wireless in its Palo Alto network. One reason is that their low power would significantly reduce the coverage “footprint” and require many more antennas in many more locations. Aside from the potentially greater impact on the community, any attempt to require Verizon Wireless to re-engineer its network in this manner would intrude on the exclusive federal authority over the technical and operational aspects of wireless technology. See, e.g., New York SMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Clarkstown, 612 F.3d 97, 105-106 (2nd Cir. 2010) (invalidating town ordinance because “the provisions setting forth a preference for ‘alternate technologies’” were “preempted”). The Kwan appeal alleges that the residence nearest the proposed small cell at 2490 Louis Road is not in a flood hazard zone. While that may be true of the appellant’s residence and the pole location, the area of the right-of-way otherwise available for vaulting of small cell equipment falls within a flood hazard zone, rendering vaulting infeasible for this small cell. Verizon Wireless is providing supplemental information with accurate flood zone maps demonstrating the issues with this location. 4. Requiring Vaulting Would Be Unlawful In addition to its lack of feasibility, a vaulting requirement would violate the rights of Verizon Wireless for at least two reasons. First, there is no substantial evidence that would support a vaulting requirement. Appellants’ preference for vaulting does not raise any non-compliance with PAMC standards, and the Director correctly found that the Approved Facilities meet PAMC design standards. In addition, none of the evidence cited by appellants suggests that vaulting is feasible. Appellants have cited two other Verizon Wireless facilities that have deployed vaults, installed and operated by Crown Castle in Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara Counties. 6 Correspondence from Ericsson representative Jian Shiou Yong and Song Sun dated April 19, 2018. Palo Alto City Council May 2, 2018 Page 9 of 12 However, experience with those vaults simply confirms the practical barriers discussed above. As noted above, the large excavation required as illustrated in Exhibit D, as well as heat, noise and dewatering issues make the Santa Cruz vault infeasible for the Approved Facilities. The Montecito vault in Santa Barbara County is slightly smaller than the Santa Cruz vault, but only accommodates smaller low wattage distributed antenna system (DAS) radios that provide limited coverage and do not require active cooling. The Montecito vault does not provide adequate space for the radios and technology designed for the Verizon Wireless Palo Alto network. In addition, the Montecito facility referenced in the Fleming appeal has required repeated replacement of underground radios and related equipment in the two years it has been operational, with resulting service interruptions. Second, a vaulting requirement would discriminate unreasonably against Verizon Wireless. The City approved over 90 wireless facilities in the rights-of-way for AT&T and did not require any of the equipment to be vaulted. Those facilities are more intrusive than the Verizon Wireless equipment proposed here in two respects. They include large, pole-mounted battery backup units that are more visually intrusive than Verizon Wireless’s Approved Facilities, and they also generate noise. In fact, we understand the AT&T facilities have been the subject of noise complaints. If the City were to require Verizon Wireless to install its equipment underground, while allowing AT&T to install more intrusive equipment on utility poles, it would discriminate unreasonably against Verizon Wireless in violation of both the Telecommunications Act and State law (Sections 7901 and 7901.1). For all of the foregoing reasons, this ground for the appeals must be rejected. D. Other Issues 1. The Approved Facilities Will Provide Needed Network Capacity, But Such Need is Not a Required Finding. Several appellants claim that there is no “significant gap” in Verizon Wireless service at their home and that a pending application for a new Verizon Wireless macro facility in Palo Alto will obviate the need for the Approved Facilities. This is factually erroneous, and in any event, accepting this argument would put the City in conflict with both federal and state law. Due to increasing demands from residents and motorists on local roadways, Verizon Wireless RF design engineers determined that both the Approved Facilities and a new macro facility proposed for 1082 Colorado Avenue will be required to provide reliable network capacity within the Mid-Town, Palo Verde and St. Claire Gardens neighborhoods. The appellants are not RF engineers, and their lay opinions about network design do not constitute substantial evidence. But whether the Approved Facilities are needed is not an issue that this Council need (or should) address. No finding of need or significant gap is required under the PAMC. For this reason, a denial based on the claim that there is no need for one or more Palo Alto City Council May 2, 2018 Page 10 of 12 of the Approved Facilities would not be based on substantial evidence, in violation of the Telecommunications Act. It would also violate State law. As a telephone corporation, Verizon Wireless is entitled to place its telephone equipment the public right-of-way by Public Utilities Code Section 7901. Because of this statewide franchise, Verizon Wireless is not required to demonstrate the need for its facilities, nor can the City deny a right-of-way application over questions of need. Further, the need for facilities is not relevant to findings for approval of a Tier 3 wireless facility permit. 2. The Approved Facilities Will Be Structurally Safe and Pose No Safety Risk. Several appellants raise concerns over structural integrity of the small cells, citing safety and fire concerns. Verizon Wireless has evaluated the eleven proposed utility poles for structural integrity, and the two poles that cannot support small cell equipment will be replaced with poles that can. Structural capacity will be independently evaluated by Public Works Engineering during encroachment permit review. Additionally, CPAU reviews structural capacity in its role as pole owner. Condition 29 of the Director’s approval, added by the Fire Department, requires compliance with state and local fire codes. These grounds for appeal are based on unfounded speculation and must be rejected. 3. The Approved Facilities Are Located and Designed to Pose Minimal Visual Impact. The Kwan appeal objects to a small cell close to 2490 Louis Road based on visual impacts, and the Downs appeal questions whether the Approved Facilities are the “least intrusive means” to provide service. The Approved Facilities – located on existing utility infrastructure rather than new poles – present the most slender profile possible due to small equipment components and a custom shroud. The ARB itself selected the bayonet shroud to conceal pole-top extensions and the box shroud to conceal equipment. Verizon Wireless voluntarily chose to eliminate emergency battery backup cabinets to further minimize the size of the Approved Facilities and avoid any noise impacts. As set forth above, the Approved Facilities meet all PAMC standards for wireless facilities, all findings for architectural review, and all conditional use permit findings. As confirmed in the Director’s approval, the Approved Facilities occupy the smallest footprint possible (and no ground space), and the design minimizes height, mass and size in compliance with PAMC standards. Generalized objections over visual impacts do not constitute substantial evidence or refute the Director’s findings, and must be dismissed. Verizon Wireless reviewed numerous alternatives for each of the eleven Approved Facilities. Because it is granted a statewide right to use any right-of-way under Public Utilities Code Section 7901, and because small cells have a limited coverage footprint, Verizon Wireless evaluated only nearby poles in the right-of-way. These Palo Alto City Council May 2, 2018 Page 11 of 12 reviews are summarized in the eleven alternatives analyses provided to the City. In each case, the location approved by the Director represents a feasible pole location that poses as little impact as possible and complies with the PAMC. The “least intrusive means” concept, drawn from federal case law, may be employed by wireless carriers claiming that denials of wireless facilities prohibit wireless service. It is not a PAMC finding, and it is not relevant to the Approved Facilities. Appellants claim that the Approved Facilities are not the least intrusive means is irrelevant and must be rejected. In sum, appellants do not provide any evidence – let alone the substantial evidence required by federal law – to warrant denial of the Approved Facilities or a vaulting requirement. 4. The Approved Facilities Will Not Interfere With Future Undergrounding of Existing Utilities. The Kautz and Linn appeals raise speculative future undergrounding of utilities in the vicinity. The master license agreement executed by Verizon Wireless and the City addresses the prospects of small cells in future underground utility districts. At the City’s request, Verizon Wireless must relocate facilities in such districts underground or may opt to relocate them to another available pole. See Master License Agreement for Use of City-Controlled Space on Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles and in Conduits, June 26, 2016, § 7.2. 5. Notice Among other issues, the Targ appeal complains of lack of notice. The Targs were not entitled to receive notice because they do not live within 600 feet of any of the Approved Facilities. Their home at 1010 Harriet Street is over one mile from any of the Approved Facilities. As confirmed by staff, required notice of the ARB hearing was sent by postcard to addresses within 600 feet of the proposed small cells on February 28, 2018. See ARB Staff Report ID # 8632, March 15, 2018, p. 5.7 Conclusion Verizon Wireless designed the Approved Facilities to pose minimal visual impact and no noise, while ensuring reliable network capacity for the Mid-Town, Palo Verde and St. Claire Gardens neighborhoods. The Director’s approval confirms compliance with all PAMC design standards and findings required for a Tier 3 wireless facility permit, while 7 Given the number of issues raised in the appeals, in the interest of brevity we have not addressed some of the more specious claims. These include, but are not limited to, the purported takings claim in the Targ appeal, the claim in the same appeal that the facilities will violate the ADA rights of the “electromagnetically sensitive,” and the argument in the Kautz appeal that even the antennas should be placed underground. This should not be construed as concurring with such claims. Palo Alto City Council May 2, 2018 Page 12 of 12 appellants raise no substantial evidence required by federal law to support denial or infeasible vaulting requirements. Reliable network service is essential for Palo Alto residents, visitors and emergency service personnel. We urge you to reject the appeals and uphold the Director’s approval. Very truly yours, Paul B. Albritton cc: Albert Yang, Esq. Rebecca Atkinson Amy French Jodie Gerhardt Jonathan Lait Schedule of Exhibits Exhibit A: Photographs of Verizon Wireless Mock-Up Small Cell at 1350 Newell Road Exhibit B: Map of Eleven Approved Facilities Exhibit C: Letter from Verizon Wireless Director regarding 430 Text Messages of Support Exhibit D: Photograph of Verizon Wireless Vault in City of Santa Cruz Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.14 Cluster 1 Node Locations Confidential and proprietary materials for authorized Verizon personnel and outside agencies only. Use, disclosure or distribution of this material is not permitted to any unauthorized persons or third parties except by written agreement.5 Vaulting Attachment I Case Studies of Experiences of Other Jurisdictions Palo Alto is not the only city receiving numerous applications from wireless carriers for installation of facilities in the rights of way. Throughout California, many cities are trying to balance the need and interest for expanded wireless service with community interests to have this equipment blend in better with the natural and built environment. Some recent case studies are provided below. Town of Hillsborough – The wireless ordinance for the Town of Hillsborough (https://library.municode.com/ca/hillsborough/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT15BUCO_CH15.3 2WICOFA) clearly outlines low height limits and other design parameters for wireless projects. In its ordinance, Hillsborough directly relates the review of wireless applications to maintaining the rural character of the community, as well as proof of significant gap in coverage as an affirmative requirement, and other items. The Hillsborough City Council recently adopted a resolution upholding the City Manager’s denial of 16 DAS nodes proposed by Crown Castle, based on this ordinance, citing a variety of considerations including preserving the rural character of the town. On April 26, 2018, Crown Castle filed a complaint against the town in federal district court, alleging that the denial violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996. (https://www.hillsborough.net/482/Wireless). City of Piedmont – The wireless ordinance for the City of Piedmont (DIVISION 17.46 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES; http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/city_code/pdf/chapter17.pdf) establishes a prioritization list for wireless facility locations, requires an affirmative finding that the facility is necessary to close a significant gap, and requires project compliance with City Design Guidelines. The City of Piedmont approved wireless facilities with radio equipment contained both in ground mounted equipment and in vaults. Mechanically generated noise sources are limited to a lev el not to exceed 50 decibels (A-weighted) beyond property perimeters per Chapter 5 of the City Code, regardless if equipment were in a cabinet, pole-mounted, or located in a vault. According to an October 2017 noise report evaluating an existing Crown Castle vault installed in Santa Cruz at 101 Tosca Terrace near High Street, (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/publicworks/docs/crowncastle/crown-castle-noise- study.pdf), any vault proposed in Piedmont, if identical to the inspected one in Santa Cruz, would have to maintain a minimum distance of 16.75 feet to the next adjacent property line in order to not exceed the code limit on days that the temperature in the vault triggered the use of the fan. The report recommends that this opinion should be reviewed and certified by a qualified HVAC engineer if noise was an important criterion for obtaining a permit. The report suggested that noise emissions from the vault’s exhaust fan could be further reduced (and the required minimum distance be decreased) by the following measures: 1. Insert a length of acoustically lined duct at the fan end and at the air intake end. Each foot length of this type duct will reduce noise levels by 3 to 5 dB. 2. Instead of an on/off thermostat, specify an electronic RPM control, at lower RPMs there will be less noise and the airflow might still be sufficient. 3. Specify a quieter in-line exhaust fan. 4. Line the vault walls and doors with Rockwool or ductliner. In October 2017, the Piedmont City Council adopted resolutions denying five small cell applications and approving three others on the condition that radio equipment be placed underground. On November 15, 2017, Crown Castle filed a complaint against the city in federal district court, alleging that both the denials and the conditional approvals violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In particular, Crown Castle alleged that the conditional approvals were de facto denials, as the condition requiring that equipment be placed in underground vaults was technically infeasible and would result in violation of the City’s noise ordinance. City of Rancho Palos Verdes – The wireless ordinance for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8488), adopted in 2016, specifically requires all accessory equipment to be located underground, with the exception of the antenna and electric meter. Applicants may apply for an exception to placing equipment underground that includes extensive landscaping, screening, and/or camouflage, but that exception has a high standard to obtain and would be highly scrutinized by members of the public, reviewing bodies, and staff. Similar to Palo Alto, noise limits in Rancho Palos Verdes are low; node locations within 500 feet of residential zones or a residential use shall not exceed 45dBA three feet from the noise source and node locations in commercial or other areas shall not exceed 55 dBA three feet from the noise source. The Rancho Palos Verdes City Council has recently approved WCF nodes for a variety of applicants, including approval on February 15, 2018, of nodes utilizing a 4’x6’ vault similar to the vault design provided by Verizon. (See, e.g., ASG 32 and ASG 53, available at https://www.rpvca.gov/916/Wireless- Telecommunications-Facilities). All of the noise-related conditions of approval have been applied to the approved nodes and noise compliance does not appear to have been the subject of appeal by the applicant or public. Santa Barbara County – Santa Barbara County’s telecommunications ordinance is available at http://sbcountyplanning.org/telecommunications/documents/Chapter35.44- TelecommunicationsFacilities.pdf. As part of a multi-node Crown Castle/Verizon project review for inland and coastal areas in 2014, a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project required that fans or air-cooling systems for those vaults incorporated into the project must operate at less than 65 dBA at all times. ENGINEER SEAL CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE OR LAYOUT RESTRICTIONS, SITE 1.CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS, AND ELEVATIONS BEFORE START OF CONSTRUCTION. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. PRIOR TO BEGINNING PROJECT. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED USING ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES.NO FIELD MODIFICATIONS MAY BE MADE TO THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT 2.THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT FROM THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. AND ENGINEER OF RECORD ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE STRUCTURE IF ALTERATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS ARE MADE TO THE DESIGN AS SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS.THE CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL 3.LOCAL CODES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDINANCES AS WELL AS STATE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL REGULATIONS AND DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY (OSHA) REQUIREMENTS.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPERVISE AND DIRECT ALL WORK TO THE 4.BEST OF HIS/HER ABILITY AND SKILL. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, PROCEDURES, AND SEQUENCES, AND FOR COORDINATING ALL PORTIONS OF THE WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY, COORDINATE, AND PROVIDE ALL 5.NECESSARY BLOCKING, BACKING, FRAMING, HANGERS, OR OTHER SUPPORTS FOR ALL ITEMS REQUIRING SAME, WHETHER SHOWN OR NOT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL TEMPORARY BRACING, SHORING, FORMWORK, ETC., AND SHALL CONFORM TO ALL NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL ORDINANCES AND CODES IN ORDER TO SAFELY EXECUTE ALL STAGES OF WORK TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT.IT IS THE INTENT OF THESE DRAWINGS TO SHOW THE COMPLETED 6.INSTALLATION OF THE STRUCTURE SHOWN.CONTRACTOR ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS 7.DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THE SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES CONTINUOUSLY, AND IS NOT LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS.CONTRACTOR TO HOLD ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL 8.LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT.IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL 9.EXISTING UTILITIES, SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN. THE CONTRACTOR IS FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF UTILITIES OR OTHER PROPERTY DAMAGED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXECUTION OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT. GENERAL NOTES 5 3 [2 PLCS] 4 9 [2 PLCS] 6 [2 PLCS] 8 2 7 [2 PLCS] 1 ITEM #PART #DESCRIPTION QTY.UNIT WT.(lbs) 1 17126-1 4' x 6'- 6" x 4' CONCR. GND VAULT 1 9443.6 2 17126-2 1'-0" x 5'-8" x 8'-2" CONCR. W/ HATCH 1 3013.2 3 17126-3 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6"'DRYWELL, 2 708.1 4 17126-4 20"O.D. x .593"w x 5'-0" LONG PVC, PIPE 1 96.3 5 17126-5 20"O.D. x .593"w x 5'-0" LONG PVC, PIPE 1 96.3 6 17126-9 12 3/4" x .687"w x 2'-6" x PVC, PIPE 2 37.9 7 17395-12 W-19-4 3/16"x2" x 1'-7 3/16" x 1'-9" CARBON STEEL, GRATING 2 47.2 8 17395-13 5" x 1'-10" x 2'-4" CONCR. VAULT RISER 2 317.2 9 17126-10 2 7/8" O.D. x .203"w x 2'-0" PVC, PIPE 2 1.5 S-1 CROWN CASTLE SHEET 17-0395 DRAWING NUMBER ID-717 PROJECT NUMBER TITLE SANTA CRUZ, CA GROUND VAULT RADIO ENCLOSURE MANUFACTURER REVISIONSREV.CHKDESCRIPTIONDATEDRW AM25JUL17INITIAL SUBMITTAL TR- UTILITY / TELECOM, INC. WESTERN THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. IS PROHIBITED 5032 SALEM DALLAS HWYSALEM, OR 97304Ph: 503-587-0101 Fx: 503-316-1864 WesternUtilityTelecom.com 11'-10" 1'-10" 8'-2" 1'-10" 5'- 8 " 8" TYP. 2'- 4 " 12'-6" 6'- 0 " PLAN VIEW CC3030TGG 30X30TRAFFIC GRATE,2 PLCS COAXENTRY POWERENTRY FIBERENTRY EXTENT OFEXCAVATIONFOR COHESIVESOILS 6" 4" 5'- 7 " 1'-8" SQ.TYP. 2'- 6 " 30.0° 8" ELEVATION VIEW SIDEWALK OR FINAL GRADELEVEL AIR INTAKE12" SCH 80 PVC 20" SCH 80 PVCDRYWELL, 2 PLCS SUMPWELL SIDEWALK OR FINAL GRADELEVEL AIR EXHAUST12" SCH 80PVC SPECIAL 466X12" TOP W/HATCH48" X 78" CHS2 H-20 HATCH INCIDNETALTRAFFIC CAST INTO 12" RISER 1½" PVC PIPE (O.D. 1.9")TO CURB, 2 PLCSPLUG OPPOSITE WALLHOLES USED FOR SUMPWELL DISCHARGE SPECIAL 466X4 VAULTS 4' X 6'-6" X 4' INTERNAL DIMENSIONS FORMED IN RISERAND CUT DOWN GRATE 2" SCH 80 PVCDRYWELL DRAIN, 2 PLCS LINE OF EXCAVATION(COHESIONLESS SOILS) LINE OF EXCAVATION(COHESION SOILS) ¾" UNIFORMCRUSHED ROCK ¾" CRUSHED ROCK BACKFILL SUMPWELLHAND DIG TO DEPTHOF SUMP WELL ¾" CRUSHED ROCK BACKFILL ¾" CRUSHED ROCK BACKFILL HAND DIG TODEPTH OF 8" HAND DIG TODEPTH OF 8" WRAP WITHGROUND CLOTH WRAP WITHGROUND CLOTH S-2 CROWN CASTLE SHEET 17-0395 DRAWING NUMBER ID-717 PROJECT NUMBER TITLE SANTA CRUZ, CA GROUND VAULT RADIO ENCLOSURE MANUFACTURER REVISIONSREV.CHKDESCRIPTIONDATEDRW AM25JUL17INITIAL SUBMITTAL TR- UTILITY / TELECOM, INC. WESTERN THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. IS PROHIBITED 5032 SALEM DALLAS HWYSALEM, OR 97304Ph: 503-587-0101 Fx: 503-316-1864 WesternUtilityTelecom.com 418" 1'-0 1 8" 3'- 7 5 8" 4'-134" HOLD 1'-818" 1'-818" A A B B DRILL (6) 1/2" HOLESFOR FEM. THD'D ANCHORSMIN. EMBED 1 1/2" (USE INSTALLTOOL TO EXPAND ANCHORS)EA. SIDE 7" 4'-0 " 6" 1'-4316" 1'-358" HOLD 1'-4316" 3'-0 " SECTION A-A DRILL (2) 3/8" HOLESFOR EXP. ANCHORSMIN EMBED 2" 4'-0 " 7" 6" 1'-8 " 1'-4316" 1'-358" HOLD 1'-4316" SECTION B-B 1'-0 " HO L D 1'- 6 " 2'- 6 " 1'-6 " 1'-11316" 5'-4316" 4'-238" 1'-11316" 738" 8" 2'-11" 738" DRILL (2) 3/8" HOLESFOR EXP. ANCHORSMIN ENBED 2" NOTES:1. NOMINAL VAULT WALL THICKNESS 6-INCHES, FLOOR 7-INCHES.2. SIZE HOLES APPROPRIATE FOR LOOSE (BUT SEALABLE) PIPE FITTING. ELEVATION VIEW PLAN VIEW S-3 CROWN CASTLE SHEET 17-0395 DRAWING NUMBER ID-717 PROJECT NUMBER TITLE SANTA CRUZ, CA GROUND VAULT RADIO ENCLOSURE MANUFACTURER REVISIONSREV.CHKDESCRIPTIONDATEDRW AM AM ADDED DRILLED HOLES FOR NEW ACTUATOR TR 26JUN17INITIAL SUBMITTAL A 15AUG17 TR- UTILITY / TELECOM, INC. WESTERN THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. IS PROHIBITED 5032 SALEM DALLAS HWYSALEM, OR 97304Ph: 503-587-0101 Fx: 503-316-1864 WesternUtilityTelecom.com A A BB CC D D PLAN VIEW 44 46 28 [2 PLCS] 82 [2 PLCS] 82 [1 PER RRU] SECTION A-A 43 37 1719 ITEM #PART #DESCRIPTION QTY.UNIT WT.(lbs) 1 17395-17 8GA 7 7/8" x 6" 5052-H32, ALUMINUM PLATE 1 0.8 2 17395-16 8GA 8" x 3'-0" 5052-H32, ALUMINUM PLATE 1 5 3 PL-2349 11GA. x 1'- 13/16" x 4'-1 1/4" A569, MOUNT PLATE 2 5.7 4 PL-2380 11GA. x 4 3/8" x 11 3/4" , A569, FORMED PLATE 4 0.6 5 PL-2381 3/16" x 1 1/2" x 1'-11 11/16" A36, FORMED PLATE 4 0.5 6 PL-2572 11GA. x 1'-4" SQ. A569, PLATE 2 5.7 7 PL-2573 11GA. x 4 3/8" x 3'-5" , A569, FORMED PLATE 1 2.2 8 PL-2574 11GA. x 4 3/8" x 6'-1", A569, FORMED PLATE 1 4 9 PL-2604 11GA. x 1'- 9/16" x 1'-7", A569, FORMED PLATE 4 1.4 10 PL-2605 3/16" x 5 13/16" x 2'-6", A569, FORMED PLATE 2 2.4 11 PL-2606 3/16" x 5 13/16" x 2'-6", A569, FORMED PLATE 2 2.4 12 PL-2684 11GA. x 3" x 5 13/16" A569, SWITCH MOUNT 2 0.6 13 PL-2686 11GA. x 3" x 8 13/16" A569, TEMP. MOUNT 1 0.9 14 PL-2687 11GA. x 5 1/4" x 1'-9 15/16" A569, RMM MOUNT 1 4.1 15 PL-2852 PL 3/8" x 7 1/2" x 9" A36, MOUNTING BRACKET 2 3.5 16 WA-1353 3/8" x 4 3/8" x 1'-0" A36, MOUNTING BRACKET 2 8.7 17 ss-862 0.840" x 0.109"w x 1/2" 304/304L S.S., SPACER (MCMASTER-CARR P/N 44635K252)8 0 18 94154 270° CONNECTOR, 1 1/2" SOCKET FEMALE, FOR PIPE DRAIN, WASTE & VENT(MCMASTER P/N 2389K83)2 -- 19 1.5C048 1.90" O.D. x .145" w x 4'-0" PVC, PIPE 1 0.8 20 1.5C072 1.90" O.D. x .145" w x 6'-0" PVC, PIPE 3 2.7 21 95204 1.5 FEMALE TO 1.5 THD'D PVC ADAPTOR 2 22 94144 1/4" x 3 5/16" x 3 1/2" ASTM A1011 SS GR. 33, (P/N P2950S TROLLY)8 1.32 23 94161 FKD-12 MIXED FLOW FAN 2 25 24 94164 120mm AC AXIAL FAN 8 0.8 25 94183 'PUMP CONTROLLER, ION ENDEAVOR, MODEL 100-20 Ion Endeavor Programmable Smart Sensing Sump Pump Controller (208/230V - Up To 12 Amps Total)2 57 26 94186 LOAD CENTER P/N QO816L100RB (STUSSERSALEM.SHOPCED.COM)1 10.6 27 94187 REMOTE RMM-800 SYSTEM, WESTELL 1 4.2 28 94189 GROUND BAR, SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, P/N PK7GTA 1 0.2 29 94198 MINI IP-LINXS, E_W OUTDOOR BOX, FIBER BOX, TELECT. P/N 055-7972-0000 1 3.1 30 94203 DOOR SWITCH, WESTELL, 18-130-101 2 1.6 31 94204 WESTELL, SITE BUSS TEMP & HUMIDITY, PART # 560-000-416 1 2.8 32 94205 45-DEG DIVERTER 1 5.5 33 94207 3'-6", A36, P1000HS UNISTRUT 4 26 34 94155 1 1/2"Ø x 1"TALL, 5/16-18, VIBRATION MOUNT 8 -- 35 94163 12" AC-DI x 12" CI-PLASTIC, COUPLING 2 5.6 36 94206 9/16" HY-GEAR 63-4 S.S. 300 2 1/2" - 14 1/2" BAND CLAMP( IDEAL TRIDON P/N 63004-0224)5 0.2 37 94175 1/2"Ø SNAP ACTION S.S, DISC THERMOSTAT 6 0 38 94191 HYCO: LTF 13 BLACKw/3171 NUT P/N 3216 48 0.2 39 94192 HYCO: LTF 21 BLACKw/3175 NUT P/N 3222 8 0.4 40 94218 PA-17-20-850 LINEAR ACTUATOR 2 46 41 94219 POWER SUPPLY - 120-220 VAC - 12 VDC - 25A (MODEL# PS-11)2 2.9 42 95324 AIRFLOW MONITOR PADDLE SWITCH (540-000440)1 0 43 95325 ROUTER(A90-SFP1G-C10611)1 0 44 95326 INSTALL HW FOR REMOTE FAMILY(RMX-INSTKIT)1 0 45 95327 WATER-IN-FUEL SENSOR W/ NEMA4X CABLE GLA (WIFSENSOR)1 0 46 97301 0.22 CALIBER YELLOW SINGLE SHOT POWDER LOADS(100-COUNT) (HOME DEPOT MODEL # 00607)1 -- 47 97302 1IN DRIVE PINS(100-PACK) (HOME DEPOT MODEL # 00759)1 -- 48 97304 WEATHERPROOF OUTLET BOX (MCMASATER CARR P/N 7219K28)1 -- 49 97305 WEATHERPROOF OUTLET COVER (MCMASTER-CARR P/N 7219K410)1 -- 50 97306 STRAIGHT-BLADE RECEPTACLE (MCMASTER-CARR P/N 7159K930)2 -- 51 94308 4' x 50' COMMERCIAL WEED CONTROL FABRIC WITH TYPAR TECHNOLOGY (model # 2528RT (HOME DEPOT)1 0 52 94309 1.89" x 50YD HVAC FOIL TAPE MODEL # 1207792 (HOME DEPOT)1 0 53 94156 ION STORM X-ONEi (iON X-ONEi - 1/2 HP Cast Iron Sewage Pump (2") w/ ION Digital Level Control M5000A4107)2 18.7 54 46005 #8 LOCK WASHER, S.S.32 0.01 ITEM #PART #DESCRIPTION QTY.UNIT WT.(lbs) 55 59001 #8-32 MACHINE SCREW NUT, S.S.32 0.01 56 70440 #8-32 x 2" HEX MACHINE SCREW, S.S.32 0.01 57 40007 5/16"Ø FLATWASHER, S.S.8 0.01 58 41007 5/16"Ø LOCKWASHER, S.S.16 0.004 59 59999 5/16"Ø HEX NUT, S.S.16 0.01 60 70222 3/8"Ø x 3/4" SS FLGD BUTTON-HD SCKT CAP SCRW 12 0.01 61 91219 3/8"Ø x 3 3/4" REDHEAD ANCHOR ASSY., S.S.12 0.3 62 91223 3/8" FEMALE CONCRETE ANCHOR, S.S.12 63 10020 1/2"Ø x 1 1/2" A325 BOLT/NUT/LW, GALV.4 0.2 64 15470 1/2"Ø x 1 1/2" A307 FULLY THD'D BOLT/NUT/LW, GALV.9 0.2 65 15460 1/2"Ø x 1 1/4" A307 FULLY THD'D BOLT/NUT/LW, GALV.34 0.2 66 40020 1/2"Ø FLAT WASHER, GALV.26 0.04 67 44005 1/2"Ø FLAT WASHER, NYLON 8 0.01 68 97320 HEX WASHER HEAD ؼ" x 2¼" S.S. SCREW (MCMASTER-CARR P/N 90950A103)1 0 69 95328 ؽ" x 3 5/8" LOOP GRIP CLEVIS PIN (MCMASTER-CARR P/N 91594A310)4 0.094 70 97321 ¼" SCREW SIZE, .23"ID x .5" OD WEATHER-RESISTANT EPDM RUBBER WASHER (MCMASTER-CARR P/N 90130A029)1 0 71 97322 ROLLER LEVEL SWITCH (GRAINGER ITEM # 3A095)1 0 72 97323 BAB REMOTELY OPERATED BOLT-ON BREAKER 1P, 30A, PULSE(KSCDIRECT P/N CH BABRP1030)1 0 73 97324 GROUND BUSS BAR KIT(COMMSCOPE P/N UGBKIT-0210)1 0 TOTAL WT.15419.7 S-4 CROWN CASTLE SHEET 17-0395 DRAWING NUMBER ID-717 PROJECT NUMBER TITLE SANTA CRUZ, CA GROUND VAULT RADIO ENCLOSURE MANUFACTURER REVISIONSREV.CHKDESCRIPTIONDATEDRW AM18AUG17INITIAL SUBMITTAL TR- UTILITY / TELECOM, INC. WESTERN THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. IS PROHIBITED 5032 SALEM DALLAS HWYSALEM, OR 97304Ph: 503-587-0101 Fx: 503-316-1864 WesternUtilityTelecom.com 3" SECTION B-B 5556 2x 54 37 19 17 43 19 SECTION D-D 45 47 44 4946 30 31 SECTION C-C 29 [2 PLCS] 48 S-5 CROWN CASTLE SHEET 17-0395 DRAWING NUMBER ID-717 PROJECT NUMBER TITLE SANTA CRUZ, CA GROUND VAULT RADIO ENCLOSURE MANUFACTURER REVISIONSREV.CHKDESCRIPTIONDATEDRW AM18AUG17INITIAL SUBMITTAL TR- UTILITY / TELECOM, INC. WESTERN THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. IS PROHIBITED 5032 SALEM DALLAS HWYSALEM, OR 97304Ph: 503-587-0101 Fx: 503-316-1864 WesternUtilityTelecom.com 62 [3 PER] 22 [2 PER SIDE] 10 9 [2 PLCS] 39 [2 PER] 38 [12 PER] 40 24 [4 PLCS] 3 33 11 16 RADIO MOUNT ISO 66 x2 65 2x 66 2x 17 x2 61 [2 PLCS] 65 2x 65 x2 67 x2 69 [2 PLCS] * INSTALL PERMANUFACTURERS DIRECTION. 2" MIN. EMBED 15 56 x4 55 x4 54 x4 * INSTALL PERMANUFACTURERS DIRECTION. 2" MIN. EMBED 63 2x 61 [2 PLCS] 8 4 [2 PLCS] 5 [2 PLCS] 23 EXHAUST ISO 61 [2 PLCS] * INSTALL PER MANUFACTURERS DIRECTION. 2" MIN. EMBED * INSTALL PERMANUFACTURERS DIRECTION. 2" MIN. EMBED 36 [2 PLCS] 35 34 [2 PER] 5758 x2 59 x2 64 [2 PER] 66 x2 5 [2 PLCS] 64 [2 PER] 4 [2 PLCS] 61 [2 PLCS] 7 32 36 [3 PLCS] 23 35 61 [2 PLCS] 34 [2 PER] 5758 x2 59 x2 INTAKE ISO 66 x2 * INSTALL PERMANUFACTURERS DIRECTION. 2" MIN. EMBED S-6 CROWN CASTLE SHEET 17-0395 DRAWING NUMBER ID-717 PROJECT NUMBER TITLE SANTA CRUZ, CA GROUND VAULT RADIO ENCLOSURE MANUFACTURER REVISIONSREV.CHKDESCRIPTIONDATEDRW AM18AUG17INITIAL SUBMITTAL TR- UTILITY / TELECOM, INC. WESTERN THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF WESTERN UTILITY TELECOM, INC. IS PROHIBITED 5032 SALEM DALLAS HWYSALEM, OR 97304Ph: 503-587-0101 Fx: 503-316-1864 WesternUtilityTelecom.com 6 Exhibit F Santa Cruz Vault Construction, 2017 Source: Photo Excerpted from 11/30/17 Applicant Letter City of Palo Alto (ID # 9111) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/21/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Award of Charleston -Arastradero Corridor Construction Projects Title: Approval of: (1) a Construction Contract With O'Grady Paving, Inc. in the Amount of $4,336,298 for the Charleston -Arastradero Corridor Project - Phase 1, Capital Improveme nt Projects PE-13011; (2) Construction Contract With O'Grady Paving, Inc. Contractor in the Amount of $4,434,347 for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project Phase 2, Capital Improvement Projects PE-13011; (3) Contract Amendment Number 2 to Contract C14150694 With Mark Thomas & Company in the Amount of $145,419; (4) General Services Contract With TrafficWare Group, LLC. in the Amount of $181,287 for Purchase of SynchoGreen Adaptive Traffic Control System for Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project, Capi tal Improvement Project PE - 13011; and (5) Budget Amendments in the Capital Improvement Fund, Charleston/Arastradero Transportation Impact Fee Fund, and Storm Drain Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with O’Grady Paving, Inc. (Attachment C) in an amount not to exceed $4,336,298 for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project – Phase 1 (Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project PE-13011); 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with O’Grady Paving, Inc. for related additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $433,630; 3. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the City of Palo Alto Page 2 attached contract with O’Grady Paving Inc. (Attachment E) in an amount not to exceed $4,434,347 for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project – Phase 2 (CIP Project PE-13011); 4. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with O’Grady Paving, Inc. for related additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $443,435; 5. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached Amendment No. 2 to Contract C14150694 with Mark Thomas & Company (Attachment G) for construction administration services for Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project (CIP PE-13011) in the amount $145,419 for the base contract associated with the scope of work covered in the contract. This amendment results in a revised total contract amount of $1,934,307; 6. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Trafficware Group, LLC (Attachment I) to purchase licensing and install SynchroGreen adaptive traffic control system and related hardware along the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor (CIP PE-13011) in the amount not to exceed $181,287; 7. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Trafficware Group, LLC for related additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $18,129; 8. Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation for: a. The Capital Improvement Fund by: i. Increasing the revenue estimate for grants by $250,604; ii. Increasing Transfers from the Charleston-Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund by $12,000; iii. Increasing Transfers from the Storm Drainage Fund by $330,000; iv. Decreasing the Sidewalk Repair Project CIP (PO-89003) by $575,000; v. Decreasing the Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve by $4,658,211; and vi. Increasing the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project CIP (PE- 13011) appropriation by $5,825,815. b. The Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund by: City of Palo Alto Page 3 i. Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance by $12,000; and ii. Increasing the transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund by $12,000. c. The Storm Drain Fund by: i. Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance by $330,000; and ii. Increasing the transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund by $330,000. Executive Summary The Charleston-Arastradero Corridor is a heavily-used artery serving as an east- west connector for South Palo Alto. Comprehensive Plan Policy T4.3 specifically names Charleston Road and Arastradero Road as Residential Arterials, which are to be treated with landscaping, medians and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets to reduce speeds and improve neighborhood quality of life. Trial striping pavement markings were previously approved by Council for permanent retention along the corridor. The construction phase of the project will install landscaped medians, bulb-outs, traffic signal modifications, and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian improvements, consistent with the existing striping/roadway configuration. Curb extensions at intersections and other key areas will be marked in paint at least two weeks prior to commencement of work in each area to ensure the public is aware of the coming changes prior to their implementation. The Charleston-Arastradero Corridor project is one of the nine 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan projects. Background The Charleston-Arastradero Corridor is a heavily-used, 2.3-mile-long artery serving as an east-west connector for South Palo Alto. Among other things, it services 11 schools, several parks, shopping centers, community centers, senior living facilities, and a library. The corridor extends from East Charleston Road at Fabian Way to Arastradero Road at Miranda Avenue. In 2003, Council directed staff to prepare a Charleston-Arastradero Corridor plan to address school commute and other travel safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers and to enhance residential amenities along the corridor. In 2004, Council approved a plan for a trial demonstration to reduce the continuous four-lane road to a continous two-lane road. In 2006, Phase 1 of the plan was implemented on City of Palo Alto Page 4 East and West Charleston Road from Fabian Way to El Camino Real (SR 82), together with improvements at the Gunn High School driveway at Arastradero Road intersection. Phase 2 of the improvements was implemented in 2010 on Arastradero Road between El Camino Real (SR 82) and the Gunn High School driveway. These trials were approved by Council for permanent retention in 2008 and 2012, respectively. Since that time, the project has secured $1.8 million in grant funding for associated landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements, installation of an adaptive traffic control system and resurfacing the road with rubberized asphalt. The City Council included the Charleston- Arastradero Corridor Project in its Council Infrastructure Plan in June 2014. The trial projects were implemented using pavement markings, without the introduction of any civil improvements. This final phase of the project will construct hardscape elements including landscaped medians, bulbouts and widened sidewalks to enhance safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, and make changes to areas with existing traffic delay and operational issues. All of the project’s bicycle lanes are separated from vehicular traffic lanes. An example of improvements to address traffic operations is the extension of the two westbound lanes of East Charleston Road approaching Alma Street, which will allow motorists to move through the Alma Street intersection more quickly. The Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project has been in the works for 15 years and has included significant stakeholder outreach and community engagement. Extensive public outreach was done to develop the preferred Concept Plan, designed to add landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and signal improvements to the corridor. The City hosted four community workshops, met with PTAs at Gunn High School, Terman Middle School, Hoover Elementary School and Fairmeadow Elementary School, and presented plans to the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) twice for comments. In 2015, staff restudied the traffic impacts with a new traffic study and counts which was used to complete an addendum to the 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The May 2015 counts were comparable to the counts found previously in 2011 and 2012. The preferred Concept Plan was unanimously approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council in April and September 2015, respectively (Staff Reports #5690 and #6070). The Architectural Review Board approved the landscape plans in July 2017 (Staff Report #8073) and the Public Arts Commission approved the art City of Palo Alto Page 5 for the corridor project in October 2017. The final design and construction plan closely follow the Concept Plan. During final design many community-driven changes were made to the final plans including: installation of a small median at Pomona Avenue to assist with left turns onto Arastradero Road, median reductions at Clemo Aveue/Suzanne Drive/Alta Mesa Avenue to allow for driveway access, and installation of a raised pedestrian crosswalk and expanded concrete refuge area at Hoover Elementary School’s exit driveway. Discussion The Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project has been divided into three phases to meet grant funding deadlines and minimize construction disruption. Phase 1 includes Arastradero Road from Miranda Avenue to Clemo Avenue. Phase 2 includes East Charleston Road from Alma Street to Middlefield Road. Phase 1 and 2 will be constructed simultaneously. Phase 3 includes Arastradero Road from Clemo Avenue to El Camino Real (SR 82), West Charleston Road from El Camino Real to Alma Street, and East Charleston Road from Middlefield Road to San Antonio Road. The phases are shown on the maps in Attachment A. This project is designed to enhance safety for K-12 students biking to school, smooth traffic flow along the corridor and beautify the streetscape with approximately 80 trees, shrubs, ground cover, grasses and bio-retention planting areas added throughout the 42,000 square feet of landscaped elements. The final design and construction plans closely follow the concept plan line. The final project plans and cross- sections can be viewed at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64110. For a detailed description of the improvements at key intersections, please see Attachment B. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Bid Process On February 1, 2018, an Invitation for Bids (IFB) on the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project – Phase 1 was posted on the City’s eProcurement system and sent to 11 builder’s exchanges and 608 contractors. The bidding period was 28 calendar days. Bids were received from four qualified contractors on February 28, 2018, as listed in the attached Bid Summary (Attachment D). On February 20, 2018, an Invitation for Bids for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project – Phase 2 was posted on the City’s eProcurement system and City of Palo Alto Page 6 three bids were received on March 16, 2018. The bids came in approximately 30% over the engineer’s estimate. Staff rejected the bids on March 21, 2018. Staff contacted the contractors regarding the higher price. The contractors indicated that the strict timing requirements for concrete placement and the more constricted work area with the center medians as being the reasons for the higher costs than Phase 1. Staff reevaluated the bids and adjusted project specifications and reissued the Phase 2 Invitation for Bids on March 27, 2018. The bidding period was 23 calendar days. Bids were received from four qualified contractors on April 19, 2018, as listed on the attached Bid Summary (Attachment F). Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project – Phase 1 IFB #171137 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project – Phase 2 IFB #171392A Proposed Length of Project 300 calendar days 285 calendar days Number of Bid Packages Downloaded by Builder’s Exchanges 9 8 Number of Bid Packages Downloaded by Contractors 26 20 Total Days to Respond to Bid 28 23 Pre-Bid Meeting? Yes Yes Number of Bids Received: 4 4 Base Bid Price Range $4,336,298 to $5,366,057 $4,434,347 to $5,266,113 Phase 1: The apparent low bidder was selected based upon the total of the base bid. Bids ranged from $4,336,298 to $5,366,057 and from 6% to 31% above the engineer’s estimate. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends the base bid totaling $4,336,298 submitted by O’Grady Paving, Inc. be accepted, and O’Grady Paving, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The contingency amount of $433,630, which equals ten percent of the total contract, is requested for related, additional, but unforeseen work, which may develop during the project. Phase 2: The apparent low bidder was selected based upon the total of the base bid. Bids ranged from $4,434,347 to $5,266,113 and from 22% to 45% above the engineer’s estimate. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends the City of Palo Alto Page 7 base bid totaling $4,434,347 submitted by O’Grady Paving, Inc. be accepted, and O’Grady Paving, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The contingency amount of $443,435, which equals ten percent of the total contract, is requested for related, additional, but unforeseen work, which may develop during the project. Staff reviewed other similar projects performed by the lowest responsible bidder, O’Grady Paving, Inc., including projects performed for the City and did not find any significant complaints with their previous work. Staff also checked with the Contractor’s State License Board and confirmed that O’Grady Paving, Inc. has an active license on file. Construction Administration The contract amendment (Attachment G) with Mark Thomas & Company will provide construction administration services for all three phases of the project. Construction administration includes responding to requests for information, performing site visits, attending construction meetings and reviewing shop drawings. A new solicitation for the work contained in this amendment is not required as it was anticipated at the time of the original contract award. The original contract for preliminary design, environmental assessment and contract amendment number one for final design allowed for a future amendment to provide construction administration. Due to Mark Thomas & Company’s familiarity with the project and performance to date, staff recommends amending the contract to provide construction administration services. SynchroGreen Purchase/Installation When Council approved the reconfiguration of Charleston Road and Arastradero Road in 2008 and 2012, it did so with a recommendation for inclusion of an adaptive traffic control system. An adaptive traffic control system optimizes traffic signal timing for arterials, side streets, and pedestrians through real-time adaptive traffic control. These systems are designed to reduce motorist travel time, delays and stops by maximizing the use of available roadway capacity, while also decreasing fuel consumption, idling times, and vehicle emissions. Adaptive traffic control systems are currently in operation along Sand Hill Road and San Antonio Road. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Staff was able to secure regional grant funding as part of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Transportation Funds for Clean Air (TFCA) program (Attachment H). This grant will reimburse the City $250,604 for the adaptive traffic control system along the corridor. In October 2014, the City entered into an agreement with Trafficware Group for the procurement, deployment and integration support services of an advanced traffic management system. Trafficware currently supports the City with the ongoing operation of the City’s traffic signal management system, which includes intelligent transportation system devices, remote operation and maintenance of 100 signalized intersections, and dissemination of operation traffic data. Trafficware is the developer of SynchroGreen adaptive timing software. SynchroGreen was selected in 2014 by the City as the preferred software program for adaptive traffic control systems due to its seamless integration with the City’s centralized traffic signal management system. Palo Alto’s Municipal Code 2.30.360(d) and (e) permit the City to contract without further solicitation if the City has gone through a product standardization process. This adaptive signal timing contract (Attachment I) with Trafficware includes software licensing, implementation, training, warranty maintenance and support for a total of $181,287. The contingency amount of $18,129, which equals ten percent of the total contract, is requested for related, additional, but unforeseen work, which may develop during the project. Staff recommends entering a new contract with Trafficware Group, LLC to provide the compatible SynchroGreen system for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor. Recent and Construction Outreach In addition to the outreach done to develop the preferred concept plan line, additional meetings were held during the design phase. Staff went to PABAC for comments on the 65% and 95% design plan set. Staff also met with the stakeholder group at the 65% design stage. Once the design was completed, staff held mobile office hours at Gunn High School, Terman Middle School and Hoover Elementary Schools during the week of March 19, 2018, to answer questions about the project’s construction and encourage attendance at the community open houses scheduled prior to construction starting. Two open house meetings were held at Gunn High School and Hoover Elementary School on March 27 and 29, 2018, respectively. Each meeting was attended by over 50 people. Throughout City of Palo Alto Page 9 the design process, there have been both proponents and opponents of the project. Although staff has attempted to address comments made by project opponents whenever possible, the open houses were attended by a mix of proponents and opponents. The goal of these meetings was to answer questions about the project, construction impacts and timeline. During construction, regular updates to the project email distribution list and web page will include upcoming work and plans for the impacted areas. Curb extensions at intersections and other key areas will be marked in paint at least two weeks prior to commencement of work in each area to ensure the public is aware of the coming changes prior to their implementation. These updates will be in addition to the standard 7-day and 3-day construction notifications that occur during street maintenance work. Timeline Following Council approval of the contracts, Phase 1 and 2 construction will start in June and will last approximately one year. Phase 3 will start construction once Phase 1 and 2 are complete in 2019. Resource Impact *Includes funding for testing, tree trimming, utility connections and administration costs for printing and outreach. The initial 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan budget for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project was $10 million, excluding staff salaries and benefits, and was based on a cost estimate from 2009. Cost estimates were updated during the design phase and the final estimate was $15.7 million excluding staff salaries and benefits. The updated estimated project total, using the actual Phase 1 and Phase Project Costs Prior Years Actuals FY 2018 Adopted Budget Recommended FY 2018 Adjustment FY 2018 Modified Budget Subsequent Years Proposed Costs Updated Project Total Design $1,241,684 $608,123 $608,123 $1,849,807 Construction $4,483,893 $5,825,815* $10,309,708 $5,545,200* $15,854,908 Salary & Benefits $490,255 $245,106 $245,106 $1,200,000 $1,935,361 Total $1,731,939 $5,337,122 $5,825,815 $11,162,937 $6,745,200 $19,640,076 City of Palo Alto Page 10 2 bids, is $17.7 million (also excluding staff salaries and benefits). The primary factor in the cost increase is escalation of construction costs between 2009 and 2018. Costs also increased due to increases in the project’s scope, including additional traffic signal modifications at ten intersections and one new traffic signal installation compared to traffic signal modifications at three intersections in the 2009 cost estimate. Additional scope not included in the 2009 estimate includes replacement of non-compliant curb ramps and installation of green stormwater infrastructure (eight bio-retention areas primarily funded by the new Stormwater Management Fee approved by voters in 2017). The proposed budget amendment addresses the funding needed to complete Phases 1 and 2. The increase in the total project cost is part of the estimated $77 million gap in funding for the Council Infrastructure Plan that the Council and Finance Committee are currently working to address. As part of the Proposed FY 2019 Capital Budget and 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project (PE-13011) was budgeted at a total cost of $18.6 million, with $9.6 million estimated to be spent in FY 2018. These amounts include estimated salary and benefit costs over the life of the project. Based on the recommendations in this memorandum, the total cost of the project will increase by an additional $1.0 million to $19.6 million, with an additional $1.6 million estimated in FY 2018, for a total of $11.2 million. The FY 2020 planned budget for the project will be reduced by $0.6 million for the net $1.0 million increase to the project. The Proposed FY 2019 Capital Budget estimated the Infrastucture Reserve (Capital Improvement Fund ending fund balance) to have $3.1 million at the end of FY 2019. The actions recommended in this memorandum would reduce the Infrastructure Reserve (IR) to $1.6 million at the end of FY 2019 based on the Proposed FY 2019 Capital Budget. Staff will continue to monitor changes in project estimates in the Capital Improvement Fund in FY 2018 and continuing into FY 2019 to ensure the IR remains positive. Grants The City has secured four grants for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project to supplement City funding: 1. Vehicle Emissions Reductions Based at Schools (VERBS) - $1,000,000 2. Safe Routes to School (SR2S) - $450,000 3. Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) - $250,604 City of Palo Alto Page 11 4. Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) Paving - $125,300 (Recommeneded to be recognized and appropriated to PE -13011 in the Proposed FY 2019 Capital Budget) The VERBS and SR2S grants expire next year and the projects must be constructed and fully invoiced to Caltrans by May 2019. The RAC grant expires in April 2020. If the construction contracts are not approved, the grants will be rescinded. Additionally, the inability to fully execute these grants could hamper the City’s ability to secure grant funding for other projects in the future. Additional Funding Sources The Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project also received funding from other sources, besides the above mentioned grants, to offset the impact to the IR: 1. Stanford University Medical Center Funding - $1,550,000 2. Gas Tax (SB1) Funding - $1,140,686 (Recommeneded to be recognized and appropriated to PE -13011 in the Proposed FY 2019 Capital Budget) 3. Charleston/Arastradero Impact Fee Funding - $847,000 4. Storm Water Management Fee Funding - $660,000 In total, $6.0 million from various revenue sources is recommended to be appropriated for this project, leaving an estimated $13.6 million to be funded by the IR. Policy Implications The advancement of this project is consistent with City policies and previous Council direction and implements one of Council’s Infrastructure Plan projects. This project advances multiple objectives in the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan as well as many goals, policies, and programs in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Most specifically, Policy T-4.3 names Charleston Road and Arastradero Road (between Miranda Avenue and Fabian Way) as Residential Arterials, which are to be treated with landscaping, medians and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets to reduce speeds. Environmental Review The Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project is funded from both local, state and federal sources. Therefore, compliance with the both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) City of Palo Alto Page 12 is required. For CEQA compliance, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and approved by Council in 2004. An addendum to the Final Study/MND was approved in September 2015. NEPA clearance was completed in October 2016. Attachments:  Attachment A: Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project Map  Attachment B: Decription of Project Improvements  Attachment C: C18171137 O'Grady Construction - Phase 1  Attachment D: Charleston-Arastradero Phase 1 Bid Summary Table  Attachment E: C18171392A O'Grady Construction - Phase 2  Attachment F: Charleston-Arastradero Phase 2 Bid Summary Table  Attachment G: C14150694 Amendment No.2- Final  Attachment H: VTA Transportation Funds for Clean Air Grant  Attachment I: S18170590 Trafficware Contract  Attachment J: Public Letters to Council 4000 4000 700 600 600 500 500 4200 4200 500 4100 100 430 0 400 4200 900 700 4100 4000 4000 600 600 4100 500500 600 4100 400 200 400 400 400 400 4200 4200 420 0 100 200 100 200 1000 200 200 300 300 1000 300 1000 300 400 300 400 300 400 1100 1100 1000 1100 Carmel Court 900 800 700 800 300 400 500 800 900 1000 1100 400 Cavalier Court 400 600 600 700 600 600 400 500 500500 2700 4400 4 4300 400 400 400 4000 4000 700 600 600 500 500 4200 4200 500 4100 100 430 0 400 4200 900 700 4100 4000 4000 600 600 4100 500500 600 4100 400 200 400 400 400 400 4200 4200 420 0 100 200 100 200 1000 200 200 300 300 1000 300 1000 300 400 300 400 300 400 1100 1100 1000 1100 Carmel Court 900 800 700 800 300 400 500 800 900 1000 1100 400 Cavalier Court 400 600 600 700 600 600 400 500 500500 2700 4400 4 4300 400 400 400 Moana Co u r t Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Cereza Drive Villa V era Verdosa Drive Campana Drive Solana Drive Geo r gia Ave Ynigo W ay Driscoll Ct ngArthur' Maybell W a y Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Florales Drive Georgia Avenue Amaranta Avenue Amaranta Ct Mi randa Green Ki sCourt Terman Drive Ba k e r A v e n u e Vista AveWisteria Ln Pen a Ct Coulomb e Drive Cherry Oa ks Pl Pomona Avenue Arastradero Road Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa Rea Glenbrook D Fairmede Avenue Arastradero Road Irven Court Los Palos Cir Los PalosPl Maybell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way Los Pa los Avenue Su zanne Drive Suzanne Drive r i ve El Camino Re al Suzanne Ct Lorabelle Ct McK ellar Lane Thain Way Interdale Way West Charlest Monroe Drive kie Way Dinah's Court Cesano Court Monroe Drive Miller Avenue Arastradero RoadbirdLane Mesa Avenue Oak Hill Avenue Manuela Avenue Miranda Avenue Laguna Way LosRobles AvenueRinc Manzana LaneonCircle MesaCourt Crosby Pl Georgia Avenue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive Arastradero Road Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Drive Orme Street M Silv C Miller Court Driscoll Plac Arroyo Ct Miranda Avenu e Foothill Expressway y Miranda Ave nue Aven V Deodar St Alder Ln Spruce Ln Rickey's Ln Juniper W Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy ne Cashel St Noble St Hettinger Ln Pratt Ln Ryan Lane Gene Ct Brassinga Ct Cole Ct EL CAMINO REAL FOOTH ILL EXPRESSWAY BIK E P ATH MIRANDA AVENUE ARASTRADERO ROAD This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc LIMITS OF WORK 0'499' CH A R L E S T O N - A R A S T R A D E R O C O R R I D O R PH A S E 1 - LO C A T I O N M A P CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto jhay, 2018-01-19 16:32:00 Charleston-Arastradero Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\jhay.mdb) Attachment A 4000 3800 100 3700 3700 3900 300 390 0 300 4000 3800 200 3800 500 700 39 0 0 300 400 3700 4000 3800 100 3700 3700 3900 300 390 0 300 4000 3800 200 3800 500 700 39 0 0 300 400 3700 Alm Ct East Charleston Road Lundy Lane Ct Park Boulevard Alm a Street Ci rcl e Li nder o Dr i ve W r ight Place Starr King Ci r c l e Scr N Creekside Drive Greenmeadow Way Parkside Drive Dixon Plac e Ely Place Ely Place Ely Place Adobe Place Nelson Court M Duncan Place Ca rlson Court Du ncan Place Mumford Place East Charleston Road Car lsonCircle Redwood Circle Charleston Ct E Sem Su therland Dr ive Nelso n Drive El Capitan Place MayCourt Middlefield Ro ad Ensign Way Ca lTrain RO W ue Maple This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc LIMITS OF WORK 0'265' CH A R L E S T O N - A R A S T R A D E R O C O R R I D O R PH A S E 2 - L O C A T I O N M A P CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto jhay, 2017-12-21 14:06:57 Charleston-Arastradero Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\jhay.mdb) 600 500 500 4200 4200 500 4100 4100 100 400 4100 4200 300 200 4100 3800 100 3700 3900 500500 400 4200 400 400 400 400 4200 4200 4200 600 500 500 4200 4200 500 4100 4100 100 400 4100 4200 300 200 4100 3800 100 3700 3900 500500 400 4200 400 400 400 400 4200 4200 4200 ranta Ct Ba ker Av enue Pena Ct Abel A ve nue Clemo Avenue Arastradero Road Irven Court Maybell Avenue Alta Me sa Ave Kelly Way Suza nne Drive Suzanne Drive El Cam ino Rea l Suzanne Ct Lorabelle Ct Mc Kellar Lane amino Way James Road no Ct Thain W ay Barclay Ct ictoria Place Interdale W ay West Charleston Road Tennessee Lane Wilkie Wa y Carolina Lane Tennessee Lane Park Bou l e v ard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Stree t Wilkie Way Wh itclem Pl Whitclem Drive Duluth Circle Edlee Avenue Dinah's Court Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ruthelma Avenue Darlington Ct Lundy LaneNewberry Ct Park Boule v ard George Hood Ln Alma Street Lind arr King Ci Ely Place CalTrain R OW West Charleston Road Deodar St Alder Ln Spruce Ln Rickey's L n Juniper Way Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Juniper Lane Cashel St No ble St Hettinger Ln Pratt Ln This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc LIMITS OF WORK 0'265' Ch a r l e s t o n - A r a s t r a d e r o C o r r i d o r Pha s e 3 L o c a t i o n M a p Pag e A CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto jhay, 2017-12-21 14:26:02 charleston arastradero - phase 3 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\jhay.mdb) 4000 38 00 500 700 700 3800 3900 900 800 900 900 3900 800 3800 800 800800 4000 38 00 500 700 700 3800 3900 900 800 900 900 3900 800 3800 800 800800 Middlefield Montrose Ave nue Maplewood Cha r les ton Ct East Charleston Road Seminole Way Su therland Drive Fabian Street MayCourt Middlefield Ro ad Ensign Way Bibbits Drive Gailen Ct Gailen AvenueGrove Avenue San Antonio Road Commercial Street Ind Bibbits Drive East Charleston Road Fabian Way Corina W ay Ross Road Natha Grove Ct Louis Road Ave nue Maplewood Pl Federation Way This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc LIMITS OF WORK 0'255' Ch a r l e s t o n - A r a s t r a d e r o C o r r i d o r Pha s e 3 L o c a t i o n M a p Pag e B CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto jhay, 2017-12-21 14:31:16 charleston arastradero - phase 3 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\jhay.mdb) ATTACHMENT B Listed below are project highlighted components at specific intersections/areas along the corridor:  Miranda Avenue (Phase 1) The project will include restriping separate dedicated right turn lanes for Miranda Avenue and northbound Foothill Expressway based on public feedback.  Gunn High School (Phase 1) The project adjusts the existing “pork chop” islands for improved pedestrian crossing and adds a new 13 foot wide multi-use pathway on the eastbound side of the street from Gunn High School to existing trail to Los Altos (Hetch-Hetchy trail). It also adds a green surface treatment to the bike lane approaching the Gunn High School intersection in westbound direction and adds a new bicycle crosswalk from the multi-use trail to Gunn High School.  Arastradero Road between Gunn High School and Georgia Avenue (Phase 1) Based on public outreach comments with residents, the center median will be modified to allow access into driveways.  Terman Middle School (Phase 1) In the eastbound direction, the project adds a dedicated right turn lane into Terman Middle School, a green bike lane between the through lane and right turn, and a bike ramp to the sidewalk ahead of the intersection. The ramp allows school-bound bicyclists travelling east to avoid having to weave with vehicles at the intersection. On the east side of the intersection the plan provides a bus bay and increases the size of the corner sidewalk area to provide more queuing space for bikes and pedestrians waiting to cross the street. To accommodate these improvements, the project shifts the eastbound lane merge from after the intersection to before the intersection and removes 18 parking spaces on westbound Arastradero Road between Georgia Avenue and Willmar Drive. A parking survey conducted by volunteers at twenty various times between February 6 and March 2, 2015 indicated that cars were only parked on the section of the road designated for parking removal three times with the maximum number of spaces occupied during the survey being five.  Coulombe Avenue (Phase 1) The project shortens the existing crosswalk distance by widening the sidewalk on the north-west corner and realigning the crosswalk to be perpendicular to the road. The project also adds an additional crosswalk on the east side of the intersection.  Juana Briones Park (Phase 1) On the eastbound side of street, the project widens the sidewalk to 10 feet between Terman Middle School and Suzanne Drive. On the westbound side, it incorporates a cycle track/bike lane which is separated from vehicle travel lanes by on-street parking spaces. During construction, measures will be incorporated to encourage student bicyclists to use Los Palos Avenue to enter Terman Middle School via an entrance at the back of the campus rather than riding on the sidewalk along Arastradero Road.  Clemo Avenue/Suzanne Drive (Phase 3) The project widens sidewalks on the east bound side of the street and adds directional curb ramps and a median island at the intersection with Suzanne Drive in order to provide a refuge for vehicles turning left onto or from Arastradero Road. During final design, measures to improve visibility of pedestrians using the crosswalk will be incorporated.  El Camino Real (Phase 3) The project provides new bike lanes in each direction across the intersection by narrowing the eastbound sidewalk and the travel lanes in both directions as they approach the intersection. The plan eliminates the “pork chop” island on the southeast corner of the intersection and adds a raised crosswalk across the slip ramp in the southwest corner of the intersection in order to slow the high speed right-turning traffic.  Wilkie Way (Phase 3) The plan adds new left-turn pockets on Charleston Road in both directions.  Alma Street (Phase 2 and 3) On the west side of Alma Street, the project adds a new concrete median down Charleston Road from just west of Park Boulevard up to the train tracks. This new median prevents left turns from and onto Park Boulevard, thus improving the flow of through traffic on Charleston Road. On the east side of Alma Street, the plan extends the two-lane approach to the intersection by approximately 500 feet in order to decrease the length of the queue of vehicles crossing or turning onto Alma Street.  Carlson Court (Phase 2) The project widens sidewalks at three corners of the intersection to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to discourage U-turn movements at this intersection. U-turns are accommodated in both directions at the intersection of Charleston Road and Mumford Place and also at the intersection of Charleston Road and Nelson Drive. The sidewalk along the westbound lanes is being widened between Carlson Court and the multi-use trail adjacent to Hoover Elementary School in order to accommodate the high volume of student two-way bicycle traffic between Carlson Court and the multi-use trail.  Hoover Elementary School (Phase 2) The project provides a new landscaped median island down the center of Charleston Road between Carlson Court and Nelson Drive. The median island preclude left-turn and U-turn movements from eastbound Charleston Road. Median openings are proposed to accommodate left-turns onto eastbound Charleston Road from both the Hoover Elementary School driveway and the Stevenson House driveway. The signal at Nelson Drive is being modified to have a protected left-turn phase for both eastbound and westbound traffic, and the storage length for the eastbound left-turn/U-turn lane has been lengthened to more than 300 feet. The north side of the intersection is being modified to make it clear to vehicles heading northbound on Nelson Drive that a through-movement at the intersection is provided only for bicyclists.  Middlefield Road (Phase 2) Currently, Charleston Road is a two-lane road on both approaches to the Middlefield Road intersection and widens to four lanes for approximately 600 feet at the intersection. The project adds dedicated right turn lanes in both directions by shifting the westbound lane merge from after the intersection at Middlefield Road to before. To improve bike safety, curb modifications are being implemented to allow bicyclists to be able to maintain a straight path through the intersection. This requires right-turning vehicles to slowly cross the bike lanes as they enter the right-turn lanes. Green bike lanes are being incorporated to improve visibility of bicyclists in weaving or potential conflict areas.  Sutherland Drive/Grove Avenue (Phase 3) The design initially provided new landscaped medians to improve safety of left-turning movements from Charleston Road on to the side streets. The proposed improvements allowed for left-turns out of the side streets but not into them for every direction. Left- turns into the side streets were to be accommodated by the use of U-turn maneuvers at Louis Road for eastbound traffic. The proposed islands were removed from the project in response to the negative community feedback. The project now calls for a new pedestrian crossing with a median refuge area.  Louis Road (Phase 3) The project widens this intersection to provide space for eastbound vehicle U-turns. Additionally, it provides a new traffic signal to help vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians to safety cross Charleston Road or to make the left turn onto Charleston Road from Louis Road. The project adds a green bike lane on southbound Louis Road which improves safety for bicyclists by providing a place to wait to cross Charleston Road out of the way of left turning or right turning vehicles. The existing median refuge islands for bicyclists are being enlarged.  Fabian Way (Phase 3) In the eastbound direction, the project adds a dedicated left-turn lane for vehicles as well left-turn bike box for bicyclists. Additionally, it provides a new crosswalk across Charleston Road on the east side of the intersection. Bike lanes will be installed on Charleston Road east of Fabian Way in both directions. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C18171137 City of Palo Alto Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project - Phase 1 Attachment C Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS…………………………………….…………..6 1.1 Recitals…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 1.2 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 SECTION 2 THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6 SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………..7 3.1 List of Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………….........7 3.2 Order of Precedence……………………………………………………………………………………………......7 SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY…………………………………………………………………………………………..8 4.1 Contractor's Duties…………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 5.1 Contractor's Co-operation………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION…………………………………………………………………………………….......8 6.1 Time Is of Essence…………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 6.2 Commencement of Work…………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.3 Contract Time…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 6.4 Liquidated Damages…………………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.4.1 Other Remedies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..9 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time………………………………………………………………………………….9 SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR……………………………………………………………………….9 7.1 Contract Sum……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 7.2 Full Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………………………9 SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE……………………………………………………………………………………………..9 8.1 Standard of Care…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………9 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION…………………………………………………………………………………………..…10 9.1 Hold Harmless……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 9.2 Survival…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION……..………………………………………………………………………………10 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement…………….………………………………..……………………………….10 SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.…………………………………………………………………………………10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 11.1 Evidence of Coverage…………………………………………………………………………………………..10 SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS…………………………………………………………….…11 12.1 Assignment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 12.2 Assignment by Law.………………………………………………………………………………………………11 SECTION 13 NOTICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.1 Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………11 13.2 Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.3 Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….12 SECTION 14 DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...12 14.1 Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default…………………………………………………………………………………12 SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1 Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract…………………………………………………………………13 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default………………………………………………13 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.6 Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.2 Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.3 Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.4 Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….14 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..14 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.5 Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.5.1 Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 15.5.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………...15 SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES……………………………………………………………16 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies……………………………………..………………………………..………………….16 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage……………………………………………………………………………………………16 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment…………………………………………………………………………………….16 16.2 Damages to Contractor………………………………………………………………………………………..16 SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS………………………………………………………………………………….…16 17.1 Financial Management and City Access………………………………………………………………..16 17.2 Compliance with City Requests…………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………..17 18.1 Status of Parties……………………………………………………………………………………………………17 SECTION 19 NUISANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…17 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited……………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES…………………………………………………………………………………….17 20.1 Payment of Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 21 WAIVER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 21.1 Waiver………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS……………………………….18 22.1 Governing Law…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 22.2 Compliance with Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………18 22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance…………….………………………………………………….18 SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………18 23.1 Integration………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..18 24.1 Survival of Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION……………………………………………………………………………………….19 26.1 Appropriation………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 SECTION 27 AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 27.1 Representation of Parties…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..19 28.1 Multiple Counterparts………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………19 29.1 Severability………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES …………………………………………………..19 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 30.1 Amendments of Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………..19 SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION………………………………………………….….19 31.1 Workers Compensation…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS………………………………..…20 32.1 General Notice to Contractor…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a)…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.3 DIR Registration Required…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.5 Payroll Records…………………………………………………………………………………………………20 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on May 21, 2018 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and O'GRADY PAVING, INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 201696 and Department of Industrial Relations Registration Number 1000003381. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On February 1, 2018, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project - Phase 1 (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a Bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Contract Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project - Phase 1, located at Charleston and Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 ("Project"). Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Orders 3) Contract 4) Bidding Addenda 5) Special Provisions 6) General Conditions 7) Project Plans and Drawings 8) Technical Specifications 9) Instructions to Bidders 10) Invitation for Bids 11) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Declaration 12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents 13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at time of Bid) 14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current version at time of Bid) 15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 17) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 18) Performance and Payment Bonds 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY. 4.1 Contractor’s Duties Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. 5.1 Contractor’s Co-operation. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Contract requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed not later than . within three hundred calendar days (300) after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) per day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. The City is entitled to setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to Contractor, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of liquidated damages assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess liquidated damages. 6.4.1 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Four Million Three Hundred Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Eight Dollars ($4,336,298). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Additive Alternates.] 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. 8.1 Standard of Care. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Contract. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION. 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor 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. Contractor 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 will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. 11.1 Evidence of coverage. Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. 12.1 Assignment. City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City. 12.2 Assignment by Law. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice to Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Holly Boyd AND [Include Construction Manager, If Applicable.] Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be sent by registered mail or certified mail with return receipt requested. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: O'Grady Paving, Inc. Attn: Craig Young 2513 Wyandotte Street Mountain View, CA 94043 13.3 Change of Address. In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DEFAULT. 14.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to Contractor’s performance bond surety. 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 15.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 14. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. 15.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 15.2 Delays by Sureties. Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT liable for any additional cost incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work. 15.3 Damages to City. 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 15.4 Suspension by City 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause. In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction. Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City’s right to suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 15.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the Work performed by Contractor. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 15.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. .4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if the Construction Contract had not been terminated. 15.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT submittals of as-built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations arising prior to the termination date. SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 16.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 15.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 17.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 17.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 17.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. 18.1 Status of parties. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 19 NUISANCE. 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES. 20.1 Payment of Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 21 WAIVER. 21.1 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. 22.1 Governing Law. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no other place. 22.2 Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and California laws and city laws, including, without limitation, ordinances and resolutions, in the performance of work under this Construction Contract. 22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance. Contractor shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, Contractor shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, Contractor shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. 23.1 Integration. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. 24.1 Survival of Provisions. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the public works contract does not include a project of $25,000 or less, when the project is for construction work, or the contract does not include a project of $15,000 or less, when the project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) work. Or Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION. 26.1 Appropriations. 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 the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, 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 Construction Contract 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 27 AUTHORITY. 27.1 Representation of Parties. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS 28.1 Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. 29.1 Severability. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES. 30.1 Amendments to Laws. With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents, the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City, unless otherwise required by law. SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION. 31.1 Workers Compensation. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.” SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS. 32.1 General Notice to Contractor. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a) City provides notice to Contractor of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contactor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” 32.3 DIR Registration Required. City will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Construction Contract with Contractor without proof that Contractor and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices. City gives notice to Contractor and its listed subcontractors that Contractor is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and Contractor is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. 32.5 Payroll Records. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: (i) Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, Contractor and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. (ii) The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of Contractor and its listed subcontractors, respectively. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (iii) At the request of City, acting by its project manager, Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of City’s request. City requests Contractor and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project. (iv) If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and City shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to Contractor. This provision supplements the provisions of Section 15 hereof. (v) Inform the project manager of the location of contractor’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ Purchasing Manager City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Attorney or designee APPROVED: ____________________________ Public Works Director CONTRACTOR Officer 1 By:___________________________ Name:________________________ Title:__________________________ Date: _________________________ Officer 2 By:____________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:___________________________ Date:____________________________ CHARLESTON-ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT - PHASE 1 FEDERAL PROJECT NO. CML-5100(023) IFB Post Date: 02/01/2018 IFB Due Date: 02/28/2018 BID ITEM APPROX. QTY.UNIT DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS Unit Price Total Item Price Unit Price Total Item Price Unit Price Total Item Price Unit Price Total Item Price Unit Price Total Item Price 1 1 LS Traffic Control System: $ 159,000.00 $ 159,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 839,387.00 $ 839,387.00 $ 730,000.00 $ 730,000.00 2 1 LS Public Notification and Posting: $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 11,400.00 $ 11,400.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 3 1 LS Clearing and Grubbing: $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 235,000.00 $ 235,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 4 50 CREW HOURS Trim Street Trees: $ 590.00 $ 29,500.00 $ 250.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 265.00 $ 13,250.00 $ 235.00 $ 11,750.00 $ 220.00 $ 11,000.00 5 29,810 SF Remove Concrete (Miscellaneous): $ 11.00 $ 327,910.00 $ 5.50 $ 163,955.00 $ 11.50 $ 342,815.00 $ 8.00 $ 238,480.00 $ 10.00 $ 298,100.00 6 178,500 SF Asphalt Concrete Milling: $ 0.70 $ 124,950.00 $ 0.90 $ 160,650.00 $ 0.50 $ 89,250.00 $ 0.70 $ 124,950.00 $ 1.50 $ 267,750.00 7 31 EA Temporary Drainage Inlet Protection: $ 500.00 $ 15,500.00 $ 150.00 $ 4,650.00 $ 225.00 $ 6,975.00 $ 200.00 $ 6,200.00 $ 650.00 $ 20,150.00 8 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention: $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 38,100.00 $ 38,100.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 9 8 EA Gas Valve Box Adjustment: $ 800.00 $ 6,400.00 $ 500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 1,095.00 $ 8,760.00 $ 690.00 $ 5,520.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 24,000.00 10 13 EA Water Valve Box Adjustment: $ 800.00 $ 10,400.00 $ 500.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 1,095.00 $ 14,235.00 $ 650.00 $ 8,450.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 39,000.00 11 2 EA Sewer Manhole Cover Adjustment: $ 880.00 $ 1,760.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,710.00 $ 3,420.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 12,000.00 12 5 EA New Catch Basin: $ 5,500.00 $ 27,500.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 8,200.00 $ 41,000.00 $ 7,400.00 $ 37,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 35,000.00 13 4 EA Adjust Catch Basin: $ 3,500.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 5,740.00 $ 22,960.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 8,000.00 14 193 LF 6" HDPE Pipe, SDR 17: $ 45.00 $ 8,685.00 $ 315.00 $ 60,795.00 $ 275.00 $ 53,075.00 $ 300.00 $ 57,900.00 $ 250.00 $ 48,250.00 15 221 LF 6" Slotted HDPE Pipe, SDR 17: $ 50.00 $ 11,050.00 $ 315.00 $ 69,615.00 $ 110.00 $ 24,310.00 $ 50.00 $ 11,050.00 $ 75.00 $ 16,575.00 16 88 LF 12" HDPE Pipe, SDR 17: $ 100.00 $ 8,800.00 $ 415.00 $ 36,520.00 $ 350.00 $ 30,800.00 $ 400.00 $ 35,200.00 $ 250.00 $ 22,000.00 17 2 EA Catch Basin (MOD): $ 6,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 5,995.00 $ 11,990.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 18 3 EA New Manhole: $ 6,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 36,000.00 $ 13,300.00 $ 39,900.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 36,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 45,000.00 19 4 EA Overflow Inlet: $ 1,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 1,635.00 $ 6,540.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 16,000.00 20 4 EA Cleanout: $ 500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 800.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 1,375.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 800.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 600.00 $ 2,400.00 21 2 EA Join Pipes: $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 2,850.00 $ 5,700.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 22 2,940 TON Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (RHMA): $ 180.00 $ 529,200.00 $ 175.00 $ 514,500.00 $ 194.00 $ 570,360.00 $ 200.00 $ 588,000.00 $ 170.00 $ 499,800.00 23 1,071 TON Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA), Type A: $ 120.00 $ 128,520.00 $ 190.00 $ 203,490.00 $ 256.00 $ 274,176.00 $ 178.00 $ 190,638.00 $ 225.00 $ 240,975.00 24 15,984 SF Base Failure Repair: $ 4.40 $ 70,329.60 $ 9.00 $ 143,856.00 $ 11.50 $ 183,816.00 $ 8.10 $ 129,470.40 $ 8.00 $ 127,872.00 25 22,785 SF Asphalt Concrete Paving Conform Prior to RAC: $ 4.00 $ 91,140.00 $ 6.00 $ 136,710.00 $ 4.20 $ 95,697.00 $ 3.50 $ 79,747.50 $ 3.60 $ 82,026.00 26 704 CY Aggregate Base, Class 2: $ 60.00 $ 42,240.00 $ 100.00 $ 70,400.00 $ 100.00 $ 70,400.00 $ 60.00 $ 42,240.00 $ 200.00 $ 140,800.00 27 1,365 CY Roadway Excavation: $ 55.00 $ 75,075.00 $ 50.00 $ 68,250.00 $ 205.00 $ 279,825.00 $ 150.00 $ 204,750.00 $ 70.00 $ 95,550.00 28 3,530 LF Minor Concrete (Type A MOD Curb): $ 80.00 $ 282,400.00 $ 80.00 $ 282,400.00 $ 62.00 $ 218,860.00 $ 80.00 $ 282,400.00 $- $- 29 320 LF Minor Concrete (Bioretention Curb): $ 110.00 $ 35,200.00 $ 140.00 $ 44,800.00 $ 35.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 155.00 $ 49,600.00 $ 70.00 $ 22,400.00 30 260 LF Minor Concrete (Bioretention Curb and Gutter): $ 130.00 $ 33,800.00 $ 140.00 $ 36,400.00 $ 62.00 $ 16,120.00 $ 180.00 $ 46,800.00 $ 90.00 $ 23,400.00 31 340 LF Minor Concrete (Retaining Curb) : $ 65.00 $ 22,100.00 $ 35.00 $ 11,900.00 $ 38.00 $ 12,920.00 $ 140.00 $ 47,600.00 $ 45.00 $ 15,300.00 32 1,510 LF Minor Concrete (A1-6 Curb) : $ 45.00 $ 67,950.00 $ 45.00 $ 67,950.00 $ 25.00 $ 37,750.00 $ 89.00 $ 134,390.00 $- $- 33 50 LF Minor Concrete (A2-6 Curb): $ 55.00 $ 2,750.00 $ 45.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 55.50 $ 2,775.00 $ 180.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 90.00 $ 4,500.00 34 860 LF Minor Concrete (A3-6 Curb): $ 55.00 $ 47,300.00 $ 45.00 $ 38,700.00 $ 28.50 $ 24,510.00 $ 40.00 $ 34,400.00 $ 35.00 $ 30,100.00 35 1,350 LF Minor Concrete (B1-4 Curb): $ 55.00 $ 74,250.00 $ 45.00 $ 60,750.00 $ 22.50 $ 30,375.00 $ 97.00 $ 130,950.00 $ 85.00 $ 114,750.00 36 30,620 SF Minor Concrete (Sidewalk): $ 18.00 $ 551,160.00 $ 14.00 $ 428,680.00 $ 14.10 $ 431,742.00 $ 15.00 $ 459,300.00 $ 18.00 $ 551,160.00 37 2,660 SF Minor Concrete (Driveway): $ 35.00 $ 93,100.00 $ 16.00 $ 42,560.00 $ 24.00 $ 63,840.00 $ 26.00 $ 69,160.00 $ 19.00 $ 50,540.00 38 1,780 SF Minor Concrete (Textured Paving): $ 33.00 $ 58,740.00 $ 30.00 $ 53,400.00 $ 38.00 $ 67,640.00 $ 29.00 $ 51,620.00 $ 35.00 $ 62,300.00 39 1,520 SF Minor Concrete (Pavers): $ 11.00 $ 16,720.00 $ 15.00 $ 22,800.00 $ 37.00 $ 56,240.00 $ 50.00 $ 76,000.00 $ 42.00 $ 63,840.00 40 30 EA Curb Ramp: $ 5,500.00 $ 165,000.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 51,000.00 $ 2,225.00 $ 66,750.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 30,000.00 41 50 EA Sign: $ 300.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 5,000.00 42 26 EA Post: $ 125.00 $ 3,250.00 $ 240.00 $ 6,240.00 $ 105.00 $ 2,730.00 $ 220.00 $ 5,720.00 $ 220.00 $ 5,720.00 43 6 EA Sign (relocate): $ 200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 240.00 $ 1,440.00 $ 265.00 $ 1,590.00 $ 220.00 $ 1,320.00 $ 220.00 $ 1,320.00 44 13 EA Remove Sign: $ 150.00 $ 1,950.00 $ 70.00 $ 910.00 $ 227.00 $ 2,951.00 $ 70.00 $ 910.00 $ 65.00 $ 845.00 45 2 EA Remove Post: $ 150.00 $ 300.00 $ 140.00 $ 280.00 $ 325.00 $ 650.00 $ 130.00 $ 260.00 $ 125.00 $ 250.00 46 16 EA Sign (Object Marker): $ 50.00 $ 800.00 $ 140.00 $ 2,240.00 $ 121.00 $ 1,936.00 $ 130.00 $ 2,080.00 $ 125.00 $ 2,000.00 47 3,297 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 9): $ 0.40 $ 1,318.80 $ 0.70 $ 2,307.90 $ 1.00 $ 3,297.00 $ 0.70 $ 2,307.90 $ 1.00 $ 3,297.00 48 2,531 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 22): $ 1.50 $ 3,796.50 $ 1.50 $ 3,796.50 $ 2.00 $ 5,062.00 $ 1.40 $ 3,543.40 $ 1.30 $ 3,290.30 49 599 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 27B): $ 0.80 $ 479.20 $ 0.65 $ 389.35 $ 1.00 $ 599.00 $ 0.70 $ 419.30 $ 1.00 $ 599.00 50 1,827 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 32): $ 1.60 $ 2,923.20 $ 1.50 $ 2,740.50 $ 2.00 $ 3,654.00 $ 1.40 $ 2,557.80 $ 1.30 $ 2,375.10 51 2,058 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 38B): $ 1.00 $ 2,058.00 $ 1.50 $ 3,087.00 $ 2.00 $ 4,116.00 $ 1.40 $ 2,881.20 $ 1.30 $ 2,675.40 52 6,857 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 39): $ 1.00 $ 6,857.00 $ 1.00 $ 6,857.00 $ 1.25 $ 8,571.25 $ 1.10 $ 7,542.70 $ 1.00 $ 6,857.00 53 4,337 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 39A): $ 1.00 $ 4,337.00 $ 1.00 $ 4,337.00 $ 1.00 $ 4,337.00 $ 1.00 $ 4,337.00 $ 1.00 $ 4,337.00 54 389 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 40): $ 1.00 $ 389.00 $ 2.00 $ 778.00 $ 1.25 $ 486.25 $ 1.00 $ 389.00 $ 1.00 $ 389.00 55 830 LF White Stripe (12"): $ 3.00 $ 2,490.00 $ 4.00 $ 3,320.00 $ 5.00 $ 4,150.00 $ 4.00 $ 3,320.00 $ 4.00 $ 3,320.00 56 1,729 LF Yellow Stripe (12"): $ 3.00 $ 5,187.00 $ 4.00 $ 6,916.00 $ 5.00 $ 8,645.00 $ 4.00 $ 6,916.00 $ 4.00 $ 6,916.00 57 1,092 LF Yellow Stripe (24"): $ 5.00 $ 5,460.00 $ 8.00 $ 8,736.00 $ 9.00 $ 9,828.00 $ 8.00 $ 8,736.00 $ 7.00 $ 7,644.00 58 5,523 SF Pavement Marking (Green Bike Lane): $ 4.00 $ 22,092.00 $ 11.50 $ 63,514.50 $ 13.00 $ 71,799.00 $ 11.00 $ 60,753.00 $ 10.50 $ 57,991.50 59 416 EA Pavement Marking (Other): $ 35.00 $ 14,560.00 $ 30.00 $ 12,480.00 $ 33.00 $ 13,728.00 $ 28.00 $ 11,648.00 $ 27.00 $ 11,232.00 60 2 CY Cobble Stones: $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 750.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 400.00 $ 800.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 61 7,300 SF Landscape Planting (Shrub): $ 13.00 $ 94,900.00 $ 11.00 $ 80,300.00 $ 14.00 $ 102,200.00 $ 10.00 $ 73,000.00 $ 11.50 $ 83,950.00 62 1,169 SF Bioretention (Planting, biofiltration soil, aggregate, mulch, irrigation): $ 30.00 $ 35,070.00 $ 45.00 $ 52,605.00 $ 59.00 $ 68,971.00 $ 45.00 $ 52,605.00 $ 46.00 $ 53,774.00 63 12 EA Landscape Tree, 24" Box: $ 620.00 $ 7,440.00 $ 900.00 $ 10,800.00 $ 1,090.00 $ 13,080.00 $ 900.00 $ 10,800.00 $ 900.00 $ 10,800.00 64 1 EA Irrigation Controller: $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 13,624.00 $ 13,624.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 65 3 EA Irrigation Backflow Prevention Assembly: $ 3,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 5,450.00 $ 16,350.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 13,500.00 66 2 EA Irrigation Master Valve, Flow Sensor: $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 900.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,090.00 $ 2,180.00 $ 800.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 900.00 $ 1,800.00 67 485 LF Irrigation Trenching (at gutter): $ 25.00 $ 12,125.00 $ 2.00 $ 970.00 $ 1.50 $ 727.50 $ 1.20 $ 582.00 $ 1.20 $ 582.00 68 8,840 LF Irrigation Trenching (Planting Areas): $ 10.00 $ 88,400.00 $ 1.65 $ 14,586.00 $ 2.00 $ 17,680.00 $ 1.60 $ 14,144.00 $ 1.70 $ 15,028.00 69 590 LF Irrigation (Bore and Saw Cut): $ 50.00 $ 29,500.00 $ 120.00 $ 70,800.00 $ 146.50 $ 86,435.00 $ 120.00 $ 70,800.00 $ 125.00 $ 73,750.00 70 1,580 LF Irrigation Mainline and Wire: $ 15.00 $ 23,700.00 $ 11.00 $ 17,380.00 $ 13.50 $ 21,330.00 $ 11.00 $ 17,380.00 $ 12.00 $ 18,960.00 71 1,030 LF Irrigation Sleeve: $ 10.00 $ 10,300.00 $ 65.00 $ 66,950.00 $ 90.00 $ 92,700.00 $ 68.00 $ 70,040.00 $ 70.00 $ 72,100.00 72 8,880 SF Landscape Maintenance (90 Days): $ 0.35 $ 3,108.00 $ 1.20 $ 10,656.00 $ 1.35 $ 11,988.00 $ 1.15 $ 10,212.00 $ 1.00 $ 8,880.00 73 1 LS Street Lighting: $ 19,800.00 $ 19,800.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 50,725.00 $ 50,725.00 $ 58,000.00 $ 58,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 74 1 LS Signal Modification - Gunn High School Entrance: $ 149,000.00 $ 149,000.00 $ 205,000.00 $ 205,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 185,000.00 $ 185,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 75 1 LS Signal Modification - Donald Drive: $ 219,300.00 $ 219,300.00 $ 260,000.00 $ 260,000.00 $ 249,000.00 $ 249,000.00 $ 235,000.00 $ 235,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 76 1 LS Signal Modification - Coulombe Drive: $ 64,300.00 $ 64,300.00 $ 85,000.00 $ 85,000.00 $ 82,289.00 $ 82,289.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 77 4 EA Artwork Foundations: $ 264.00 $ 1,056.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 3,410.00 $ 13,640.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 8,000.00 78 1 LS Community Relations Manager: $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 40,500.00 $ 40,500.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 Total $ 4,093,376.30 4,336,297.75$ 5,283,525.00$ 5,366,057.20$ 5,186,720.30$ d Alternates BID ITEM APPROX. QTY.UNIT DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS Unit Price Total Item Price Unit Price Total Item Price Unit Price Total Item Price Unit Price Total Item Price Unit Price Total Item Price 79 1 LS Opticom Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption System Equipment for Signal Modification - Gunn High School Entrance: $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 7,610.00$ 7,610.00$ 20,500.00$ 20,500.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 80 1 LS Opticom Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption System Equipment for Signal Modification - Donald Drive: $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 19,300.00$ 19,300.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 81 1 LS Opticom Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption System Equipment for Signal Modification - Coulombe Drive: $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 7,610.00$ 7,610.00$ 20,400.00$ 20,400.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ Total $ 30,000.00 30,000.00$ 22,220.00$ 60,200.00$ 45,000.00$ OVER 6%29%31%27% APPARENT LOW BIDDER Engineer's Estimate Engineer's Estimate Granite Construction Redgwick Construction Disney Construction Granite Construction O'Grady Paving O'Grady Granite Construction Granite Construction Attachment D Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C18171392A City of Palo Alto Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project - Phase 2(Re-bid) Attachment E Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS…………………………………….…………..6 1.1 Recitals…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 1.2 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 SECTION 2 THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6 SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………..7 3.1 List of Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………….........7 3.2 Order of Precedence……………………………………………………………………………………………......7 SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY…………………………………………………………………………………………..8 4.1 Contractor's Duties…………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 5.1 Contractor's Co-operation………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION…………………………………………………………………………………….......8 6.1 Time Is of Essence…………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 6.2 Commencement of Work…………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.3 Contract Time…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 6.4 Liquidated Damages…………………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.4.1 Other Remedies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..9 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time………………………………………………………………………………….9 SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR……………………………………………………………………….9 7.1 Contract Sum……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 7.2 Full Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………………………9 SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE……………………………………………………………………………………………..9 8.1 Standard of Care…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………9 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION…………………………………………………………………………………………..…10 9.1 Hold Harmless……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 9.2 Survival…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION……..………………………………………………………………………………10 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement…………….………………………………..……………………………….10 SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.…………………………………………………………………………………10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 11.1 Evidence of Coverage…………………………………………………………………………………………..10 SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS…………………………………………………………….…11 12.1 Assignment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 12.2 Assignment by Law.………………………………………………………………………………………………11 SECTION 13 NOTICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.1 Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………11 13.2 Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.3 Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….12 SECTION 14 DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...12 14.1 Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default…………………………………………………………………………………12 SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1 Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract…………………………………………………………………13 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default………………………………………………13 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.6 Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.2 Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.3 Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.4 Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….14 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..14 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.5 Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.5.1 Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 15.5.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………...15 SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES……………………………………………………………16 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies……………………………………..………………………………..………………….16 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage……………………………………………………………………………………………16 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment…………………………………………………………………………………….16 16.2 Damages to Contractor………………………………………………………………………………………..16 SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS………………………………………………………………………………….…16 17.1 Financial Management and City Access………………………………………………………………..16 17.2 Compliance with City Requests…………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………..17 18.1 Status of Parties……………………………………………………………………………………………………17 SECTION 19 NUISANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…17 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited……………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES…………………………………………………………………………………….17 20.1 Payment of Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 21 WAIVER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 21.1 Waiver………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS……………………………….18 22.1 Governing Law…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 22.2 Compliance with Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………18 22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance…………….………………………………………………….18 SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………18 23.1 Integration………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..18 24.1 Survival of Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION……………………………………………………………………………………….19 26.1 Appropriation………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 SECTION 27 AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 27.1 Representation of Parties…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..19 28.1 Multiple Counterparts………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………19 29.1 Severability………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES …………………………………………………..19 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 30.1 Amendments of Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………..19 SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION………………………………………………….….19 31.1 Workers Compensation…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS………………………………..…20 32.1 General Notice to Contractor…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a)…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.3 DIR Registration Required…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.5 Payroll Records…………………………………………………………………………………………………20 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on May 21, 2018 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and O'GRADY PAVING, INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 201696 and Department of Industrial Relations Registration Number 1000003381. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On March 27, 2018, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project - Phase 2- Re-Bid (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a Bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Contract Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project - Phase 2-Re-Bid -Project, located at Charleston and Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 ("Project"). Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Orders 3) Contract 4) Bidding Addenda 5) Special Provisions 6) General Conditions 7) Project Plans and Drawings 8) Technical Specifications 9) Instructions to Bidders 10) Invitation for Bids 11) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Declaration 12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents 13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at time of Bid) 14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current version at time of Bid) 15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 17) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 18) Performance and Payment Bonds 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY. 4.1 Contractor’s Duties Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. 5.1 Contractor’s Co-operation. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Contract requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed not later than . within two hundred eighty five calendar days (285) after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) per day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. The City is entitled to setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to Contractor, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of liquidated damages assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess liquidated damages. 6.4.1 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Four Million Four Hundred Thirty Four Thousand Three Hundred Forty Seven Dollars ($4,434,347). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Additive Alternates.] 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. 8.1 Standard of Care. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Contract. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION. 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor 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. Contractor 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 will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. 11.1 Evidence of coverage. Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. 12.1 Assignment. City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City. 12.2 Assignment by Law. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice to Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Holly Boyd AND [Include Construction Manager, If Applicable.] Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be sent by registered mail or certified mail with return receipt requested. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: O'Grady Paving, Inc. Attn: Craig Young 2513 Wyandotte Street Mountain View, CA 94043 13.3 Change of Address. In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DEFAULT. 14.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to Contractor’s performance bond surety. 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 15.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 14. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. 15.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 15.2 Delays by Sureties. Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT liable for any additional cost incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work. 15.3 Damages to City. 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 15.4 Suspension by City 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause. In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction. Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City’s right to suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 15.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the Work performed by Contractor. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 15.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. .4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if the Construction Contract had not been terminated. 15.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT submittals of as-built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations arising prior to the termination date. SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 16.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 15.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 17.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 17.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 17.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. 18.1 Status of parties. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 19 NUISANCE. 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES. 20.1 Payment of Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 21 WAIVER. 21.1 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. 22.1 Governing Law. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no other place. 22.2 Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and California laws and city laws, including, without limitation, ordinances and resolutions, in the performance of work under this Construction Contract. 22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance. Contractor shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, Contractor shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, Contractor shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. 23.1 Integration. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. 24.1 Survival of Provisions. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the public works contract does not include a project of $25,000 or less, when the project is for construction work, or the contract does not include a project of $15,000 or less, when the project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) work. Or Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION. 26.1 Appropriations. 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 the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, 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 Construction Contract 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 27 AUTHORITY. 27.1 Representation of Parties. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS 28.1 Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. 29.1 Severability. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES. 30.1 Amendments to Laws. With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents, the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City, unless otherwise required by law. SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION. 31.1 Workers Compensation. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.” SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS. 32.1 General Notice to Contractor. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a) City provides notice to Contractor of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contactor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” 32.3 DIR Registration Required. City will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Construction Contract with Contractor without proof that Contractor and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices. City gives notice to Contractor and its listed subcontractors that Contractor is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and Contractor is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. 32.5 Payroll Records. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: (i) Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, Contractor and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. (ii) The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of Contractor and its listed subcontractors, respectively. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (iii) At the request of City, acting by its project manager, Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of City’s request. City requests Contractor and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project. (iv) If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and City shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to Contractor. This provision supplements the provisions of Section 15 hereof. (v) Inform the project manager of the location of contractor’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ Purchasing Manager City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Attorney or designee APPROVED: ____________________________ Public Works Director CONTRACTOR Officer 1 By:___________________________ Name:________________________ Title:__________________________ Date: _________________________ Officer 2 By:____________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:___________________________ Date:____________________________ CHARLESTON-ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT - PHASE 2 STATE PROJECT NO. SR2SL-5100(020) IFB Post Date: 03/27/2018 IFB Due Date: 04/20/2018 BID ITEM APPROX. QTY.UNIT DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS Unit Price Total Item Price Unit Price Total Item Price Unit Price Total Item Price Unit Price Total Item Price Unit Price Total Item Price 1 1 LS Traffic Control System: $ 135,000.00 $ 135,000.00 $ 350,000.00 $ 350,000.00 $ 450,000.00 $ 450,000.00 $ 542,100.00 $ 542,100.00 $ 440,000.00 $ 440,000.00 2 1 LS Public Notification and Posting: $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 3 1 LS Clearing and Grubbing: $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 290,000.00 $ 290,000.00 $ 165,000.00 $ 165,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 4 50 CREW HOURS Trim Street Trees: $ 590.00 $ 29,500.00 $ 250.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 300.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 230.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 300.00 $ 15,000.00 5 18,743 SF Remove Concrete (Miscellaneous): $ 11.00 $ 206,173.00 $ 7.00 $ 131,201.00 $ 7.75 $ 145,258.25 $ 8.00 $ 149,944.00 $ 6.00 $ 112,458.00 6 140,364 SF Asphalt Concrete Milling: $ 0.70 $ 98,254.80 $ 0.70 $ 98,254.80 $ 0.50 $ 70,182.00 $ 0.42 $ 58,952.88 $ 0.80 $ 112,291.20 7 14 EA Temporary Drainage Inlet Protection: $ 500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 150.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 230.00 $ 3,220.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 700.00 $ 9,800.00 8 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention: $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 9 14 EA Gas Valve Box Adjustment: $ 800.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 850.00 $ 11,900.00 $ 900.00 $ 12,600.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 42,000.00 10 16 EA Water Valve Box Adjustment: $ 800.00 $ 12,800.00 $ 500.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 850.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 900.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 48,000.00 11 13 EA Sewer Manhole Cover Adjustment: $ 880.00 $ 11,440.00 $ 900.00 $ 11,700.00 $ 1,330.50 $ 17,296.50 $ 1,500.00 $ 19,500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 91,000.00 12 2 EA Eletrical Manhole Adjustment $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 1,774.25 $ 3,548.50 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 14,000.00 13 504 LF 6" HDPE Pipe, SDR 17: $ 45.00 $ 22,680.00 $ 180.00 $ 90,720.00 $ 180.00 $ 90,720.00 $ 190.00 $ 95,760.00 $ 250.00 $ 126,000.00 14 420 LF 6" Slotted HDPE Pipe, SDR 17: $ 50.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 180.00 $ 75,600.00 $ 192.00 $ 80,640.00 $ 200.00 $ 84,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 42,000.00 15 179 LF 12" HDPE Pipe, SDR 17: $ 100.00 $ 17,900.00 $ 420.00 $ 75,180.00 $ 465.00 $ 83,235.00 $ 500.00 $ 89,500.00 $ 300.00 $ 53,700.00 16 3 EA New Catch Basin: $ 5,500.00 $ 16,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 4,300.00 $ 12,900.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 21,600.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 15,000.00 17 5 EA New Manhole: $ 6,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 7,400.00 $ 37,000.00 $ 8,100.00 $ 40,500.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 70,000.00 18 6 EA Overflow Inlet: $ 1,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 3,850.00 $ 23,100.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 24,000.00 19 6 EA Cleanout: $ 500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 800.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 700.00 $ 4,200.00 20 1 EA Relocate 8" Water: $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 21 2266 TON Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (RHMA): $ 180.00 $ 407,880.00 $ 165.00 $ 373,890.00 $ 210.00 $ 475,860.00 $ 167.00 $ 378,422.00 $ 180.00 $ 407,880.00 22 620 TON Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA), Type A: $ 120.00 $ 74,400.00 $ 190.00 $ 117,800.00 $ 425.00 $ 263,500.00 $ 210.00 $ 130,200.00 $ 195.00 $ 120,900.00 23 1,188 SF Base Failure Repair: $ 4.40 $ 5,227.20 $ 13.00 $ 15,444.00 $ 35.00 $ 41,580.00 $ 15.00 $ 17,820.00 $ 10.00 $ 11,880.00 24 11,886 SF Asphalt Concrete Paving Conform Prior to RAC: $ 4.00 $ 47,544.00 $ 5.00 $ 59,430.00 $ 6.00 $ 71,316.00 $ 4.90 $ 58,241.40 $ 4.00 $ 47,544.00 25 300 CY Aggregate Base, Class 2: $ 60.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 90.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 210.00 $ 63,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 350.00 $ 105,000.00 26 1218 CY Roadway Excavation: $ 55.00 $ 66,990.00 $ 150.00 $ 182,700.00 $ 210.00 $ 255,780.00 $ 160.00 $ 194,880.00 $ 140.00 $ 170,520.00 27 1,580 LF Minor Concrete (Type A MOD Curb): $ 80.00 $ 126,400.00 $ 90.00 $ 142,200.00 $ 84.00 $ 132,720.00 $ 94.00 $ 148,520.00 $ 55.00 $ 86,900.00 28 560 LF Minor Concrete (Bioretention Curb): $ 110.00 $ 61,600.00 $ 145.00 $ 81,200.00 $ 80.00 $ 44,800.00 $ 150.00 $ 84,000.00 $ 45.00 $ 25,200.00 29 480 LF Minor Concrete (Bioretention Curb and Gutter): $ 130.00 $ 62,400.00 $ 155.00 $ 74,400.00 $ 145.25 $ 69,720.00 $ 160.00 $ 76,800.00 $ 70.00 $ 33,600.00 30 150 LF Minor Concrete (Retaining Curb) : $ 65.00 $ 9,750.00 $ 35.00 $ 5,250.00 $ 190.50 $ 28,575.00 $ 33.00 $ 4,950.00 $ 40.00 $ 6,000.00 31 2720 LF Minor Concrete (A1-6 Curb) : $ 45.00 $ 122,400.00 $ 57.00 $ 155,040.00 $ 40.25 $ 109,480.00 $ 52.00 $ 141,440.00 $ 68.00 $ 184,960.00 32 280 LF Minor Concrete (A2-6 Curb): $ 55.00 $ 15,400.00 $ 57.00 $ 15,960.00 $ 114.50 $ 32,060.00 $ 57.00 $ 15,960.00 $ 80.00 $ 22,400.00 33 950 LF Minor Concrete (B1-4 Curb): $ 55.00 $ 52,250.00 $ 57.00 $ 54,150.00 $ 46.00 $ 43,700.00 $ 57.00 $ 54,150.00 $ 75.00 $ 71,250.00 34 160 LF Minor Concrete (B2-4 Curb): $ 55.00 $ 8,800.00 $ 57.00 $ 9,120.00 $ 186.75 $ 29,880.00 $ 52.00 $ 8,320.00 $ 60.00 $ 9,600.00 35 14,380 SF Minor Concrete (Sidewalk): $ 18.00 $ 258,840.00 $ 16.00 $ 230,080.00 $ 15.75 $ 226,485.00 $ 14.50 $ 208,510.00 $ 19.00 $ 273,220.00 36 1,620 SF Minor Concrete (Driveway): $ 35.00 $ 56,700.00 $ 18.00 $ 29,160.00 $ 35.00 $ 56,700.00 $ 18.00 $ 29,160.00 $ 20.00 $ 32,400.00 37 1,070 SF Minor Concrete (Textured Paving): $ 33.00 $ 35,310.00 $ 29.00 $ 31,030.00 $ 44.25 $ 47,347.50 $ 31.00 $ 33,170.00 $ 40.00 $ 42,800.00 38 3,050 SF Minor Concrete (Pavers): $ 11.00 $ 33,550.00 $ 17.00 $ 51,850.00 $ 33.00 $ 100,650.00 $ 38.00 $ 115,900.00 $ 23.00 $ 70,150.00 39 21 EA Curb Ramp: $ 5,500.00 $ 115,500.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 54,600.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 151,200.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 54,600.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 21,000.00 40 50 EA Sign: $ 300.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 165.00 $ 8,250.00 $ 65.00 $ 3,250.00 $ 165.00 $ 8,250.00 $ 100.00 $ 5,000.00 41 2 EA Sign (relocate): $ 200.00 $ 400.00 $ 240.00 $ 480.00 $ 175.00 $ 350.00 $ 165.00 $ 330.00 $ 200.00 $ 400.00 42 12 EA Sign (Object Marker): $ 50.00 $ 600.00 $ 105.00 $ 1,260.00 $ 75.00 $ 900.00 $ 55.00 $ 660.00 $ 40.00 $ 480.00 43 23 EA Post: $ 125.00 $ 2,875.00 $ 235.00 $ 5,405.00 $ 215.00 $ 4,945.00 $ 270.00 $ 6,210.00 $ 200.00 $ 4,600.00 44 26 EA Remove Sign: $ 150.00 $ 3,900.00 $ 70.00 $ 1,820.00 $ 75.00 $ 1,950.00 $ 80.00 $ 2,080.00 $ 100.00 $ 2,600.00 45 3 EA Remove Post: $ 150.00 $ 450.00 $ 140.00 $ 420.00 $ 150.00 $ 450.00 $ 100.00 $ 300.00 $ 100.00 $ 300.00 46 998 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 9): $ 0.40 $ 399.20 $ 1.10 $ 1,097.80 $ 1.20 $ 1,197.60 $ 0.60 $ 598.80 $ 0.50 $ 499.00 47 903 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 22): $ 1.50 $ 1,354.50 $ 2.20 $ 1,986.60 $ 2.35 $ 2,122.05 $ 1.60 $ 1,444.80 $ 1.50 $ 1,354.50 48 1,449 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 27B): $ 0.80 $ 1,159.20 $ 1.00 $ 1,449.00 $ 1.10 $ 1,593.90 $ 0.80 $ 1,159.20 $ 0.50 $ 724.50 49 231 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 32): $ 1.60 $ 369.60 $ 2.15 $ 496.65 $ 2.30 $ 531.30 $ 3.30 $ 762.30 $ 3.00 $ 693.00 50 1,607 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 38B): $ 1.00 $ 1,607.00 $ 2.20 $ 3,535.40 $ 2.35 $ 3,776.45 $ 1.50 $ 2,410.50 $ 1.50 $ 2,410.50 51 6,972 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 39): $ 1.00 $ 6,972.00 $ 1.20 $ 8,366.40 $ 1.30 $ 9,063.60 $ 1.10 $ 7,669.20 $ 1.00 $ 6,972.00 52 3,497 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 39A): $ 1.00 $ 3,497.00 $ 1.20 $ 4,196.40 $ 1.20 $ 4,196.40 $ 1.10 $ 3,846.70 $ 1.00 $ 3,497.00 53 84 LF Stripe (Caltrans Detail 40): $ 1.00 $84.00 $ 2.00 $ 168.00 $ 1.20 $ 100.80 $ 5.50 $ 462.00 $ 1.00 $84.00 54 662 LF White Stripe (12"): $ 3.00 $ 1,986.00 $ 5.00 $ 3,310.00 $ 4.70 $ 3,111.40 $ 5.50 $ 3,641.00 $ 4.00 $ 2,648.00 55 1281 LF Yellow Stripe (12"): $ 3.00 $ 3,843.00 $ 5.00 $ 6,405.00 $ 4.70 $ 6,020.70 $ 5.50 $ 7,045.50 $ 4.00 $ 5,124.00 56 893 LF White Stripe (24"): $ 5.00 $ 4,465.00 $ 9.00 $ 8,037.00 $ 9.40 $ 8,394.20 $ 11.00 $ 9,823.00 $ 8.00 $ 7,144.00 57 840 LF Yellow Stripe (24"): $ 5.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 9.00 $ 7,560.00 $ 9.40 $ 7,896.00 $ 11.00 $ 9,240.00 $ 8.00 $ 6,720.00 58 7,844 SF Pavement Marking (Green Bike Lane): $ 4.00 $ 31,376.00 $ 16.00 $ 125,504.00 $ 16.50 $ 129,426.00 $ 13.00 $ 101,972.00 $ 10.00 $ 78,440.00 59 182 EA Pavement Marking (Other): $ 35.00 $ 6,370.00 $ 40.00 $ 7,280.00 $ 42.00 $ 7,644.00 $ 130.00 $ 23,660.00 $ 27.00 $ 4,914.00 60 3 CY Cobble Stones: $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 3,000.00 61 12,520 SF Landscape Planting (Shrub): $ 13.00 $ 162,760.00 $ 4.50 $ 56,340.00 $ 5.00 $ 62,600.00 $ 4.40 $ 55,088.00 $ 5.00 $ 62,600.00 62 3,260 SF Bioretention (Planting, biofiltration soil, aggregate, mulch, irrigation): $ 30.00 $ 97,800.00 $ 53.00 $ 172,780.00 $ 60.00 $ 195,600.00 $ 50.00 $ 163,000.00 $ 53.00 $ 172,780.00 63 45 EA Landscape Tree, 24" Box: $ 620.00 $ 27,900.00 $ 550.00 $ 24,750.00 $ 630.00 $ 28,350.00 $ 550.00 $ 24,750.00 $ 560.00 $ 25,200.00 64 1 EA Irrigation Controller: $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 52,000.00 $ 52,000.00 $ 15,100.00 $ 15,100.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 14,000.00 65 2 EA Irrigation Backflow Prevention Assembly: $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 9,000.00 66 2 EA Irrigation Master Valve, Flow Sensor: $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 67 15080 LF Irrigation Trenching (Planting Areas): $ 10.00 $ 150,800.00 $ 2.20 $ 33,176.00 $ 2.50 $ 37,700.00 $ 2.00 $ 30,160.00 $ 2.50 $ 37,700.00 68 530 LF Irrigation (Bore and Saw Cut): $ 50.00 $ 26,500.00 $ 105.00 $ 55,650.00 $ 120.00 $ 63,600.00 $ 100.00 $ 53,000.00 $ 105.00 $ 55,650.00 69 2090 LF Irrigation Mainline and Wire: $ 15.00 $ 31,350.00 $ 10.00 $ 20,900.00 $ 12.00 $ 25,080.00 $ 10.00 $ 20,900.00 $ 10.00 $ 20,900.00 70 950 LF Irrigation Sleeve: $ 10.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 22.00 $ 20,900.00 $ 36.00 $ 34,200.00 $ 22.00 $ 20,900.00 $ 22.00 $ 20,900.00 71 15,080 SF Landscape Maintenance (90 Days): $ 0.35 $ 5,278.00 $ 0.80 $ 12,064.00 $ 0.75 $ 11,310.00 $ 0.75 $ 11,310.00 $ 0.75 $ 11,310.00 72 1 LS Street Lighting: $ 10,200.00 $ 10,200.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 31,000.00 $ 31,000.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 73 1 LS Signal Modification - Alma Street: $ 77,400.00 $ 77,400.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 90,000.00 $ 88,000.00 $ 88,000.00 $ 93,000.00 $ 93,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 74 1 LS Signal Modification - Carlson Court: $ 205,600.00 $ 205,600.00 $ 275,000.00 $ 275,000.00 $ 255,000.00 $ 255,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 75 1 LS Signal Modification - Nelson Court: $ 234,900.00 $ 234,900.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 240,000.00 $ 240,000.00 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 76 1 LS Signal Modification - Middlefield Road: $ 216,300.00 $ 216,300.00 $ 260,000.00 $ 260,000.00 $ 245,000.00 $ 245,000.00 $ 260,000.00 $ 260,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 77 2 EA Artwork Foundations: $ 264.00 $ 528.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 5,200.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00 78 1 LS Community Relations Manager: $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 120,000.00 $ 120,000.00 79 1 LS Miscellaneous Transportation Improvements $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Total $ 3,639,112.50 4,434,347.05$ 5,266,113.15$ 4,729,073.28$ 4,634,697.70$ OVER 22%45%30%27% APPARENT LOW BIDDER Engineer's Estimate Redgwick Construction Disney ConstructionO'Grady Paving Granite Construction Attachment F Page 1 of 9 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C14150694 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MARK THOMAS & COMPANY This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to contract no. C14150694 is entered into as of January 1, 2018, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC., a California corporation, located at 2290 North First Street, Suite 304, San Jose, CA 95131 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S A.The Contract (as defined below) was entered into between the parties for the provision of professional design services for streetscape and pedestrian/bicycle improvements along the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project. B.The parties wish to amend the Contract to increase the scope of services to include Construction Administration Services for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project, increase the total not-to-exceed amount of compensation by $145,419.00 for professional services and to extend the Contract term, as detailed herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a.Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean contract no. C14150694 between CONSULTANT and CITY, as amended by: Amendment No. 1, dated May 9, 2016 b.Other Terms. Terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 1, SCOPE OF SERVICES, of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in the attached Exhibit “A”, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, Exhibit “A-1”, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, and Exhibit “A-2”, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.” SECTION 3. Section 2, TERM, of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: DocuSign Envelope ID: C4250891-E928-4501-8D87-58F4DB5EC9F6 Attachment G Page 2 of 9 “The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31, 2020 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 4. Section 3, SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “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”, entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”, Exhibit “B-1”, entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”, and Exhibit “B-2”, entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”, each of which is, by this reference, hereby 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 5. Section 4, NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION, of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A“, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, Exhibit “A-1”, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, and Exhibit “A-2”, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed one million eight hundred thirty four thousand three hundred seven dollars ($1,834,307), as detailed in Exhibit “C”, entitled “COMPENSATION”, Exhibit “C-2”, entitled “COMPENSATION”, and Exhibit “C-4”, entitled “COMPENSATION”, as applicable. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all such services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for professional services, reimbursable expenses and such Additional Services, shall not exceed one million nine hundred thirty four thousand three hundred seven dollars ($1,934,307). The applicable rates and schedule of payment for such Additional Services are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE”, Exhibit “C-3”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE”, or Exhibit “C-5”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE”, as applicable. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C,” Exhibit “C-2,” or Exhibit “C-4”, as applicable. 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,” Exhibit “A-1,” or Exhibit “A-2”, as applicable. All exhibits referenced in this Section 4, NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION, are hereby attached and incorporated into this Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein.” DocuSign Envelope ID: C4250891-E928-4501-8D87-58F4DB5EC9F6 Page 3 of 9 SECTION 6. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby added to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, and which are hereby attached and incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A-2” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”. b. Exhibit “B-2” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”. c. Exhibit “C-4” entitled “COMPENSATION”. d. Exhibit “C-5” entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE”. SECTION 7. Legal Effect. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. SECTION 8. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are hereby fully incorporated herein by this reference. SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first written above. DocuSign Envelope ID: C4250891-E928-4501-8D87-58F4DB5EC9F6 Page 4 of 9 CITY OF PALO ALTO _________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Assistant City Attorney MARK THOMAS & COMPANY. INC. Officer 1 By:__________________________ Name:_______________________ Title:________________________ Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC) By:__________________________ Name:_______________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: Exhibit “A-2” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”. Exhibit “B-2” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”. Exhibit “C-4” entitled “COMPENSATION” Exhibit “C-5” entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE”. DocuSign Envelope ID: C4250891-E928-4501-8D87-58F4DB5EC9F6 Robert A Himes President Richard Tanaka Senior Principal/VP Page 5 of 9 EXHIBIT “A-2” SCOPE OF SERVICES AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C14150694 Task 1 – Construction Support Consultant and its subconsultants shall provide design support during construction of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project, Phases 1-3, by responding to requests for information, performing site visits, attending construction meetings, reviewing shop drawings, preparing contract change order plans and specifications, and performing other tasks as necessary at the direction of the City’s Engineer. Construction support shall be performed on a time and materials basis. Deliverables: a) Responses to RFIs, as requested b) Plans or sketches to support the City for Contract Change Orders, as requested c) Review of contractor submittals, as requested All deliverables are to be submitted in pdf format. Task 2 – Project Closeout (As-Builts) Consultant and its subconsultants shall prepare as-built plans based upon redline mark-ups provided by the City’s Engineer. As-built plan preparation shall be performed on a time and materials basis. Deliverables: a) Record Drawings, Phase 1 b) Record Drawings, Phase 2 c) Record Drawings, Phase 3 All deliverables are to be submitted in pdf format. DocuSign Envelope ID: C4250891-E928-4501-8D87-58F4DB5EC9F6 Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT “B-2” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C14150694 Consultant shall perform the Services as detailed in Exhibit “A-2” so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each task 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 t erm 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 (NTP). Tasks Completions No. of Weeks from NTP Task 1.1 62 (Construction Support – Phase 1) Task 2.1 82 (Project Close Out – Phase 1) Task 1.2 62 (Construction Support – Phase 2) Task 2.2 82 (Project Close Out- Phase 2) Task 1.3 114 (Construction Support- Phase 3) Task 2.3 134 (Project Close Out- Phase 3) DocuSign Envelope ID: C4250891-E928-4501-8D87-58F4DB5EC9F6 Page 7 of 9 EXHIBIT “C-4” COMPENSATION AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C14150694 The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed as detailed in Exhibit “A-2” in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit “C-5,” up to the not to exceed budget amount for each tas k set forth below in this Exhibit “C-4”. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1.1 $29,319 (Construction Support – Phase 1) Task 1.2 $29,319 (Construction Support – Phase 2) Task 1.3 $29,319 (Construction Support – Phase 3) Task 2.1 $19,154 (Project Close Out – Phase 1) Task 2.2 $19,154 (Project Close Out – Phase 2) Task 2.3 $19,154 (Project Close Out – Phase 3) DocuSign Envelope ID: C4250891-E928-4501-8D87-58F4DB5EC9F6 Page 8 of 9 Sub-total Basic Services $ 145,419 Reimbursable Expenses $0 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $145,419 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $0 Maximum Total Compensation $145,419 DocuSign Envelope ID: C4250891-E928-4501-8D87-58F4DB5EC9F6 Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT “C-5” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT NO.2 TO CONTRACT NO. C14150694 1. Engineering Manager $252 2. Senior Project Engineer $178 3. Design Engineer $118 4. Project Coordinator $100 DocuSign Envelope ID: C4250891-E928-4501-8D87-58F4DB5EC9F6 Attachment H City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 1 Rev. February 8, 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. S18170590 GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 14th day of May, 2018, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and TRAFFICWARE GROUP, INC. a Texas corporation, located at 522 Gillingham Lane, Sugar Land, TX 77478, Telephone Number: (281) 240-7233 (“CONTRACTOR”). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1.SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services (the “Services”) described in the Scope of Services, attached at Exhibit A. 2. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: “A” - Scope of Services “B” - Schedule of Performance “C” – Schedule of Fees “D” - Insurance Requirements 3. TERM. The term of this Agreement is from April 17, 2018 to April 16, 2019 inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections R and W of the General Terms and Conditions. 4. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Schedule of Performance, attached at Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 5. COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any: A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth at Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of One Hundred Seventy Four Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Eight dollars ($174,298.00). DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 Attachment I City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 2 Rev. February 8, 2017 CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY. CITY has set aside the sum of Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred Thirty dollars ($17,430.00) for Additional Services. CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from the City Manager or designee. CONTRACTOR, at the CITY’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONTRACTOR’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services. Compensation shall be based on the hourly rates set forth above or in Exhibit C (whichever is applicable), or if such rates are not applicable, a negotiated lump sum. CITY shall not authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not perform any Additional Services for which payment would exceed the amount set forth above for Additional Services. Payment for Additional Services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. 6. COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS. CONTRACTOR’S compensation rates for each additional term shall be the same as the original term; OR CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be adjusted effective on the commencement of each Additional Term. The lump sum compensation amount, hourly rates, or fees, whichever is applicable as set forth in section 5 above, shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose area, published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics (CPI) which is published most immediately preceding the commencement of the applicable Additional Term, which shall be compared with the CPI published most immediately preceding the commencement date of the then expiring term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates be increased by an amount exceeding five percent of the rates effective during the immediately preceding term. Any adjustment to CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be reflected in a written amendment to this Agreement. 7. CLAIMS PROCEDURE FOR “9204 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS”. For purposes of this Section 7, a “9204 Public Works Project” means the erection, construction, DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 3 Rev. February 8, 2017 alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement of any kind. Public Contract Code Section 9204 mandates certain claims procedures for Public Works Projects, which are set forth in “Appendix __ Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works Projects”. This project is a 9204 Public Works Project and is required to comply with the claims procedures set forth in Appendix __, attached hereto and incorporated herein. OR This project is not a 9204 Public Works Project. 8. INVOICING. Send all invoices to CITY, Attention: Project Manager. The Project Manager is: Rafael Rius, Planning & Community Environment Dept. Transportation Division, Located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. 94301, Telephone: (650) 329-2305. Invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed. Invoices shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to verification by CITY. CITY shall pay the undisputed amount of invoices within 30 days of receipt. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to PCEContracts@CityofPaloAlto.org. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and conditions set forth in sections 1 through 7 above, these general terms and conditions and the attached exhibits. B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and qualifications to complete the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement, entitled “SERVICES,” and that every individual charged with the performance of the services under this Agreement has sufficient skill and experience and is duly licensed or certified, to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law, to perform the Services. CITY expressly relies on CONTRACTOR’s representations regarding its skills, knowledge, and certifications. CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry, including all federal, state, and local operation and safety regulations. DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 4 Rev. February 8, 2017 C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent or employee of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to complete the work required under this Agreement. D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perform any Services under this Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior written consent of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the work of approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors . E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CONTRACTOR’s business. F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall in the performance of the Services comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders. G. PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONTRACTOR shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONTRACTOR shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. H. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole expense, repair in kind, or as the City Manager or designee shall direct, any damage to public or private property that occurs in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY may decline to approve and may withhold payment in whole or in part to such extent as may be necessary to protect CITY from loss because of defective work not remedied or other damage to the CITY occurring in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY shall submit written documentation in support of such withholding upon CONTRACTOR’s request. When the grounds described above are removed, payment shall be made for amounts withheld because of them. DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 5 Rev. February 8, 2017 I. WARRANTIES. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry and the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all materials, goods and equipment provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall be fit for the particular purpose intended, shall be free from defects, and shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly replace or correct any material or service not in compliance with these warranties, including incomplete, inaccurate, or defective material or service, at no further cost to CITY. The warranties set forth in this section shall be in effect for a period of one year from completion of the Services and shall survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement. J. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor the Services performed under this Agreement to determine whether CONTRACTOR’s work is completed in a satisfactory manner and complies with the provisions of this Agreement. K. CITY’S PROPERTY. Any reports, information, data or other material (including copyright interests) developed, collected, assembled, prepared, or caused to be prepared under this Agreement will become the property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use and will not be made available to any individual or organization by CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without the prior written approval of the City Manager. L. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the date of final payment, CONTRACTOR’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least three (3) following the terms of this Agreement. M. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY shall operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. N. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in full force during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described at Exhibit D. Insurance must be provided by companies with a Best’s Key Rating of A-:VII or higher and which are otherwise acceptable to CITY’s Risk Manager. The Risk Manager must approve deductibles and self-insured retentions. In addition, all policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders are subject to approval by DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 6 Rev. February 8, 2017 the Risk Manager as to form and content. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a policy endorsement naming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy. CONTRACTOR shall obtain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or materially reduced in coverage or limits until after providing 30 days prior written notice of the cancellation or modification to the Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall provide certificates of such policies or other evidence of coverage satisfactory to the Risk Manager, together with the required endorsements and evidence of payment of premiums, to CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and shall throughout the term of this Agreement provide current certificates evidencing the required insurance coverages and endorsements to the Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall obtain and provide to CITY separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor that meet all the requirements of this section. The procuring of such required policies of insurance shall not operate to limit CONTRACTOR’s liability or obli gation to indemnify CITY under this Agreement. O. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent permitted by law and without limitation by the provisions of section N relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all demands, claims, injuries, losses, or liabilities of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss and including without limitation all damages, penalties, fines and judgments, associated investigation and administrative expenses and defense costs, including, but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees, courts costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution), arising out of, or resulting in any way from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR’s obligations under this Section apply regardless of whether or not a liability is caused or contributed to by any negligent (passive or active) act or omission of CITY, except that CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify for liability arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. The acceptance of the Services by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement. P. NON-DISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONTRACTOR 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. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 7 Rev. February 8, 2017 Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Q. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and during the performance of the Services. R. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving ten (10) days’ prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt of such notice of termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue performance. CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of termination. If the termination is for cause, CITY may deduct from such payment the amount of actual damage, if any, sustained by CITY due to CONTRACTOR’s failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement. Upon termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver to the City Manager any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other material or products, whether or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR or given to CONTRACTOR, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials shall become the property of CITY. S. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written consent of CITY. No amendments, changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written consent of CITY. T. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR 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 this Contract. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Contract, it will not employ any person having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no CITY Officer, employee, or authorized representative has any financial interest in the business of CONTRACTOR and that no person associated with CONTRACTOR has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR agrees to advise CITY if any conflict arises. DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 8 Rev. February 8, 2017 U. GOVERNING LAW. This contract shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of California without regard to its conflict of law provisions. V. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all exhibits, represents the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the services that may be the subject of this Agreement. Any variance in the exhibits does not affect the validity of the Agreement and the Agreement itself controls over any conflicting provisions in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written. W. NON-APPROPRIATION. 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 Contract 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 Contract. X. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR shall comply with CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Division, which are incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONTRACTOR shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of 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, CONTRACTOR shall comply with the following zero waste requirements:  All printed materials provided by CONTRACTOR 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 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 Contractor on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with 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 Division’s office. DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 9 Rev. February 8, 2017  Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONTRCATOR, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONTRACTOR shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. Y. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. Z. PREVAILING WAGES This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the contract is not a public works contract, if contract does not include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or the contract does not include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) project of more than $15,000. AA. CONTRACT TERMS. All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Agreement. In the case of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or CONTRACTOR’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the ca se of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONTRACTOR’s proposal, the exhibits shall control. (Signature block follows on the next page.) DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 10 Rev. February 8, 2017 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO TRAFFICWARE GROUP, INC. Approved as to form: DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 Jon Newhard CEO Joe Custer CFO City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 11 Rev. February 8, 2017 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Charleston Arastradero Road Adaptive Signal Timing and Signal Performance Monitoring Background The Charleston-Arastradero Road Corridor consists of 2.3 miles of roadway and 10 signalized intersections within the control of the City of Palo Alto. In 2008 and 2012 respectively, Charleston Road and Arastradero Road were approved by the City Council for implementation of adaptive signal timing as a part of the permanent retention of trial lane configuration. Task 1 –Implementation of Adaptive Signal Timing CONSULTANT shall provide the following as part of this task:  Licensing for SynchroGreen for eight intersections. Purchases of the licenses are provided directly by Trafficware.  Work with City Staff to provide the appropriate configuration and fine tuning of the adaptive signal timing parameters. For this project, Trafficware will also serve as the CONSULTANT  Maintenance and support for three years. In 2015, the City underwent a citywide signal upgrade project which made all of the signals along the Charleston-Arastradero capable of adaptive timing. Subsequently, the City has implemented SynchroGreen adaptive signal timing along the Sand Hill Road and San Antonio Road corridors. Two intersections on Charleston Road (at San Antonio and at Fabian) are already operating with SynchroGreen as part of the San Antonio Road Corridor. As part of this project, the same SynchroGreen program would be implemented at the remaining eight intersections along Charleston and Arastradero Roads. Task 2 – Signal Performance Monitoring CONSULTANT shall provide the following as part of this task:  Licensing and configuration for ATSPMs at eight intersections.  Configuration and setup of desktop user interface This task involves implementation of Trafficware’s Advanced Traffic Signal Performance Measures program (ATSPM), which is a relatively new intelligent transportation systems (ITS) monitoring method of collecting high density data and providing signal operating efficiency measures and direction for improving signal timing parameters. As part of the 2015 Citywide upgrade project, each traffic signal controller in the city was updated to be capable of collecting such data so long as the detection systems were compatible and configured correctly. The efforts described above in Tasks 1 and 2 would bring these intersections into a compatible level. This task is considered as an optional task, and may or not be authorized by Staff if deemed necessary. DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 12 Rev. February 8, 2017 Task 3 – Staff Training CONSULTANT shall provide on-site training for Staff for the SynchroGreen Adaptive Signal Timing and the Signal Performance Monitoring system. This task is considered as an optional task, and may or not be authorized by Staff if deemed necessary. Task 4 – Additional Goods and Services A ten percent contingency is assumed based the configuration, and maintaining operations of the adaptive timing and ATSPM for three years as described above. Contingencies shall be spent only upon the prior approval of CITY. INVOICES. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to PCEContracts@CityofPaloAlto.org. DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 13 Rev. February 8, 2017 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services according to the following schedule: 1. All software and goods shall allow 6-12 weeks for delivery after receipt of order 2. 20 hours of Formal Training will be provided by Trafficware to a max classroom of 15 Public Agency employees within 180 Days after SG Adaptive Online Activation. DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 14 Rev. February 8, 2017 EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OF FEES CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR according to the following rate schedule . The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to CONTRACTOR, including both payment for services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of the Agreement. Any services provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to CITY. RATE SCHEDULE FOB / Delivery Terms Palo Alto Trafficware P/N Product Description Qty Unit Each Total 8-Intersection SynchroGreen Adaptive Signal System Charleston-Arastradero Corridor - Palo Alto, CA v76-SynchroGreen Intersection license P/N 97500-0030 Adaptive SynchroGreen local intersection software for Model 2070 ATC v76 Apogee: - SG Local Intersection v76 (2070 ATC) Software & Adaptive Signal Site License *SG Central License not included; purchased in previous project 8 Ea 15,500.00 124,000.00 Configurations/Integra tion P/N 97500-0005 SG Factory Project Integration, adaptive signal field adjustments & training. This will be performed post-activation of SynchroGreen, and will include: - Testing SG settings based on observations and measurements from the system's detection - Signal system timing parameter adjustments, based on the measured travel demand - Testing post-install to discover and solve any discrepancies the SG system may contain - Preplanning & post-implementing modeling & simulation software to emulate installation and expedite system verification process 8 Ea 1,600.00 12,800.00 Training P/N 97500-0045 SG Factory Classroom Adaptive Training 3 days of Formal Training will be provided by Trafficware to a max classroom of 15 Public Agency employees within 180 Days after SG Adaptive Online Activation. 3 Ea 2,500.00 7,500.00 P/N 97500-0055 Warranty & Software Maintenance for SynchroGreen Adaptive, 3 Year Term 24 Ea 950.00 22,800.00 (Continued on the next page.) DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 15 Rev. February 8, 2017 FOB / Delivery Terms Palo Alto WPS Item Code Product Description Qty Unit Each Total Cloud-Based ATMS.now Signal Performance Measures (SPM) Module, 3 Year Subscription ATMS.now Module P/N 97801-8000 Custom Software Module for ATMS.now, "Signal Performance Measures" cloud-based solution to store and analyze high-resolution data collected from the Agency's traffic signals. This SPM Module provides - Software tools identify potential signal problems and resolve the traffic signal timing issues sooner - Additional Reports including Arrivals on Red, Pedestrian Delays and Yellow and Red Actuations * Cost is for 3 Year Subscription per Intersection * (8 ea x 12mo = 96 x 3years = 288) 288 Ea 24.99 7,197.12 Allow 6-12 weeks for delivery ARO Subtotal $174,297.12 ADDITIONAL GOOD AND SERVICES (10%) $17,430.00 (Also may be used for any applicable taxes and or delivery charges) TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $191,727.12 DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 16 Rev. February 8, 2017 EXHIBIT D INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES 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 NO 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 : CONTRACTOR, 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 CONTRACTOR 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 DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 17 Rev. February 8, 2017 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. 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 66053A16-0F27-474C-B439-7ED801AF3B10 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:14 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Avivit Katzir <avivit.katzir@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 03, 2018 5:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:ASking to postpone the vote on Charleston-Arastradero Corridor project Dear Councilman, I live close to Ross Road and I am aware of the new improvement the city is implementing along Ross Bike Boulevard and the planning along Charleston-Arastradero Corridor. There are issues with your improvements and I am confident that you heard from other residence about their concern. I read the plans for the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor and saw that it is proposed to extend the existing sidewalks in all the intersections. On the intersections close to the public schools, the expansion of the sidewalk will narrow the road creating a narrow megre for bicycles and motorized vehicles going to the schools. This seems to me an unsafe measure. Since some of the street narrowing that you did on Ross Road do not comply with the law, I am concerned that these proposed changes also do not comply with the law and will be an unnecessary liability. I am asking the city council to postpone your vote on the upcoming bid for this work for 6 months, to allow the time to research, investigate and learn about the safety of the design and get more community input. Sincerely, Avivit Katzir Attachment J City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:12 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Andy Mutz <andy.mutz@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 03, 2018 10:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:Feedback on SafeRoutes to School / Charleston-Arastradero corridor Palo Alto City Council, Thanks in advance for continuing to SUPPORT the Bike Boulevard/Charleston-Arastradero implementation and traffic safety/bicycle improvements along local roads and especially routes to schools. As a long-time cycle commuter and part of a family of four who have lived in our Palo Alto home for over two decades we have seen the impact of Palo Alto's continuing investment and dedication to bicycle safety and friendliness. I personally used Bryant to commute for many years and have recently ridden the Charleston-Arastradero route. My kids attend Paly and also ride the Bryant bike corridor route. My wife uses the Ross Rd. corridor to bike to the JCC and like it. We agree and believe that roundabouts are safer for bikes/cars than four way stops on local streets. While children and adults will need some time to learn to use them, I’m confident its a better solution as demonstrated in many locations worldwide. While there have been many social media posts opposing these changes, we believe most Palo Alto residents,like our family, actually favor recent traffic calming measures. We support the Safe Routes to School efforts as a critical part of the city-wide bike network outlined in our 2012 City of Palo Alto Transportation Plan. The Safe Routes program has vastly expanded the number of children riding to schools - to over 50% - removing enormous amounts of car traffic from our streets. Our family is extremely grateful to Safe Routes (both volunteers and city employees) for their efforts over the years to make biking safer for our own children riding to school (through elementary, middle and high school), for us commuting to both our jobs, and around town. Please continue supporting the funding for these projects. Sincerely Andrew Mutz Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:51 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Alison Marsden <alisonlmarsden@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 1:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:I support PA funding for Bike Safety Improvements and Safe Routes to School Dear Palo Alto City Council,    Thank you for your continued support of the bike safety and traffic calming measures currently being  implemented in Palo Alto.   I would like to expressly voice my support of the current Bike  Boulevard/Charleston‐Arastradero implementation and traffic safety/bicycle improvements along local roads  and especially routes to schools.    As a bike commuter myself, I am extremely grateful for the safety measures that have been put in place by the  safe routes to schools program.  I am strongly supportive of the Ross Road roundabouts.  I am a Stanford  faculty member, and ride a bicycle every day in and around Stanford campus.   I have firsthand experience  with the success of the roundabouts that were installed on campus in recent years.   They have certainly  improved student safety, and also have eased the (often crowded) flow of bike traffic through busy campus  intersections.   I was thrilled to find out that Palo Alto is implementing similar measures in the city, and I  strongly support them.       As a parent of two children in the Palo Alto School District, I am extremely grateful to the efforts of the safe  routes to schools program.   As a direct result of this program, I am confident that my children can get to and  from school safely by bike.  My middle‐school aged daughter rides over 2 miles each way to school, across  several busy intersections.   It gives me great peace of mind knowing that the routes she takes have been  carefully planned, and that there is a critical mass of children biking along the same routes.   I hope the city  council will continue to support these highly successful programs.       While there have been many (often divisive) social media posts opposing these changes, we believe most Palo  Alto residents, like our family, actually favor recent traffic calming measures. We support the Safe Routes to  School efforts as a critical part of the city‐wide bike network outlined in our 2012 City of Palo Alto  Transportation Plan.  The Safe Routes program has vastly expanded the number of children riding to schools ‐  to over 50% ‐ removing enormous amounts of car traffic from our streets.     Please continue your support of this important community safety programs.      Sincerely,   Alison Marsden  Stanford, CA 94305  PAUSD parent       City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:11 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Mutz <jennifer.mutz@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 2:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Still Support PA Funding for Bike Safety Improvements Dear Hard Working City Council of Palo Alto, A year ago in June 2017 I contacted you to express support for the PA Bike Safety Improvement Budget. Now, a year later, and after seeing the Ross Road traffic calming implementation, I would like to express our family’s continued support for the Bike Boulevard/Charleston-Arastradero implementations and traffic safety/bicycle improvements along local roads. We are a biking family of four who have lived in our Palo Alto home for over 20+ years. During this time, we have watched bike safety evolve successfully in Palo Alto. My husband bikes to work in Palo Alto using the Arastradero corridor so he’s intimately familiar with those bike safety improvements and likes them. Both my teens bike to Palo Alto High School using the Bryant bike corridor which has been a godsend for the high schoolers. (My teens also bike all around town to their friends’ houses and summer jobs.) I use the Ross Rd. corridor to bike to the JCC and like it. The bottom line is that roundabouts (as your PA Transportation Dept. traffic experts know) are much safer for bikes/cars than four way stops on local streets. Adults will need to learn how to use the roundabouts, and hopefully make the effort to teach their children the skill of using a roundabout. I’m confident that if all of Continental Europe and the British Islands use roundabouts, my family and I can figure it out too! In spite of all the misinformation and fear mongering on neighborhood social network sites like Nextdoor on the topic of traffic safety over the past few months, please be aware there are many Palo Alto citizens (like our family) in favor of the recent traffic calming measures. We are one of the 98.6 percent of residents who support the Safe Routes to School efforts (and not one of the 1.4 percent of residents who have signed the petition opposing it). These Bike Safety efforts clearly support the city-wide bike network outlined in our 2012 City of Palo Alto Transportation Plan, all part of the Comprehensive Plan. The stats are clear: Safe Routes bike safety program has been enormously successful in Palo Alto – something PA should be very proud of! According to publically posted PAUSD bike counts, biking has increased every single year for both middle and high school since 2000. Today, almost 45 percent of high schoolers (at each of our high schools) ride bikes and almost 60 percent of middle schoolers (at each middle school) ride bikes. In the year 2000 it was 10 percent and 20 percent respectively -- so that’s a huge increase! (I was informed by a Safe Routes program representative that the national average for middle schoolers riding bikes is about 2 percent.) Increased PAUSD student biking year over year for almost twenty years is a direct result of Safe Routes to School coordinated efforts between the PTSA, City of Palo Alto, and Palo Alto Police Dept. An incredible accomplishment! Our family is extremely grateful to Safe Routes (both volunteers and city employees) for their efforts over the years to make biking safer for our own children riding to school (through elementary, middle and high school), for us commuting to both our jobs, and for our entire family biking around town. Thank you for previously supporting the funding for these projects and thank you for your continued support. Respectfully, Jennifer Mutz Palo Alto, CA 94306 April 26, 2018 Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto CA 94303 .· CITY OF PALO ·ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 18 HAY -I+ AH II : 3 7 As a forty year resident of Greenmeadow I am writing to express my concerns for the project plans and scope for the Charleston corridor proposal as outlined in your recent mailing. I walk from Alma to Charleston to Middlefield each morning for exercise and at no time do a see a need to widen the sidewalks. Most days I will not encounter more that two other walkers between Alma to Middlefield. And I only see a few people riding on bicycles and they are usually running the red lights. Forget about installing median islands and the additional cost of landscaping and maintenance. Who needs to further narrow the road by installing curb bulb outs. Your plan creates more problems that it solves. In this area there are only two schools in this project, one shopping center but no parks as noted in your notice. It would be nice if the City were more accurate and honest in their proposals. My suggestion is either leave the road the way it is or return it to its original configuration. Anything else is a waste of taxpayers money. If you would like to solve a real problem it would be to install a left turn light at Nelson. When there is a backup on Charleston, and it happens several time daily, and the only way you can turn left is to wait until turns red and then proceed. And you are guilty of a traffic violation in running the red light. Some cities have a problem with not having enough money to operate successfully. Palo Alto's problem is that it has too much money and is always looking for ways to spend it on unnecessary projects. I hope the Council will have the good judgment to cancel the staffs recommendation and not fund this project. Thank you for your consideration to my letter. ~ eJ)ltVC-J~s F. Dougherty 159 Greenmeadow Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 ( 650) 494-7221 City of Palo Alto (ID # 9122) City Council Informational Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/21/2018 May 21, 2018 Page 1 of 1 (ID # 9122) Title: Public Works Week May 21-27, 2018 Proclamation Subject: Proclamation Recognizing National Public Works Week May 21-27,2018 From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works See attached Proclamation. Attachments: ·Public Works Week-May 21-27 2018 (DOCX) Proclamation NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK MAY 21-27, 2018 Whereas,public works services provided in our community are an integral part of our citizens' everyday lives; and Whereas,the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the efficient implementation and operation of public works systems and programs such as streets, public buildings, storm drains, wastewater and solid waste collection, environmental programs, and airport management and operations; and Whereas,the health, safety and comfort of this community greatly depends on these facilities and services; and Whereas,the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their planning, design, construction and maintenance are vitally dependent upon the efforts an d skill of Public Works Staff; and Whereas,the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who staff Public Works Departments is influenced by the community’s attitude and understanding of the importance of the work they perform. Now, Therefore, I, Liz Kniss Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby proclaim the week of May 21, 2018, as "National Public Works Week" within the City of Palo Alto, and I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing our public works and to recognize the contributions which Public Works Staff make every day to our health, safety, comfort and quality of life. Presented: May 21, 2018 _____________________________________ Liz Kniss Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 9144) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/21/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Annual Utilities Efficiency Programs Report for FY 2017 Title: City of Palo Alto Utilities Demand Side Management Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2017 From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities This memo and the attached report present the achievements of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs implemented by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) during Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. This is for the Council’s information and no action is required. Executive Summary The FY 2017 DSM Annual Report provides updates on the achievements of CPAU’s electric, natural gas, and water efficiency programs, as well as locally-sited solar photovoltaic (PV), solar water heating program and sustainable energy programs. The DSM Report also provides updates on various customer outreach and research and development initiatives that are related to achieving savings in electric, gas and water. CPAU exceeded its electric, natural gas and water efficiency savings goals for FY 2017, and both the electric and water efficiency portfolios were cost effective. The supply cost for natural gas in FY 2017 continued to be low, reflecting the very low natural gas prices nationally, and reducing the cost-effectiveness of the natural gas efficiency portfolio. Background As a municipal utility that delivers electric, gas and water services to customers in its service territory, CPAU complies with state laws that govern resource conservation and related expenditures. Key legislation that affects CPAU includes: Assembly Bill (AB) 1890 (1996) requires publicly owned electric utility (POUs) to establish a public benefit charge of 2.85% of revenue to fund any or all of the following “public benefit” programs: • Cost-effective DSM services to promote energy-efficiency and energy conservation. • New investment in renewable energy resources and technologies consistent with existing statutes and regulations that promote those resources and technologies. City of Palo Alto Page 2 • Research, development and demonstration programs in the public interest which advance science or a technology not being adequately provided for by competitive and regulated markets. • Services for low-income electricity customers including, but not limited to, energy efficiency services, education, weatherization, and rate discounts. Senate Bill (SB) 1037 (2005) requires each POU, in procuring energy, to first acquire all available energy efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost -effective, reliable and feasible, and to report annually to its customers and to the Energy Commiss ion on its investment on energy efficiency and demand reduction programs. AB 2021 (2006), as amended by AB 2227 (2012), requires POUs to develop annual electric efficiency targets over ten years based on all potentially achievable cost -effective energy savings, update the goals every four years, and provide annual reports to their customers and the California Energy Commission. CPAU adopted its first ten -year electric and gas efficiency targets in 2007 and has since updated these goals three times with th e last update completed in March and April 2017 respectively. SB 1 (2006) requires all POUs to adopt, implement and finance a solar initiative program to encourage the installation of residential and commercial solar energy systems. AB 1470 (2007) requires each POU providing gas service to retail end -use gas customers to adopt, implement and finance a solar water heating system incentive program. SBx7-7 (2009) requires water suppliers to reduce the state average per capita daily water consumption by 20% by December 31, 2020. This requirement is incorporated in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, adopted by California’s urban water suppliers including Palo Alto. Discussion CPAU offers incentives and education programs for customers to encourage ene rgy and water efficiency, customer-owned renewable generation and enrollment in voluntary green energy programs. The table below summarizes the FY 2017 goals and achievements. As shown, the achievements for energy and water efficiency exceeded the goals set for FY 2017. The solar photovoltaic (PV) program is on track to meet its goal, but the solar water heating achievements are short of the goal, due to low natural gas prices compared to the cost of solar water heating. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Goals and Achievements Resource FY 2017 Savings Goals (% of load) FY 2017 Savings Achieved (% of load) FY 2017 Savings Achieved Electricity 0.60% 0.65% 5,986 MWh Gas 0.55% 0.81% 228,707 therms Water 0.91% 1.40% 57,154 CCF Customer side Renewable Program Goal FY 2017 Achievement Cumulative Achievement through FY 2017 Solar Electric (PV)* 6,500 kW by 2017 917 kW 7,946 kW since 2008** Solar Water Heating 30 systems/year 1 system 64 systems since 2008 * Solar PV System goal is over a 10-year period (2008-2017) ** Since 2000, the cumulative achievement is 8,611 kW through FY 2017 CPAU develops a range of marketing campaigns to promote gas, electric, and water efficiency programs, making a concerted effort to increase outreach efforts through public engagement. Promotional methods include community outreach events, print ads in local publications, utility bill inserts, messaging on bills and envelopes, website, email newsletters, videos for the web and local cable television channels, and the use of social media (Twitter/Facebook/NextDoor/Videos). CPAU made changes to some of its residential programs for FY 2017. The Multifamily Residence Plus+ Program, which serves hard-to-reach multifamily sites, saw an increase in program savings of 950% over the previous year after it was expanded to include new LED lighting measures. The Residential Energy Assistance Program, which serves low-income residents, was similarly expanded and saw an increase in savings of over 400%. CPAU has also has some new programs in place for FY 2017, which include: the Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot Program to educate residents and promote the idea of installing an electric water heater instead of gas ; the Electric Vehicle Charger Rebate Program to promote the installation of chargers at multifamily, mixed-use properties, schools and non-profits; and the online Electric Vehicle and Photovoltaic Solar Calculator to help customers assess the economics of purchasing either of those technologies. The attached DSM Report provides details about CPAU’s FY 2017 DSM programs, incl uding costs and resource savings by program and by end use, description of customer outreach efforts and research and development initiatives that are underway. Attachments:  Attachment A: Demand Side Management Annual Report for FY 2017 ATTACHMENT A OVERVIEW: The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is the only city-owned utility in California that operates its own utilities including electric, natural gas, water, fiber optic, storm drain, wastewater and refuse services. We have been providing quality services to the citizens and businesses of Palo Alto since 1896. MISSION: To provide safe, reliable, environmentally sustainable and cost-effective services. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: At CPAU, our people empower tomorrow’s ambitions while caring for today’s needs! We make this possible with our outstanding professional workforce, leading through collaboration and optimizing resources to ensure a sustainable and resilient Palo Alto. PRIORITIES: Workforce: We must create a vibrant and competitive environment that attracts, retains, and invests in a skilled and engaged workforce. Collaboration: We must collaborate with internal teams and external stakeholders to achieve our shared objectives of enhanced communication, coordination, education, and delivery of services. Technology: We must invest in and utilize technology to enhance the customer experience and maximize operational efficiency. Financial Efficiency and Resource Optimization: We must manage our finances optimally and use resources efficiently to meet our customers’ service priorities. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 4 1 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 11 2 GAS EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................. 14 3 WATER EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 17 4 SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS ....................................................................................... 20 5 CUSTOMER OUTREACH & COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................................... 24 6 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION ....................................................................... 33 7 FUTURE PLANS ...................................................................................................................... 36 APPENDIX A: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 38 APPENDIX B: FY 2017 ACHIEVEMENTS BY DSM PROGRAM ............................................................. 43 APPENDIX C: HISTORICAL DSM PROGRAM EXPENDITURES ............................................................. 44 APPENDIX D: SB 1037 ELECTRIC DSM REPORT TO CEC .................................................................... 45 APPENDIX E: PHOTOS FROM CUSTOMER OUTREACH EVENTS ......................................................... 47 APPENDIX F: CITY POLICIES/PLANS AND STATE MANDATES IMPACTING DSM PROGRAM GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................... 50 4 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is pleased to issue the Demand Side Management (DSM) Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. CPAU is committed to supporting environmental sustainability through efficient consumption of electric, gas and water resources, as well as promoting distributed renewable generation and modifying consumer demand through incentives and education. CPAU accomplishes these goals by delivering a wide range of customer programs and services as described in this report. This annual report provides updates on:  Electric and natural gas energy efficiency (EE) program achievements and expenditures  Water conservation program achievements and expenditures  Locally-sited solar photovoltaic and solar water heating program achievements and expenditures  Voluntary green energy programs  Customer outreach initiatives  Research and development related initiatives  Future plans DSM GOALS AND ACHIEVEMENTS CPAU offers incentives and education programs for customers to encourage energy and water efficiency, customer-owned renewable generation and enrollment in voluntary green energy programs. Table ES.1 summarizes the FY 2017 goals and achievements. As shown, the achievements for electricity, gas and water efficiency all exceeded the goals set for FY 2017. The solar photovoltaic (PV) program is on track to meet its goal, but the solar water heating achievements continue to be short of its goal due to low natural gas prices compared to the cost of solar water heating. Table ES.1: Goals versus Achievements Resource FY 2017 Savings Goals (% of load) FY 2017 Savings Achieved (% of load) FY 2017 Savings Achieved Electricity 0.60% 0.65% 5,986 MWh Gas 0.55% 0.81% 228,707 therms Water 0.91% 1.40% 57,154 CCF Customer side Renewable Program Goal FY 2017 Achievement Cumulative Achievement through FY 2017 Solar Electric (PV)* 6,500 kW, by 2017 917 kW 7,946 kW since 2008** Solar Water Heating 30 systems/year 1 system 64 systems since 2008 * Goal over a 10-year period 2008-2017 based the SB-1 California Solar Initiative. In FY 2018 reporting will transition to reflect CPAU’s Local Solar Plan goal. ** Since 2000, the cumulative achievement through FY 2017 is 8,611 kW. 5 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report DSM PROGRAM EXPENDITURES Table ES.2 summarizes the total DSM program expenditures over the last three fiscal years. Table ES.2: Electric, Gas and Water DSM Program Expenditures (in millions) FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Electric DSM programs $2.4 $2.4 $3.0 Gas DSM programs $0.59 $0.69 $0.87 Water DSM programs $0.81 $0.52 $0.79 PV Partners* $1.1 $1.1 $1.0 Solar Water Heating Program $0.19 $0.02 $0.07 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENDITURES $5.1 million $4.8 million $5.8 million * The PV Partners rebates were completely reserved as of April 2016, and ongoing expenditures are simply paying out the performance-based incentives. The rebate payments are scheduled to finish in FY 2023. ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY AS A RESOURCE CPAU is committed to identifying and achieving all cost -effective energy and water efficiency measures (i.e. those that are less expensive than supply-side resources – see Appendix D for more information on cost effectiveness). Since the adoption of the electric Carbon Neutral Plan starting in 2013, it can be argued that electric EE no longer contributes to the community’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction based on the City’s climate reporting methodology.1 However, many electric EE measures still remain a cheaper resource than carbon -neutral electric supplies. Table ES.3 summarizes the cost of efficiency over the last three years compared to the projected cost of supply resources2. Unlike electric EE, gas efficiency was not cost-effective compared to long-term supplies in FY 2017, though it was cost-effective in prior years. The levelized cost of gas efficiency is currently much higher than the future supply because 1) large portions of the savings were from retrocommissioning (RCx) savings, which had an expected useful lifetime of only one year using former CPAU energy efficiency accounting protocols, 2) persistence savings3 from the Opower program continue to decline, and 3) the future supply cost of gas continues to be low, reflecting the very low natural gas prices nationally. CPAU is updating its protocols for RCx savings to reflect that 1 This assumption is true for the climate reporting methodology used by the City, but there is still a real carbon savings value associated with electric EE. The City’s Carbon Neutral Portfolio objective is to have adequate renewable energy on an annual basis to serve load. That means that at some times of the year the City may have excess carbon -free and renewable energy that offsets emissions from times of year when the City has insufficient carbon -free and renewable energy and procures market energy, which typically comes from a gas generating plant. When electric EE results in load reduction during those times of day or year in which the City’s Carbon Neutral Portfolio has insufficient renewable energy, it can be argued there is a real long-term carbon savings from electric EE. 2 Note that low-income program savings and expenditures are removed from the levelized cost values because low -income programs are not included in this standard of cost effectiveness. 3 Persistence savings from behavioral programs are savings that continue to be realized for five years after the program has closed, albeit at a yearly degradation of 80%. See the Cadmus 2015 report for more details (Report). 6 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report the persistence of these measures is longer than one year. This change will result in longer-lived, less-expensive RCx savings in the future. If this change had already been in place for the years presented in table ES.3, the three-year average efficiency cost of gas would have dropped from $1.08/therm to $0.84/therm. CPAU is also evaluating whether the customer and 3rd party vendor incentive payments need to be adjusted for RCx savings to reduce the cost of these savings. The cost of both the electricity and natural gas efficiency portfolios are also impacted by the Home Efficiency Genie program, which is mainly a customer service program that has great educational value to Palo Alto residents, but delivers minimal claimable energy efficiency savings. Staff is currently re-examining how it counts the cost of these types of customer service programs when evaluating the cost-efficiency of its portfolio of efficiency programs. Water efficiency continued to be more cost-effective than the cost of water supply. The levelized cost of water efficiency increased this year largely because a significant contract payment for work done in FY 2016 was processed and paid in FY 2017. Water efficiency costs will decrease significantly starting in FY 2018 as the new cost -sharing agreement between the Santa Clara Valley Water District and CPAU goes into effect. Table ES.3: Actual Levelized Efficiency Costs versus Projected Supply Costs FY 2015 Efficiency FY 2016 Efficiency FY 2017 Efficiency 3-yr average Efficiency* Future Supply Electric $/kWh $0.040 $0.065 $0.056 $0.053 $0.084 Gas $/therm $0.62 $0.76 $1.86 $1.08 $0.59 Water $/CCF $4.61 $2.27 $4.62 $3.83 $5.26 * The 3-year average efficiency provides the best metric for interpreting the City’s cost effectiveness, as it accounts for yearly variations in program engagement and funding. Additionally, the annual cost effectiveness is calculated using the savings achieved in a given year but only payments actually made in that year, so some costs are offset to different years. The 3-year average efficiency value most accurately matches savings with the associated costs. HIGHLIGHTS OF FY2017  New Design Partner - In November 2016 CPAU signed a three-year contract with Essense Partners to support efforts in customer engagement, strategic planning and branding. Essense offers a unique combination of expertise in marketing, design and the energy industry.  Water Conservation Enforcement - While some mandatory water use reductions have been eased, other water use restrictions were added to the municipal code , making them permanent. Restrictions that are part of municipal code are enforceable, and customers may report incidents of water waste to the utility through various tools. These tools include PaloAlto311 (a mobile and online application offered by the City of Palo Alto), Access Valley Water app (a tool from Santa Clara Valley Water District) and SaveWater.Ca.Gov (online tool from the State Water Resources Control Board). CPAU will continue to make water conservation a way of life and use this enforcement effort as a means towards educating customers about water efficiency best practices. 7 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report  Online EV/PV Calculator – CPAU launched an online calculator tool for residents to evaluate the costs and benefits of installing rooftop solar. In addition, residents can now evaluate different electric vehicles and see the financial impacts and environmental benefits of charging vehicles using Palo Alto’s carbon neutral electricity. The online calculator uses satellite imagery of Palo Alto homes as well as current CPAU electricity rates to produce rooftop solar system designs and cost estimates tailored to Palo Alto.  Multifamily Residence Plus+ Program - This program, which focuses on a hard-to-reach customer segment, was expanded in FY 2016 to include LED lighting measures, as the cost and quality of LED lighting had improved. In September 2016, the contract with the vendor was amended to add $500,000 to accommodate demand for the upgrades. As a result, the program saw an increase in savings of over 950%.  The Home Efficiency Genie Program - The Genie was launched in the summer of 2015 as a home efficiency assessment program. The licensed energy auditors still do house calls, but the program has expanded its focus to include more phone-based customer service on energy and water-related topics. The Genie now provides information not only about efficiency but also about the City’s sustainability programs, such as heat pump water heaters (HPWHs) and the solar group-buy program (SunShares). Staff also changed the program guidelines to allow the Genie to discuss and advise residents on available rebates.  Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot Program - The goal of this program is reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through switching from natural gas appliances to high-efficiency electric appliances. Installation of heat pump water heaters (HPWHs) has been identified as a good starting candidate for a pilot program. The pilot program—launched in the spring of 2016—was designed to facilitate the installation of HPWHs in single-family homes. In April 2017, the City hosted its first HPWH workshop to educate the community , including contractors, on the technology and installation of HPWHs.  EV Charger Rebate Program - In early CY 2017 CPAU launched an EV Charger Rebate program using funds from monetizing Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits. Rebates are targeted towards multifamily and mixed-use properties, schools and non-profits. Along with the launch, new online resources were created, including the EV calculator tool.  Commercial Building Pilot Program - This pilot program with GreenTraks, Inc. was implemented to help 19 businesses use the US EPA’s Portfolio Manager online energy management tool. Each building is benchmarked against similar buildings based on its energy usage using an Energy Star rating of 1 to 100. The goal of the pilot is to help a mixture of small, medium and large commercial customers benchmark their buildings and determine the best ways to remove barriers to adoption of energy efficiency measures, encourage more customers to use Portfolio Manager and prepare staff for AB 802 implementation. The pilot ended in September 2017. 8 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report  Palo Alto School District Grant - CPAU provides grants totaling $50,000 each year to the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) for the implementation of energy and water efficiency educational programs. The source of the grant monies is Public Benefits funds. During FY 2017, this CPAU grant supported various activities including the following: o The purchase of solar and wind renewable energy kits for students to build and learn about these forms of energy o Marine Science Institute Discovery Voyage on water conservation o A Theatreworks visit to an elementary school to teach students about “Playing with Science” o Home Energy Audit training on how to identify the most efficient lighting concepts o The purchase of energy efficiency building science kits for students to learn more about energy efficiency o Green energy science projects o Energy efficiency and renewable energy literature  10-Year Energy Efficiency Goal Setting – Every four years CPAU is required by law to set goals for all cost-effective energy-efficiency programs. This work uses a model to determine the technical, economic and market potential for efficiency measures. Staff set aggressive goals that were adopted by City Council in February 2017. From the previous goal setting effort, electric cumulative savings targets were increased from 4.8% to 5.7% over each respective 10 - year period (electric report). Gas savings targets were increased from 2.85% to 5.1% (gas report). A main factor in setting these aggressive goals is the onset of SB -350 mandated efficiency doubling.  Strategic Plan - To maintain operational excellence and relevancy, CPAU periodically reviews and revises its Strategic Plan and associated strategic initiatives. The strategic planning process identifies the critical or core challenges that CPAU must address to realize its Strategic Direction. In FY 2017, staff began working on a major update. Priorities identified in the plan include: 1) Attracting and retaining a skilled workforce, 2) Collaborating with internal teams and external stakeholders to achieve shared objectives, 3) Investing in and utilizing technology to enhance the customer experience and maximize operational efficiency , and 4) Managing our finances optimally and using our resources efficiently to meet our customers’ service priorities . Aspects of the Strategic Plan related to customer collaboration and new technology are particularly relevant to the customer programs offered by the CPAU.  Sustainability and Climate Action Plan – In November 2016, Council adopted the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) framework. The framework serves as a road map for achieving Palo Alto’s 80% by 2030 greenhouse gas reduction goal and for developing the Sustainability Implementation Plans (SIPs).  Carbon Neutral Gas Plan - In December 2016, Council adopted Resolution 9649, approving the Carbon Neutral Gas Plan that will achieve carbon neutrality for the gas supply portfolio by FY 2018 using high-quality environmental offsets with a maximum rate impact of 10 ₵/therm. The 9 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report plan was implemented in July 2017, and the PaloAltoGreen Gas program was concurrently terminated. (Staff Report 7533)  Net Energy Metering (NEM) Reservation Program and NEM Cap Change – In November 2016, Council adopted the Net Energy Metering Transition Policy and revised the NEM Cap calculation methodology (Staff Report 7346). This action established that customers in the original NEM program could remain in that program for 20 years from the time of interconnection before transitioning to the NEM Successor Program. The NEM Cap was increased from 9.5 MW to 10.8 MW. To give customers more financial certainty while planning their systems, CPAU put a NEM Reservation process in place to track the installed capacity against the NEM Cap an d began publishing installed capacity numbers.  NEM Successor Program Hardware and Rates – In anticipation of the transition to the NEM Successor Program, CPAU selected meters and programming to be used for the new net metering. This effort involved developing the rates within the billing system and training staff on how to read and program the NEM Successor program meters.  Green Building Ordinance – The Green Building Ordinance (GBO) is Palo Alto’s local building reach code that is more stringent than the state Title 24 standard. This ordinance applies to both residential and commercial buildings. CPAU previously assisted in the development of this code, but FY 2017 is the first year for which savings associated with the GBO have been reported in this report.  Do-It-Yourself Water-Wise Indoor Survey – Palo Alto residents can request a free indoor water survey kit that can help conserve water and save money on utility bills. Residents also become educated on opportunities for conservation devices in their homes, and they can request free tools to improve efficiency. The program is offered in partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District.  Free Water-Wise Outdoor Survey – Palo Alto residents can schedule a free outdoor survey with a trained irrigation professional. The professional will provide an on-site evaluation of the resident’s irrigation system and recommend upgrades and repairs. The program is offered in partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District.  University of Oxford Residential Survey – CPAU supported a project led by the University of Oxford to study the drivers of household energy consumption, including correlations between consumption and three factors: energy values, online portal use , and energy literacy. The survey was sent to 11,963 residential customers in Palo Alto and saw a response rate of 10.4%, reflecting an engaged community. Respondents were well-informed on matters relating to energy, and yet the vast majority (75%) did not know that Palo Alto provides 100% carbon neutral electricity. Portal users showed a slightly higher participation rate in energy-savings programs and rebates than non-portal users. Unsurprisingly, the strongest correlation found was between home size and electricity consumption. 10 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report  CMUA 2016 Statewide Residential Survey and Palo Alto Oversample – CPAU participated in a survey with the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA), comparing CPAU’s performance metrics against those of statewide investor-owned utilities, statewide municipal utilities and CPAU benchmarks from previous years. The metrics evaluated included customer satisfaction and trust, power delivery, price and value, CPAU communications and image. The 2016 survey found that CPAU’s scores increased for customer satisfaction from the previous survey and were significantly above statewide levels. Customers were notably pleased that their utility was City-owned and felt it provided them great benefit.  Building Energy Use Data Review – An intern from Carnegie-Melon University came to CPAU over the summer of 2017 to analyze historic electricity and gas usage data. The goal was to identify relationships between energy consumption and available building data. Findings will provide a baseline for future CPAU and Development Services studies.  ESource Surveys - ESource ran two surveys with utility business customers (Key Account and Small/Medium Business) from numerous utilities across the nation to assess their most important needs and how well their energy providers are meeting those needs. In these two surveys, utilities were ranked based on customers’ overall satisfaction and perceived value of both the utility and the utility account representative. CPAU has participated in the Key Accounts survey with ESource for many years and once again ranked high in overall satisfaction. This was the first year that CPAU participated in the Small/Medium Business survey and did not do as well, so ESource provided suggestions regarding areas for improvement.  The Great Race for Saving Water – The Great Race is an annual event that occurs in April, and FY 2017 was its fourth year. The day includes a 5k run/walk, 1k fun run for kids, community booths with activities, nature walks, educational activities and environmental resources. The focus is on saving water, although it has developed into a general Earth Day festival for the City. In addition, CPAU promoted an electric vehicle ride-and-drive for attendees that led to 166 drives. 68% of the ride-and-drive participants stated that their test drive helped accelerate the timing of their future electric vehicle purchase or lease.  Building Operators Certification (BOC) Course - CPAU hosted a Building Operators Certification Course taught by Northwest Energy Efficiency Commission (NEEC) from Seattle. BOC is an eight- class certification course covering all aspects of building management and efficiency. Some topics covered were: HVAC, electrical systems, comfort control and lighting. Upon passing an end-of-class exam, graduates could become Certified Building Operators (CBOs). 11 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 1 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS 1.1 Electric Efficiency Savings versus Goals City Council approved CPAU’s first Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Portfolio Plan in April 2007, which included annual electric and gas efficiency targets between 2008 and 2017, with a 10 - year cumulative savings target of 3.5% of the forecasted energy use. As mandated by California law, the electric efficiency targets were updated in 2010, and then again in 2012 and 2017. The 2017 update revised the ten-year cumulative savings goal to 5.7% between 2018 and 2027. The goal has been impacted by increasingly stringent statewide building codes and appliance standards that have resulted in substantial energy savings (e.g. as of January 1, 2013, incandescent bulbs between 40W to 100W can no longer be sold). However, energy savings in these “codes and standards” improvements are excluded from meeting CPAU’s EE program goals displayed below. CPAU’s electric efficiency savings goals and achievements as a percentage of the City’s electricity usage are shown in Table 1 below. In FY 2017, CPAU achieved electric savings of 0.65% of load through its customer efficiency programs, which is above both the previous year and the FY 2017 goal. Table 1: Electric Savings versus Goals Year Annual Savings Goal (% of load) Savings Achieved (% of load) Savings Achieved (MWh) FY 2008 0.25% 0.44% 4,399 FY 2009 0.28% 0.47% 4,668 FY 2010 0.31% 0.53% 5,270 FY 2011 0.60% 0.58% 5,497 FY 2012 0.65% 1.31% 12,302 FY 2013 0.70% 0.85% 8,074 FY 2014 0.60% 0.86% 8,218 FY 2015 0.60% 0.65% 6,063 FY 2016 0.60% 0.59% 5,530 FY 2017 0.60% 0.65% 5,986 1.2 FY2017 Electric Efficiency Savings by End Use and Customer Segment Non-residential customers account for 81% of CPAU’s electric sales, and non-residential efficiency program savings represent about 61% of CPAU’s total electric efficiency savings, as shown in Figure 1. The revisions to approved measures for the multi-family program, which added LED lighting replacement, led to a major increase in savings over FY 2016. Non- residential behavior, retrocommissioning and operational (BROs) savings, representing 15% of the electric savings, occur by identifying less-than-optimal equipment, work practices and 12 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report usage, and making adjustments to optimize them. Although CPAU stopped sending out Home Energy Reports in FY 2015, second-year persistence savings from the program are claimed4. Figure 1: Composition of Net Electric Efficiency Savings in FY 2017 (Total saving of 5,986 MWh, 0.65% of annual load) 1.3 FY 2017 Electric Efficiency Program Expenditures The largest fraction of expenditures in the electric efficiency budget is for third -party administered contracts and rebates. Other expenses include in-house salaries, marketing, and customer education. Funding for electric efficiency programs came primarily from the mandated Public Benefit (PB) Charge, which is set at 2.85% of the customer retail rate. The majority of the PB funding is spent on efficiency programs; however, some also goes to renewable energy projects, research and development projects and low-income efficiency programs. Table 2 shows the split of electric efficiency program expenditures by customer rebates, third-party contract administration and other expenses, which include in-house staffing, marketing and communications. State law requires evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) of the reported electric efficiency savings by an independent consultant. The EM&V contract cost is included in Table 2. 4 Savings from a behavioral program can be claimed at a declining level for five years after it closes (Cadmus 2015 report). Non-Res Lighting 28% Multifamily Lighting 19% Res Home Energy Report 17% Non-Res BROs 15% Non-Res Green Building Ordinance 11% Other 8% Low-Income 2% 13 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report Table 2: FY 2017 Electric Efficiency Program Expenditures Customer Class Program Name Customer Rebates Contract Costs Other Expenses Annual Cost Rebate Programs Residential Smart Energy Rebates $11,065 $0 $50,000 $61,065 Non-Residential Com. (CAP) Rebates $104,356 $0 $100,000 $204,356 Non-Residential CIEEP Large Business $220,288 $231,042 $185,000 $636,330 Non-Residential Small & Medium Commercial $48,976 $172,535 $100,000 $321,511 Non-Residential New Construction $163,587 $12,001 $30,000 $205,588 Direct-Install Programs* Residential Home Efficiency Genie $0 $39,850 $110,000 $149,850 Residential Low Income (REAP) $0 $156,799 $100,000 $256,799 Residential Multifamily+ $0 $526,779 $120,000 $646,779 Other Programs Residential Home Energy Reports $0 $0 $0 $0 Residential Green Building Ordinance $0 $0 $0 $0 Non-Residential Green Building Ordinance $0 $0 $0 $0 Non-Residential Schools Grant $0 $36,187 $7,000 $43,187 All EM&V, Marketing & Other $0 $279,134 $237,000 $516,134 TOTAL $548,272 $1,454,327 $1,039,000 $3,041,600 * Direct-install programs include program administrator installation of efficiency equipment at the customer site at no cost or with a small co-pay from the customer – costs for the equipment are included in contract payments Figure 2 shows the historical annual electric efficiency savings and annual electric efficiency program expenditures. Figure 2: FY 2008 to FY 2017 Electric Efficiency Savings and Expenditures - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 0.0% 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% 1.6% 2.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 $ Th o u s a n d s Ac h i e v e d N e t E E s a v i n g s a s % o f lo a d Electric Efficiency Program Expenditures Net Savings Achieved as % of Load Completion of a significant EE project at a large commercial customer site 14 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 2 GAS EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS 2.1 Gas Efficiency Savings versus Goals In parallel with the development of ten-year electric goals, City Council adopted CPAU’s first set of gas efficiency targets in 2007 to reduce gas consumption by 3.5% between 2008 and 2017. In 2010, Council increased the gas efficiency targets to reduce use by 5.5% between 2011 and 2020. Similar to the electric utility, gas efficiency savings potential has been reduced due to recent changes to California’s appliance standards and building codes. The ten-year gas efficiency goals were last updated in 2017, with a cumulative gas efficiency target to reduce gas use by 5.1% between 2018 and 2027. CPAU’s gas efficiency savings goals and achievements as a percentage of sales are shown in Table 3. CPAU has continued to expand its gas efficiency program portfolio in the past several years, with the majority of gas savings delivered through third-party administered programs. Table 3: Gas Savings versus Goals Year Annual Savings Goal (% of load) Savings Achieved (% of load) Savings Achieved (therms) FY 2008 0.25% 0.11% 35,057 FY 2009 0.28% 0.29% 146,028 FY 2010 0.32% 0.35% 107,993 FY 2011 0.40% 0.55% 164,640 FY 2012 0.45% 0.74% 220,883 FY 2013 0.50% 1.13% 327,077 FY 2014 0.50% 1.20% 337,079 FY 2015 0.50% 0.92% 229,373 FY 2016 0.55% 1.08% 289,442 FY 2017 0.55% 0.81% 228,707 2.2 FY 2017 Gas Efficiency Savings by End Use and Customer Segment Non-residential customers account for 52% of CPAU’s gas sales, and in FY 2017 gas efficiency savings in non-residential equipment optimization represented about 51% of CPAU’s total gas savings. Non-residential behavior, retrocommissioning and operational (BROs) savings, representing 51% of the gas savings, are from the process of identifying less-than-optimal equipment, work practices and usage, and then making the adjustments to optimize them. Home Energy Reports (HERs), which compare customers’ electricity and gas usage to that of similar homes, were discontinued in FY 2015 but provided savings based on assumed persistence of the program’s effects5. In FY 2017, the HER program accounted for 41% of total gas savings. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of gas savings in FY 2017 by end use. 5 Savings from a behavioral program can be claimed at a declining level for five years after it closes (Cadmus 2015 report). 15 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report Figure 3: Composition of Natural Gas Efficiency Savings in FY 2017 (Total saving of 225,8846 therms, 0.81% of annual load) 2.3 FY 2017 Gas Efficiency Program Expenditures The largest fraction of expenditures for gas EE in FY 2017 is for third-party administered contracts and rebates. Gas efficiency programs are primarily funded from the gas utility’s revenue, at about 1% of the gas revenue as approved by Council . Additional funding is provided from supply funds if needed, but efficiency programs in FY 2017 were funded only from gas revenues. Table 4 shows the split of gas efficiency program expenditures by customer rebates, third-party contract administration, and other expenses, which include in-house staffing and marketing and communications expenses. Although not required by state law, CPAU conducts EM&V of its gas efficiency savings through an independent consultant. The EM&V contract cost is included in Table 4. 6 This number does not include gas savings from the Solar Water Heating program. If the gas savings from the Solar Water Heating program are included, the total gas savings for FY 2017 are 228,707 therms. Non-Res BROs 51% Res Home Energy Report 41% Other 3% Low-Income 3% Res Green Building Ordinance 2% 16 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report Table 4: FY 2017 Gas Efficiency Program Expenditures Customer Class Program Name Customer Rebates Contract Costs Other Expenses Annual Cost Rebate Programs Residential Smart Energy Rebates $3,637 $0 $20,000 $23,637 Non-Residential Com. (CAP) Rebates $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 Non-Residential CIEEP Large Business $115,013 $46,250 $125,000 $286,263 Non-Residential Small & Medium Commercial $0 $0 $0 $0 Non-Residential New Construction $4,680 $0 $8,000 $12,680 Direct-Install Programs* Residential Home Efficiency Genie $0 $83,534 $50,000 $133,534 Residential Low Income (REAP) $0 $86,865 $50,000 $136,865 Residential Multifamily+ $0 $37,449 $30,000 $67,449 Other Programs Residential Home Energy Reports $0 $0 $0 $0 Residential Green Building Ordinance $0 $0 $0 $0 Non-Residential Green Building Ordinance $0 $0 $0 $0 Non-Residential Schools Grant $0 $0 $0 $0 All EM&V, Marketing & Other $0 $80,697 $100,000 $180,697 TOTAL $123,330 $334,795 $408,000 $866,125 * Direct-install programs include program administrator installation of efficiency equipment at the customer site at no cost or with a small co-pay from the customer – costs for the equipment are included in the contract payments Figure 4 compares the historical annual gas efficiency savings and annual gas DSM expenditures. Figure 4: FY 2008 to FY 2017 Gas Efficiency Savings and Expenditures - 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.9% 1.2% 1.5% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 $ Th o u s a n d s Ac h i e v e d E E s a v i n g s a s % o f L o a d Gas Efficiency Program Expenditures Actual Savings Achieved as % of Load 17 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 3 WATER EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS 3.1 Water Efficiency Savings versus Goals CPAU’s water savings goals and achievements as a percentage of sales are shown in Table 5. FY 2017 was an above-normal precipitation year, so overall water demand experienced some rebound from the multi-year drought. Nevertheless, CPAU’s water conservation efforts continued and programs saw strong customer engagement. Table 5: Water Savings versus Goals Year Annual Savings Goal (% of load) Savings Achieved (% of load) Savings Achieved (CCF) FY 2008 0.34% 0.72% 39,323 FY 2009 0.34% 0.98% 52,983 FY 2010 0.34% 1.35% 68,948 FY 2011 0.90% 0.47% 23,409 FY 2012 0.91% 1.09% 55,067 FY 2013 0.91% 0.53% 26,513 FY 2014 0.91% 0.64% 32,325 FY 2015 0.91% 1.54% 68,227 FY 2016 0.91% 1.96% 74,484 FY 2017 0.91% 1.40% 57,154 The City partners with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to provide water conservation programs. SCVWD offers the programs shown in Table 6 to Palo Alto customers, and CPAU markets and promotes the programs. CPAU also shares costs with SCVWD on the rebates for landscape conversions. Table 6: List of some of SCVWD’s offered programs in FY17 * CPAU shares rebate costs associated with this program with SCVWD Aerators Landscape Conversion Rebate*Water Wise House Calls High-Efficiency Toilets Landscape Irrigation Hardware Rebate Showerheads High-Efficiency Urinals Landscape Irrigation Controls Rebate Greywater Landscape Landscape Water Use Survey Residential Clothes Washer Rebates Pre-Rinse Sprayers SCVWD FY17 Program List 18 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 3.2 FY 2017 Water Efficiency Savings by End Use and Customer Segment During FY 2017, water efficiency savings were split nearly equally between residential and non-residential customers. The non-residential landscape survey and water budgeting program and irrigation hardware upgrade program represent 46% of the total water savings. Home water reports were stopped in early FY 2016, but savings could still be claimed due to persistence7 from FY 2015 and account for 42% of the total water savings. Figure 5: Composition of Water Efficiency Savings in FY 2017 (Total saving of 57,154 CCF, 1.40% of annual load) 3.3 FY 2017 Water Efficiency Program Expenditures Since 2002, the City has partnered with SCVWD to promote and cost -share in a wide range of water conservation programs to encourage residents and businesses to reduce water usage. SCVWD offers the programs shown in Table 6, and CPAU participates in a cost sharing agreement with SCVWD for the landscape conversion rebate. The rest of the programs are offered to CPAU’s residents by SCVWD with no cost -sharing, although CPAU works to promote and market these programs as well. CPAU also offers free workshops on water efficient landscaping and indoor water use efficiency throughout the year. Staff frequently present s to 7 Savings from a behavioral program can be claimed at a declining level for five years after it closes (Cadmus 2015 report). Res Home Water Report 42% Non-Res Landscape Survey 27% Non-Res Irrigation Hardware 19% Other 7%Non-Res Landscape Conversion 3% Res Landscape Conversion 2% 19 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report schools, neighborhood and community groups about Palo Alto’s water resources and best practices for water efficiency. Table 7 shows expenditures by customer rebates, third -party contract administration and other expenses, which includes in-house staffing, marketing and communications expenses. Table 7: FY 2017 Water Efficiency Program Expenditures Customer Class Program Name Customer Rebates Contract Costs Other Expenses Annual Cost Programs delivered by CPAU staff Residential Smart Energy* $2,550 $0 $6,000 $8,550 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 14,000 All Marketing & Other $0 $4,120 $30,000 $34,120 Programs delivered by Santa Clara Valley Water District** Residential Landscape Conversion*** $526,441 $0 $90,000 $616,441 Residential All other SCVWD programs $0 $0 $135,000 $135,000 Programs delivered by WaterSmart Residential Home Water Reports $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $528,991 $4,120 $261,000 $794,111 * Water savings associated with Smart Energy were from clothes washer rebates ** Although the cost sharing agreement with SCVWD was amended in FY 2016 to only cover the increased rebate level for the landscape rebate program, CPAU customers are still able to participate in all rebates offered by the SCVWD with no financial participation from CPAU *** The rebate costs for FY 2017 include some rebates associated with projects completed in the previous fiscal year that were not invoiced to CPAU by SCVWD until much later Figure 6 compares the historical annual water efficiency savings and annual water DSM expenditures. Figure 6: FY 2008 to FY 2017 Water Efficiency Savings and Expenditures - 200 400 600 800 1,000 0.0% 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% 1.6% 2.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 $ Th o u s a n d s Ac h i e v e d w a t e r s a v i n g s a s % o f Lo a d Water efficiency program expenditures ($)Actual water savings as % of load 20 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 4 SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS 4.1 Overview of Sustainable Energy Programs CPAU offers a variety of programs to encourage residents and non-residents to improve the environmental impacts associated with their gas and electric consumption. Customer-side renewable generation programs are available to support the installation of both solar photovoltaic (PV) and solar water heating (SWH) systems. 4.2 PV System Installation Achievements versus Goals As of the end of FY 2017, there have been a total of 1,001 PV installations (936 residential, 65 non-residential) since CPAU began supporting local solar PV installations in 1999. These customer-side generation systems are not included in CPAU’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) supply requirements. In 1999 CPAU offered incentives for PV system installations through the PV Partners Program. In FY 2008 the PV rebate budget was increased as mandated by Senate Bill 1 and Palo Alto’s share of the state-wide goal established by SB1 was 6.5 MW by 2017. As of June 30, 2017, the total capacity of all Palo Alto PV systems was 8.6 MW, generating about 1.5% of the City’s annual electric energy needs. The PV rebate funds were fully reserved in August 2014 for residential projects and in April 2016 for commercial projects, but rebate payments are expected to continue through FY2023 due to the five-year performance-based incentive schedule. Residents and commercial customers continue to install solar without a rebate largely due to the continued decrease in solar installation costs, net metering and the 30% Federal Tax Credit. Figure 7: Photovoltaic (PV) Installations by Fiscal Year FY00- 07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Res 176 112 43 52 44 49 49 103 93 131 84 Non-Res 9 5 9 2 2 4 3 10 9 5 7 0 50 100 150 200 In s t a l l a t i o n C o u n t 21 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report Figure 8: PV System Capacity (kW) added by Fiscal Year 4.3 Solar Group-Buy Program – For the second year in a row the City participated in Bay Area SunShares, a solar group-buy program. SunShares was launched in August 2016 and registration closed at the end of November 2016. The non-profit organization Business Council on Climate Change (BC3) administered the program, which offered discounted PV installations and zero- emission vehicles to Bay Area residents. 55 Palo Alto residents registered for solar proposals and 52 registered for zero emission vehicle proposals. Five PV contracts were signed for a total of 28.2 kW of installed local capacity. 4.4 Solar Water Heating System Installation Achievements versus Goals A total of 64 solar water heating (SWH) systems have been installed since CPAU began offering SWH rebates to residential and commercial customers in 2008. The SWH rebate program was mandated by AB 1470 (CY 2007) and was recently extended for two additional years by AB 797 (CY 2017). It is administered by the Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE), which also administers SWH rebate programs in the San Diego area. As shown in Figure 9, the number of SWH systems installed has been consistently below target, primarily due to low gas prices which reduce the cost-effectiveness of SWH systems. Unlike PV systems, the cost for SWH systems has not decreased over time. This is partly because there are fewer SWH system installers than PV installers. SWH equipment is most cost effective in multi- family buildings, and staff plans to focus additional efforts on reaching this demographic. FY00 -07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Res 542 328 152 205 187 195 214 543 474 633 409 Non-Res 123 227 1,037 15 295 249 49 1,383 378 465 508 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Ca p a c i t y A d d e d ( k W -AC ) 22 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report Figure 9: Customer-Side Solar Water Heating Systems—Program Achievements versus Goals 4.5 FY 2017 Customer Renewable Program Expenditures The PV Partners program is administered by CPAU staff, whereas the SWH program is administered by the California Center for Sustainable Energy. CPAU contracts with third -party vendors to conduct PV system inspections. CPAU also contracts with a third -party vendor to maintain an online PV rebate application system. Table 9 lists the customer renewable program expenses by customer rebates, contract administration, and other expenses, which include in - house staffing, marketing and communication expenses. Table 8: FY 2017 Customer Renewable/Sustainable Energy Program Expenditures Program Name Customer Rebates Contract Costs Other Expenses Annual Cost PV Partners (Res) $14,321 $86 $2,142 $16,549 PV Partners (Bus) $859,175 $5,139 $128,516 $992,830 Solar Water Heating (Res) $52,114 $5,017 $10,000 $67,131 Solar Water Heating (Bus) $0 $0 $0 $0 PaloAltoGreen (Electric)* $0 $15,027 $10,000 $25,027 PaloAltoGreen Gas* $0 $237,787 $30,000 $267,787 Marketing & Other $0 $0 $125,000 $125,000 Total $925,610 $263,055 $305,658 $1,494,323 * PaloAltoGreen (Electric) and PaloAltoGreen Gas program expenses do not include the costs to purchase the electric Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) and gas offsets which are paid by the program participants 7 17 10 1 1 11 15 1 1 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Installed by Fiscal Year Installation Goal 23 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 4.6 PaloAltoGreen Gas In April 2014, City Council approved the establishment of the voluntary Pa loAltoGreen Gas (PAGG) program. PAGG provided the opportunity for residential and commercial customers to reduce or eliminate the impact of GHG emissions associated with their gas usage, through the purchase of certified environmental offsets. PAGG, the first Green-e Climate certified gas offset program offered by a municipal utility and the first to be offered to individual community members, was launched in January 2015. PAGG was terminated at the end of FY 2017, concurrent with the implementation of the Carbon Neutral Gas Plan. 4.7 PaloAltoGreen The PaloAltoGreen (PAG) program was launched on Earth Day 2003 to give customers the option to voluntarily reduce GHG emissions associated with their electricity use. Participants paid an additional charge per kWh to cover the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) so that their electric use would be supplied with 100% renewable energy. In June 2014, City Council terminated the PAG program for residential customers because the electric supply became 100% carbon neutral and customers no longer needed the program to eliminate the GHG emissions associated with their electricity use or to receive 100% renewable energy supplies. PAG is still available for commercial customers who wish to be recognized under the U.S. EPA Green Power Leadership program or to earn Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Power credits. Non-residential customers can choose to participate for $0.002 kWh or purchase monthly increments of 1,000 kWh blocks for $2 per block. 24 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 5 CUSTOMER OUTREACH & COMMUNICATIONS 5.1 Outreach Overview The Utility Program Services and Utilities Communications workgroups develop a range of marketing materials and outreach campaigns to promote the gas, electric and water efficiency programs and services offered to all CPAU customers. Promotional methods include community outreach events, educational workshops, email newsletters, print ads in local publications, utility bill inserts, messaging on bills and envelopes, website, videos for the web and social media (Twitter/Facebook/NextDoor/YouTube). While print materials still feature prominently, CPAU continues to expand its outreach emphasis on the use of social media, the web and online videos for more engaging and dynamic content. Staff has found that public engagement through social media is an extremely effective yet low-cost way to interact with the CPAU community. Additionally, staff is exploring ways to increase engagement through the Utilities e-newsletter, which is regularly delivered to residents and non-residents in order to provide updates on events, workshops, programs and other news of interest. Staff also sends targeted emails and outreach to specific groups, such as neighborhood and youth organizations, the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Association. Educational materials and brochures are regularly developed and updated for distribution at events , in new customer welcome packets and at public facilities such as the Utilities Customer Service counter, Development Services Center, libraries and community centers. CPAU provides fun, yet practical promotional items such as hose nozzles, wildflower seed packets, LED light keychains, night lights, jar openers, sponges, shower timers, pens, magnets and sunglasses to spread awareness about resource efficiency and renewable energy. Many City departments and Utilities divisions assist with programmatic outreach efforts. Educational workshops are often hosted at Mitchell Park, Lucie Stern and Cubberley Community Centers. One of the largest City-sponsored events of the year is the Great Race for Saving Water, a community 5K fun run and walk and Earth Day Festival. The event was originally created to raise awareness about water resources and conserva tion. It has now expanded into a regional community festival in which many City departments play a role by coordinating an activity, hosting a booth or facilitating logistics. Other interdepartmental coordination is required for various Utilities efficiency or renewable programs that involve activities such as permitting, building inspections, metering operations and information technology support. The new Green Living Resources Guide is a comprehensive catalog of residential programs and events offered by Utilities and other City departments, including the Public Works Zero Waste, Watershed Protection and Storm Drain divisions. The spirit of City- wide collaboration is overwhelmingly positive and appreciated. Marketing efforts in FY 2017 continued to focus on California’s multi-year drought. CPAU provided outreach about water use restrictions and enforcement, and developed multiple ways for the community to report incidents of water waste through a dedicated email inbox and PaloAlto311 app. To assist with customer awareness of these water-use restrictions, CPAU 25 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report developed bill inserts, ads for local newspapers and magazines, and created specific materials for customer groups like hotels and restaurants. Also in FY 2017, the Home Efficiency Genie program began to expand into more of a flagship residential program for energy and water efficiency. Staff worked with the Home Efficiency Genie consultants to teach program participants about rebates and other services available to people interested in going beyond an initial home efficiency assessment. Staff participated in dozens of events in FY 2017, including community festivals, neighborhood, school, and business group meetings. CPAU also hosted free educational workshops on sustainable landscaping, home energy and water efficiency (Home Efficiency Genie), solar, green building and heat pump water heating. At quarterly Facility Manager meetings, CPAU brought in speakers to inform Key Account business customers about programs and opportunities to improve building energy and water efficiency. More than 400 people attended CPAU workshops in FY 2017. Staff also spoke to thousands of people about CPAU programs at community festivals and through speaking engagements at conferences and with college and high school groups. 26 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 5.2 Rooftop Solar in Palo Alto Bill Insert 27 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 5.3 Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebates Bill Insert 28 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 5.4 Landscape Rebate Program Bill Insert 29 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 5.5 Home Efficiency Genie Bill Insert 30 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 5.6 Electric Vehicle Charger Rebate Program Bill Insert 31 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 5.7 Electric Vehicle Charger Rebate Program Webpage 32 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 5.8 Green Living Resources Catalog 33 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 6 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION 6.1 Demand Response Pilot Program The Demand Response (DR) Pilot Program is designed to help participating large commercial customers reduce their electricity use on days when demand is high, which helps reduce Palo Alto’s annual peak electricity demand. Through the program, CPAU offers monetary incentives to participating customers who are able to reduce their electricity usage when called upon by CPAU during high-load periods in the summer months (between May 1st and October 15th). The DR Pilot Program’s incentive payments share savings between CPAU and program participants. In 2017, program participants reduced load by 0.28 MW during the annual peak demand hour. Though a relatively small program, over the past 5 years this voluntary demand response program has become a visible and important part of CPAU’s effort to lower purchase cost and relieve stress on the electrical grid. This program also helps participating customers meet their corporate sustainability goals. The program was approved by Council to run until the end of the summer of 2016, but CPAU has received Council approval to continue to offer this program. CPAU is also working on ways to leverage Distributed Energy Resources (DER) such as EVs, EV chargers, thermostats, PV systems and storage systems installed at customer homes and businesses. A pilot program to enable grid connectivity of such DER systems i s being investigated. Figure 10: September 1, 2017 Peak DR Event Load Reduction Performance (Aggregate Load of Participants) 34 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 6.2 Program for Emerging Technologies The CPAU Program for Emerging Technologies provides the opportunity for businesses to submit proposals to CPAU for review and potential pilot testing. The goal is to find and nurture creative products and services that will manage and better use electricity, gas, w ater and fiber optic services. From its inception in June 2012 through July 2017, the Program for Emerging Technologies received 69 applications. Here are several PET pilot programs which began in FY 2017:  Intelligent Lighting Platform for LED Streetlights A team from Verizon is working on a proof -of-concept all-in-one smart street-lighting system through the Smart Cities initiative. Their system provides on -demand LED lighting controls and multifunctional communications. The service includes lighting hardware along with a wireless control module in each luminaire, with these lights connected to a wireless gateway via a mesh network. This allows for remote management of the lighting, real-time alerts and an intelligent lighting dashboard – all of which can cut energy consumption. The system is now operational around City Hall, and CPAU staff is evaluating energy consumption data to validate the project’s efficiency claims.  Off-the-Shelf DIY PV System for Residential and Commercial Applications A team from the thin-film solar panel manufacturer MiaSolé approached CPAU to receive feedback on their proof-of-concept, off-the-shelf, do-it-yourself, pre-packaged solar PV system for residential and small-commercial applications. CPAU staff coordinated meetings between the MiaSolé team and the appropriate staff from the CPAU Engineering division and the City’s Building department, who provided valuable feedback to MiaSolé on how to modify their product to make it code -compliant. The MiaSolé team is now working to deploy their product on two beta sites in Palo Alto, and CPAU staff is monitoring their progress.  Fossil-Fuel-Free District Energy Systems CPAU is working in collaboration with teams from EDF Innovation Lab and Stanford to write a white paper on thermal microgrids, a paper describing Stanford’s SESI project (a state-of-the-art thermal microgrid system) and to develop tools to facilitate other municipalities or universities implementing similar district energy projects. The goal is to leverage Stanford and EDF's experience to benefit municipal utilities across the US, including Palo Alto, by developing tools to enable them to easily identify the feasibility of a thermal microgrid, including identification of the factors that limit the size of the target market such as climate zone impacts, retrofit costs, etc. 6.3 Pilot Project for Building Energy Management System in Small/Medium Commercial Buildings Staff has been coordinating with the Omaha Public Power District to implement an energy efficiency/demand response pilot program which has been funded by a grant through the American Public Power Association’s (APPA’s) Demonstration of Energy Efficiency Developments (DEED) Program. The purpose of the pilot program is to gain hands -on 35 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report experience and validate the cost, ease of installation and usability while assessing the energy efficiency savings and demand response functionalities of a building energy management system for small- to medium-sized commercial buildings. The building energy management system allows building owners to monitor and control building heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment through a web-based application. Energy usage data has been logged for two downtown commercial buildings since summer 2014 , and the pilot is now closed. At this point, staff has determined that the technology is not sufficiently developed to deploy as a rebated measure in our efficiency portfolio. 6.4 Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Connect Pilot Program - PAMF and CPAU partnered on a pilot program to install advanced electric meters and real time electricity monitoring devices in 25 resident’s homes. PAMF received a $750,000 grant to help seniors in their homes using technology in the energy field through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The purpose of the pilot was to let caregivers remotely monitor the seniors’ activities in a non-invasive platform. The real-time utility data was delivered to an online portal that learned the regular usage patterns and sent alerts to caretakers if usage deviated from the regular pattern. The meters and real-time devices were installed in Palo Alto in 2015. Pilot results were published in FY 2017, and staff explored the lessons learned and future possibilities for this concept. 6.5 CustomerConnect Advanced Meter and Time of Use (TOU) Rate Pilots In 2012, City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) completed an assessment of smart grid applications based on Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) for Palo Alto. The study estimated the capital cost associated with AMI implementation for electric, natural gas and water utility services at $15 to $20 million, and the cost-benefit assessments found the costs outweighed benefits over a 15- to 20-year life of such an investment. Based on these findings, the study recommended, and City Council approved, deferring major investments in smart grid for several years until technologies mature and implementation costs decline, along with implementation of a number of smaller-scale pilot smart grid projects (Staff Report 3330). The 5-year Customer Connect pilot program that began in 2013 uses advanced electric, gas and water meters and related systems (known as Advanced Metering Infrastructure, or AMI) to help residential customers evaluate changes in their energy and water use and view their consumption through an online portal. This program has approximately 400 participating customers, of which 96 have enrolled in the pilot Time-of-Use electricity rate. Enrolled customers are able to save money by shifting electric usage to off-peak hours. The pilot also offers water leak-detection capability and has detected over 200 leaks at customer premises. Staff communicated with customers to resolve the leaks for over a quarter of these incidents, saving customers’ money and thousands of gallons of water. The 5-year pilot phase ended in December 2017, but the equipment and customer portals are expected to be maintained through 2022. By that date, CPAU plans to roll out an AMI system for all utility customers so that the community can more effectively manage its consumption. A report outlining the experiences gained and lessons learned through the pilot program was provided to the Utilities Advisory Commission in September 2017 (Report) 36 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 7 FUTURE PLANS In FY 2018, CPAU will engage in new campaigns and programs to continue to promote energy efficiency, water conservation and renewable energy through marketing and media channels. 7.1 Transition to NEM Successor Program In January 2018, CPAU closed its original NEM program (NEM 1) and switched to the NEM Successor program (NEM 2). The new metering provides different value for customers exporting electricity. The successful transition required communication and collaboration across multiple City departments and with customers. 7.2 Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Plan CPAU is working on ways to leverage distributed energy resources (DER) such as electric vehicles (EVs), EV chargers, thermostats, PV systems and energy storage systems already at customer homes and businesses. Staff plans to have results from a DER survey by April 2018, which will be used to inform this work moving forward. 7.3 Portal Update CPAU selected a vendor to provide a customer interface platform, building on knowledge gained and work completed with Nexant, Inc., Opower, WaterSmart and Utilismart to c reate a robust online customer portal. The evaluation team chose Smart Energy and Water (SEW) to provide the new portal, which will include full online bill-pay capabilities. The contract was signed in October 2017 and the portal is expected to launch in Fall 2018. 7.4 Tier 2 Advanced Power Strip Pilot Program CPAU is currently developing a joint residential Tier 2 Advanced Power Strip (T2 APS) pilot program with other members of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) as the energy savings from the CMUA Technical Reference Manual increased from 24 kWh to 240 kWh per year. This program will be designed to quantify tangible energy savings from T2 APS installations. In collaboration with NCPA and Silicon Valley Power, staff selected Embertec as the vendor and are working to sign a contract. 7.5 Contract Extensions Several contracts for third-party vendors that assist in administering EE programs are scheduled to expire in June 2018. Staff is working on negotiating extensions on those contracts with extension clauses, to continue these contracts. 7.6 Local Solar Survey In July 2017, staff conducted a survey to gauge Palo Alto residents’ interest in local solar programs – particularly focusing on whether there is a market demand for a new community solar program. More than 850 residents responded to the survey. The survey responses showed noteworthy interest in supporting local and community solar. 90% of respondents were interested in local solar and 75% expressed interest in community solar. More than 200 37 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report respondents shared their contact information to be further informed about development of these programs. These findings were shared with the Utilities Advisory Commission (Report) and will be considered along with other survey data as a part of developing new program proposals under the Local Solar Plan. 7.7 Carbon Neutral Webpage Launch CPAU created online resources to help customers understand the carbon-neutral nature of our electricity and gas portfolios. Based on the results of the University of Oxford Residential Survey, staff discovered that residents were not widely aware of the Ci ty’s efforts in the area of sustainability. The goal was to let customers make energy decisions based on the sourcing of CPAU’s energy. These pages will lay the groundwork for conversations about the importance of energy efficiency and switching to high-efficiency electric appliances. 7.8 Local Solar Plan In 2014, City Council adopted the Local Solar Plan and set an overarching goal of meeting 4% of Palo Alto’s electricity energy needs from local solar by 2023, up from 0.7% in calendar year 2013. The plan unified the City’s approach towards local solar by integrating prior programs and incentives (including PV Partners rebates, NEM and CLEAN) and identified new program areas for development. The plan sought to meet this goal in a cost-effective manner and identified a number of strategies to facilitate customer adoption of solar. The City has made considerable progress towards redirecting staff effort and resources from state-mandated programs to cost-effective local programs. Resources were shifted from PV Partners and NEM to more cost-effective programs, such as such as the NEM Successor Program and the solar group-buy program. Currently, 1.8% of the City’s electricity energy needs are met by local solar with over 10 MW of solar capacity installed by around 1,000 customers. Moreover, a significant number of solar capacity reservations exist under the NEM and CLEAN programs. By the end of calendar year 2018, the City could have up to 15 MW of installed local solar capacity, meeting 2.2% of its electricity energy needs with local solar. This progress has been achieved by realizing full participation in past programs (PV Partners rebate program), continuing implementation of ongoing programs (CLEAN, NEM and group-buy) and facilitating rooftop solar adoption by streamlining processes and providing trusted information. The progress to-date and future goals for this program are being reviewed by the UAC in 2018. 7.9 Smart Grid Pilots and Next Steps The pilot phase of the smart grid program came to a close at the end of 2017. The 300 residential customers already in the program will continue to receive hourly utility consumption information via the customer web portal through the end of 2022. In the meantime, staff is in the process of recommending full implementation of advanced meters to all Palo Alto customers. If Council approves this $19 million investment in a smart grid system based on advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) for electricity, water and natural gas utility customers, the project is expected to be implemented in 2021-2022. Within 5 years of the installation of the advanced meters, with more effective utility customer programs and a conservation voltage reduction (CVR) program, an additional 2% of energy efficiency and water conservation savings is expected to be gained within the Palo Alto community. 38 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX A: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The programs offered by CPAU are designed to assist all customer groups to achieve savings on electricity, natural gas and water in cost-effective manners. Programs are designed to achieve results through a wide variety of both common and more innovative, harder-to-access technologies. Please see Appendix B for the savings totals associated with each program. RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS  Home Efficiency Genie The Home Efficiency Genie (HEG) has become CPAU’s flagship residential program. Launched in June 2015, the program enables our residents to call the ‘Genie’ to get free utility bill reviews and phone consultations. For a fee, residents also have the option to receive an in-depth home efficiency assessment which includes air leakage testing, duct inspections, insulation analysis, energy modeling and a one-on-one review of assessment reports with an energy expert. This package is also followed up with guidance and support throughout home improvement projects. The HEG program has a high educational component for Palo Alto residents, which likely leads to additional savings that staff cannot track and include in this program’s savings totals. The Genie also tables at various events throughout the year. In FY 2017, the Genie evolved to become the gateway to all of CPAU’s residential programs.  Smart Energy Program Smart Energy is a comprehensive energy efficiency incentive program for residential customers. The City rebates residents who install efficiency measures and equipment in their homes. Among these are attic insulation, heat pump water heaters, pool pumps, smart power strips and whole-house fans. Due to federal minimum manufacturing standards for appliance efficiency, the equipment meeting rebate-qualifying standards dropped during FY 2016.  Educational Programs and Workshops A variety of educational programs and workshops are held throughout the year. Typically, residential workshops on water and energy programs occur in the spring near E arth Day and in the “Summer Workshop Series.” Many workshops focus on water efficiency, landscaping, energy efficiency, solar, home comfort and green building. CPAU is also invited to table at various events throughout the year to educate residents about the various programs we offer. Customers also receive timely E-newsletters on a variety of efficiency matters.  Georgetown University Energy Prize (GUEP) Throughout 2015 and 2016, the City of Palo Alto, along with 49 other communities in the U.S., participated in the Georgetown University Energy Prize competition. The stated $5 million prize generated much enthusiasm, and Palo Alto tracked and reported savings and worked to develop innovative programs such as outreach at schools and collaboration w ith the Cool Block neighborhood program. In the end, the competition was a disappointment as Georgetown officials announced in April 2017 that the prize was instead the opportunity to secure $5 million 39 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report in financing. In November 2017 a press release announced the top ten finalist communities as well as six other communities, including Palo Alto, which received special recognition for their strong performances.  Home Energy and Water Reports CPAU stopped providing residents with individualized reports comparing their home energy and water use with neighbors in similarly sized homes in FY 2015. There were two reports: one for water and one for electricity and gas. The program was ended due to custo mer complaints about being compared to neighbors, as well as disputes over the basis of the comparison. Staff began focusing on developing a portal that could replace both reports, but the portal vendor later discontinued their product. Studies have shown that savings persist after the program has ended but decrease at a rate of 20% per year, so some reduced savings are still claimed (Cadmus 2015 report).  MultiFamily Residence Plus+ Program This first-ever CPAU program focusing on multifamily buildings provides free, direct installation of EE measures to multifamily residences with 4 or more units including hospices, care centers, rehab facilities and select small and medium commercial properties. In its first year the program focused on energy-efficient lighting and insulation upgrades. In the summer of 2016, the program was revamped to include more LED lighting upgrades as the price of LEDs had decreased and the quality of the lights improved greatly. The addition of LEDs drew excitement from many property managers and building owners who were initially not interested in participating in the program. As a result CPAU will continue to re-evaluate the program to accommodate this underserved market. Staff expects energy savings to remain high for this program in FY 2018, with a focus on upgrading below-market-rate apartment complexes.  Residential Energy Assistance Program (REAP) REAP provides weatherization and equipment replacement services at no cost to low-income residents and those with certain medical conditions. This program has equal focus on efficiency and comfort, and therefore it is not included in the cost effectiveness calculation used in reporting. The program provides LED lighting, heating system upgrades, insulation for walls and roofs and weather-stripping for doors and windows.  Do-It-Yourself Water-Wise Indoor Survey Palo Alto residents can request a free indoor water survey kit that can help conserve water and save money on utility bills. Residents also become educated on opportunities for conservation in their homes, and they can request free tools to improve efficiency. The program is offered in partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District.  Free Water-Wise Outdoor Survey Palo Alto residents can schedule a free outdoor survey with a trained irrigation professional. The trained specialist will provide an on-site evaluation of the resident’s irrigation system and provide recommended upgrades and repairs. The program is offered in partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 40 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report  Landscape Rebate Program (LRP) The Landscape Rebate Program provides rebates for various irrigation hardware upgrades, including rain sensors, high-efficiency nozzles, dedicated landscape meters, and weather-based irrigation controllers, as well as landscape conversion rebates that encourage residential and commercial customers to replace high-water-use landscaping with low-water-use landscaping. During FY 2016 residents were eligible to receive rebates of $3/square foot ($2.00 from SCVWD and $1.00 from CPAU). A new agreement with the SCVWD was signed in early 2017, continuing our partnership in the LRP. Residents are now eligible to receive rebates of $2/square foot of replaced landscaping ($1.00 from SCVWD and $1.00 from CPAU). BUSINESS CUSTOMERS  Commercial Advantage Program Business customers are offered rebates for investments in a catalog of energy efficiency products including lighting, motors, HVAC and custom projects that target peak demand and energy reductions.  Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program (CIEEP) This is the third year that CPAU expanded this program to offer Key Accounts (the largest commercial energy users in Palo Alto) the option of picking one of three engineering consulting firms to assist in helping them evaluate and implement energy efficiency projects. Designed for the large commercial customer, CIEEP offered highly effective building commissioning services using third-party contractors Enovity, Ecology Action and BASE. The contracts will be ending in June 2018, but staff intends to extend them for two addit ional years. This assistance included reviewing lighting and heating/cooling systems and their operating specifications. Customers then obtained rebates for replacing chillers, building control systems, linear fluorescent lighting, occupancy sensors, boilers and insulation.  Empower SMB Empower is an ongoing program focusing on energy efficiency savings from retrofits in the small and medium commercial sector, primarily lighting. The program is provided by the third- party administrator Ecology Action which offers a turnkey solution for the implementation of energy efficiency measures. Small and medium business customers are able to request onsite audits and efficiency rebates on a variety of measures including interior and exterior lighting, lighting controls, vent-hood controls, garage CO2 fan motor controls, and commercial kitchen refrigeration upgrades, as well as customized projects.  Business New Construction Program This program ended in FY 2016 due to new stricter Title 24 requirements and the Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance (10% more efficient than T itle 24) which made it difficult to achieve deeper savings than the building code required . Although the program is closed, some customers have projects that are still being completed.  Commercial and Industrial Water Efficiency Program 41 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report CPAU partners with the SCVWD to provide non -residential customers with free landscape irrigation audits, and direct installation of high-efficiency toilets and urinals. Rebates are available for facility process improvements, landscape conversions, irrigation hardware upgrades and weather-based irrigation controllers.  Landscape Survey and Water Budget Program Through SCVWD, the City provides landscape irrigation surveys, water budgets and customized consumption reports for customers with large landscape sites. The service is provided by Waterfluence. The water budget for each landscape site is derived based on the amount of irrigated area, type of plants, type of irrigation system and real-time weather monitoring. Monthly reports documenting a site’s irrigation performance are distributed to site managers, landscapers, HOA board members and other relevant parties, as approved by utilit y account holders. Through a web portal, customers can access site -specific recommendations, verify water budget assumptions and request a free landscape field survey from an irrigation expert. This program has been in place since 2012 and to date there are 118 large landscape sites covered under this program.  PaloAltoGreen This highly successful program enabled residents and businesses to pay a small premium for 100% renewable energy. In June 2014, Council terminated PaloAltoGreen for residential customers since the City’s electric supplies are 100% carbon neutral. Commercial customers can still participate in this program by enrolling in the PaloAlto Green 100% option or by purchasing blocks in 1,000 kWh increments. Participation enables commercial customers to be recognized under the U.S. EPA Green Power Leadership program or to earn Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Power credits.  Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) Program Through the CLEAN (Clean Local Energy Accessible Now) program CPAU offers a feed-in tariff, wherein developers of renewable energy generation projects in Palo Alto can receive a long- term purchase agreement for the output of their projects. A ll of the generated electricity is procured to contribute towards fulfilling Palo Alto’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirement. For fiscal year 2018, the prices are 16.5 ¢/kWh fixed for 15, 20 or 25 years for solar renewable energy resources, up to a capacity limit of 3 MW (and 8.8 ¢/kWh for a 15-year contract term, 8.9 ¢/kWh for a 20-year contract term or 9.1 ¢/kWh for a 25-year contract term beyond that limit), and 8.3 ¢/kWh for a 15-year contract term, 8.4 ¢/kWh for a 20-year contract term and 8.5 ¢/kWh for a 25-year contract term for non-solar eligible renewable energy resources. At the end of FY 2017, 1.587 MW were reserved of the program’s 3 MW limit.  EV Charger Rebate Program The California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program in compliance with AB 32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in California 10% by 2020. Electric utilities that provide electricity to charge electric vehicles (EVs) are eligible to receive LCFS credits. The City began participating in the program in April 2014 and CARB has been allocating LCFS credits to 42 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report the City since then. Using these LCFS funds, CPAU launched an EV charger rebate program in FY 2017 to help build out EV infrastructure in anticipation of an increase in the number of EVs in Palo Alto from its current level of 2,500 to between 4,000 and 6,000 EVs by 2020. Staff determined that providing EVSE rebates for underserved segments of the market would be valuable which would include multi-family and mixed-use buildings, schools and non-profits. The LCFS funds are also used for EV education and outreach efforts. ALL CUSTOMERS  PV Partners CPAU has offered incentives for local solar photovoltaic (PV) installations since 1999, and the City increased the PV rebate budget in 2007 as mandated by CA SB1. Residential rebates were fully reserved in August 2014, and funds for non-residential PV systems were reserved in April 2016. This program is for systems interconnected behind the custo mer’s electric meter, and customers receive net metering billing as required by SB1.  Solar Water Heating CPAU began to offer rebates to residential and commercial customers that install solar water heating (SWH) systems in 2008. The SWH rebate program wa s mandated by CA AB 1470 and is administered by the Center for Sustainable Energy, which also administers SWH rebate programs in the San Diego area. AB 797 recently extended the SWH mandate for two additional years. Incentives are limited to solar water heating for domestic use; solar water heating systems for pools, spas, or space heat are not eligible.  Green Building Ordinance In April 2015, City Council approved revisions to the City’s Green Building Ordinance (GBO), which includes the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code requiring new construction projects to exceed California’s building energy efficiency standards (“2013 Title 24 Standards”) by 15%, i.e. a building’s energy consumption must be 15% more efficient than current building code. The Energy Efficiency Reach Code took effect in September 2015. The new 2016 Title 24 Standards went into effect in January 2017 and the GBO mandates that new buildings be 10% more efficient than the new stricter code. CPAU is coordinating with Development Services to report the energy savings attributed to the Green Building Ordinance. CPAU is currently investigating ways to educate, assist and encourage customers to adopt green building principles and energy efficient systems when planning remodeling or new construction projects.  PaloAltoGreen Gas In April 2014, City Council approved the establishment of the voluntary PaloAltoGreen Gas (PAGG) program. PAGG provided the opportunity for residential and commercial customers to reduce or eliminate the impact of GHG emissions associated with their gas usage, through the purchase of certified environmental offsets. PAGG, the first Green-e Climate certified gas offset program offered by a municipal utility and the first to be offered to individual community members, was launched in January 2015. However, PAGG was terminated at the end of FY 2017, concurrent with the implementation of the new Carbon Neutral Gas Plan. (Staff Report 7533) 43 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX B: FY 2017 ACHIEVEMENTS BY DSM PROGRAM Table B.1: FY 2017 Achievements by Efficiency Program Program Electric savings* Gas savings* Water savings* kWh/yr % Therms/yr % CCF/yr % COM-Base 63,046 1% 9,425 4% 0 0% COM-Business New Construction 184,491 3% 3,432 2% 0 0% COM-Com. Advantage 834,797 14% 0 0% 0 0% COM-Ecology Action 1,641,003 27% 104,722 46% 0 0% COM-EMPower 215,354 4% -343 0% 0 0% COM-Enovity 60,503 1% 866 0% 0 0% COM-Green Building Ordinance 623,922 10% -1,981 -1% 0 0% COM-SCVWD 0 0% 0 0% 28,780 50% RES-Green Building Ordinance 79,625 1% 5,481 2% 0 0% RES-Home Efficiency Genie 8,000 0% 2,660 1% 332 1% RES-Home Energy Report 1,026,734 17% 93,540 41% 0 0% RES-Home Water Report 0 0% 0 0% 23,864 42% RES-MultiFamilyPlus 1,120,202 19% -1,888 -1% 0 0% RES-REAP Low Income 121,543 2% 6,610 3% 753 1% RES-SCVWD 0 0% 968 0% 2,837 5% RES-Smart Energy 7,271 0% 2,392 1% 588 1% Efficiency Total 5,986,491 100% 225,884 100% 57,154 100% * Electric savings numbers are reported as “net” values throughout the report. Gas and water savings are reported as “gross.” Gross savings are the total savings received from implementing a program or installing a measure. Net savings remove the “free riders” from the savings total. Free riders are those who would have undertaken an activity with or without the existence of a program promoting that activity. Because of concern for the number of possible free riders in electric programs, electric savings goals for the City were set for net numbers, while water and gas goals were set for gross numbers. Table B.2: FY 2017 Achievements by CPAU’s Solar Programs Program Installations kW kWh/yr % Therms/yr % PV Installations- Residential 84 409 654,000 45% N/A N/A PV Installations - Commercial 7 508 812,900 55% N/A N/A Solar Water Heating - Single Family Residential 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0% Solar Water Heating - Multi-Family Residential Low-Income 1 N/A N/A N/A 2,823 0% Solar Water Heating - Commercial 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0% Solar Programs Total 92 917 1,466,900 100% 2,823 100% 44 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX C: HISTORICAL DSM PROGRAM EXPENDITURES The chart below shows expenditures by type from FY 2012 through FY 2017. Solar renewables is the combination of solar water heating and PV Partners programs. Figure C.1 DSM Expenditures for Electricity, Gas and Water by Year and Function $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Millions Fis c a l Y e a r Electric Efficiency Gas Efficiency Water Efficiency Solar Renewables 45 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX D: SB 1037 ELECTRIC DSM REPORT TO CEC The SB 1037 report, published annually in a California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA) report to the California Energy Commission (CEC), is required by state law and shows the results of CPAU’s efficiency programs in reducing electric consumption. This report does not include natural gas or water programs. Efficiency programs are the highest-priority resource used by electric utilities as determined by the State’s Loading Order for Electricity Resources. The programs are also required to be cost-effective using one of the four cost tests outlined in the CEC’s California Standard Practice Manual for Economic Analysis of Demand Side Programs and Projects . Each of the cost tests looks at a different set of costs and benefits – a portfolio is deemed to be cost-effective at least one test is above 1.0. The Total Resource Cost (TRC) test is the one that the CEC most commonly uses for SB 1037. The TRC value for Palo Alto was 0.69, and can be found in Table F.1 on the following page. This low TRC ratio is a result of several factors: (1) the continued trend of easily targeted savings having been exhausted (so-called low-hanging fruit such as lighting retrofits from incandescents to CFL’s), (2) the assumption of low persistence savings for retro-commissioning projects (only lasting for 1 year), (3) FY 2017 included additional costs for new efficiency marketing materials and (4) staff identified and corrected an error in the allocation of expenditures for electric efficiency programs which revised the associated utility costs upwards. Staff is currently evaluating ways to increase the TRC of our efficiency program portfolio. The full SB 1037 report can be found here: http://www.ncpa.com/policy/reports/energy- efficiency/ The Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test is an additional measure of cost effectiveness, and is also known as the Utility Test. For CPAU, this could also be considered the “all ratepayers test” or “average utility bill test,” as it reflects the change in the utility bill to the average customer. To be cost -effective from the utility perspective, the cost of the program (administrative and rebate costs) must be less than the savings from not purchasing the energy supply. Palo Alto’s PAC value was 1.04, meaning that the portfolio of programs was cost -effective when considering the costs and benefits associated with this test. 46 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report Table D.1: Electric Energy Efficiency Program Sector Results 47 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX E: PHOTOS FROM CUSTOMER OUTREACH EVENTS 48 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 49 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report 50 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX F: CITY POLICIES/PLANS AND STATE MANDATES IMPACTING DSM PROGRAM GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION CITY POLICIES/PLANS Title Description Resolution No. 9241 LEAP, the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (April 2012) Resolution No. 9322 Carbon Neutral Plan for Electric Supply (March 2013) Resolution No. 9402 Local Solar Plan (April 2014) Staff Report 3706 Program for Emerging Technology (April 2013) Staff Report 2552 GULP, the Gas Utility Long-term Plan (April 2012) Staff Report 6851 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (May 2016) Staff Report 7304 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (November 2016) Staff Report 7718 Update of Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Goals for 2018 to 2027 (March 2017) FULL LIST OF STAFF REPORTS  CY 2015: cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/city_managers_reports/2015.asp  CY 2016: cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/city_managers_reports/2016.asp STATE MANDATES AB 797 (2017) Extends existing Solar Water Heating Programs and changes the terminology of “water heating” to “solar thermal.” AB 802 (2015) Requires utilities to maintain records of the energy usage data of all buildings to which they provide service for at least the most recent 12 month period and, upon the request and authorization of the owner (or owner's agent), provide aggregated energy usage data to the owner in the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. AB 1164 (2015) Prohibits cities and counties from enacting or enforcing any ordinance or regulation prohibiting the installation of drought tolerant landscaping, synthetic grass, or artificial turf on residential property. AB 1236 (2015) Obliges cities and counties to adopt an ordinance, with certain specific elements, creating an expedited permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations. For a city the size of Palo Alto, the ordinance must be passed by September 30, 2017. SB 350 (2015) The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 sets targets for utilities of 50% renewable electricity retail sales and double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas, both by 2030. The law grants compliance flexibility for 51 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report POUs that achieve 50% or more of retail sales from certain large hydroelectric power. AB 2188 (2014) Requires a city and/or county to adopt an ordinance creating an expedited, streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems. Executive Order Due to continued water shortages, on January 17, 2014, the Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency and directed state officials to take all necessary actions to make water immediately available. Part of the proclamation included a 20 percent water reduction goal. On April 1, 2015, the Governor issued an Executive Order (B - 36-15) mandating the State Water Resource Control Board impose restrictions leading to a 25 percent reduction in potable water use through February 28, 2016. SB 1420 (2014) Added a requirement to report on distribution system water loss to the UWMP. SB 73 (2013) The California Clean Energy Jobs Act, an initiative approved by the voters as Proposition 39 at the November 2012 statewide general election, establishes a Job Creation Fund with an annual budget of $550M to create clean energy jobs, including funding energy efficiency projects and renewable energy installations in public schools, universities, and other public facilities. The Job Creation Fund will be funded for four years, beginning in the 2013-2014 fiscal year. AB 2514 (2010) Mandates a local publicly owned electric utility to determine appropriate targets, if any, for the utility to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems and to adopt an energy storage system procurement target, if appropriate, to be achieved by the utility by December 31, 2016, and a second target to be achieved by December 31, 2021. SBx7-7 (2009) The Water Conservation Bill of 2009 requires water suppliers to reduce the statewide average per capita daily water consumption by 20% by December 31, 2020. To monitor the progress toward achieving the 20% by 2020 target, the bill also requires urban retail water providers to reduce per capita water consumption 10% by the year 2015. AB 1103 (2007) Requires electric and gas utilities maintain records of the energy consumption data of all nonresidential buildings to which they provide service and that by January 1, 2009, upon authorization of a nonresidential building owner or operator, an electric or gas utility shall upload all of the energy consumption data for the specified building to the EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager in a manner that preserves the confidentiality of the customer. This statute further requires a nonresidential building owner or operator disclose Energy Star Portfolio Manager benchmarking data and ratings, for the most recent 12-month period, to a prospective buyer, lessee, or lender. Enforcement of the latter requirement began on January 1, 2014. 52 of 52 FY 2017 Demand Side Management Annual Report AB 1470 (2007) Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007. Requires the governing body of each publicly owned utility providing gas service to retail end-use gas customers, to adopt, implement, and finance a solar water heating system incentive program. SB 1 (2006) The California State Legislature enacted SB 1 to encourage the installation of 3,000 megawatts (MW) of photovoltaic (PV) solar energy by the year 2017. SB 1 requires all publicly owned utilities to adopt, finance and implement a solar initiative program for the purpose of investing in and encourage the increased installation of residential and commercial solar energy systems. CPAU’s share of the state goal is 6.5 MW. In 2007, CPAU increased the PV Partners program funding to meet SB1 requirements. CPAU has fully reserved all rebate funds as of April, 2016. AB 2021 (2006) Requires the CEC on or before November 1, 2007, and every 3 years thereafter, in consultation with the commission and local publicly owned electric utilities, to develop a statewide estimate of all potentially achievable cost-effective electricity and natural gas efficiency savings and establish statewide annual targets for energy efficiency savings and demand reduction over 10 years. AB 1881 (2006) Requires cities and counties to implement a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance which is “at least as effective as” the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Model Ordinance in reducing landscape water use. Requirements include enforcing water budgets, planting and irrigation system specifications to meet efficiency criteria. SB 1037 (2005) Requires each local publicly owned electric utility, in procuring energy, to first acquire all available energy efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost-effective, reliable, and feasible. Also requires each local publicly owned electric utility to report annually to its customers and to the (CEC) its investment on energy efficiency and demand reduction programs. AB 1890 (1996) Requires electric utilities to fund low-income ratepayer assistance programs, public purpose programs for public goods research, development and demonstration, demand- side management and renewable electric generation technologies AB 797 (1983) The Urban Water Management Planning Act (AB 797) requires all California urban water retailers supplying more than 3,000 acre feet per year or providing water to more than 3,000 customers to develop an UWMP. The plan is required to be updated every five years and submitted to the Department of Water Resources before December 31 on years ending in 5 and 0. City of Palo Alto (ID # 9228) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/21/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Title: Palo Alto Fire Department’s Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation This is an informational report and staff recommends the City Council review the Palo Alto Fire Department’s (PAFD) Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover. Background and Discussion The Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover (SOC) is an important document in measuring and mitigating the community’s risk with respect to fire/rescue and ambulance services. Creating and maintaining a SOC is required under the accreditation model the PAFD is following. The SOC includes these components: 1) Review and documentation of the PAFD’s current deployment 2) Documentation and quantification of risks within the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University 3) Measurement of system performance using historical data (baselines) 4) Adoption of performance measures (benchmarks) 5) Development and validation of a methodology for meeting the performance measures 6) Completes an overall evaluation of the delivery system including recommendations for changes to deployment or policies within the PAFD 7) Implementation, measurement and evaluation of the SOC in accordance with the recommendations The SOC supports making objective risk analysis and deployment decisions. The purpose of maintaining such a document is to assist the agency in ensuring a safe and effective response force for fire suppression, emergency medical services, and specialty response situations. Finally, the SOC serves as a tool to document continuous improvement of the Fire Department’s performance. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The report follows a detailed and standardized accreditation model created by the Center for Fire Public Safety Excellence. In order to complete agency accreditation, the PAFD is expected to provide the SOC to the City Manager and City Council. The PAFD also will share the SOC with the community on the City’s web site. The SOC when combined with the City’s Annual Budget and Performance Report serve to inform the Council, City Manager and community of the PAFD’s capabilities, performance, areas for improvement and plans to correct any deficiencies. Attachments:  Palo Alto Fire Department Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover May 2018 Effective Date: January 6, 2018 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California i Effective January 6, 2018 Introduction The following report serves as the Palo Alto Fire Department Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover. It follows the Center for Fire Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) Standards of Coverage model that develops written procedures to determine the distribution and concentration of a fire and emergency service agency’s fixed and mobile resources. The purpose for completing such a document is to assist the agency in ensuring a safe and effective response force for fire suppression, emergency medical services, and specialty response situations. Creating a Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan document requires that a number of areas are researched, studied, and evaluated. This report will begin with an overview of both the community and the agency. Following this overview, the plan will discuss areas such as risk assessment, critical task analysis, agency service level objectives, and distribution and concentration measures. The report will provide analysis of historical performance and will conclude with policy and operational recommendations. ESCI completed the first edition in November 2015, which at the time was compliant with the CPSE Standards of Coverage 5th Edition. In June 2017 to January 2018, the City of Palo Alto Fire Department and FireStats, LLC, revised and updated the Standards of Coverage and Community Risk Analysis to be compliant with the CPSE 6th Edition. The Community Risk Assessment; Standards of Cover is effective January 6, 2018. Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California ii Effective January 6, 2018 Palo Alto Fire Department Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto City Council Mayor Liz Kniss Vice Mayor Eric Filseth Council Member Tom DuBois Council Member Adrian Fine Council Member Karen Holman Council Member Lydia Kou Council Member Gregory Scharff Council Member Greg Tanaka Council Member Cory Wolbach Palo Alto City Manager’s Office City Manager James Keene Assistant City Manager Ed Shikada Deputy City Manager Rob de Geus Deputy City Manager Michelle Poché Flaherty Palo Alto Fire Department Risk Assessment/SOC Team Fire Chief Eric Nickel Deputy Chief, Support Services Geo Blackshire Deputy Chief, Operations Catherine Capriles Deputy Chief, Fire Marshal James Henrikson Accreditation Manager Battalion Chief, Kevin McNally Strategic Operations Manager Amber Cameron Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California iii Effective January 6, 2018 PAFD Category Authors Eric Nickel, Fire Chief Geo Blackshire, Deputy Chief, Support Services Catherine Capriles, Deputy Chief, Operations James Henrikson, Deputy Chief, Fire Marshal Amber Cameron, Strategic Operations Manager Kevin McNally, Battalion Chief, Accreditation Manager Ryan Stoddard, Battalion Chief Chris Woodard, Battalion Chief Bobby Davis, Battalion Chief Shane Yarbrough, Battalion Chief – Training Kimberly Roderick, Emergency Medical Services Chief Marc Muzzi, Fire Captain Kenneth Dueker, Office of Emergency Services Director Brian Baggott, Fire Captain Debra Burger and Mark Chase, Communications Managers Document Validation and Update Log Description Author Version Date Initial Draft Emergency Services Consulting International 2015-01 November 2015 Risk Analysis FireStats, LLC 2017-01 August 2017 2018 update to comply with 6th Edition RA/SOC Eric Nickel 2018-01 January 2018 Addition of 2017 ERF data and Community Risk Assessment Executive Summary FireStats, LLC, Kevin McNally 2018-02 February 2018 Updates based upon Accreditation Site Team analysis FireStats, LLC, Kevin McNally, Eric Nickel 2018-03 May 2018 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California iv Effective January 6, 2018 Risk Analysis: Standards of Cover Document Update Cycle The Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover for the Palo Alto Fire Department is intended to be a living document. This document is to be updated and validated on an annual basis as one component of the planning effort that includes the Palo Alto Fire Department Strategic Plan, Self-Assessment Manual, Annual Accreditation Compliance Reporting, the City of Palo Alto Annual Budget and the City of Palo Alto Annual Performance Report. Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... i Palo Alto Fire Department Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover ......................................................... ii Document Validation and Update Log ............................................................................................... iii Risk Analysis: Standards of Cover Document Update Cycle ................................................................. iv Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. iv Table of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................1 Improvement Goals: ..........................................................................................................................3 Improvement Goal A: Adopt Response Performance Goals ..................................................................... 3 Dispatch Sequence Performance Goal .................................................................................................. 3 Turnout Time Performance Goal ........................................................................................................... 4 Response Time for the First-due Unit .................................................................................................... 4 Effective Response Force Performance Goal ......................................................................................... 5 Recommended Response Performance Goals....................................................................................... 6 Improvement Goal B: Improve Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................... 6 Improvement Goal C: Reduce Call Processing Time ................................................................................. 6 Improvement Goal D: Reduce Turnout Time ............................................................................................ 7 Improvement Goal E: Reduce Travel Time ............................................................................................... 8 Improvement Goal F: Add Peak Units to Better Serve Incident Demand ................................................. 9 Improvement Goal G: Reduce the Number of False Fire Alarm System Activations ................................ 9 Documentation of Area Characteristics – Criterion 2A ....................................................................... 11 Organization Overview............................................................................................................................ 11 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California v Effective January 6, 2018 Governance and Lines of Authority ..................................................................................................... 11 Organizational Finance ....................................................................................................................... 11 Performance Indicator 2A.1: Service Area Overview .............................................................................. 13 Insurance Services Office Public Protection Classification .................................................................. 13 Community Expectations for Type and Level of Service ...................................................................... 14 External Stakeholder Input.................................................................................................................. 14 Internal Stakeholder Input .................................................................................................................. 16 Community Outcome Goals ................................................................................................................ 16 Quarterly Performance Reporting and Customer Service Survey ....................................................... 17 Performance Indicator 2A.2: Boundries for other service responsibility areas ...................................... 17 Core Competency 2A.4: Assessment of the community planning zones considering the population density within planning zones and population areas for the purposes of developing total response time standards ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Performance Indicator 2A.6: planning zone methodology to identify response area characteristics ... 21 Naturally Occurring Characteristics .................................................................................................... 22 Human and Human-Related Characteristics ....................................................................................... 28 Human-Made Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 33 Performance Indicator 2A.7: Socio-Economic and demographic characteristics for the response area are identified. .......................................................................................................................................... 46 Perfomance Indicator 2A.8: Safety and remidation programs including fire prevention, public education and community risk reduction ............................................................................................... 47 Performance Indicator 2A.9: Critical infrastructure within the planning zones ..................................... 48 Description on Agency Programs and Services .................................................................................. 59 Programs and Services Provided ............................................................................................................. 59 Assets and Resources .............................................................................................................................. 61 Fire Stations ........................................................................................................................................ 61 Station Location and Deployment ....................................................................................................... 61 Apparatus............................................................................................................................................ 63 Staffing Information ................................................................................................................................ 64 Organizational Structure ..................................................................................................................... 64 Administration and Support Staff ....................................................................................................... 65 Emergency Services Staff .................................................................................................................... 66 Core Comptency 2A.3: Documented and Adopted Methodology for organizing the response area into geographical planning zones ................................................................................................................... 67 Performance indicator 2A.5: Property, life, injury, environmental and other associated losses ........... 69 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California vi Effective January 6, 2018 Population Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 72 Area land use .......................................................................................................................................... 72 Topography, Geology, Geography, climate, and Physiography .............................................................. 74 Building Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 74 Distance from Fire Station ...................................................................................................................... 75 Organizational Impact Factors ................................................................................................................ 76 Risk Calculations ...................................................................................................................................... 78 General Risk Scoring Methods ................................................................................................................ 78 Stanford University ................................................................................................................................. 78 Structure Fire Risk ................................................................................................................................... 78 Emergency Medical Risk ......................................................................................................................... 89 Technical Rescue Risk .............................................................................................................................. 94 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................................... 98 Wildland Fires ....................................................................................................................................... 103 Conclusions and Limitations ................................................................................................................. 113 Emerging Hot Spot Analysis .................................................................................................................. 117 Incidents by Census Block Groups ........................................................................................................ 119 Incident Workload Projection ............................................................................................................... 125 Current Deployment and Performance ........................................................................................... 126 Methodology for Incident Staffing ........................................................................................................ 126 Current Service Delivery Objectives ...................................................................................................... 128 Historic System Response Workload .................................................................................................... 130 Temporal Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 131 Spatial Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 137 Census Block Group and Unit Workload Analysis ................................................................................. 140 Census Block Group Planning Zone Analysis ..................................................................................... 140 Census Block Group: 504601 ............................................................................................................. 141 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California vii Effective January 6, 2018 Census Block Group: 510600 ............................................................................................................. 143 Census Block Group: 510700 ............................................................................................................. 145 Census Block Group: 510801 ............................................................................................................. 147 Census Block Group: 510802 ............................................................................................................. 149 Census Block Group: 510803 ............................................................................................................. 151 Census Block Group: 510900 ............................................................................................................. 153 Census Block Group: 511000 ............................................................................................................. 155 Census Block Group: 511100 ............................................................................................................. 157 Census Block Group: 511200 ............................................................................................................. 159 Census Block Group: 511301 ............................................................................................................. 161 Census Block Group: 511302 ............................................................................................................. 163 Census Block Group: 511400 ............................................................................................................. 165 Census Block Group: 511500 ............................................................................................................. 167 Census Block Group: 511608 ............................................................................................................. 169 Census Block Group: 511609 ............................................................................................................. 171 Census Block Group: 511701 ............................................................................................................. 173 Census Block Group: 511704 ............................................................................................................. 175 Census Block Group: 511705 ............................................................................................................. 177 Census Block Group: 511707 ............................................................................................................. 179 Census Block Group: 513000 ............................................................................................................. 181 Response Unit Workload ................................................................................................................... 182 Mutual and Automatic Aid ................................................................................................................ 184 Second Unit Arrival Time ................................................................................................................... 186 Call Concurrency and Reliability ........................................................................................................ 186 Concurrency ...................................................................................................................................... 186 Reliability .......................................................................................................................................... 187 Unit Hour Utilization ......................................................................................................................... 188 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 189 Appendix A – Community Risk Assessment Executive Summary ......................................................... 189 Appendix B – Critical Tasking Charts and Alarm Assignments .............................................................. 194 Critical Tasking .................................................................................................................................. 196 Alarm Assignments ........................................................................................................................... 202 Appendix C – Baseline and Benchmark Performance Charts ............................................................... 207 Dynamics of Fire in Buildings ............................................................................................................ 207 Emergency Medical Event Sequence ................................................................................................. 209 People, Tools, and Time .................................................................................................................... 210 Benchmark Performance Charts - EMS ............................................................................................. 212 Benchmark Performance Charts – Structure response ..................................................................... 214 Benchmark performance charts – Full First Alarm ........................................................................... 216 Benchmark performance charts – Motor Vehicle Accidents ............................................................. 218 Benchmark performance charts – Rescue Assignments ................................................................... 220 Benchmark performance charts – Wildland Fires ............................................................................. 222 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California viii Effective January 6, 2018 Benchmark performance charts – Single Engine or Truck ................................................................ 223 Benchmark performance charts – Hazardous Materials .................................................................. 225 Appendix C – Additional Maps not Included in Other Sections ............................................................ 227 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California ix Effective January 6, 2018 Table of Figures Figure 1: Generated Revenue – FY 2018 ..................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2: Budget/Expenditures by Year, FY 2016 – FY 2018 ....................................................................... 12 Figure 3: Community Service Priorities ....................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4: Community Outcome Goals ......................................................................................................... 16 Figure 5: Service Area Boundaries for the Palo Alto Fire Department including Mutual Aid agencies ...... 19 Figure 6: Population Density (2010 Census) ............................................................................................... 21 Figure 7: Natural Hazards Probability Rating Criteria ................................................................................. 23 Figure 8: Natural Hazard Rating Results ..................................................................................................... 23 Figure 9: FEMA 100-Year Flood Zones ........................................................................................................ 26 Figure 10: Wildland Fire Risk ....................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 11: Population Demographics City of Palo Alto, US Census 2010, 2016 estimate .......................... 28 Figure 12: Population History ..................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 13: Population Demographics Stanford Census Designated Place (CDP), US Census Estimate July 1, 2016 ............................................................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 14: Stanford University Enrollment, October 2016 ......................................................................... 30 Figure 15: Estimated Population by Age ..................................................................................................... 31 Figure 16: Socio-economic data, City of Palo Alto US Census 2010. 2016 estimate .................................. 32 Figure 17: Fire and Life Safety Risk Based on Zoning .................................................................................. 33 Figure 18: Area Land Use Variables Incorporated in Hexagon Grids .......................................................... 35 Figure 19 Parcels with Fire Suppression Systems ....................................................................................... 37 Figure 20: Hetch Hetchy Regional Water Distribution System ................................................................... 38 Figure 21: Fire Hydrant Distribution ........................................................................................................... 39 Figure 22: Hydrants within 500ft Buffer Zone ............................................................................................ 40 Figure 23: PG & E Natural Gas Transmission Lines ..................................................................................... 41 Figure 24: Electrical Transmission Lines...................................................................................................... 42 Figure 25: Facilities with Hazardous Materials and Number of Facilities by Census Block Group ............. 43 Figure 26: Map of transportation systems included within the risk assessment analysis.......................... 45 Figure 27: Palo Alto Airport ........................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 28: Critical Infrastructure: Priority and Counts of Facilities by Census Block Group ....................... 49 Figure 29 School Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 30: Health Care Facilities .................................................................................................................. 51 Figure 31: Child Care Facilities .................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 32: Adult Care Facilities ................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 33: High Rise Buildings ..................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 34: Buildings Three or More Stories in Height ................................................................................. 55 Figure 35: Buildings – 100,000 Square Feet and Larger .............................................................................. 56 Figure 36: Buildings With Needed Fire Flow 3,000 GPM or More .............................................................. 57 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California x Effective January 6, 2018 Figure 37: Public Assembly Facilities........................................................................................................... 58 Figure 38: Core Services Summary ............................................................................................................. 59 Figure 39: Current Facility Deployment ...................................................................................................... 62 Figure 40: PAFD Fire Stations and Apparatus ............................................................................................. 63 Figure 41: Organizational Structure ............................................................................................................ 65 Figure 42: Management, Administration, and Support Personnel by Position .......................................... 66 Figure 43: Emergency Response Personnel by Rank .................................................................................. 66 Figure 44: Example of Hexagon Grid ........................................................................................................... 67 Figure 45: Census Block Groups for the Palo Alto Fire Department Service Area ...................................... 68 Figure 46: Fire Loss Per Capita .................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 47: Reported Structure Fires by Extent of Fire Spread .................................................................... 70 Figure 48: Average Property Value by Land Use Type ................................................................................ 71 Figure 49: Parcel Building Height (Number of Stories) ............................................................................... 75 Figure 50: Distance from Palo Alto Fire Station (Mutual Aid/Auto Aid not measured) ............................. 76 Figure 51: Portion of an Hour Spent on Event by Type .............................................................................. 77 Figure 52: Distribution of Fire Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology ................................................................ 81 Figure 53: Distribution of Fire Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence .................................................... 81 Figure 54: Probability x Consequence: Structure Fire ................................................................................ 82 Figure 55: Risk Scores: Structure Fire ......................................................................................................... 83 Figure 56: Distribution of Non-Structure Fire Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology ........................................ 86 Figure 57: Distribution of Non-Structure Fire Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence ............................ 86 Figure 58: Probability x Consequence: Non-Structure Fires ....................................................................... 87 Figure 59: Risk Scores: Non-Structure Fires ................................................................................................ 88 Figure 60: Distribution of EMS Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology ............................................................... 91 Figure 61: Distribution of EMS Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence ................................................... 91 Figure 62: Probability x Consequence: EMS ............................................................................................... 92 Figure 63: Risk Scores: EMS ........................................................................................................................ 93 Figure 64: Distribution of Technical Rescue Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology .......................................... 95 Figure 65: Probability x Consequence: Technical Rescue ........................................................................... 96 Figure 66: Risk Scores: Technical Rescue .................................................................................................... 97 Figure 67: Distribution of Hazmat Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology ....................................................... 100 Figure 68: Distribution of Hazmat Scores: Probability & Consequence ................................................... 100 Figure 69: Probability x Consequence: Hazardous Materials ................................................................... 101 Figure 70: Risk Scores: Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 102 Figure 71: Distribution of Wildland Fire Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology .............................................. 105 Figure 72: Distribution of Wildland Fire Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence ................................... 105 Figure 73: Probability x Consequence: Wildland Fire ............................................................................... 106 Figure 74: Risk Scores: Wildland Fire ........................................................................................................ 107 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California xi Effective January 6, 2018 Figure 75: Distribution of Domestic Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology ..................................................... 110 Figure 76: Distribution of Domestic Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence ......................................... 110 Figure 77: Probability x Consequence: Domestic Preparedness .............................................................. 111 Figure 78: Risk Scores: Domestic Preparedness ....................................................................................... 112 Figure 79: Number of Years with Repeated Response to Address ........................................................... 114 Figure 80: Graduated Symbol Map: Repeat Responses to Same Address................................................ 115 Figure 81: Incidents by NFIRS Type in Risk Study Area ............................................................................. 116 Figure 82: Emerging Hot Spot Analysis for the PAFD ................................................................................ 118 Figure 83: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2012 ...................................................................... 120 Figure 84: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2013 ...................................................................... 121 Figure 85: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2014 ...................................................................... 122 Figure 86: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2015 ...................................................................... 123 Figure 87: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2016 ...................................................................... 124 Figure 88: Response Forecast 2015 – 2040 .............................................................................................. 125 Figure 89: Staffing Complement ............................................................................................................... 127 Figure 90: Resources Available from Adjacent Agencies .......................................................................... 128 Figure 91: Performance Objectives, Benchmarks and Baselines .............................................................. 129 Figure 92: Response Workload History, 2012 – 2016 ............................................................................... 130 Figure 93: Responses by Type of Incident by Jurisdiction ........................................................................ 130 Figure 94: Monthly Response Workload .................................................................................................. 131 Figure 95: Percentage Monthly Response Workload ............................................................................... 131 Figure 96: Monthly Response Workload Bar Graph (2017) ...................................................................... 132 Figure 97: Daily Response Workload ........................................................................................................ 132 Figure 98: Percentage Daily Response Workload ..................................................................................... 132 Figure 99: Daily Response Workload Bar Graph (2017)............................................................................ 133 Figure 100: Hourly Response Workload ................................................................................................... 134 Figure 101: Percentage Hourly Response Workload ................................................................................ 135 Figure 102: Hourly Response Workload ................................................................................................... 136 Figure 103: Service Demand Density (2016) ............................................................................................. 137 Figure 104 Building Fires (2016) ............................................................................................................... 138 Figure 105: Emergency Medical Incidents per Square Mile (2016) .......................................................... 139 Figure 106: Response Unit Workload ....................................................................................................... 183 Figure 107: Average Time Committed to an Incident by Unit .................................................................. 183 Figure 108: Unit Hour Utilization .............................................................................................................. 184 Figure 109: Mutual and Automatic Aid ..................................................................................................... 185 Figure 110: Call Concurrency by Station ................................................................................................... 186 Figure 111: Incident Concurrency ............................................................................................................. 187 Figure 112: Drawdown Summary (Engines) .............................................................................................. 187 Community Risk Assessment: Standards of Cover Palo Alto Fire Department, California xii Effective January 6, 2018 Figure 113: Drawdown Summary (Ambulances) ...................................................................................... 187 Figure 114: 2016 UHU (8am - 8pm) for M61, M62, M64(E64) ................................................................. 188 Figure 115: 2016 UHU (8pm - 8am) for M61, M62, M64(E64) ................................................................. 188 Figure 116: Staffing Recommendations Based on Risk ............................................................................. 196 Figure 117: Fire Growth vs. Reflex Time ................................................................................................... 208 Figure 118: Fire Extension in Residential Structures – United States ....................................................... 209 Figure 119: Cardiac Arrest Event Sequence .............................................................................................. 210 Figure 120: Engine Distribution: 8-Minute Coverage ............................................................................... 227 Figure 121: Medic Distribution: 12-Minute Coverage .............................................................................. 228 Figure 122: All Incidents 2012 ................................................................................................................... 229 Figure 123: All Incidents 2013 ................................................................................................................... 230 Figure 124: All Incidents 2014 ................................................................................................................... 231 Figure 125: All Incidents 2015 ................................................................................................................... 232 Figure 126: All Incidents 2016 ................................................................................................................... 233 Figure 127: EMS Incidents ......................................................................................................................... 234 Figure 128: Fire Incidents .......................................................................................................................... 235 Figure 129: False Alarm Incidents ............................................................................................................. 236 Figure 130: Good Intent Incidents ............................................................................................................ 237 Figure 131: Haz Mat Incidents .................................................................................................................. 238 Figure 132: All Incidents Day (0800-2000) hours ...................................................................................... 239 Figure 133: All Incidents Night (2000-0800 hours) ................................................................................... 240 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 1 Executive Summary This document describes Palo Alto Fire Department’s Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan. Community risks, response resources, deployment strategies, and service levels have been evaluated in this study. It establishes response time objectives and standards for measuring the effectiveness of fire department services and the deployment of its resources. The document is organized into components based on the format recommended by the Center for Public Safety Excellence, Standards of Cover 6th Edition. The Description of Community Served section provided a general overview of the organization, including governance, lines of authority, finance, and capital and human resources, as well as an overview of the service area including population and geography served. The Review of Services Provided section detailed the core services the organization provides based on general resource/asset capability and basic staffing complements. During the Review of Community Expectations and Performance Goals, it was determined that the community had high expectations of the fire department and felt generally positive about its services. An overview of community risk was provided to identify the risks and challenges faced by the fire department. Geospatial characteristics, topographic and weather risks, transportation network risks, physical assets, and critical infrastructure were reviewed. As a factor of risk, community populations and demographics were evaluated against historic and projected service demand. Population and service demand has increased over the past decade and will continue to increase in the future. Evaluating risk using advanced geographic information systems (GIS) provided an increased understanding of community risk factors and led to an improved deployment policy. During the analysis of service level objectives, critical tasking assignments were completed for incident types ranging from a basic medical emergency to a high rise structure fire. Critical tasking required a review of on-scene staffing requirements to mitigate the effects of an emergency. These tasks ultimately determine the resource allocation necessary to achieve a successful operation. The results of the analysis indicate that a moderate risk structure fire required a minimum of 16 personnel. The review of historical system performance evaluated each component of the emergency incident sequence. These included call processing, turnout, and travel time. Beyond the response time of the initial arriving units, the additional components of concentration and effective response force, reliability, and call concurrency were evaluated. Based on the analysis and considering community expectations, improvement goals were developed to improve the delivery of fire and emergency services to the community by PAFD. Not all will be implemented at once. Some may wait until economic conditions allow their implementation. However, all of the goals were offered to chart a course to improved capability and service. The Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) is a department of the City of Palo Alto, a city established and organized under California law. It provides fire protection, emergency medical, and rescue services to its Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 2 community. The department’s service area encompasses all of the City of Palo Alto. Since 1976, Stanford University has contracted with the City of Palo Alto for fire, rescue, EMS, and ambulance transportation services. The City of Palo Alto has a resident population of approximately 67,000 people. Approximately 13,800 students, faculty, and their families live on the Stanford University campus bringing PAFD’s total resident service population to 80,800. It is estimated that employment increases Palo Alto and Stanford’s daytime population by approximately 68,000. PAFD serves an area of approximately 38.7 square miles including 12.8 square miles occupied by Stanford University. The city operates seven fire stations and 26 response apparatus. 9-1-1 calls are answered and dispatched by the Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD). The Insurance Services Office (ISO) reviews the fire protection resources within communities and provides a Community Fire Protection Rating system from which insurance rates are often based. The rating system evaluates three primary areas: the emergency communication and dispatch system, the fire department, and the community’s pressurized hydrant or tanker-based water supply. The overall rating is then expressed as a number between 1 and 10, with 1 being the highest level of protection and 10 being unprotected or nearly so. As of the latest survey (October 2015) ISO gave PAFD a rating of Class 2/9. PAFD’s service area, based on population density, is of two classifications: urban and rural. The community’s risk classifications should influence how response resources are distributed now and in the future. Since suburban areas are anticipated to develop to greater population densities, response performance objectives have been established that are uniform across the entire developable service area. A Performance Statement as well as Objectives for the services provided by PAFD has been developed. These further define the quality and quantity of service expected by the community and consistently pursued by the department. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 3 Improvement Goals: During the course of this study a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified. The following goals are intended to accomplish three primary objectives: Define clearly the expected level of performance provided by Palo Alto Fire Department. Improve service delivery with no, or minimal, expenditure of funds. Identify service level improvement opportunities that can be implemented as funding becomes available. The recommendations are described as improvement goals and should be implemented as funding allows. Each will improve PAFD’s ability to provide effective service to the community. IMPROVEMENT GOAL A: ADOPT RESPONSE PERFORMANCE GOALS A community’s desired level of service is a uniquely individual decision. No two communities are exactly alike. Performance goals must be tailored to match community expectations, community conditions, and the ability to pay for the resources necessary to attain the desired level of service. Levels of service and resource allocation decisions are the responsibility of the community’s elected officials, in this case the Palo Alto City Council. The policy making body must carefully balance the needs and expectations of its citizenry when deciding how much money to allocate to all of the services it provides. Palo Alto has two uniquely different service areas or zones; the urbanized area including Stanford University north of the 280 Freeway and the rural area to the south. All of PAFD’s resources are concentrated in the urban area except during summer months when Fire Station 8 is staffed. Response performance is substantially better in the urban area than the rural area. Palo Alto should adopt separate response performance goals for the urban zone and the rural zone. Attempting to provide the same level of service to the rural zone would be very expensive. With this in mind the following are recommended as PAFD’s fire and life safety response performance goals for the city’s urban and rural zones. These are not levels of service that must be achieved immediately but, instead, are targets for achievement when resources are available to do so. Dispatch Sequence Performance Goal There are two parts to this phase of total response time. PAPD is the primary public safety answering point (PSAP) for all 9-1-1 calls. The first part is referred to as “answer time,” the time taken from the first ring until the call is answered. The second part occurs once the call is answered by the call taker. The call taker and dispatcher must determine the nature and location of the emergency, determine which unit or units to dispatch, and relay the information to responders. This phase is referred to as “dispatch time.” Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 4 The two parts of the dispatch sequence are the first phase of overall response time. Though much information must be gathered to properly identify the resources needed to respond to the emergency, keeping this time as short as possible has a direct impact on response time. National Fire Protection Association Standard 1221 recommends a call be answered at the PSAP within 15 seconds, 95 percent of the time. This standard also recommends a call be processed by the dispatch center and responders notified within 90 seconds, 90 percent of the time for EMS, hazardous materials, and technical rescue incidents. Recommended Dispatch Sequence Goals: A 9-1-1 call will be answered within 15 seconds from receipt of the call at the PSAP 95 percent of the time for both the urban and rural zones. Current performance during 2017 calls answered within 15 seconds 99.58 percent of the time. Response resources shall be notified of a priority emergency medical, hazardous materials or technical rescue incident within 90 seconds from receipt of the call at the dispatch center, 90 percent of the time for both the urban and rural zones. Current performance during 2017 – Within two minutes, 12 seconds, 90 percent of the time. Turnout Time Performance Goal Turnout time is one area over which the fire department has total control and is not affected by outside influences. Turnout time, or the time between when the call is received by the response units (dispatched) and when the unit is actually in route to the scene (responding), affects overall response times. Reducing this response time component reduces total response time. National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 recommends turnout time performance objectives of 80 seconds or less for fire and special operations response and 60 seconds or less for all other priority responses. PAFD is not meeting the turnout time recommended in the national standard for both categories of incidents. Recommended Turnout Goal: Response personnel shall initiate response to a priority incident within 90 seconds from notification, 90 percent of the time for both the urban and rural zones. Current performance during 2017 – Within two minutes, 08 seconds, 90 percent of the time Response Time for the First-due Unit The time required to deliver the first response unit capable of intervening in the emergency includes both turnout time and travel time but not call processing time. Travel time is normally the longest phase of this response interval. Recommended First-Due Response Time Goal – Urban Zone: Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 5 The first response unit capable of initiating effective incident intervention shall arrive at a priority incident within six minutes, 30 seconds (6:30) from notification of response personnel, 90 percent of the time. Current performance during 2017 – Within eight minutes, 07 seconds, 90 percent of the time The first response unit capable of initiating effective incident intervention shall arrive at a priority emergency medical incident within six minutes, 30 seconds (6:30) from notification of response personnel, 90 percent of the time. Current performance during 2017 – Within seven minutes, 34 seconds, 90 percent of the time. Recommended First-Due Response Time Goal – Rural Zone: The first response unit capable of initiating effective incident intervention shall arrive at a priority incident within 20 minutes, 0 seconds (20:00) from notification of response personnel, 90 percent of the time. Current performance during 2017 – Within 27 minutes, 56 seconds, 90 percent of the time. Effective Response Force Performance Goal A fire department’s concentration is the spacing of multiple resources close enough together so that an initial “Effective Response Force” (ERF) for a given risk can be assembled on the scene of an emergency within the specific time frame identified in the community’s performance goals for that risk type. An initial effective response force is defined as that which will be most likely to stop the escalation of the emergency. The minimum ERF for moderate risk structure fires in Palo Alto is identified as the arrival of at least three fire engines, one ladder truck, one ambulance, and one battalion chief (16 firefighters total). This initial ERF does not necessarily represent the entire alarm assignment, as additional units may be assigned based on long-term incident needs and risks. Additional engines, ladders, or other specialty companies are assigned to higher risk responses in order to accomplish additional critical tasks that are necessary beyond the initial attack and containment. Recommended Effective Response Force Goal – Urban: The minimum effective response force shall arrive at a moderate risk structure fire within twelve minutes (12:00) from notification of response personnel, 90 percent of the time. Current performance during 2017 – Within eighteen minutes, 22 seconds, 90 percent of the time. Recommended Effective Response Force Goal – Rural: The minimum effective response force shall arrive at a moderate risk structure fire as soon as practical given the location of the incident and the availability of response resources. Current performance – Insufficient data is available to evaluate due to the lack of structure fires in the data set provided for this study. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 6 The following figure summarizes this recommendation. Recommended Response Performance Goals Goal Urban Rural Call answer time 15 seconds, 95% of the time 15 seconds, 95% of the time Call processing time 90 seconds, 90% of the time 90 seconds, 90% of the time Turnout time 90 seconds, 90% of the time 90 seconds, 90% of the time Travel time 5 minutes, 90% of the time 20 minutes, 90% of the time Response Time (First Arriving Unit) 8 minutes, 90% of the time 23 minutes, 90% of the time Effective Response Force 12 minutes, 90% of the time Best effort IMPROVEMENT GOAL B: IMPROVE DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS In order to fully evaluate capability and performance, complete and accurate information must be available and utilized. This includes incident data, unit response data, information about risks within the community, and others. Response performance should be regularly evaluated and the results shared within the fire department. PAFD is developing better information analysis capability. It has acquired software that will allow managers to evaluate performance by area, explore alternative deployment to improve service, and to better understand its overall performance and capability. Completing implementation of this software package will be valuable. In the Community Risk section of this report a variety of risks were documented and described. However, due to lack of information many of the risks within the Stanford University campus could not be detailed. Gathering more complete information about the risks in Stanford will assist PAFD in evaluating resource deployment. Finally, response performance information should be shared within the organization to increase staffs’ awareness of their individual contribution to the system. In particular, turnout time performance should be reported regularly to response crews. IMPROVEMENT GOAL C: REDUCE CALL PROCESSING TIME PAPD call processing performance exceeds national standards. There are opportunities to reduce the time required to notify response personnel of an incident that should be explored. In the dispatch process used by PAPD, the caller is questioned to determine the nature and location of the emergency. As reported, once the incidents location and basic nature of the emergency is gathered that information is transferred to a dispatcher who notifies response personnel. The call taker continues to gather additional information, which is then reported to responding personnel. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 7 This process is typically call “pre-alert” and attempts to reduce call processing time by getting the closest response unit responding quickly. However, current call processing times do not suggest that this is working well. Dispatch centers using the pre-alert process typically have call processing times in the 35 to 45 second range. PAPD and PAFD should review call processing procedures to ensure incidents are being dispatched through pre-alert as quickly as possible. The agencies should explore technology that could facilitate faster dispatch. This includes computer voice dispatching integrated into the computer aided dispatch system. Improving dispatch performance can reduce overall response time by one to two minutes at little to no cost. As such this should be an early priority for implementation. IMPROVEMENT GOAL D: REDUCE TURNOUT TIME PAFD has set its turnout time target at within 90 seconds, 90 percent of the time for fire and special operations incidents and within 90 seconds, 90 percent of the time for all other incidents. This is the time period between when dispatchers notify response personnel of the incident and when response crews begin travel towards the incident location. PAFD’s current turnout time performance is much longer. Like call processing time, shortening the time required for this phase of the response also reduces overall response time. Though certain technology and other physical modifications can help, rapid turnout time is largely a function of response crew performance. PAFD should review fire station configuration to determine if there are obstacles to rapid turnout. Solutions could include adding doors between rooms, rearranging furnishings, and adding dispatch alerting system speakers to improve audibility. PAFD should better utilize technology that will support rapid turnout time. In-vehicle routing systems are already installed making directions to the incident immediately available. This eliminates the time required to review a map in the station prior to response. However, personnel seem hesitant to utilize this information. Response personnel performance must also be addressed. Fire department management should regularly prepare information that describes current turnout time performance by individual response crews. Performance expectations should be reinforced and periodic monitoring conducted to determine if improvements are being made and sustained. Reducing turnout time to close to the recommended goal will reduce overall response time by as much as two minutes. Since late 2015 when this issue was first identified, fire management has initiated daily turnout monitoring and accountability with company officers. Times are tracked by shift and station and shared monthly through the Deputy Chief of Operations. In 2017, a count-down timer was placed in station 4 to test if turnout times would improve. Times did improve and as part of a capital budget approved in Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 8 FY17/18 a new station alerting system including the large LED timer clocks will be placed in all fire stations. IMPROVEMENT GOAL E: REDUCE TRAVEL TIME Travel time, the period between initiation of response vehicle movement towards the incident and the arrival of the first unit, is 59 seconds longer than the goal of five minutes or less, 90 percent of the time. Establish a traffic signal pre-emption program Some traffic signals within PAFD’s service area are equipped with pre-emption equipment. This allows a response unit to send a signal to the traffic signal controller turning the light green in the response unit’s direction of travel and red in all other directions. This allows the response unit to move more quickly through an intersection. It also reduces the chance of a collision with another vehicle. Equipping all traffic signals with pre-emption equipment is recommended. The PAFD is working with regional partners to incorporate signal preemption devices on high priority intersections. A capital budget request is included in the FY18/19 budget that would support a trial study of 25 intersections that are equipped with a signal preemption system integrated with the City’s traffic management software. If the trial study demonstrates improvement in travel times to calls in the area, the Fire Department will make an additional capital budget request for the remaining approximately 75 intersections. Continue development of closest unit dispatch technology All PAFD units are equipped with GPS equipment interconnected with the dispatch center’s computer aided dispatch system (CAD). When an emergency is reported, CAD calculates the travel time from all available appropriate units from their current location to the incident and selects the unit with the shortest travel time. This technology is far superior to station based dispatching. Response personnel report that the system is not working to its fullest effectiveness. Dispatchers often override the CAD recommendation. The data in the system has not been fully developed to include many barriers to travel. The system should receive ongoing refinements so it provides accurate and reliable unit recommendations. This will require continual improvements to the street and barrier data used by CAD. This would include ensuring short-term barriers such as street construction, predictable heavy traffic, and the like are included. Better manage response unit distribution The best travel time performance occurs when response units are appropriately distributed across the service area. Distribution is determined based on providing geographic coverage and ensuring units are located near predictable response workload. PAFD response units move about the city for reasons other than response. This includes such activities as picking up supplies and for training. PAFD regularly gathers three response units together for training Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 9 activities. This usually occurs during the busiest part of the day. The consequence is that units must travel farther to return to their primary service area when incidents occur. PAFD should strive to keep response units within their primary service area more often. As an example, a delivery service could be used to deliver supplies. Although some training requires response units be together, classroom based training can be delivered via video conferencing systems negating the need to move response units away from their primary service area. Finally, the on-duty battalion chief should monitor response activity and unit location closely. As multiple units become involved in incidents the battalion chief should move available units to locations that will ensure better unit distribution. The bias should be to areas with predictably high incident activity, especially the area around Station 1. IMPROVEMENT GOAL F: ADD PEAK UNITS TO BETTER SERVE INCIDENT DEMAND PAFD staffs one medic unit 24 hours per day. A second medic unit is staffed 12 hours (0800-2000 hrs.) with overtime personnel at station 1. A third and fourth medic unit is cross-staffed by personnel from Engine 64 and Engine 62. Additional resources are available from adjacent agencies as needed. If an engine is committed to another activity preventing it from cross-staffing the medic unit, the probability that any PAFD medic unit would be unavailable to respond to an incident during daytime hours increases. Incident workload at night is much lower and the probability that a medic unit would be unavailable drops. The value of this deployment option is better unit availability during the daytime when response activity is the highest. IMPROVEMENT GOAL G: REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FALSE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM ACTIVATIONS Out of 1,308 fire alarm activations during 2017, only 16 were due to an actual problem detected by the system. Only one was a building fire. The rest were alarm system malfunctions of one type or another. That so few fire alarm activations were for legitimate reasons is not at all uncommon. However, it requires a commitment of response resources until the situation is resolved. Reducing the number of false fire alarm activations will improve response system reliability. The presence of a fire alarm system gives the property owner special access to fire department services. While these systems are valuable in providing early detection of a problem, malfunctioning systems present an unnecessary demand on the emergency response system. There are several strategies that should be considered by PAFD: Require annual fire alarm system inspection and maintenance: Fire codes require that fire alarm systems be inspected and served annually by qualified technicians. A report of the service and any deficiencies found and corrected must be submitted to the fire department for review. Properly maintained systems have a much lower rate of false alarms than systems that are not maintained in this fashion. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 10 Implement a penalty for excessive false alarms: The fine should be sufficient to encourage system repairs to reduce false alarms. Discontinue response to buildings equipped with fire alarm systems that signal an excessive number of false alarms: If the fire alarm system is required for the use of the building, that use may be prohibited until the fire alarm system is functioning properly. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 11 Documentation of Area Characteristics – Criterion 2A ORGANIZATION OVERVIEW Governance and Lines of Authority The City of Palo Alto was incorporated on April 23, 1894. PAFD has existed as a fire protection agency within the State of California since 1894 as well. The city is provided the authority to levy taxes and raise revenue for operating an organized fire department. Policy direction for PAFD is provided by a mayor, vice mayor, and seven city council members. The mayor and vice mayor are elected to those positions by the council for one-year terms. The mayor, vice mayor, and council are provided the necessary power and authority to govern the provision of fire protection and emergency services. The council appoints a city manager who is responsible for implementing council policy and overseeing the operation of the fire department. The city manager appoints the fire chief. Organizational Finance Establishment of financial policy for the PAFD is the responsibility of the city council, with the city manager and fire chief responsible for fiscal administration. The City of Palo Alto has an assessed valuation of $31,954,381,415 and Stanford University Properties are assessed at $3,037,112,888 for a total assessed valuation of $34,991,494,3031. The city uses a one-year budget cycle to prepare the operating budget and the capital improvement plan based on a July through June fiscal year. The total fire department general fund budget for Fiscal Year 2018 is $31,773,872. Total budget including Capital Improvements is $40,023,564. 1 County of Santa Clara Compilation of Tax Rates and Information 2016, downloaded November 1, 2017 at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/fin/Controller- Treasurer%20Department/Property%20Tax%20Apportionment/Documents/Tax-Rate-Book-2016- 2017.pdf Planning Assumption Budget and fiscal constraints, especially unfunded pension liabilities and other post-retirement medical benefits, will challenge the status quo delivery model and performance standards. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 12 The figure below lists the amount of non-tax revenue for PAFD by division for fiscal year 2018. Fire Prevention revenue is included in the Development Center Budget and not the Fire Department Budget. Figure 1: Generated Revenue – FY 20182 Revenue Type Amount Charges for Services 9,970,718 Charges to other funds 161,322 From other agencies 397,000 Other revenue 57,000 Other taxes and fines 1,000 Permits and licenses 15,713 TOTAL $10,602,753 The figure below shows the general operating expenditure and capital improvement program history for the current and previous two fiscal years. Figure 2: Budget/Expenditures by Year, FY 2016 – FY 20183 Expenditures By Category Actual FY 2016 Adopted FY 2017 Adopted FY 2018 Salary & Benefits 23,172,338 24,782,955 27,150,008 Allocated Charges 3,132,327 2,860,444 2,903,441 Contract Services 453,343 516,325 645,325 Facilities and Equipment 162,882 157,200 196,700 General Expense 197,479 264,722 426,722 Supplies and Materials 433,549 365,645 451,676 Capital Improvement Program4 476,775 3,536,037 8,474,885 Total Budget $28,028,694 $32,483,328 $40,248,757 A comprehensive capital improvement and replacement program is important to the long-term financial and operational stability of any fire and emergency medical service organization. Such programs provide systematic development and renewal of the physical assets and rolling-stock of the agency. A capital program must link with the planning process to anticipate and time capital expenditures in a manner that does not adversely influence the operation of the agency or otherwise place the agency in a negative financial position. Items usually included in capital improvement and replacement programs are facilities, apparatus, land acquisition, and other major capital projects. The city has a formally 2 City of Palo Alto Adopted Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 2018, downloaded September 13, 2017 at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61330 (pg. 266) 3 Ibid. (page 266) 4 City of Palo Alto Adopted Capital Budget, Fiscal Year 2018, downloaded September 13, 2017 at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61331 (pgs. 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 166, 669) Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 13 adopted and funded capital improvement plan for facilities and major equipment. PAFD’s fleet and facilities are included in this plan. Significant fleet investments occurred in FY 2017 and a fire station replacement (Fire Station 3) is funded in FY 2017 and 2018. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2A.1: SERVICE AREA OVERVIEW The earliest historical record of the Palo Alto area was made by Spanish explorer Gaspar de Portolá in 1769. The city was named after a tall redwood tree, a noted area landmark. Ranching and commerce were early commercial activities. The township of Mayfield was established in 1855 in the area that is now southern Palo Alto. Leland Stanford began purchasing land for a horse farm starting in 1876. The City of Palo Alto incorporated in 1894. Mayfield was annexed to Palo Alto in 1925. Stanford University (officially Leland Stanford Junior University) was founded in 1891. It is a private research university and one of the world’s most prestigious institutions with the top position in numerous rankings and measures in the United States. Palo Alto became home for many of the faculty and staff who worked there. Palo Alto has become the central economic focal point for the Silicon Valley. It is home to over 7,000 businesses together employing nearly 100,000 people. A number of significant businesses are headquartered in Palo Alto. Stanford University and the Stanford University Medical Center are the largest employers. The City of Palo Alto is now an area of approximately 25.9 square miles. It has a resident population of approximately 66,861 people. Approximately 13,809 students, faculty, and their families live on the Stanford University campus bringing PAFD’s total resident service population to 80,670. It is estimated that employment increases Palo Alto and Stanford’s daytime population by approximately 68,000 to 148,670 people. PAFD also serves Stanford University under the provisions of a services contract. Stanford University has a total student enrollment of almost 17,000. It covers 12.8 square miles with nearly 700 major buildings totaling 18 million square feet and multiple stadiums seating up to 50,000 people. It has a total employment of over 22,000 and a daytime population that exceeds 38,000. Insurance Services Office Public Protection Classification The Insurance Services Office (ISO) reviews the fire protection resources within communities and provides a Community Fire Protection Rating system from which insurance rates are often based. The rating system evaluates three primary areas: the emergency communication and dispatch system, the fire department, and the community’s pressurized hydrant or tanker-based water supply. The overall rating is then expressed as a number between 1 and 10, with 1 being the highest level of protection and 10 being unprotected or nearly so. As of the latest survey (September 2012) ISO gave PAFD a rating of Class 2/9. Class 2 applies to all property within five road miles of a fire station and within 1,000 feet of a Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 14 fire hydrant. Class 9 applies to all property within five miles of a fire station but beyond 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant. The emergency communications function includes the capabilities of the call receipt and dispatch system along with the quality and redundancy of communications systems between dispatchers and response units. ISO gave eight points out of a possible 10 points to this element. Minor deficiencies were noted in the alarm circuit integrity monitoring and testing of emergency power supplies. The fire department is evaluated on its ability to provide needed apparatus within specified distances of developed property, the pump capacity and equipment carried on those apparatus, and the number of personnel staffing each. Resources of adjacent agencies dispatched by automatic aid agreements are also counted. In addition, the fire department is evaluated on its training programs and facilities. The fire department received 38.48 points out of a possible 50 points for this element. Deficiencies included insufficient numbers of ladder companies (three are needed for maximum credit), and inadequate distribution of response units (an engine should be available within 1.5 road miles of any area and a ladder company within 2.5 miles of any area with buildings three or more stories in height). The fire department received 8.95 points out of a possible 15 for the number of firefighters on duty. The training program received 8.73 out of a possible nine points. The water system is evaluated on the amount of storage, size of water mains, distribution and condition of fire hydrants, and the ability of the system to deliver needed quantities of water based on specific risks within the service area. The water system received 38.26 points out of a possible 40 points. Minor deficiencies were noted in the water supply system (when needed water flow from fire hydrants is compared to available water flow) and in the fire hydrant inspection program. Certain buildings, their contents, functions, and size present a greater firefighting challenge and require special equipment, operations, and training. Information for risk analysis has been drawn from PAFD records and the Insurance Services Office (ISO) database. Community Expectations for Type and Level of Service The ultimate goal of any emergency service delivery system is to provide sufficient resources (personnel, apparatus, and equipment) to the scene of an emergency in time to take effective action to minimize the impacts of the emergency. This need applies to fires, medical emergencies, and any other emergency situation to which the fire department responds. Obtaining and understanding the desires and expectations of community stakeholders is an important first step. PAFD is committed to incorporating the needs and expectations of residents and policy makers in the service delivery planning process. External Stakeholder Input PAFD conducted an extensive community input process during the preparation of its Strategic Plan in 2013. Twenty-seven community members participated in the discussion. The full results of this process are described in the Strategic Plan. Portions relevant to this Standards of Coverage document are included below. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 15 The participants ranked emergency medical services as the most important with a score of 153. Fire suppression was second with a score of 139. The following figure illustrates the community’s service priorities. Figure 3: Community Service Priorities Program Ranking Score Emergency Medical Services 1 153 Fire Suppression 2 139 Technical Rescue 3 111 Fire Prevention 4 87 Hazardous Materials Mitigation 5 86 Domestic Preparedness Planning and Response 6 55 Public Fire/EMS Safety Education 7 54 Fire Investigation 8 43 Community expectations of PAFD were also captured. The top seven were: 1) To respond in a timely manner and effectively put out fires. To respond to all emergencies in a timely manner. 2) Coordination with police and Office of Emergency Services. Work with city departments. 3) Effective services = quality. 4) Adequate staffing and training to support the high-tech business community—both in prevention and response. Ongoing training. 5) Have proper equipment. Equipment readiness/including ALS-BLS capabilities. 6) Mitigation and prevention—public education. Education of community regarding prevention and medical emergency. 7) Professional manner interacting with the public. To represent the fire service in a professional and ethical manner. The community participants expressed a number of concerns regarding their fire and emergency services. These included:  Firefighters typically do not live in Palo Alto thus they are not immediately available to be called back for major emergencies.  Concern that limited funding will result in less service.  Appropriate staffing levels should be maintained to balance safety needs and cost effectiveness.  PAFD should have a stronger voice to ensure roadways are accessible for fire trucks and emergency vehicles.  Sending a fire truck and ambulance to a medical emergency seems an overuse of resources.  Excessive movement of personnel away from fire suppression. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 16 Internal Stakeholder Input Internal stakeholders report that PAFD has gone through significant change over the past five years. Members of the department still have a “can do” attitude with their primary goal of servicing the customer. However, it is reported that employee attrition is increasing. Concerns expressed included an awareness that turnout times are longer than should be experienced. There is concern that changes in the dispatch process have not fully matured leading to longer than expected call processing times. There was additional concern that the closest unit dispatch process was not fully developed and unit recommendations are too often overridden by the dispatcher. Looking forward, staff seeks to improve their ability to use data to evaluate performance and affect system changes that will lead to improved service and efficiency. Additional risk reduction efforts are desired including strengthening the fire sprinkler ordinance and other incident reducing activities. The number of false fire alarm activations is also a concern since it reduces system reliability. Some effort to reduce the number of false fire alarms is desired. Community Outcome Goals From these conversations general statements of outcome have been developed regarding the community’s expectations of its fire department. These statements have been synthesized by ESCI using its understanding of community expectations. They should provide PAFD with a better understanding of the needs and expectations of its community within each service area. Figure 4: Community Outcome Goals Service Community Outcome Goal Fire Suppression For all fire incidents, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to stop the escalation of the fire and keep the fire to the area of involvement. An effective concentration of resources shall arrive within time to be capable of containing the fire, rescuing at-risk victims, and performing property loss mitigation operations. Emergency Medical Services For priority emergency medical incidents, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficiently trained and equipped personnel to provide advanced medical services that will stabilize the situation, provide care and support to the victim and reduce, reverse, or eliminate the conditions that have caused the emergency. Vehicle Extrication For all vehicle accidents where rescue of victims is required, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to stabilize the situation and extricate the victim(s) from the emergency situation or location without causing further harm to the victim. High-Angle Rescue For all high-angle rescue incidents, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to stabilize the situation, rapidly access the vict im, and perform the necessary rescue functions. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 17 Service Community Outcome Goal Trench and Collapse Rescue For all trench or collapse rescue incidents, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to stabilize the situation, protect the health and safety of victims and responders, and perform the necessary rescue functions. Swift-Water Rescue For all swift water rescue incidents PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to rapidly access the victim and perform the necessary rescue functions. Confined Space Rescue For all confined space rescue incidents, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to stabilize the situation, protect the health and safety of victims and responders, and perform the necessary rescue functions. Hazardous Materials Response For all hazardous materials incidents, PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to stabilize the situation and perform the actions necessary to prevent or control the release, protect life and the environment and resolve the incident. Wildland Firefighting For all wildland fire incidents PAFD shall arrive in a timely manner with sufficient resources to protect valuable property at risk, minimize the number of acres consumed by fire, and protect people at risk. Quarterly Performance Reporting and Customer Service Survey Beginning in October 2014, the Fire Department contracted with an independent third party agency to conduct customer satisfaction surveys for EMS calls. Results are provided quarterly to the agency. In addition to conducting customer-focused surveys, this agency benchmarks the Department’s performance against providers across the country. The result of our customer feedback is outstanding, with overall scores in the mid-90 points range out of 100. This result aligns with recent results in the National Citizen Survey, which rated the ambulance service at 97% and the fire service at 95%. The results are provided to the City Council on a quarterly basis along with an overall department performance report. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2A.2: BOUNDRIES FOR OTHER SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY AREAS PAFD is a partner in an automatic aid agreement with the City of Mountain View, a participant in the regional mutual aid systems and the State of California Master Mutual Aid Agreement. This automatic aid agreement with the City of Mountain View provides for the dispatch of closest apparatus, regardless of jurisdiction to ensure the closest appropriate units are sent to an emergency. The PAFD is a member in the Santa Clara County Operational Area mutual aid agreement, and maintains mutual aid agreements with San Mateo County agencies sharing a northern border including the Menlo Park Fire District and Woodside Fire District. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 18 Finally, the PAFD is a signatory to the State of California’s Master Mutual Aid Agreement. This provides for systematic mobilization, organization, and operation of necessary fire and rescue resources of the state and its political subdivisions in mitigating the effects of disasters, whether natural or man-caused. These systems provide the PAFD with ready access to a significant number of response resources. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 19 Figure 5: Service Area Boundaries for the Palo Alto Fire Department including Mutual Aid agencies Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 20 CORE COMPETENCY 2A.4: ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ZONES CONSIDERING THE POPULATION DENSITY WITHIN PLANNING ZONES AND POPULATION AREAS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPING TOTAL RESPONSE TIME STANDARDS The Census Blocks Groups are further evaluated by population density. 2010 U.S. Census Bureau guidelines are used. Population density is used to determine specific emergency response performance measured against CFAI urban and rural benchmarks. Population characteristics such as population density, age, gender, socioeconomic factors were calculated into the risk assessment analysis by using a variety of datasets, including the most recently available Census data, the American Community Survey data and data that was processed by both Santa Clara County GIS and San Mateo County GIS. Population density was calculated into the risk assessment by using a two-step process due to the risk analysis area crossing several jurisdictions. Data was available and used at the census block level for the City of Palo Alto and used at the census block group for Stanford and other areas falling within San Mateo County. In the areas of the risk assessment that did not fall within Santa Clara County, data from the San Mateo open data site were used. Population density was already calculated in two fields and this data was added into the hexagon grid so that there was one field called population density for the entire risk analysis study area. Population density was then ranked within each hexbin to distribute the variable relatively throughout the jurisdiction for incorporation into the probability formula. Urban: An urban area is comprised of a densely settled core of census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with contiguous territory containing nonresidential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core. To qualify as an urban area on its own, the territory identified according to the criteria must encompass at least 2,500 people, at least 1,500 of which reside outside institutional group quarters. Urban areas that contain 50,000 or more people are designated as urbanized areas (UAs); urban areas that contain at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people are designated as urba n clusters (UCs). The term “urban area” refers to both UAs and UCs. Rural: The term “rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 21 Figure 6: Population Density (2010 Census) PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2A.6: PLANNING ZONE METHODOLOGY TO IDENTIFY RESPONSE AREA CHARACTERISTICS The City of Palo Alto is at risk from a variety of natural and non-natural hazards. Stanford University and other nearby communities are also at risk to many of these same hazards. To evaluate the City of Palo Alto’s capabilities for addressing all hazard events, the City of Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services (OES) conducted a collaborative planning process in order to develop the City of Palo Alto 2014 Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). This assessment provides the outcomes of this process and is compliant with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201. Link to THIRA document. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 22 Naturally Occurring Characteristics Topography, Geology, Geography, Climate, and Physiography In addition to the THIRA, the Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (LHMAP) provided other data layers that were used as variables within the risk assessment. LHMAP layers were produced for landslide risk, liquefaction hazards, probabilistic seismic hazards, sea level rise hazards, tsunami risk, and fire severity hazards. The fire severity data from the LHMAP was incorporated into the risk analysis for non- structure fires. The remaining layers were used to quantify the risk scores related to domestic preparedness. Link to LHMAP document. Weather Risk Palo Alto’s climate is best described as Mediterranean. Winters are cool and wet. Summers are warm and dry. The lowest temperature recorded was 15 degrees Fahrenheit in 2003 and the highest temperature recorded was 107 degrees Fahrenheit in 1961. Palo Alto receives an average of 15 inches of rainfall each year. Extreme weather is rare. Strong windstorms, occasional snowfall, and rainstorms occur at times. Natural Hazard Prioritization Each natural hazard was rated by the sum of three criteria. The first criterion was estimated likelihood of future occurrence on a scale of 1 - 4. The second criterion was potential impacts on a scale of 1 -4. Both of these scales are presented in Table 4-3 Natural Hazards Rating Criteria. The third criterion was based on results from a public survey conducted during the 2012 local hazard mitigation planning process. Respondents were asked to select the five hazards of most concern. The percentage of responses for the identified hazards was scored on a 10 point scale. For each hazard, the three criteria were summed, and the natural hazards with the highest rating were included in the hazards of most concern for the City of Palo Alto. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 23 Figure 7: Natural Hazards Probability Rating Criteria5 Figure 8: Natural Hazard Rating Results6 5 City of Palo Alto 2014 Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (pg. 18), downloaded November 10, 2017 at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43866 6 Ibid. (pg. 18) Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 24 Earthquake Hazard Summary: Past land use decisions in Palo Alto have not always taken hazards into consideration. Moreover, older buildings and infrastructure reflect the construction and engineering standards of their era, which in most cases fall short of current standards for seismic safety. As a result, a portion of the City, including 130 soft story structures, would be at some risk in the event of a major earthquake. The greatest hazards are associated with fault rupture and ground shaking, although liquefaction hazards are significant in the area east of Highway 101 due to the porous nature and high water content of the soil. Landslides, a hazard that is common in the foothills of Palo Alto, may result from heavy rain, erosion, removal of vegetation or human activities. Settlement and subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal has historically been a problem in the southern and eastern areas of the City of Palo Alto, but has been largely halted by groundwater recharge efforts and reduced pumping. Seismically-induced flooding is a hazard due to the possibility of dam failure at Felt Lake and Searsville Lake and the potential for levee failure near the San Francisco Bay. To help mitigate the damages that may result from a potential earthquake, Palo Alto strictly enforces uniform building code seismic safety restrictions and provides incentives for seismic retrofits of structures in the University Avenue/Downtown area. The City also allows development rights achieved through seismic upgrading of specified sites to be transferred to designated eligible receiver sites per Program N - 71 in the Comprehensive Plan and per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.18.080. Palo Alto has completed seismic improvements to facilities and critical infrastructure as part of its mitigation planning, including City Hall, library buildings, the Art Center, and water reservoirs among others. Flood / Severe Winter Storm Summary: Flood hazards, including tidal flooding from overtopping of coastal levees during extreme high tide events in the Bay and fluvial flooding from creeks overflowing their banks, are likely to continue to occur in Palo Alto. Winter storms, which generate large amounts of rain and heavy winds, can result in flooding. The City minimizes exposure to flood hazards through its participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA makes NFIP flood insurance available to Palo Alto residents and businesses as a result of the City’s adoption of required floodplain management regulations into its Municipal Code (Chapter 16.52) that promote public health, safety and general welfare, and minimize damages due to flood conditions. City staff reviews proposed development in flood prone areas and enforces the floodplain management regulations for specified building activity in Special Flood Hazard Areas, as depicted on FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). In 1990, the City created an independent enterprise fund to fund needed improvements to the storm drain system with revenue generated through user fees and developed a Storm Drain Master Plan in 1993 to identify and prioritize a set of projects to increase system capacity and reduce the incidence of street flooding. Property owners approved a ballot measure in 2005 to increase the City’s monthly storm drain fee and thereby provided funding to implement a set of seven high-priority capital improvement projects to upgrade the storm drain system. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 25 The City has long been a partner with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) who constructed channel upgrades (100-year flood protection) in the 1980’s and 1990’s to reduce flood risks from Adobe, Matadero, and Barron Creeks. San Francisquito Creek remains a substantial flood risk to the community, along with tidal flooding during extreme high tide events. Following the historic 1998 flood, five local agencies from two counties (the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto, the County of San Mateo Flood Control District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District) formed the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) to plan, design, and implement flood, environmental, and recreational projects. Specifically, the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority is developing a comprehensive regional plan for the San Francisquito Creek watershed that will improve the level of flood protection to Palo Alto and surrounding communities. The SFCJPA’s initial capital project, being planned in conjunction with the City of Palo Alto, is designed to increase creek flow capacity to protect people and property from fluvial flooding along a critical urban section of the creek between Highway 101 and San Francisco Bay. Palo Alto, along with the entire Bay Area, is also subject to increasing flood risk as a result of rising sea levels, requiring city planners to collaborate with regional organizations and projects, such as the SCVWD, SFCJPA, the US Army Corps of Engineers’ South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, and the State Coastal Conservancy Salt Pond Restoration Project, who have each initiated studies on impacts of sea level rise in the vicinity of Palo Alto. The following figure illustrates the area designated by FEMA as 100-year flood zones. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 26 Figure 9: FEMA 100-Year Flood Zones Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 27 Wildfire Risk: Within the city’s developed area the risk of wildland fires is not significant. The southwestern Palo Alto Foothills, sparsely developed, area is rated as high to very high wildland fire risk by the California Division of Forestry as shown in the following figure. This, in combination with increase public use of open space is why PAFD staffs Station 8 on high fire danger days during summer months. Figure 10: Wildland Fire Risk Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 28 Human and Human-Related Characteristics Population / Population Demographics The City of Palo Alto’s population has grown slowly, with an average annual growth rate of 0.9 percent between 2000 and 2016. At the time of this study, Palo Alto has a resident population of approximately 67,000 people. Approximately 14,000 students, faculty and their families live on the Stanford University campus bringing PAFD’s total resident service population to approximately 81,000. It is estimated that daytime employment increases Palo Alto and Stanford’s daytime population by approximately 68,000 to 149,000 people. The City of Palo Alto has developed a population growth forecast to the year 2030. Population growth for the city is forecast to average 0.05 percent per year through 2030. Using this estimate, the city’s population could reach 77,000 by 2030. Including the Stanford University resident population the PAFD resident service population could reach 91,000 by 2030. Future development within the community is expected to be limited to redevelopment of existing underutilized property. Figure 11: Population Demographics City of Palo Alto, US Census 2010, 2016 estimate7 7 United States Census, Quick Facts Palo Alto, California, downloaded on November 10, 2017 at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/paloaltocitycalifornia/PST045216 Planning Assumption The aging population of citizens will have an impact on service demands for EMS and fire services. Citizens ages 65 and older disproportionally use EMS and have a 2.7 times greater risk of dying in a fire than the population as a whole. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 29 The following figure illustrates resident service population in the City of Palo Alto growth over the past 15 years. Figure 12: Population History Figure 13: Population Demographics Stanford Census Designated Place (CDP), US Census Estimate July 1, 2016 The 2010 US Census for the Stanford Census Designated Place (CDP) does not include the student population. Due to the high cost of housing in the Palo Alto area, Stanford University provides housing for most academic faculty and students. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 30 Figure 14: Stanford University Enrollment, October 2016 8 As of autumn 2016, 6,538 undergraduate and 5,971 graduate students live in university-provided housing. 97 percent of all undergraduates live in campus housing; 66 percent of graduate students live in university-provided housing designed for single students, couples and families with children.9 It is useful to assess the distribution of the population within the city since there is a direct correlation between population density and service demand. The following figure displays the population density of Palo Alto based on Census 2010 data. Census data only includes people who live full-time in their home. It does not include people who visit or reside temporarily in a community. 8 Stanford University Common Data Set 2016-2017, downloaded on November 10, 2017 at https://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/pdf/stanford_cds_2016.pdf 9 Stanford University Facts 2017: Campus Life, downloaded on November 10, 2017 at http://facts.stanford.edu/campuslife/ Planning Assumption The population growth that is projected through 2030 on the Stanford University Campus will increase emergency service demand in the busiest Census Block planning zones. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 31 One of the factors that can influence emergency service demand, particularly emergency medical services, is the population’s age. The following figure examines the PAFD’s population segmented by age groups. This data is based on 2013 American Community Survey estimates. Figure 15: Estimated Population by Age Based on the preceding figure, 15.8 percent of the population is 65 years of age or older and 5.4 percent of the population is under five years of age. This places a total of 21.2 percent of the area’s population within the age groups that are at highest risk in residential fire incidents and account for some of the highest use of emergency medical services. Senior citizens can have difficulty escaping from fire due to physical limitations. Seniors also tend to use emergency medical services more frequently than younger persons. As the population ages, this will create an increase in service demand for emergency medical services. The very young also represent a vulnerable population, both in regard to their ability to escape a structure fire as well as their susceptibility to serious medical ailments such as asthma, traumatic events, choking, or injury from vehicular accidents. Area Economics and Socio-economics The City of Palo Alto and Stanford University are in the heart of the Silicon Valley and represent some of the nation’s highest median household income, owner-occupied housing costs and education levels. The community’s high socio-economic and education levels combines with low rates of uninsured citizens, keeps the community risk level low. This upper income community supports high levels of key services and social systems. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 32 Figure 16: Socio-economic data, City of Palo Alto US Census 2010. 2016 estimate10 10 Ibid. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 33 Human-Made Characteristics Development The following community risk assessment has been developed based on intended land uses as described in the City of Palo Alto land use and zoning designations. The following figure translates land use and zoning to categories of relative fire and life risk. Low risk—Areas zoned and used for agricultural purposes, open space, and very low-density residential and uses. Moderate risk—Areas zoned for medium-density single family properties, small commercial and office uses, low-intensity retail sales, and equivalently sized business activities. High risk—Higher-intensity business districts, mixed use areas, high-density residential, industrial, warehousing, and large mercantile centers. The following figure depicts fire and life safety risk based on land use and zoning. Figure 17: Fire and Life Safety Risk Based on Zoning Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 34 Area land use Data related to land use came from several different sources and had to be joined together in order to apply consistently the risk methodology. The City of Palo Alto had a layer of parcel data with attributes that included property zone type; however Stanford University did not have the same data applied to each parcel. Area land use had to be applied to the hexagon grids in a multi-step process. First, data from the land parcels was added into the hexagon grids for the available parcel data. Then building data from Stanford University was used to join the building property use information to the Stanford parcels. This allowed the parcel level to be used consistently as the defined zone type. The parcel data contained several zone types and the zones were consolidated into 7 zones. Land use zones were grouped as follows: Zone Types Included Commercial/Manufacturing Commercial, Commercial/Manufacturing, General Manufacturing District Multi-Family Residential Residential, Residential Multi-Family Mixed Use Commercial, Research, Manufacturing, Residential, Commercial/Office Research/Residential, Commercial/Manufacturing/Residential, Commercial/Research/Manufacturing/Residential, Commercial/Residential, Commercial; Residential Multi-Family, Mixed Use Outside/Open Space Open Space, Outside, Special Property Public Public Facility Single Family Residential Residential, Residential Single Family No Zone Type Blank ZONE Planning Assumption On November 13, 2017, the City of Palo Alto adopted its Comprehensive Plan that allows the development of 1.7 million square feet of office space and up to 4,400 new housing units through 2030. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 35 Figure 18: Area Land Use Variables Incorporated in Hexagon Grids Using the land use data, an analysis was then performed to examine the relationship between land use and incidents by NFIRS type. The results of the analysis were incorporated within the formulas used to score the probability of events for each PAFD service. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 36 Most of the historical EMS events occurred within single family residentially zoned areas. Within calculations for EMS probability, single family residential areas were weighted the highest. There were very few historical NFRIS reported hazardous materials events, less than 3% of all incidents (Incident Type 400 Series) within the study area. Although there were few events reported there were enough events to review trends per land use. The majority of the hazardous conditions events occurred at mixed use land use zoned areas and they were therefore weighted the highest Land use/Zone types were not factored into the risk assessment related to the probability for domestic emergencies and wildland fires risk in the same manner as in the other services provided. The methodology used to weight land use/zone type as part of this risk assessment is dependent on the accuracy of the land use data and the ability to estimate the relationship between the property zone type and the request for fire department services. Better land use data for use in a regression analys is may be needed in future risk assessments to estimate the relationship more precisely. Building Characteristics The height and size of buildings are important variables for assessing risk because the size and height affects the impact to the organization, as more specialized resources may be needed the larger the structure. An analysis of the parcel data was performed to determine the distribution of building height throughout the jurisdiction. This data was then categorically grouped to reflect the different resources needed for single story structures, mid-rise structures, and high rise structures. Fire Protection Systems: Sprinkler, inspections, and other fire prevention datasets were considered as part of the analysis as mitigating factors within the risk assessment process specifically for the risk of structure fires. Sprinkler permit data was extracted from a PAFD reporting system for 2016 and was converted into a spreadsheet and the addresses were geocoded to identify the geographical areas where sprinklers were present in buildings. The addresses were then joined to parcels to identify the areas where fire protections systems are present. Additional research will be completed to determine if the sprinkler systems installed prior to 2016 can by identified and used to further reduce the risk of fire in the service area. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 37 Figure 19 Parcels with Fire Suppression Systems Service Type Infrastructure Water Distribution Palo Alto’s water comes from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). This high quality water supply consists almost entirely of Sierra Nevada snowmelt delivered through the Hetch Hetchy water distribution system that stretches several hundred miles across Northern California. Precipitation levels can vary greatly within any given year. Even though we may experience periods of wet weather, a warm dry spell can affect water supplies later in the year. These climate conditions, along with our limited long-term water supplies drive water conservation and system upgrades and maintenance. The most obvious concern to the fire department is the water reservoir, water main, and fire hydrant system. Providing sufficient storage, distribution, and access to this valuable firefighting resource through well-distributed fire hydrants is very important. Figure 23 shows that fire hydrants are distributed through virtually all developed areas. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 38 Figure 20: Hetch Hetchy Regional Water Distribution System11 11 Hetch Hetchy Regional Water Distribution System, downloaded November 1, 2017 at http://sfwater.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=10131 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 39 Figure 21: Fire Hydrant Distribution The City of Palo Alto hydrant layer was also factored into the risk analysis as a variable related to impact and consequence. Considering the amount of hose carried on a standard Engine, a buffer area around each hydrant of 500 feet was created. Any of the areas outside the 500-foot distance of a hydrant was factored with a higher risk than within 500 feet of a hydrant (figure 24). These variables were given a presence or absence factor, 1 if outside the buffer zone and 0 if within the buffer zone. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 40 Figure 22: Hydrants within 500ft Buffer Zone Communications Emergency communication centers and the associated transmitting and receiving equipment are essential facilities for emergency response. The Palo Alto Police Department provides emergency 9-1-1 call receipt and dispatch service to PAFD. This center provides for the interrogation of 9-1-1 calls for help, dispatching of fire and other emergency responders, and important support to the incident management function. There are other communication facilities and equipment that are equally important to the community and government operations. These are the telephone company central offices and the transmission lines of local telephone service providers. Internet service providers, along with wireless cellular Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 41 communication providers, provide essential communication capabilities for the community as well as emergency personnel through their facilities and equipment. Natural Gas Pipeline and Electric Transmission Lines Pacific Gas & Electric (PG & E) and the City of Palo Alto Utilities natural gas and electrical transmission lines were incorporated into the risk assessment because the presence of these variables impacts risk in different capacities. These variables were included in the hexagon grids by using a presence/absence factor. Each grid that intersected with the pipeline and transmission lines was flagged and included in the probability calculations for Hazmat and Domestic preparedness risk. These variables were used as part of the impact calculation related to fire risk, because the presence of these factors impacts the number of resources required. Figure 23: PG & E Natural Gas Transmission Lines12 12 PG & E Natural Gas Pipeline Locations, downloaded on November 10, 2017 at https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system-works/natural-gas-system-overview/gas- transmission-pipeline/gas-transmission-pipelines.page Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 42 Figure 24: Electrical Transmission Lines13 13 Energy Infrastructure Map of Northern California, downloaded on November 10, 2017 at http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/infrastructure/3part_enlargements.html City of Palo Alto City of Menlo Park Stanford University Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 43 Hazardous materials The presence of facilities containing hazardous materials was also included as a variable within the risk assessment. PAFD had a layer of addresses that were reported as Tier II sites, this layer did not specify the specific materials and quantities so all tier II sites were factored in the risk assessment equally. State laws require business that store hazardous materials in quantities greater than or equal to 55 gallons of a liquid, 500 pounds of a solid, 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, or extremely hazardous substances, to report to Local Emergency Preparedness Committees (LEPC) so that fire departments are aware of the hazards when responding to incidents. The presence of hazardous materials was used as a probability factor for Hazmat risk, but was considered as an impact variable related to structure fire risk. Figure 25: Facilities with Hazardous Materials and Number of Facilities by Census Block Group Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 44 Transportation systems Transportation corridors provide necessary access and egress for the department. The configuration of transportation systems can also affect the response capability of emergency services. Limited access freeways and rail lines can interrupt street connectivity, forcing apparatus to negotiate a circuitous route to reach an emergency scene. Roadways, railway, and trails were added into the hexagon grid. Each one of these variables related to each risk differently. These variables were incorporated using presence or absence factors as a means to add them into the probability of certain risks. All scoring within the risk methodology is based on percentiles ranks that range from 0 to 10. Since these were presence/absence variables, if any of the variables were present within a hexagon grid, they were given a score of 10. The trails however were assigned two different levels; trails west of Interstate 280 were considered higher risk than those trails east of Interstate 280 due to access and terrain issues. Roads: Surface streets dominate the PAFD service area. Two state highways and several other arterials and expressways provide traffic circulation. The balance of the department’s service has a mix of relatively well interconnected street networks and neighborhoods characterized by cul-de-sacs and other dead end street systems. Both state highways, major arterials, and many other smaller streets are noted to have significant congestion issues, in particular during the morning and evening commutes. The stature of Palo Alto and Stanford attracts thousands of visitors each day to the most congested areas of the community, especially University Avenue and the Central Stanford Campus. The community encourages alternate forms of transportation, especially bike transportation. Many neighborhood street networks are characterized by narrow roads, parked cars, shared bike lanes, limited intersection visibility, and congested access. Both Palo Alto and Stanford are addressing traffic, transportatio n, and parking issues. Some traffic signals within the service area are equipped with signal pre-emption equipment. Signals so equipped provide a significant response time performance advantage as well as improved safety to motorists. Planning Assumption Increased motor vehicle traffic associated with commercial activities from Palo Alto businesses and Stanford University, especially work commuting, will pose barriers to emergency response time performance. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 45 Railroads: Caltrain operates a commuter rail service on tracks that bisect the city. Average weekday ridership in 2016 exceeded 59,500 people. This system carries commuter passengers between Gilroy and San Francisco. Union Pacific Railroad owns an easement along the route. It and other rail companies operate freight train service along the route both day and night. Hazardous materials loads are less common. Figure 26: Map of transportation systems included within the risk assessment analysis Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 46 Airport: The Palo Alto Airport sits on the border of the City of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto near the south end of the San Francisco bay. The airport is both critical infrastructure and a variable related to both the probability and impact for certain types of events. The Palo Alto Airport is operated by the City of Palo Alto. This facility is a general aviation focused airport without scheduled commercial or airline service. The airport has a single runway that is 2,443 feet long and handles 180,000 landings per year. PAFD provides aircraft crash rescue and firefighting. The City of Palo Alto has an airport layer that identifies traffic pattern zones, terminals, and the airplane runways. For inclusion in the risk assessment each area was considered in terms of presence or absence in a specific hexagon grid. Figure 27: Palo Alto Airport PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2A.7: SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE RESPONSE AREA ARE IDENTIFIED. The City of Palo Alto has a reputation as a world leader in technology and innovation and is a major employment center for the Bay Area. Thousands of companies are located here, delivering a wide range of products and services, from technology and its associated enterprises to community-serving businesses. Through the payment of various taxes, many of these companies directly contribute to City revenues and the delivery of needed services and infrastructure in our city. There are also numerous secondary and tertiary financial benefits as well (i.e. transient occupancy tax (TOT) generated from business trips, sales tax generated from business lunches, etc.). The City’s primary economic development goal is focused on supporting and attracting the businesses that support and grow the tax base, with an understanding that City values and policies help shape economic development strategy and practice. Significant contributors to the position as a major employment center are excellent local schools, access to talented people from institutions such as Stanford University, Stanford Medical Center and Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital; strong neighborhoods (many with historic qualities), with quality executive housing; access to transit; a temperate climate; a beautiful tree canopy and access to parks and open space; a diverse and highly educated populace; interesting and walk-able business districts; City Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 47 ownership of the suite of utilities including fiber optics; strong cultural amenities including community services, performance and visual arts; and good government. But the City government and the services it provides face numerous challenges. The disconnect between economic growth and local government tax structure limits the revenue yield that could be available to the City and fiscal challenges at the state/federal level continue to put cities at risk. City revenues in California are restricted by law and cities lack flexibility, full home rule, and some taxing authority to raise municipal revenues in an economy such as Palo Alto (no income tax, sales taxes on services, etc.). A number of other factors which impact the agency must be considered as part of the City’s economic development strategy. These include: managing growing employment demand at the right scale and pace; increasing access to public transit and enhancing its effectiveness; limited availability of commercial properties; affordable housing; City infrastructure; traffic and parking congestion; transitioning to low a carbon economy; population growth anticipated in young families and seniors into the next decade; and maintaining high quality schools. These challenges require balancing economic development goals and community values. The City’s Economic Development approach champions the innovative spirit of local businesses and the community to ensure Palo Alto maintains its leadership position as a global center for innovation and an attractive place to launch new ideas and businesses. Some companies in the “innovation” space may provide little direct revenue benefit (i.e. taxable sales, etc.) to the City’s general fund. Nonetheless, on the “soft side”, maintaining the City’s brand as a place where people’s creative ideas can become world renowned businesses keeps small city Palo Alto a globally competitive city, with indirect revenue benefits and economic, social, and community multipliers of real value. Demographic and socio-economic data can also be found in the Human and Human-related Characteristics Section, specifically Figure 17. PERFOMANCE INDICATOR 2A.8: SAFETY AND REMIDATION PROGRAMS INCLUDING FIRE PREVENTION, PUBLIC EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION The Department provides a variety of fire prevention, public education and community risk reduction programs. The fire prevention bureau is staffed to provide inspection, investigation, and plan checks on all construction within the city, as well as annual inspections on a variety of local businesses and properties with hazardous materials on site. The department’s public education program includes home site visits for at risk citizens, bicycle safety instruction for 3rd and 5th grade students, public safety demonstrations and talks to local schools and other organizations, hands only CPR training, as well as coordination of a fall prevention program. The department also works diligently to identify risks within the community and identifying means of reducing those risks or improving its ability to respond in an unpreventable incident (natural disaster). The city’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) has identified risks associated with events, infrastructure, and geography. The department and OES have worked together to develop response plans that would assist in recovering in the event of a large scale incident. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 48 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2A.9: CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE PLANNING ZONES Critical Infrastructure The City of Palo Alto’s Emergency Management Office developed and maintains a Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan. Within this plan, natural hazards and critical infrastructure are identified and catalogued. Data layers from the Local hazards mitigation plan were made available for use and incorporation into the risk analysis. An attribute table of 131 addresses where critical infrastructure was identified were joined into the risk analysis a buffer zone of 264 feet (.05 of a mile) around each address point was used. These variables were given a score based on presence or absence within a hexagon grid based on the priority assigned to the infrastructure. Score Priority Number of Critical Facilities 10 Priority I 7 7.5 Priority II 15 5 Priority III 80 2.5 Priority IV 29 131 Example of Priority I Facilities include; Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital, Space Systems Loral, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford Stadium, Tesla Motors Headquarters, Varian Medical Systems Building 4, and several facilities at Stanford University. Within this dataset, schools, government, medical facilities, and utilities were included. These critical facilities were used primarily as consequence factors as it allow the identification of critical utilities, critical services, schools and major employment centers. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 49 Figure 28: Critical Infrastructure: Priority and Counts of Facilities by Census Block Group Other critical facilities identified and used within the risk assessment included nursing and assisted living facilities. The assisted living facilities were also joined to the parcel data and any grid cell which intersected the parcels containing an assisted living facility were considered as increasing the probability of an EMS event. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 50 Schools Palo Alto is served by the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAFUD). PAFUD operates 12 elementary schools, three middle schools, and two high schools along with several specialty programs. Total enrollment is over 12,000 students. The following figure shows the locations of school facilities. Figure 29 School Facilities Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 51 Health Care Facilities Hospitals and other health care facilities house vulnerable populations. Although these facilities are generally built of highly fire resistive construction with built-in fire suppression, emergencies can occur that require the quick movement of patients away from the hazard. The following figure shows the location of the health care facilities in the PAFD services area. Figure 30: Health Care Facilities Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 52 Child Care Facilities Children are vulnerable to fire and other emergencies. Adult guidance is essential when children are faced with an emergency. Along with schools, child care facilities house numerous children during many hours of the day. The following map shows the locations of child care facilities within the PAFD service area. Figure 31: Child Care Facilities Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 53 Adult Care Facilities The other vulnerable population is seniors. Physical and sometimes mental limitations require seniors and others to reside in care facilities. Though these buildings are often of fire resistive construction with built-in fire protection, an emergency at these facilities can require significant additional response resources. The following figure shows the locations of adult care facilities within the PAFD service area. Figure 32: Adult Care Facilities Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 54 High Rise Buildings High rise buildings present a unique challenge to fire departments. Additional personnel are required to move hose and equipment to upper floors of these buildings. A high rise building, as defined by the city’s building code, is any building having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access (approximately seven or eight stories). The following figure shows the locations of high rise buildings within the service area according to the ISO database. Figure 33: High Rise Buildings Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 55 Buildings Three or More Stories in Height The Insurance Services Office rating criteria call for a ladder truck within two and one half miles of developed areas containing buildings three or more stories in height. Accessing the upper floors and roof of buildings this tall typically requires ladder truck capability as ground ladders may not provide access. The following figure shows the locations of many of the buildings in the PAFD service area three or more stories in height according to the ISO database. Figure 34: Buildings Three or More Stories in Height Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 56 Large Square Footage Buildings Large buildings, such as warehouses, malls, and large “box” stores require greater volumes of water for firefighting and require more firefighters to advance hose lines long distances into the building. The following figure shows the locations of buildings 100,000 square feet and larger according to the ISO database. Figure 35: Buildings – 100,000 Square Feet and Larger Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 57 High Fire Flow Buildings Larger buildings can require substantial volumes of water be applied by the fire department in order to control and extinguish fire. This is determined by size, type of construction, and contents. The greater the volume of water required to extinguish a fire the greater the number of firefighters needed to apply that water. The following figure shows the locations of buildings with needed fire flow of 3,000 gallons per minute or more according to the ISO database. Figure 36: Buildings With Needed Fire Flow 3,000 GPM or More Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 58 Public Assembly Numerous buildings lie within the PAFD service in which large numbers of people gather for entertainment, worship, and such. A variety of nightclubs, theaters, and other entertainment venues exist in the downtown area. These facilities present additional risk, primarily for mass casualty incidents. Fire, criminal mischief, and potentially terrorism, could cause a major medical emergency requiring significant emergency service resources. The following figure shows the locations of buildings identified as public assembly facilities within the service area. Figure 37: Public Assembly Facilities Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 59 Description on Agency Programs and Services PROGRAMS AND SERVICES PROVIDED PAFD’s service area includes all of the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University. PAFD also provides automatic and mutual aid to other agencies within the greater metropolitan area. PAFD provides a variety of response services, including structural and wildland fire suppression, advanced life support level emergency medical care and transportation, and entrapment extrication. PAFD also provides technical rescue services including high-angle, trench, and confined space. Finally, PAFD provides fully capable hazardous materials emergency response. PAFD also provides non-response services including staff training, new construction building plan review and inspection, existing occupancy fire safety inspections, public safety education, emergency preparedness, and fire investigation. 9-1-1 answering and dispatch service is provided by the Palo Alto Police Department. There are 104 personnel involved in delivering services to the jurisdiction. Staffing coverage for emergency response is through the use of career firefighters on 24-hour shifts. For immediate response, no less than 24 personnel are on-duty at all times. During summer months, when station 8 is staffed, on- duty staffing increases to 27. The following figure provides basic information on each of the department’s core services, its general resource capability for that service, and information regarding staff resources for that service. Figure 38: Core Services Summary Service General Resource/Asset Capability Basic Staffing Capability per Shift Fire Suppression 6 staffed Type 1 engines 1 staffed Type 3 engine (High fire danger days: June 1 to October 31) 1 staffed ladder truck 1 command response units 1 two-person fire/medic transport ambulance 1 two-person fire/medic transport ambulance during peak hours (0800-2000hrs) 2 fire/medic transport ambulance cross-staffed with Type 1 engine 1 fire/medic transport ambulance cross-staffed with Type 1 engine (2000-0800hrs) Additional automatic and mutual aid engines, aerials, and support units available 26 suppression-trained personnel Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 60 Service General Resource/Asset Capability Basic Staffing Capability per Shift Emergency Medical Services 6 Type 1 engines – ALS equipped and staffed 1 staffed Type 3 engine (High fire danger days: June 1 to October 31) ALS equipped and staffed 1 Ladder truck – ALS equipped and staffed 5 Ambulances – ALS equipped and staffed or cross-staffed 13 certified emergency medical technicians 14 paramedics Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. Vehicle Extrication 1 truck equipped with hydraulic rescue tools, hand tools, air bags, stabilization cribbing and struts, and combination cutter-spreader hydraulic rescue tool 1 crossed staffed Breathing Support Unit equipped with hydraulic rescue tools, hand tools, air bags, stabilization cribbing and struts, and combination cutter-spreader hydraulic rescue tool All non-probationary firefighters are trained to use the hydraulic extrication equipment and cribbing. Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. High-Angle Rescue 1 truck equipped with rescue-rated rope and all associated hardware 1 cross staffed Breathing Support Unit equipped with rescue-rated rope and all associated hardware All personnel trained to the operations level. 33 personnel to the technician level in high-angle rope rescue. Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. Trench and Collapse Rescue 1 trailer equipped with pneumatic shoring jacks, cribbing, limited lumber and hand tools for initial stabilization All personnel trained to the operations level. 12 personnel trained to the technician level in trench and collapse rescue. Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. Swift-Water Rescue All engines and trucks equipped with throw bags, PFDs, and helmets. All personnel trained to the operations level. Three (3) personnel trained to the technician level in swift-water rescue. Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 61 Service General Resource/Asset Capability Basic Staffing Capability per Shift Confined Space Rescue 1 trailer equipped with tripod, cribbing, pneumatic shores, air monitoring equipment, basket stretchers, rescue-rated rope All personnel trained to the operations level. Eight (8) personnel trained to the technician level in confined space rescue. Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. Hazardous Materials Response Hazardous Materials (Cal OES Type 3) response vehicle equipped with personal protective equipment, gas and radiation monitoring equipment, containment supplies, and non-sparking tools All personnel trained to the operations level. Two (2) personnel per shift trained to the technician/specialist level in hazardous materials. Additional automatic and mutual aid firefighters available. ASSETS AND RESOURCES Fire Stations Fire stations play an integral role in the delivery of emergency services for a number of reasons. A station’s location will dictate, to a large degree, response times to emergencies. Fire stations also need to be designed to adequately house equipment and apparatus, as well as the firefighters and other personnel assigned to the station. Station Location and Deployment The PAFD delivers fire, emergency medical service (EMS), and other emergency response from seven fire stations located throughout the city including one on the Stanford campus. Note that Station 8 is staffed only part of the year. The following map shows the city boundaries, and the locations of PAFD and adjacent agency fire stations with which PAFD has mutual and automatic aid agreements. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 62 Figure 39: Current Facility Deployment Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 63 Apparatus Response vehicles are an important resource of the emergency response system. If emergency personnel cannot arrive quickly due to unreliable transport, or if the equipment does not function properly, then the delivery of emergency service is likely compromised. Fire apparatus are unique and expensive pieces of equipment, customized to operate efficiently for a specifically defined mission. The following figure lists apparatus assigned to each of the seven PAFD fire stations. Figure 40: PAFD Fire Stations and Apparatus Station Apparatus Year built Condition Station 1 Engine 61 2009 Good Medic 61 2016 Excellent Battalion Chief Engine 161 (Reserve) 2015 2009 Excellent Good Station 2 Engine 62 2009 Good Medic 62 2012 Good Engine 362 1992 Poor Technical Rescue Trailer 2007 Good Hazmat Trailer 2000 Fair Station 3 Engine 63 2009 Good Medic 63 Engine 663 2012 2001 Good Good Station 4 Engine 64 2009 Good Medic 64 Medic 68 (Reserve) 2011 2011 Good Good Station 5 Engine 65 2017 Excellent Engine 365 Engine 165 (Reserve)* 2010 2009 Good Good Station 6 Engine 66 2017 Excellent Truck 66 2014 Excellent Breathing Support 66 2005 Good Medic 66* 2016 Excellent Engine 660 2007 Good CO2 Trailer 2001 Good Confined Space 2000 Good Shoring Trailer 2010 Good Station 8 Engine 365 2008 Good MTV Station 4 Truck 155 (Shared Reserve Truck) 2017 Excellent *Spring 2018 expected delivery of replacement apparatus for Engine 362 PAFD uses several types of apparatus as shown in the table above. Each type is further described as follows: Engine—Primary response unit from each station for most types of service requests. Each is equipped with a pump and carries water. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 64 Truck—A specialized apparatus equipped with long ladders, salvage, overhaul equipment, and rescue tools. Used for structure fires, rescues, and other service requests. Medic—Vehicle designed to carry medical supplies and transport patients to a medical facility. Breathing Support Unit—A vehicle that carries spare self-contained breathing apparatus cylinders and equipment to refill cylinders at an incident. Trailers—Several different trailers are maintained carrying specialized equipment, tools, and supplies for different types of incidents. These include: Hazardous materials C02 extinguishing agent Confined space rescue Shoring equipment STAFFING INFORMATION PAFD provides staffing in three primary areas: Support Services, Operations, and Fire Prevention. Organizational Structure PAFD is organized in the typical top-down hierarchy. The chain of command is identified with common roles for a fire department of this size. PAFD has seven fire stations that house emergency response resources. The department’s multiple facilities and its three-shift, 24-hour-per-day, seven-day-per-week operational schedule create numerous internal communications and management challenges. The PAFD organizational chart is functional and primary roles are well identified. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 65 Figure 41: Organizational Structure Administration and Support Staff One of the primary responsibilities of a fire department’s administration and support staff is to ensure that the operational entities of the organization have the ability to accomplish their service delivery responsibilities to the public. Without sufficient oversight, planning, documentation, training, and maintenance, the operational entities will struggle to perform their duties well. Administration and support services require appropriate resources to function properly. There are 115 FTE) personnel involved in delivering services to the jurisdiction. The fire department’s primary management team includes the fire chief and the deputy chiefs for operations, support services, Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 66 and fire prevention. Additional administrative and support personnel include office staff, and fire and life safety staff. PAFD has 19.5 management, administration, and support staff. Figure 42: Management, Administration, and Support Personnel by Position Position Number Fire Chief 1 Deputy Chief 3 Administrative Assistant 1 Administrative Associate 3 Senior Management Analyst 1 EMS Chief 1 EMS Data Specialist 1 GIS Specialist 0.5 Training Battalion Chief 1 Training Captain 1 Hazardous Materials Inspectors 2 Fire Inspectors 4 TOTAL 19.5 Emergency Services Staff It takes an adequate and well-trained staff of emergency responders to put the community’s emergency apparatus and equipment to its best use in mitigating incidents. Insufficient staffing at an emergency decreases the effectiveness of the response and potentially increases damage and injury. PAFD uses career personnel to carry out emergency response functions. The following figure shows the distribution of emergency personnel by rank. Figure 43: Emergency Response Personnel by Rank Position Number Battalion Chief 3 Fire Captain 21 Fire Apparatus Operator 30 Firefighter 41 TOTAL 95 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 67 CORE COMPTENCY 2A.3: DOCUMENTED AND ADOPTED METHODOLOGY FOR ORGANIZING THE RESPONSE AREA INTO GEOGRAPHICAL PLANNING ZONES Various methodologies exist for quantitatively assessing risk, the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) requires a methodology that logically, systematically, and consistently classifies and assesses risk throughout the PAFD. The 9th edition of the Fire and Emergency Services Self-Assessment Manual (FESSAM) and the 6th edition of the Risk Assessment Standards of Cover Manual, offer guidance for two different approaches: a two-axis methodology for quantifying probability and consequence; and three- axis methodology for quantifying probability, consequence, and organizational impact. The methodology described here uses the three-axis methodology as described by the CPSE to assess risk within the response jurisdiction for the PAFD. The risk assessment was performed using a grid methodology first to consistently distribute risk variables across the PAFD geographic service region. A one acre hexagon grid was used to summarize risk variables which were then multiplied and added together using the formula specified by the CPSE to calculate the total risk score. Total scores were then summarized into larger hazard management zones consistent with Census Blocks Groups. Using Census Block Groups as the hazard management zones allows the PAFD to drive deployment and response based on the geographic calculated risk considering that PAFD utilizes Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) for deployment of the closest unit for dispatch. Figure 44: Example of Hexagon Grid Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 68 Figure 45: Census Block Groups for the Palo Alto Fire Department Service Area Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 69 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2A.5: PROPERTY, LIFE, INJURY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER ASSOCIATED LOSSES Consequence and loss data should include factors such as the potential for loss of life based off historical data, infrastructure impacted like schools or other critical facilities, and consequence to major employment and/or population centers. Consequence and loss data was only readily available for fire events. The data provided was directly produced from the City of Palo Alto Annual Report (FY16 Annual Report page 39-41). Fire loss in dollar values were not reported, however, the percent of fires confined to room of origin was detailed in the annual report. Trends from the last 10 fiscal years showed that 37% of fires were reported as extending beyond the room of origin. The NFPA reports that nationwide approximately 75% of fires are confined to room of origin or less and approximately 84% of the dollar loss comes from fires where fire has extended beyond the room of origin (see table). Using this national trend and the percent of fires that extended beyond the room of origin in Palo Alto, fire loss was calculated into the consequence scores using the percent rank of total property value and the expected loss due to fire extension beyond the room of origin. Figure 46: Fire Loss Per Capita $- $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 National Average Regional Average Palo Alto $29.90 $33.40 $11.06 Fir e l o s s p e r c a p i t a Planning Assumption The high levels of affluence and education will continue to mitigate fire loss. Reduced fire probability and consequences are supported by the citizens’ ability to afford monitored residential fire alarm and sprinkler systems. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 70 Figure 47: Reported Structure Fires by Extent of Fire Spread In order to apply consequence based on total property values, an additional analysis was needed as total property values were not available for the full study area. Property values for Stanford University land/property were not available; however since the area/land use type was available, property values per land use type were examined. The map below shows average property value by land use type, this data was then joined into the hexagon grids to use within the consequence calculations. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 71 Figure 48: Average Property Value by Land Use Type Consequence and loss data was not readily available for the other risk assessment categories. Hospital outcome data ideally should be used when assessing consequence of EMS. The only available outcome data for EMS was related to cardiac arrests. The cardiac arrest data available was only a sample of the full study period representing data from 2016 only. The data showed there were 34 attempted resuscitations where return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was reported in 38% of the patients. Because no other outcome data was available for inclusion in the consequence score, transport data was used. Based on historical data, 7 out of every 10 EMS calls resulted in a transport, therefore a 7:10 expected transport rate was used as a proxy for EMS consequence in conjunction with ROSC rate. In future assessments of EMS risk, other measures related to patient outcome and/or years of potential life lost should be considered. There was a lack of concrete loss data related to technical rescue, hazmat, and domestic preparedness incidents. Data needed for consequence of technical rescue events should include the loss of life or the loss of mobility, proxies such as income lost due to disability could also potentially be considered. Hazardous materials, domestic preparedness and wildland consequence is more easily quantified in terms of infrastructure impacted, critical facilities, property value and population affected. Consequences for these services were calculated similar to structure fire consequence. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 72 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Population characteristics such as population density, age, gender, socioeconomic factors were calculated into the risk assessment analysis by using a variety of datasets, including the most recently available Census data, the American Community Survey data and data that was processed by both Santa Clara County GIS and San Mateo County GIS. Population density was calculated into the risk assessment by using a two-step process due to the risk analysis area crossing several jurisdictions. Data was available and used at the census block level for the City of Palo Alto and used at the census block group level for Stanford and other areas falling within San Mateo County. Using the POP_DEC10_SSC_Block as the authoritative source, population density was calculated dividing the fields [PopCount] and [Sqmiles_total]. In the areas of the risk assessment that did not fall within Santa Clara County, data from the San Mateo open data site were used. Population density was already calculated in two fields [POP10_SQMI] and [POP12_SQMI], this data was added into the hexagon grid so that there was one field called population density for the entire risk analysis study area. Population density was then ranked within each hexbin to distribute the variable relatively throughout the jurisdiction for incorporation into the probability formula. Income statistics were calculated into the hexagon grids by using data from the American Community Survey 2015 data at the block group level. Median household income and aggregate household income by block group were joined into the hexagon grids. Four fields from the ACS income table (X-19) were joined to the census block group polygons. Income was then inversely ranked and incorporated as a variable into the probability formula. Age and gender demographics were added into the hexagon grid by using data at block group level from the American Community Survey age and sex table (X01_AGE_AND_SEX table). Total population, age, and sex totals were first added into the hexagon grids and then percentages were calculated and joined into the hexagon grids. Specifically, Total population, total population under 5 years of age, total population under 17 years of age and total population over 65 years in age were added into the hexagon grids. Areas with a higher percentage of children under the age of 17 and adults over the age of 65 were weighted with higher risk. AREA LAND USE Data related to land use came from several different sources and had to be joined together in order to apply consistently the risk methodology. The City of Palo Alto had a layer of parcel data with attributes that included property zone type; however Stanford University did not have the same data applied to each parcel. Area land use had to be applied to the hexagon grids in a multi-step process. First, data from the land parcels was added into the hexagon grids for the available parcel data. Then building data from Stanford University was used to join the building property use information to the Stanford parcels. This allowed the parcel level to be used consistently as the defined zone type. The parcel data contained several zone types and the zones were consolidated into 7 zones. Land use zones were grouped as follows: Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 73 Using the land use data, an analysis was then performed to examine the relationship between land use and incidents by NFIRS type. The results of the analysis were incorporated within the formulas used to score the probability of events for each PAFD service. The following tables and charts summarize the number of incidents occurring within the study area by land use and the weight used within each probability calculation. Simplified Zone Type Structure Fires Zone Weight Non-Structure Fires Zone Weight Commercial/Manufacturing 0.46 1.43 0.63 2.31 Multi-family Residential 2.28 7.14 0.48 1.76 Mixed Use 2.19 6.86 2.25 8.24 Outside/Open Space 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.11 Public 0.68 2.14 2.40 8.79 Single-Family Residential 3.20 10.00 1.50 5.49 No Zone Type (blank)* 1.14 3.57 2.72 10.00 Maximum Value 3.20 2.72 Scoring Multiplier 3.13 3.67 *No Zone Type (blank) areas include roadways and other areas within the study area that may or may not be assigned to a parce l. Most of the historical EMS events occurred within single family residentially zoned areas. Within calculations for EMS probability, single family residential areas were weighted the highest. Simplified Zone Type EMS EMS Zone Weight Commercial/Manufacturing 0.59 2.00 Multi-family Residential 1.76 6.00 Mixed Use 1.18 4.00 Outside/Open Space 0.00 0.00 Public 1.76 6.00 Single-Family Residential 2.94 10.00 No Zone Type (Blank) 1.76 6.00 Maximum Value 2.94 Multiplier 3.40 There were very few historical NFRIS reported hazardous materials events, less than 3% of all incidents (Incident Type 400 Series) within the study area. Although there were few events reported there were Zone Types Included Commercial/Manufacturing Commercial, Commercial/Manufacturing, General Manufacturing District Multi-Family Residential Residential, Residential Multi-Family Mixed Use Commercial, Research, Manufacturing, Residential, Commercial/Office Research/Residential, Commercial/Manufacturing/Residential, Commercial/Research/Manufacturing/Residential, Commercial/Residential, Commercial; Residential Multi-Family, Mixed Use Outside/Open Space Open Space, Outside, Special Property Public Public Facility Single Family Residential Residential, Residential Single Family No Zone Type Blank ZONE Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 74 enough events to review trends per land use. The majority of the hazardous conditions events occurred at mixed use land use zoned areas and they were therefore weighted the highest Simplified Zone Type Hazardous Materials Hazard Weight Commercial/Manufacturing 0.60 2.76 Multi-family Residential 1.45 6.71 Mixed Use 2.17 10.00 Outside/Open Space 0.02 0.08 Public 1.68 7.77 Single-Family Residential 2.11 9.73 No Zone Type (Blank) 1.98 9.12 Maximum Value 2.17 Multiplier 4.62 Land use/Zone types were not factored into the risk assessment related to the probability for domestic emergencies and wildland fires risk in the same manner as in the other services provided. The methodology used to weight land use/zone type as part of this risk assessment is dependent on the accuracy of the land use data and the ability to estimate the relationship between the property zone type and the request for fire department services. Better land use data for use in a regression analysis may be needed in future risk assessments to estimate the relationship more precisely. TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, GEOGRAPHY, CLIMATE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY The Local Hazard Mitigation and Adaptation Plan (LHMAP) provided other data layers that were used as variables within the risk assessment. LHMAP layers were produced for landslide risk, liquefaction hazards, probabilistic seismic hazards, sea level rise hazards, tsunami risk, and fire severity hazards. The fire severity data from the LHMAP was incorporated into the risk analysis for non-structure fires. The remaining layers were used to quantify the risk scores related to domestic preparedness. INSERT BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Risk Number of Stories Score Low 0 0 1 - 2 3.33 3 - 6 6.67 High 7+ 10 The height and size of buildings are important variables for assessing risk because the size and height affects the impact to the organization, as more specialized resources may be needed the larger the structure. An analysis of the parcel data was performed to determine the distribution of building height throughout the jurisdiction. This data was then categorically grouped to reflect the different resources needed for single story structures, mid-rise structures, and high rise structures. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 75 Figure 49: Parcel Building Height (Number of Stories) DISTANCE FROM FIRE STATION Although Palo Alto Fire uses an AVL closest unit dispatching, proximity of an incident to the fire station was included as a variable, weighting areas furthest from a fire station higher than areas closest to a fire station. Using the travel time polygons 8 minutes and the travel tim e polygons for stations 2, 5, 6 that went to 45 minutes, the areas closer were assigned less weight given. Relative rate, assuming the further away from a fire station the higher the consequence to the community. This analysis used this method however, in future risk assessments, considering AVL data. An analysis should be performed to determine the frequency in which units are being dispatched from the station versus from away from the station. Understanding whether 90% of units are dispatched from a stationary location is needed to fully utilize the travel time polygons. In addition, this analysis only examines PAFD Stations and does not take into consideration automatic and mutual aid fire stations in Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Portola Valley and Woodside. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 76 Travel time was grouped and each the risk scores for this variable were included for every service line in the same methodology. Travel Time Within Score Low Within 4 minutes 2 Within 8 minutes 4 Within 15 minutes of a Fire Station 6 Within 30 minutes of a Fire Station 8 High Over 30 Minutes from a Palo Alto Fire Station 10 Figure 50: Distance from Palo Alto Fire Station (Mutual Aid/Auto Aid not measured) ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT FACTORS The 6th edition of the CPSEs Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover document added a new dimension of analysis with the addition of organizational impact. Organizational impact is characterized by the “potential impact drawn on the agency.” Differing methodologies and theories exist as to how Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 77 organizational impact should be incorporated into the risk assessment. Some means of quantifying organizational impact include factoring in the historical unit draw down, meaning historical trends related to the number of apparatus still available for service. Other methodologies include factoring the injury and death rate of fire service personnel as a variable related to organizational impact and other methodologies include looking at the impact on response times. Given the varying approaches and that no injury data was available at this time for incorporation into the risk assessment. Within Palo Alto, proxies for organizational impact were used based on the most available and reliable data available at the time this assessment was performed. To quantify organizational impact into the PAFD risk assessment across the services provided two different variables were used: Current deployment configurations The amount of time units are committed to events by event type Other impact variables were included per service line and the details of the additional variables are detailed within each risk score section. Service Engines Trucks Medics Battalion Chief Hazmat Team Total Apparatus Required Impact Score Structure Fire High Risk 3 2 1 2 0 8 10 Structure Fires 2 1 1 1 0 5 6.25 Technical Rescue 2 1 1 1 0 5 6.25 Water 1 1 0 0 0 2 2.5 Hazmat 2 1 1 1 1 6 7.5 EMS 1 0 1 0 0 2 2.5 Wildland 2 0 1 1 0 4 5 Figure 51: Portion of an Hour Spent on Event by Type Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 78 RISK CALCULATIONS The following tables and narratives explain specifically how each variable was calculated into the probability, consequence, and impact scores for each service provided by PAFD. Each of the six service areas will contain a brief description of the variables and will identify the formula used to calculate it. GENERAL RISK SCORING METHODS Using the variables that were summarized into the hexagon grids, a percent rank table was created to distribute variables across the risk analysis area. The percent rank table was used within the calculation of the probability, consequence, and impact scores. Once the scores were calculated, each variable was normalized so that the CPSE 3-Axis methodology formula could be used to calculate a total risk score. The data was then summarized on the census block group (GEOID); each census block group was given summary scores based on the grids that fell within each census block group. Because the three-axis formula is a relatively new tool provided by the CPSE, risk scores were also calculated using a two-axis methodology of probability and consequence. Probability and consequence were multiplied to get overall scores, and each normalized probability and consequence score was analyzed relationally. STANFORD UNIVERSITY Not all of the risks within Stanford University could be displayed in the foregoing discussion due to the lack of specific data. However, Stanford does contain most if not all of the risks commonly found in any urban setting. These include: Mid and high rise buildings A medical school for a major hospital Physical plant and utilities Child care facilities Public assembly facilities Hazardous materials use and storage Multi-family residences Large public gatherings These all contribute to potential and actual response workload on PAFD. Providing service to these risks also required PAFD conduct training and preparation to ensure effective service delivery when needed. STRUCTURE FIRE RISK The probability of a structure fire was calculated based on factors which included historical demands for service, population density, median income, and land use variables. Consequence was calculated using property value, expected loss from fire confinement beyond the room of origin, and presence of critical infrastructure variables. Organizational impact was calculated by including height of structures (stories), distance to hydrant (outside buffer zone), travel time polygon, time spent on structure fires, presence of building with sprinklers, and resources required. Probability(Structure Fires) = (Historical Incidents)+(Population Density Rank)+(Inverse Median Income Rank)x(Hot Spot Zone Type)+(Parcel Zone Type)x(Population Under 17)+(Population Over 65) Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 79 Consequence (Structure Fire) = (Average Property Value by Zone Type Rank) + (Fire Confinement) + (Critical Buffer Rank) Impact (Structure Fire) = (Stories Rank) + (Within Hydrant Zone) + (Distance from Fire Station Rank) + (Time Spent on Structure Fires) + (Sprinkler Presence Rank) + (Resources Required Score) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Historical Incidents [Incident_Prior_Rank] 0.2415 History as predictor of future events Hot Spot Zone [EmergingHS_Rank] value History as predictor of future events Population Density [Pop_Density_Rank] value Population correlated with increased calls for service Income [MedianIncome_Inverse_Rank] value Socioeconomic factors associated with calls for service Age Under 17 [Percent_U17] 10 Demographic factors associated with calls for service Age Over 65 [Percent_Over65] 10 Demographic factors associated with calls for service Commercial/Manufacturing Zone [Comm_Manuf_Rank] 1.4286 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Outside/Open Zone [Outside_Rank] 0.1429 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Single Family Zone [SF_Rank] 10 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Multifamily Residential Zone [MFResidential_Rank] 7.1249 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Mixed Use Zone [Mixed_Rank] 6.8571 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Public Zone [Public_Rank] 2.1429 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones No Defined Zone [NullZone_Rank] 3.5714 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Property Value Rank [PropValue_byType] value Value of potential losses Expected Loss [Fire_Confinement] 10 Historical expected loss Critical Infrastructure [CI_Buffer_Rank] value Consequence to community if critical infrastructure is affected Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Height of Structure [StoriesRank] value Building height dictates need for Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 80 additional FD resources Outside Hydrant Zone [Hydrant_Rank] value Availability to establish water supply Distance from Fire Station [DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents Time Spent on Incidents [TimeSpent_StructureFire] 10 Time unavailable for other incidents Sprinkler Presence [Sprinkler_Rank] value Suppression factors for mitigation FD Resources Required [ResourcesRequired = 10] 10 Apparatus and resources required Note: value means the variable is not weighted, the score is calculated with the value that exists within that hexbin field (v alues change through the geography). The following tables and charts illustrate summaries of the statistics calculated for structure fire risk within the census blocks using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis methodology. Structure Fire Distribution Statistic Structure Fire Score 4sd 1.484449506 Min 6.986275 3sd 7.483852355 Max 43.047913 2sd 13.4832552 Average 25.4820609 1sd 19.48265805 Standard Deviation 5.999402849 Average 25.4820609 Percentiles 1sd 31.48146375 0.25 22.333671 2sd 37.4808666 0.5 25.041196 3sd 43.48026945 0.75 29.504142 4sd 49.4796723 0.9 31.916998 5sd 55.47907515 0.95 33.187098 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 81 Figure 52: Distribution of Fire Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology Figure 53: Distribution of Fire Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 82 Figure 54: Probability x Consequence: Structure Fire Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 83 Figure 55: Risk Scores: Structure Fire Non- Structure Fire Risk Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 84 Non-structure fire probability was calculated based on factors which included historical demands for service, land use variables, presence of roadways, airports, and railroads. Consequence was calculated using property value, expected loss, presence of critical infrastructure and population affected. Organizational impact was calculated by including distance to hydrant (outside buffer zone), travel time distance, time spent on non-structure fires, and fire department resources required. Probability(Non-Structure Fires) = (Historical Incidents)x(Railroad Presence Rank)x(Major Road Presence Rank)x(Airport Presence Rank)x(Wildland Fire Severity)x(Parcel Zone Type) Consequence (Non-Structure Fire) = (Average Property Value by Zone Type Rank) + (Fire Confinement) + (Critical Buffer Rank) + (Population Density of specific zone types) Impact (Non-Structure Fire) = (Within Hydrant Zone) + (Distance from Fire Station Rank) + (Time Spent on Structure Fires*10) + (Resources Required Score) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Historical Incidents [Incident_Prior_Rank] 0.2415 Past history as predictor of future events Rail Presence [RailRoad_Rank] value Probability based on fire risk associated with railways Major Roadways [MajorRd_Rank] value Probability based on risk associated with vehicle fires Airport [Airport_Rank]) value Probability based on materials and equipment at airports Wildland Fire Threat Zones [WL_FireSevere_Rank] 10 Probability based on local hazard assessment plan threats Commercial/Manufacturing Zone [Comm_Manuf_Rank] 2.3077 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Outside/Open Zone [Outside_Rank] 0.1099 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Single Family Zone [SF_Rank] 5.4945 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Multifamily Residential Zone [MFResidential_Rank] 1.7582 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Mixed Use Zone [Mixed_Rank] 8.2418 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Public Zone [Public_Rank] 8.7912 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones No Defined Zone [NullZone_Rank] 10 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 85 Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Property Value Rank [PropValue_byType] value Value of potential losses Expected Loss [Fire_Confinement] 10 Historical expected loss Critical Infrastructure [CI_Buffer_Rank] value Consequence to community if critical infrastructure is affected Community Consequence [Outside_Rank]*[Pop_Density_Rank] value Population affected by non-structure fire Community Consequence [NullZone_Rank]*[Pop_Density_Rank] value Population affected by non-structure fire Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Outside Hydrant Zone [Hydrant_Rank] value Availability to establish water supply Distance from Fire Station [DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents Time Spent on Incidents [TimeSpent_NonStructureFire] 10 Time unavailable for other incidents FD Resources Required [ResourcesRequired = 6.25] 6.25 Apparatus and resources required The following tables and charts illustrate summaries of the statistics calculated for non-structure fire risk using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis methodology. Non-Structure Fire Distribution Statistic Non-Structure Fire Score 3sd 0 Min 0.629456 2sd 1.684008 Max 19.140482 1sd 4.663249 Average 7.642489492 Average 7.642489 Standard Deviation 2.9792406 1sd 10.62173 Percentiles 2sd 13.60097 0.25 6.415937 3sd 16.58021 0.5 6.94921 4sd 19.55945 0.75 7.794727 5sd 22.53869 0.9 9.138785 0.95 16.242082 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 86 Figure 56: Distribution of Non-Structure Fire Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology Figure 57: Distribution of Non-Structure Fire Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 87 Figure 58: Probability x Consequence: Non-Structure Fires Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 88 Figure 59: Risk Scores: Non-Structure Fires Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 89 EMERGENCY MEDICAL RISK The probability for EMS Incidents was calculated based on factors which included historical demands for service, population density, age demographics, nursing home and assisted living facilities, hotspot zones, and land use types. EMS consequence was calculated using the expected transport rate, loss from Cardiac Arrest (no ROSC), and the presence of an AED as a reduction of consequence factor. Organizational impact was calculated by using the resources required, time spent on EMS incidents and distance from fire station variables. Probability(EMS) = (Historical Incidents)+(Population Density Rank)+(Hot Spot Zone)+(Parcel Zone Type)+(Percent under 5)+(Percent over 65)+(Nursing Home Presence) Consequence (EMS) = (Transport Rate) + (No ROSC)-(AED Presence) Impact (EMS) = (Time Spent on Transports) + (Resources Required) + (Distance from Fire Station Rank) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Historical Incidents [Incident_Prior_Rank] 10 Past history as predictor of future events Population Density [Pop_Density_Rank] value Population correlated with increased calls for service Hot Spot Zone [EmergingHS_Rank] value Past history as predictor of future events Nursing Home Facilities [NursingHome_Rank] value Probability based on Property use Commercial/Manufacturing Zone [Comm_Manuf_Rank] 2.7612 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Outside/Open Zone [Outside_Rank] 0.0807 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Single Family Zone [SF_Rank] 9.6773 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Multifamily Residential Zone [MFResidential_Rank] 6.7689 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Mixed Use Zone [Mixed_Rank] 10 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Public Zone [Public_Rank] 7.7733 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones No Defined Zone [NullZone_Rank] 9.1246 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Age under 5 [Calculated_Percent_Under5] 10 Demographic factors associated with calls for service Age over 65 [Percent_Over65] 10 Demographic factors associated with calls for service Historical Incidents [Incident_Prior_Rank] 10 Past history as predictor of future events Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 90 Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Expected Transport Rate [Transport_Percent] 10 Expected rate of transport Cardiac Arrest [NoROSC] 6.2 Expected No ROSC during cardiac arrest Early Defibrillation Access [AED_win50ft] (-)5 Mitigating factor with access to defibrillation devices Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Distance from Fire Station [DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents Time Spent on Incidents [TimeSpent_Transports] 10 Time unavailable for other incidents FD Resources Required [ResourcesRequired = 2.5] 2.5 Apparatus and resources required The following tables and charts illustrate summaries of the statistics calculated for EMS risk using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis methodology. EMS Distribution Statistic EMS Score 3sd 4.00131255 Min 19.044053 2sd 12.0268396 Max 62.771413 1sd 20.0523667 Average 28.07789384 Average 28.0778938 Standard Deviation 8.025527097 1sd 36.1034209 Percentiles 2sd 44.128948 0.25 23.382621 3sd 52.1544751 0.5 27.093891 4sd 60.1800022 0.75 29.042549 5sd 68.2055293 0.9 31.726179 0.95 40.914952 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 91 Figure 60: Distribution of EMS Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology Figure 61: Distribution of EMS Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 92 Figure 62: Probability x Consequence: EMS Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 93 Figure 63: Risk Scores: EMS Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 94 TECHNICAL RESCUE RISK Technical Rescue probability was calculated using four variables, presence of trails, fault line presence, foothills/extension areas, and major roads. Consequence was calculated using only one variable, transport rate, as there was a lack of available data for quantifying consequence related to technical rescue. Organizational impact was calculated by including travel time polygons, time spent on rescue calls, and resources required. Probability (Technical Rescue) = (Trails Presence) + (Fault Line Rank) + (Extension Rank) + (Major Road presence rank) Consequence (Technical Rescue) = (Transport Rate) Impact (Technical Rescue) = (Distance from Fire Station Rank) + (Time Spent) + (Resources Required) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Presence of Trails [Trails_Rank] value Probability based on terrain and high angle rescues associated with trails Presence of Fault Line [FaultLine_Rank] value Probability based on local hazards assessment plane Extension Area [Extension_Rank] value Probability based on topography of extension area Major Roads [MajorRd_Rank] value Probability based on entrapments needing technical rescue Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Expected Transport Rate [Transport_Percent] 10 Expected rate of transport Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Distance from Fire Station [DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents Time Spent on Incidents [TimeSpent_nfirs300] 10 Time unavailable for other incidents FD Resources Required [ResourcesRequired = 6.25] 6.25 Apparatus and resources required Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 95 The following tables and charts illustrate summaries of the statistics calculated for technical rescue risk using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis methodology Technical Rescue Distribution Statistic Technical Rescue Score 1sd 0 Min 0.282425 Average 7.7821 Max 42.681102 1sd 15.72251 Average 7.782100492 2sd 23.66291 Standard Deviation 7.940406 3sd 31.60332 Percentiles 4sd 39.54372 0.25 2.583033 5sd 47.48413 0.5 6.572297 0.75 10.775154 0.9 11.517434 0.95 19.374844 Figure 64: Distribution of Technical Rescue Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology The probability and consequence graph was not prepared for technical rescue events because all consequence was scored equally. In future risk assessments, better data is needed to more accurately estimate the consequence to the community. The time spent on extrication, the number of deaths per technical rescue events or disability sustained would all be appropriate for incorporation. Also given the differences geographically where technical rescue events occur, areas could be weighted differently based on changing rates of injury and death. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 96 Figure 65: Probability x Consequence: Technical Rescue Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 97 Figure 66: Risk Scores: Technical Rescue Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 98 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazmat probability was calculated using variables historical incidents, pipeline presence, hazardous materials presence and land use zones. Hazmat consequence was calculated using property value, population density, and expected loss. Organizational impact was calculated by including expected travel time, time spent on hazardous condition events, fire department resources required, and presence of complicating factors such as railroads. Probability (Hazmat) = (Trails Presence) + (Fault Line Rank) + (Extension Rank) + (Major Road presence rank) Consequence (Hazmat) = (Property Value) + (Critical Infrastructure) + (Hazmat Rank*Population Density) Impact (Hazmat) = (Distance from Fire Station Rank) + (Time Spent) + (Resources Required) + (Railroad) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Historical Incidents [Incident_Prior_Rank] 0.3506 Past history as predictor of future events Pipeline Presence [Pipeline_Rank] value Presence of a gas pipeline as a predictor for hazardous materials event Within Hazmat Zone [Hazmat_Buffer_Rank] Value Presence within distance of hazmat reported containing facility as a predictor for hazardous materials event Hazmat Facility [Hazmat_Rank] value Presence of hazmat reported containing facility as a predictor for hazardous materials event Commercial/Manufacturing Zone [Comm_Manuf_Rank] 1.6872 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Outside/Open Zone [Outside_Rank] 0 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Single Family Zone [SF_Rank] 10 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Multifamily Residential Zone [MFResidential_Rank] 4.1564 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Mixed Use Zone [Mixed_Rank] 4.4444 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Public Zone [Public_Rank] 3.2099 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones No Defined Zone [NullZone_Rank] 9.5473 Probability based on historical encounters within land use zones Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 99 Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Property Value Rank [PropValue_byType] value Value of potential losses Expected Loss [CI_Buffer_Rank] value Historical expected loss Population affected [Hazmat_Rank]x [Pop_Density_Rank] value Consequence to population surrounding hazardous facilities Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Distance from Fire Station [DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents Time Spent on Incidents [TimeSpent_nfirs400] 10 Time unavailable for other incidents FD Resources Required [ResourcesRequired] 7.5 Apparatus and resources required Railroad presence [RailRoad_Rank] value Hazmat transportation on railway and complications associated with response The following tables and charts illustrate summaries of the statistics calculated for hazmat risk using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis methodology Hazmat Distribution Statistic Hazmat Score 1sd 2.9527 Min 0.972497 Average 7.074659 Max 19.460005 1sd 11.19662 Average 7.074659148 2sd 15.31858 Standard Deviation 4.121959137 3sd 19.44054 Percentiles 4sd 23.5625 0.25 4.55882 0.5 5.637962 0.75 9.293367 0.9 11.469585 0.95 14.07249 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 100 Figure 67: Distribution of Hazmat Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology Figure 68: Distribution of Hazmat Scores: Probability & Consequence Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 101 Figure 69: Probability x Consequence: Hazardous Materials Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 102 Figure 70: Risk Scores: Hazardous Materials Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 103 WILDLAND FIRES Wildland risk was calculated by using the fire threat and severity data produced by the local hazards mitigation plan and extension zones. Consequence was calculated using critical infrastructure and population affected. Organizational impact was calculated by including travel time polygons, resources required and geographical areas defined by the local hazards mitigation plan. Probability (Wildland) = (Fire Threat and Severity) + (Extension Rank) + (Extension D) Consequence (Wildland) = (Critical Infrastructure) + (Population Density) Impact (Wildland) = (Distance from Fire Station Rank) + (Time Spent) + (landslide areas) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Fire Threat and Severity [WL_FireSevere_Rank] value Probability based on local hazard assessment plan Within an Extension zone [Extension_Rank] value Probability based on geography of foothills Extension Area IIF([Extension_ESZ]='Extension D' = 10, 0 value Probability based on topography of extension area Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Critical Infrastructure [CI_Buffer_Rank] Value Consequence to community if critical infrastructure is affected Population affected [Outside_Rank]x [Pop_Density_Rank] Value Consequence to population in wildland and open areas Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Distance from Fire Station ([DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents FD Resources Required [ResourcesRequired = 5] 5 Apparatus and resources required Landslide zone [Landslide_Rank] value Impact related to topography of landslide areas Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 104 The following tables and charts illustrate summaries of the statistics calculated for wildland fire risk using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis methodology Wildland Fire Distribution Statistic Wildland Fire Score 1sd 0 Min 0.002439 Average 2.38131 Max 40.661014 1sd 8.594957 Average 2.381310115 2sd 14.8086 Standard Deviation 6.21364684 3sd 21.02225 Percentiles 4sd 27.2359 0.25 0.555399 5sd 33.44954 0.5 0.996381 0.75 1.408686 0.9 2.044655 0.95 9.064159 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 105 Figure 71: Distribution of Wildland Fire Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology Figure 72: Distribution of Wildland Fire Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 106 Figure 73: Probability x Consequence: Wildland Fire Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 107 Figure 74: Risk Scores: Wildland Fire Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 108 Domestic Preparedness The probability for domestic preparedness events included variables related to the potential for natural disasters and human caused large scale emergencies. Probability was calculated using variables such as the presence of the Pacific Gas & Electric pipeline, critical infrastructure that could be targeted and natural disaster data from the local hazards assessment and mitigation plan. Consequence was calculated using property value, and population density. Organizational impact was calculated by including travel time, distance, time spent on weather and natural event emergencies, resources required and presence of complicating factors such as gas pipelines. Palo Alto and Stanford University are world-known communities, with high profile corporations, visitors, and events. All are potential target for terrorism against fixed facilities and the well-known public figures that live, work, and visit the area. At least once a week a head of state, corporate CEO, celebrities, and other public figures visit Palo Alto and Stanford. Most of the previous categorized facility risks in the community are targets for such terrorist activity. In addition, the city hosts numerous large gathering events during the year. The larger of these events, all potential terrorism targets, include: World Music Day Chili Cook-off Stanford Graduation Stanford football, basketball, tennis, track, etc. events Dignitary visitors Festival of the Arts Amphitheatre events on Stanford Campus The Senior Olympics Palo Alto is in close proximity to the City of San Francisco, which also has a terrorism risk. PAFD may either be impacted by the consequence of a terrorist act in San Francisco or be asked to support them in the aftermath of such an event. The fire department needs to be vigilant in its training and preparedness in the event one or more coordinated acts of terror occur in the region. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 109 Probability (Domestic) = (Pipeline Presence) + (Fault Line Rank) + (Landslide Rank) + (Population Density rank) + (Critical Infrastructure by Priority) Consequence (Domestic) = (Property Value) + (Population) Impact (Domestic) = (Distance from Fire Station Rank) + (Railroad Rank) + (Pipeline Rank) + (Time Spent on events) Probability Probability Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Critical Infrastructure [Pipeline_Rank] value Probability based on target hazard and critical infrastructure Weather/Natural Disaster [FaultLine_Rank] value Probability based on geography of foothills Weather/Natural Disaster [Landslide_Rank] value Probability based on topography of extension area Population Density [Pop_Density_Rank] value Probability based on population density Critical Infrastructure [CI_Priority_Rank] value Probability based on target hazards and types (schools, water treatment etc.) Consequence Consequence Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Property value [PropValue_byType] Value Consequence to community based on potential losses Population affected [Pop_Density_Rank] Value Consequence to population affected Impact Impact Variable Field Variable Weight Description/Logic Distance from Fire Station ([DistFS_woFS8_Rank] value Distance from fire station impacting response to incidents Railroad presence [RailRoad_Rank] 5 Complication factor Pipeline presence [Pipeline_Rank] value Complication factor Time Spent [TimeSpent_nfirs800] 10 Time unavailable for other events The following tables and charts illustrate domestic summary statistics for the values calculated using the CPSE formula for 3 -axis risk scores. Domestic Distribution Statistic Domestic Score 4sd 0 Min 0.752162 3sd 1.774912 Max 19.972416 2sd 5.94491 Average 14.28490475 1sd 10.11491 Standard Deviation 4.169997567 Average 14.2849 Percentiles 1sd 18.4549 0.25 13.263932 2sd 22.6249 0.5 15.346669 3sd 26.7949 0.75 17.034006 0.9 18.12505 0.95 18.48627 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 110 Figure 75: Distribution of Domestic Risk Scores: 3-Axis Methodology Figure 76: Distribution of Domestic Risk Scores: Probability & Consequence Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 111 Figure 77: Probability x Consequence: Domestic Preparedness Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 112 Figure 78: Risk Scores: Domestic Preparedness Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 113 CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS The preceding pages identify and categorize risks that are present within the PAFD service area. Over 30 different variables were categorized and the variables were used in different capacities for each service area. Although each service is considered independently, there are some overall themes related to the values of the final risk scores. Census GeoID: 15000US060855117071 This is the largest hazard management zone covered mostly by the foothills and other open park areas. This risk to this area is generally seen as high because of travel time factors which make responding to this area difficult when fire station 8 is not staffed with personnel. Although population density is not high in this area, nor is the probability of most of the services provided by PAFD, the consequence and impact to this area drives the risk scores higher. Census GeoIDs: 15000US060855130001, 15000US060855116081, 15000US060855130002 These areas near the Stanford Hospital, the Stanford Stadium and census block groups on the other side El Camino Real show several types of risk needed to be mitigated by PAFD. The combination of population density and demographic factors, presence of historical calls for service, and land use, drive the probability higher for these events to occur. While organizational impact and community consequence may be more individualized and not as high, these areas show the risk for EMS, structure fire, and hazmat incidents even given the proximity to fire stations. Data for performing the risk assessment was gathered from open data sites, internally produced data layers from the City of Palo Alto, and datasets provided by PAFD. The calculations and quantitative evaluations are dependent on high quality data to accurately assign risk across the jurisdiction. In some areas, it can be seen where better data may lead to a higher accuracy in the scoring. Specifically, for non-structure fires and technical rescue consequence, having access to better data may have helped shown more variability amongst the risk scoring. As an initial assessment the variables used and the scores derived provide a framework for the types of data needed to improve risk evaluation in the future. An analysis of the number of incidents per address was performed. Addresses with repeated responses were identified and the frequency of repeat response locations were added into the probability formula to identify how historical incidents should be weighted.  Using the geocoded CAD data, 8,602 addresses were identified as requiring a PAFD response at least once between 2012 and 2016. Results showed that approximately 34% of the incidents happened at an address where an incident has happened before (see table). Repeat Responses Number of Years Observations Percent 1 5,641 65.578% 2 1,558 18.112% 3 776 9.021% 4 289 3.360% 5 338 3.929% Total 8,602 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 114 Figure 79: Number of Years with Repeated Response to Address This information was incorporated in the risk analysis as a way to determine how historical incidents should be weighted, meaning, given an incident happened here before, what is the likelihood an incident will happen here again. Not only was the number of addresses with repeat responses important in determining how to weight historical incidents the magnitude of the observation was needed. The map below uses graduated symbols to illustrate the magnitude of incidents at each address. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 115 Figure 80: Graduated Symbol Map: Repeat Responses to Same Address Each year with a repeated incident was used to show consistency of incidents over time; however 42% of all incidents were a repeat encounter at the same address. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 116 As part of determining how the historical incidents should be weighted and analysis of the incidents occurring within the study area was performed. All CAD incidents intersecting the risk assessment boundary area were selected then summarized by NFIRS Incident type category to produce tabular results. This table was incorporated into the probability formula to determine the type of incident. NFRIS Incident Type Category 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Percent of All incidents in Study Area 100 1.78% 1.56% 1.28% 1.40% 1.62% 1.52% 200 0.05% 0.06% 0.01% 0.09% 0.02% 0.05% 300 62.05% 62.93% 64.05% 62.80% 62.73% 62.93% 400 2.67% 2.48% 2.35% 1.69% 1.99% 2.21% 500 4.89% 4.16% 4.44% 5.64% 5.41% 4.94% 600 13.97% 14.24% 14.18% 15.79% 14.99% 14.69% 700 14.54% 14.58% 13.66% 12.60% 13.22% 13.65% 800 0.06% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.02% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Figure 81: Incidents by NFIRS Type in Risk Study Area Fire Type 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Percent of All Fires Structure Fires 28.95% 36.54% 36.56% 52.25% 42.75% 39.60% Non-Structure Fires 71.05% 63.46% 63.44% 47.75% 57.25% 60.40% Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 117 EMERGING HOT SPOT ANALYSIS The Emerging Hot Spot Analysis tool in ArcGIS Pro© was performed to identify areas where incident demand may be increasing. A time space cube was created using a distance interval of 360 feet (approximately 3 acres) and using a time step interval of 4 months, aggregating into a hexagon grid. The incident data was separated into 15 different time step intervals and 8,908 locations were analyzed, resulting in an analysis of 133,620 time-space bins analyzed, approximately 11% contained non-zero values. Neighborhoods were defined approximately as 2,734 feet. Areas identified with hot or cold trends included 7,733 of 8,908 locations. Summary of Results Type Hot Cold Descriptions New 41 1 Means the most recent time step interval is hot (cold) for the first time Consecutive 120 30 Means a single uninterrupted run of hot (cold) time step intervals, comprised of less than 90% Intensifying 1,480 626 Means at least 90% of time step intervals are hot (cold) , and becoming hotter over time Persistent 463 4,288 At least 90% of the time step interval is hot (cold) , with no upward or downward trend Diminishing 30 36 At least 90% of the time step intervals are hot and becoming less hot over time Sporadic 492 126 Sone of the time step intervals are hot (cold) Oscillating 0 0 Some of the time step intervals are hot ad some are cold Historical 0 0 At least 90% of the time step intervals are hot (cold) but the most recent time stamp is not The emerging hot spot analysis identified six different categories of hot spots were identified. Which allowed the analysis to consider all areas with potential for repeated incidents, not just those cell/addresses where incidents had occurred before. To incorporate this into the risk analysis persistent hot spots were considered as the highest risk and sporadic hot spots were considered with the lowest risk. Each category was scored as follows on a 0 to 10 scale: Score Hot Spot Type 10.00 Persistent 5.00 Intensifying 3.33 New 2.50 Consecutive 2.00 Diminishing 1.67 Sporadic Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 118 Figure 82: Emerging Hot Spot Analysis for the PAFD Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 119 INCIDENTS BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS In addition to these analyses the incident data was also stratified by census block groups and prepared into maps. The census block groups with the highest number of incidents occurring within them represent 55% of all the incidents within the 5 years. Below is a table of the top 5 census block groups with the summary of incidents (see maps pages 126-130) Top Census Block Group GEOID 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Percent 1 15000US060855116091 985 1,045 1,203 1,486 1,531 6,250 17.18% 2 15000US060855130001 554 635 570 606 535 2,900 7.97% 3 15000US060855113021 358 315 436 467 428 2,004 5.51% 4 15000US060855116081 192 280 298 328 362 1,460 4.01% 5 15000US060855117051 288 261 359 378 341 1,627 4.47% 6 15000US060855113022 165 197 308 346 335 1,351 3.71% 7 15000US060855115002 283 269 263 335 319 1,469 4.04% 8 15000US060855113011 184 248 279 257 258 1,226 3.37% 9 15000US060855108013 190 194 203 234 210 1,031 2.83% 10 15000US060855106003 137 151 170 166 162 786 2.16% Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 120 Figure 83: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2012 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 121 Figure 84: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2013 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 122 Figure 85: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2014 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 123 Figure 86: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2015 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 124 Figure 87: Incidents by Census Block: Calendar Year 2016 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 125 INCIDENT WORKLOAD PROJECTION The most significant predictor of future incident workload is population; 100 percent of requests for emergency medical service are people-driven. The National Fire Protection Association reports that approximately 70 percent of all fires are the result of people either doing something they should not have (i.e., misuse of ignition source) or not doing something they should have (i.e., failure to maintain equipment). Thus it is reasonable to use future population growth to predict future fire department response workload. The current fire department services utilization rate is 101 incidents per 1,000 population. This is somewhat higher than similar communities and is reflective of the significant employment influence on fire department workload. The utilization of fire department services is expected to grow modestly over time at a rate of about four percent per year. This, plus expected population growth, will increase the PAFD’s workload as shown in the following figure. Response workload by the year 2040 could reach 9,800 responses driven primarily by increased requests for emergency medical care. Figure 88: Response Forecast 2015 – 2040 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 In c i d e n t s Year Fire EMS Other Total Planning Assumption Continued strong business growth and Stanford Campus development will increase daytime populations and service demand in the core of the agency. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 126 Current Deployment and Performance PAFD employs 84 emergency response personnel for EMS, rescue, and fire suppression activities. During the year 26 personnel are on duty from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm and 24 are on duty from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. One high fire danger days during declared wildland fire season, typically July 1 to October 31, an additional crew of three personnel staff a wildland fire engine housed at Station 8. The resident population of the PAFD service area is 80,670. PAFD provides its community with 1.04 career firefighters per 1,000 population, and 0.32 firefighters per 1,000 population on duty at all times. When daytime employment population (of 68,000) is included the ratio is 0.57 career firefighters per 1,000 population and 0.17 firefighters per 1,000 population on duty at all times. METHODOLOGY FOR INCIDENT STAFFING This section will provide an analysis of how well PAFD is providing personnel and other resources for incidents within its primary service area. This data is important and can be an indicator of the effectiveness of its staffing efforts. For larger incidents, PAFD commonly acts together with one or more neighboring fire departments in providing fire and life protection through a coordinated regional response system of mutual and automatic aid agreements. This is particularly true for large structure fires, other high-risk incidents where staffing needs are great, and during periods of significant incident activity. This section will provide an overall view of aggregate staffing provided by PAFD and neighboring agencies. The prompt arrival of at least four personnel is critical for structure fires. Federal regulations (CFR 1910.120) require that personnel entering a building involved in fire must be in groups of two. Further, before personnel can enter a building to extinguish a fire, at least two personnel must be on scene and assigned to conduct search and rescue in case the fire attack crew becomes trapped. This is referred to as the two-in, two-out rule. There are, however, some exceptions to this regulation. If it is known that victims are trapped inside the building, a rescue attempt can be performed without additional personnel ready to intervene outside the structure. Further, there is no requirement that all four arrive on the same response vehicle. Many fire departments rely on more than one unit arriving to initiate interior fire attack. PAFD staffs fire engines with three firefighters, thus it must wait for a second unit to arrive before it can initiate interior fire attack operations in a non-rescue incident. Some incidents (such as structure fires) require more than one response unit. The ability of PAFD and its automatic aid neighbors to assemble an effective response force for a multiple unit incident within the specific period of time, also known as resource concentration, will be analyzed in a later section of this report. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 127 The following figure lists each station, staffed unit, and the staffing assigned to each at minimum staffing. Figure 89: Staffing Complement Station Apparatus Minimum On-duty Staffing 8am-8pm Minimum On-duty Staffing 8pm-8am Station 1 Engine 61 3 3 Medic 61 (peak-call time 8am-8pm) Battalion 61 2 1 0 1 Station 2 Engine 62 3 3 Medic 62 (daily cross-staffed) 0 0 Engine 362 0 0 Technical Rescue Trailer 0 0 Hazmat Trailer 0 0 Station 3 Engine 63 Medic 63 (cross-staffed 8pm-8am) 3 0 3 0 Engine 663 0 0 Station 4 Engine 64 Medic 64 (daily cross-staffed) 3 0 3 0 Station 5 Engine 65 3 3 Engine 365 0 0 Station 6 Engine 66 3 3 Truck 66 3 3 Medic 66 2 2 Rapid Response Vehicle 66 0 0 Breathing Support 66 0 0 CO2 Trailer 0 0 Confined Space Trailer 0 0 Shoring Trailer 0 0 Station 8 Engine 365 3 (seasonal) 3 (seasonal) TOTAL 26 / 29 (high fire danger days 24 / 27 (high fire danger days) Palo Alto and other fire agencies in the metropolitan area have developed a comprehensive system for sharing resources. Regional fire agencies rely on the regional mutual and automatic aid agreement for major structure fires, other higher risk incidents, and during periods of high incident activity. Though not a substitute for locally delivered services this system provides significant depth of coverage for unusual circumstances. The following figure lists resources typically available to Palo Alto through a third-alarm incident. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 128 Figure 90: Resources Available from Adjacent Agencies Resources Department Engines Ladders Trucks Other Total Available Staffing Mountain View 2 1 Battalion Chief 10 Santa Clara County 3 1 Battalion Chief 15 Sunnyvale 1 3 NASA Ames 1 Battalion Chief 4 Menlo Park 1 1 8 Cal Fire 10 Dozers, Crews, Aircraft, Overhead 81 TOTALS 17 4 121 CURRENT SERVICE DELIVERY OBJECTIVES The PAFD has adopted the following Performance Statement: Performance Statement Mission We are a professional team of men and women dedicated to safeguarding and enriching the lives of anyone, anytime, anywhere with compassion and pride. The PAFD has established response performance objectives, benchmarks and baselines. They are: Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 129 Figure 91: Performance Objectives, Benchmarks and Baselines Performance Objective Benchmark Baseline Call Answer Time 15 seconds or less, 95% of the time 15 seconds, 99.58% of the time Call Processing Time Priority emergency medical service Structure Fire Full First Alarm Vegetation Fires Injury Accident Rescue Response Hazardous Materials 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 9 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 6 seconds, 90% of the time 1 minute, 20 seconds, 90% of the time 1 minute, 52 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 21 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 33 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 17 seconds, 90% of the time Turnout Time Priority emergency medical service Structure Fire Full First Alarm Vegetation Fires Injury Accident Rescue Response Hazardous Materials 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 90 seconds or less, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 7 seconds, 90% of the time 1 minute, 17 seconds, 90% of the time 1 minute, 51 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 48 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 7 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 19 seconds, 90% of the time 2 minutes, 34 seconds, 90% of the time Travel Time Priority emergency medical service Structure Fire Full First Alarm Vegetation Fires Injury Accident Rescue Response Hazardous Materials 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes or less, 90% of the time 5 minutes, 27 seconds, 90% of the time 4 minutes, 31 seconds, 90% of the time 5 minutes, 29 seconds, 90% of the time 4 minutes, 21 seconds, 90% of the time 7 minutes, 10 seconds, 90% of the time 9 minutes, 2 seconds, 90% of the time 5 minutes, 22 seconds, 90% of the time Effective Response Force Priority emergency medical service Structure Fire Full First Alarm Vegetation Fires Injury Accident Rescue Response Hazardous Materials 12 minutes, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 90% of the time 13 minutes, 4 seconds, 90% of the time 11 minutes, 22 seconds, 90% of the time 18 minutes, 22 seconds, 90% of the time 11 minutes, 47 seconds, 90% of the time 14 minutes, 57 seconds, 90% of the time 17 minutes, 34 seconds, 90% of the time 12 minutes, 5 seconds, 90% of the time Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 130 HISTORIC SYSTEM RESPONSE WORKLOAD Before a full response time analysis is conducted, it is important to first examine the level of workload (service demand) that a fire department experiences. Higher service demands can strain the resources of a department and may result in a negative effect on response time performance. The following figure shows response workload for five previous calendar years. Total response workload has increased 16 percent over the nine years, primarily driven by the increase in emergency medical responses. Figure 92: Response Workload History, 2012 – 2016 Unique Incidents Total 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 EMS Response 22948 4993 4963 4562 4280 4150 Full First Alarm 127 32 21 23 29 22 Hazmat 44 13 14 4 7 6 MVA 2211 456 368 445 484 458 Rescue Response 27 6 8 3 3 7 Single Engine 15528 3290 3315 2995 2942 2986 Structure Response 241 54 51 38 50 48 Vegetation Response 50 14 5 8 14 9 Water Evacuation 59 9 9 16 9 16 Total 41235 8867 8754 8094 7818 7702 Incident data used for the evaluation of current performance was all responses made during calendar year 2016 (study period). During the study period PAFD responded to 8,867 incidents. Emergency medical type responses (EMS and motor vehicle accidents) are the most common at 56.3 percent of total responses. The next figure lists the number of responses by incident type in both Palo Alto and Stanford University. These include only incidents within the city or university. Mutual or automatic aid responses to adjacent agencies are not included. Prior to the City implementing a new Intergraph Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD) in 2015, staff were unable to differentiate CAD data between Stanford and Palo Alto. In 2016, 13.5 percent of the calls occurred on Stanford. Figure 93: Responses by Type of Incident by Jurisdiction Unique Incidents Total 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 Palo Alto 38734 7669 7451 8094 7818 7702 Stanford 2501 1198 1303 0 0 0 Total 41235 8867 8754 8094 7818 7702 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 131 Temporal Analysis A review of incidents by time of occurrence also reveals when the greatest response demand is occurring. The following figures show how activity and demand changes for PAFD based on various measures of time. The following figure shows response activity during the study period by month. Monthly Figure 94: Monthly Response Workload Unique Incidents Total 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 January 3601 823 703 784 637 651 February 3254 701 684 638 620 601 March 3486 794 742 663 656 626 April 3379 718 709 733 581 632 May 3647 817 781 704 660 679 June 3663 795 744 723 691 694 July 3509 742 714 759 690 598 August 3608 780 744 725 712 651 September 3713 786 754 795 696 663 October 3885 814 830 784 732 702 November 3524 707 681 765 690 669 December 3649 802 781 681 729 652 Total 42912 9279 8867 8754 8094 7818 Figure 95: Percentage Monthly Response Workload Unique Incidents Total 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 January 8.4% 8.9% 7.9% 9.0% 7.9% 8.3% February 7.6% 7.6% 7.7% 7.3% 7.7% 7.7% March 8.1% 8.6% 8.4% 7.6% 8.1% 8.0% April 7.9% 7.7% 8.0% 8.4% 7.2% 8.1% May 8.5% 8.8% 8.8% 8.0% 8.2% 8.7% June 8.5% 8.6% 8.4% 8.3% 8.5% 8.9% July 8.2% 8.0% 8.1% 8.7% 8.5% 7.6% August 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.3% 8.8% 8.3% September 8.7% 8.5% 8.5% 9.1% 8.6% 8.5% October 9.1% 8.8% 9.4% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% November 8.2% 7.6% 7.7% 8.7% 8.5% 8.6% December 8.5% 8.6% 8.8% 7.8% 9.0% 8.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 132 Figure 96: Monthly Response Workload Bar Graph (2017) Day of Week Next, response workload is compared by day of week. In this case there is 22.4 percent more incident activity on the busiest day, Friday, versus the slowest day, Sunday in 2017. Figure 97: Daily Response Workload Day of Week Total 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Sunday 5,135 1,172 1,062 1,073 931 897 Monday 6,150 1,344 1,253 1,220 1,207 1,126 Tuesday 6,241 1,323 1,355 1,242 1,197 1,124 Wednesday 6,494 1,403 1,362 1,317 1,209 1,203 Thursday 6,368 1,328 1,281 1,313 1,237 1,209 Friday 6,618 1,435 1,362 1,331 1,262 1,228 Saturday 5,906 1,274 1,196 1,265 1,087 1,084 Total 42,912 9,279 8,871 8,761 8,130 7,871 Figure 98: Percentage Daily Response Workload Day of Week Total 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Sunday 12.0% 12.6% 12.0% 12.2% 11.5% 11.4% Monday 14.3% 14.5% 14.1% 13.9% 14.8% 14.3% Tuesday 14.5% 14.3% 15.3% 14.2% 14.7% 14.3% Wednesday 15.1% 15.1% 15.4% 15.0% 14.9% 15.3% Thursday 14.8% 14.3% 14.4% 15.0% 15.2% 15.4% Friday 15.4% 15.5% 15.4% 15.2% 15.5% 15.6% Saturday 13.8% 13.7% 13.5% 14.4% 13.4% 13.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% - 200 400 600 800 1,000 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 133 Figure 99: Daily Response Workload Bar Graph (2017) - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 134 Time of Day The time analysis that shows significant variation is response activity by hour of day. Response workload directly correlates with the activity of people, with workload increasing during daytime hours and decreasing during nighttime hours as shown in the following figure. Incident activity is at its highest between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM where the PAFD runs 72 percent of their calls. Figure 100: Hourly Response Workload Unique Incidents Total 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Midnight 1,185 253 241 241 225 225 1:00 AM 1,062 228 211 217 209 197 2:00 AM 923 214 185 175 179 170 3:00 AM 788 186 162 154 150 136 4:00 AM 740 170 159 135 163 113 5:00 AM 750 164 146 158 143 139 6:00 AM 948 217 209 191 175 156 7:00 AM 1,470 324 294 313 286 253 8:00 AM 2,076 412 429 435 401 399 9:00 AM 2,387 507 528 452 444 456 10:00 AM 2,621 549 546 566 502 458 11:00 AM 2,606 551 553 532 513 457 Noon 2,680 628 545 521 483 503 1:00 PM 2,528 544 505 502 487 490 2:00 PM 2,481 513 516 502 476 474 3:00 PM 2,522 504 540 530 481 467 4:00 PM 2,301 474 472 469 427 459 5:00 PM 2,360 528 466 474 469 423 6:00 PM 2,279 495 447 474 433 430 7:00 PM 2,067 465 450 403 362 387 8:00 PM 1,808 385 392 383 321 327 9:00 PM 1,627 376 333 369 294 255 10:00 PM 1,415 298 287 301 262 267 11:00 PM 1,288 294 255 264 245 230 Total 42,912 9,279 8,871 8,761 8,130 7,871 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 135 Figure 101: Percentage Hourly Response Workload Hour Total 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Midnight 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 1:00 AM 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 2.6% 2.5% 2:00 AM 2.2% 2.3% 2.1% 2.0% 2.2% 2.2% 3:00 AM 1.8% 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 4:00 AM 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 2.0% 1.4% 5:00 AM 1.7% 1.8% 1.6% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 6:00 AM 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.2% 2.2% 2.0% 7:00 AM 3.4% 3.5% 3.3% 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% 8:00 AM 4.8% 4.4% 4.8% 5.0% 4.9% 5.1% 9:00 AM 5.6% 5.5% 6.0% 5.2% 5.5% 5.8% 10:00 AM 6.1% 5.9% 6.2% 6.5% 6.2% 5.8% 11:00 AM 6.1% 5.9% 6.2% 6.1% 6.3% 5.8% Noon 6.2% 6.8% 6.1% 5.9% 5.9% 6.4% 1:00 PM 5.9% 5.9% 5.7% 5.7% 6.0% 6.2% 2:00 PM 5.8% 5.5% 5.8% 5.7% 5.9% 6.0% 3:00 PM 5.9% 5.4% 6.1% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 4:00 PM 5.4% 5.1% 5.3% 5.4% 5.3% 5.8% 5:00 PM 5.5% 5.7% 5.3% 5.4% 5.8% 5.4% 6:00 PM 5.3% 5.3% 5.0% 5.4% 5.3% 5.5% 7:00 PM 4.8% 5.0% 5.1% 4.6% 4.5% 4.9% 8:00 PM 4.2% 4.1% 4.4% 4.4% 3.9% 4.2% 9:00 PM 3.8% 4.1% 3.8% 4.2% 3.6% 3.2% 10:00 PM 3.3% 3.2% 3.2% 3.4% 3.2% 3.4% 11:00 PM 3.0% 3.2% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Planning Assumption The PAFD will continue to be challenged with Travel Time performance due to traffic congestion related to businesses and Stanford, traffic-calming devices for bikes and pedestrians, multiple at grade railroad crossings and infrastructure construction. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 136 Figure 102: Hourly Response Workload - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 137 Spatial Analysis In addition to the temporal analysis of the current service demand, it is useful to examine geographic distribution of service demand. Incidents occurring during 2016 were plotted using geographic information system software. Due to some address inconsistencies 84 percent of all incidents were successfully plotted. The following figure series indicates the distribution of emergency incidents in PAFD during the study period. The first figure displays the number of incidents per square mile within various parts of the city. The area of greatest service demand is the Station 1 area. Figure 103: Service Demand Density (2016) Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 138 The preceding figure reflects all calls served by PAFD. Service demand can vary by area based on incident type. The following figure displays the location of most building fires in the city during 2016. This illustrates that structure fire incidents are distributed in the city’s more populated areas. Figure 104 Building Fires (2016) Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 139 Similarly, emergency medical incidents also occur in greater concentration in areas of higher population density. The following figure displays emergency medical incidents per square mile during 2016. Figure 105: Emergency Medical Incidents per Square Mile (2016) Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 140 CENSUS BLOCK GROUP AND UNIT WORKLOAD ANALYSIS A review of workload by station and response unit can reveal much about response time performance. Although fire stations and response units may be distributed in a manner to provide quick response, that level of performance can only be obtained when the response unit is available in its primary service area. If a response unit is already on an incident and a concurrent request for service is received, a more distant response unit will need to be dispatched. This will increase response times. Census Block Group Planning Zone Analysis The agency has selected Census Block Groups as their planning zones. The Census Block Groups allow the agency to capture and analyze community characteristics, historical demand, detailed risk and emergency event data. This is the best method as the agency utilizes Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) for deployment of the closest unit for dispatch. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 141 Census Block Group: 504601 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 12 13 19 12 13 19 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 1 10 4 7 45 5 Good intent call, Other 36 47 40 88 99 78 Hazardous condition, Other 3 3 2 7 6 6 Rescue, EMS incident, other 107 113 109 303 329 285 Service Call, other 2 3 2 2 5 5 Total 161 189 176 419 497 398 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 5 2 7 0 0 0 2 16 1 7 1 0 0 0 1 3 12 2 0 0 2 0 5 3 0 10 3 10 0 0 6 0 13 0 29 4 3 1 1 5 1 0 5 16 5 1 5 2 0 0 2 0 10 6 2 14 2 5 2 9 1 35 7 0 0 15 5 1 1 9 31 8 6 21 17 31 16 8 0 99 9 1 20 34 13 35 26 0 129 10 4 9 18 14 16 16 10 87 11 3 21 18 21 25 31 1 120 12 6 22 12 33 6 9 8 96 13 3 24 16 21 18 21 6 109 14 2 21 19 16 11 12 0 81 15 11 28 11 26 11 21 15 123 16 5 13 10 13 17 15 7 80 17 8 18 2 15 12 6 5 66 18 18 6 11 9 0 22 9 75 19 5 3 2 2 5 4 4 25 20 0 5 0 1 7 3 3 19 21 0 0 0 0 7 3 12 22 22 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 10 23 0 1 0 0 8 2 3 14 Total 105 235 199 236 208 228 103 1314 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 142 Hex Bin Map: 504601 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 143 Census Block Group: 510600 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 50 59 65 60 79 80 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 2 6 5 16 16 18 Good intent call, Other 63 66 58 112 119 113 Hazardous condition, Other 9 8 6 21 26 17 Rescue, EMS incident, other 232 261 243 524 559 525 Service Call, other 26 42 46 40 59 59 Total 382 442 423 773 858 812 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 14 6 2 14 5 7 12 60 1 11 1 3 13 6 15 8 57 2 11 10 7 1 4 9 2 44 3 12 4 7 10 8 8 2 51 4 6 4 9 9 8 5 9 50 5 14 3 6 8 3 4 5 43 6 10 4 7 5 6 4 1 37 7 5 18 11 10 9 18 19 90 8 14 16 6 20 7 16 16 95 9 16 19 28 18 7 34 18 140 10 20 20 22 26 18 27 16 149 11 13 23 18 23 15 14 17 123 12 14 42 15 32 33 27 25 188 13 12 11 21 23 13 34 23 137 14 22 20 17 20 10 20 7 116 15 4 19 20 20 18 19 27 127 16 21 15 18 27 4 19 17 121 17 4 25 23 8 21 21 22 124 18 17 24 17 21 26 35 24 164 19 17 33 18 21 21 15 18 143 20 30 13 9 17 2 14 12 97 21 21 13 19 20 13 32 11 129 22 10 5 6 15 23 14 18 91 23 13 10 2 16 5 4 17 67 Total 331 358 311 397 285 415 346 2443 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 144 Hex Bin Map: 510600 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 145 Census Block Group: 510700 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 21 28 27 24 34 29 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 2 8 6 18 56 39 Good intent call, Other 43 46 52 98 92 109 Hazardous condition, Other 8 9 5 12 13 10 Rescue, EMS incident, other 242 264 293 532 575 654 Service Call, other 19 9 16 26 12 26 Total 335 364 399 710 782 867 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 8 4 16 0 2 15 7 52 1 12 3 13 12 4 14 11 69 2 0 8 7 3 4 4 13 39 3 7 6 4 6 4 11 7 45 4 2 4 3 4 4 8 2 27 5 6 6 7 2 6 13 6 46 6 11 8 12 7 4 7 13 62 7 5 8 7 14 18 13 8 73 8 10 13 25 22 23 11 14 118 9 21 21 17 22 14 16 34 145 10 23 24 30 19 19 17 17 149 11 11 39 27 20 17 20 19 153 12 13 10 23 15 16 12 15 104 13 13 23 14 24 17 13 15 119 14 10 16 16 9 14 38 11 114 15 4 16 17 13 19 28 13 110 16 15 9 11 16 15 22 11 99 17 24 30 31 21 25 14 14 159 18 10 11 14 19 10 16 29 109 19 23 23 13 16 17 16 28 136 20 22 20 15 13 9 16 29 124 21 12 13 25 11 6 21 10 98 22 4 9 25 12 13 9 17 89 23 21 17 15 9 17 20 21 120 Total 287 341 387 309 297 374 364 2359 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 146 Hex Bin Map: 510700 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 147 Census Block Group: 510801 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 41 40 33 49 59 43 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 6 4 8 24 18 40 Good intent call, Other 53 38 47 119 80 114 Hazardous condition, Other 6 5 7 23 13 16 Rescue, EMS incident, other 311 279 329 733 686 785 Service Call, other 27 32 35 38 41 40 Total 444 398 459 986 897 1038 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 10 11 11 3 10 11 26 82 1 9 6 9 9 9 9 13 64 2 9 2 6 7 5 4 22 55 3 13 4 3 6 3 4 15 48 4 5 7 4 6 8 0 6 36 5 8 4 4 20 16 6 8 66 6 8 8 2 8 11 5 7 49 7 13 15 18 9 17 12 25 109 8 17 52 24 33 24 19 12 181 9 12 33 28 23 16 25 23 160 10 25 23 24 48 34 19 23 196 11 18 14 21 22 17 23 16 131 12 12 28 20 19 20 15 25 139 13 18 13 9 18 21 30 12 121 14 20 19 20 19 17 21 19 135 15 29 24 31 39 17 32 33 205 16 11 29 23 22 33 43 15 176 17 18 31 21 32 45 52 8 207 18 33 51 32 21 26 56 21 240 19 27 33 19 35 20 19 26 179 20 17 3 11 24 24 15 20 114 21 11 22 6 26 12 14 26 117 22 8 9 4 5 19 3 9 57 23 4 8 4 14 3 17 4 54 Total 355 449 354 468 427 454 414 2921 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 148 Hex Bin Map: 510801 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 149 Census Block Group: 510802 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 14 13 12 17 18 15 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 1 3 3 5 18 11 Good intent call, Other 17 18 12 31 35 29 Hazardous condition, Other 1 3 3 1 3 4 Rescue, EMS incident, other 79 82 80 183 177 175 Service Call, other 11 10 9 17 12 11 Total 123 129 119 254 263 245 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 3 10 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 2 9 2 2 0 0 4 0 2 2 10 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 0 12 4 0 0 2 3 2 2 2 11 5 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 7 6 3 7 5 2 0 4 0 21 7 0 2 8 6 5 4 1 26 8 0 4 10 10 7 5 8 44 9 4 9 9 5 15 2 6 50 10 9 14 11 5 7 1 5 52 11 9 9 4 7 2 4 0 35 12 5 0 2 13 5 0 8 33 13 5 0 9 6 2 19 11 52 14 5 16 8 9 2 10 6 56 15 5 3 4 0 6 1 3 22 16 9 8 12 6 7 16 12 70 17 3 7 10 18 7 10 3 58 18 11 6 2 2 3 16 6 46 19 2 3 6 6 6 5 5 33 20 6 1 4 2 5 10 2 30 21 9 5 4 2 6 9 13 48 22 1 0 2 4 3 0 2 12 23 0 4 0 3 0 5 3 15 Total 97 104 118 119 94 127 103 762 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 150 Hex Bin Map: 510802 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 151 Census Block Group: 510803 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 30 35 63 36 49 101 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 2 3 2 27 12 12 Good intent call, Other 27 40 29 56 74 55 Hazardous condition, Other 4 4 1 13 9 8 Rescue, EMS incident, other 137 132 111 311 303 235 Service Call, other 22 10 23 25 13 34 Total 222 224 229 468 460 445 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 3 9 4 0 11 6 6 39 1 6 2 5 0 0 3 4 20 2 6 8 4 7 0 2 2 29 3 5 1 4 4 4 4 7 29 4 1 0 6 2 5 0 1 15 5 12 2 4 0 8 2 8 36 6 1 5 13 5 2 3 5 34 7 13 4 9 7 2 9 2 46 8 11 17 15 14 21 4 5 87 9 12 3 17 17 13 16 6 84 10 9 8 16 20 23 13 9 98 11 9 8 4 21 9 24 13 88 12 6 26 12 16 11 9 14 94 13 4 13 11 9 11 10 7 65 14 2 10 10 7 2 5 9 45 15 25 22 15 9 11 10 22 114 16 15 10 15 8 13 6 12 79 17 17 23 7 21 15 12 4 99 18 10 17 12 8 11 15 6 79 19 11 2 3 6 9 8 14 53 20 6 3 13 14 4 3 3 46 21 10 8 7 6 3 3 12 49 22 2 4 4 4 0 3 2 19 23 6 1 7 4 8 5 3 34 Total 202 206 217 209 196 175 176 1381 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 152 Hex Bin Map: 510803 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 153 Census Block Group: 510900 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 20 21 22 27 25 23 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 4 6 3 28 22 22 Good intent call, Other 36 32 26 79 66 48 Hazardous condition, Other 9 9 5 25 15 6 Rescue, EMS incident, other 147 157 168 322 340 371 Service Call, other 14 27 35 16 38 48 Total 230 252 259 497 506 518 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 6 4 5 5 4 5 8 37 1 3 3 3 4 5 3 9 30 2 3 13 3 4 1 2 10 36 3 8 3 3 2 0 2 5 23 4 2 3 7 3 0 6 3 24 5 5 3 8 5 5 0 3 29 6 3 1 4 3 4 4 2 21 7 7 6 12 7 5 8 5 50 8 16 17 11 11 8 11 6 80 9 6 26 10 4 8 16 12 82 10 14 13 13 17 14 14 14 99 11 15 11 12 12 3 11 18 82 12 9 8 10 17 1 9 13 67 13 14 4 11 22 13 8 20 92 14 30 21 21 11 23 6 9 121 15 22 14 14 16 10 8 7 91 16 13 8 8 20 6 9 4 68 17 8 9 9 18 18 10 12 84 18 14 15 4 17 17 9 7 83 19 15 19 10 12 5 7 20 88 20 20 9 15 8 3 7 21 83 21 6 6 4 3 16 13 14 62 22 3 6 4 11 6 14 12 56 23 6 2 10 4 0 10 9 41 Total 248 224 211 236 175 192 243 1529 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 154 Hex Bin Map: 510900 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 155 Census Block Group: 511000 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 13 19 25 17 22 31 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 1 4 5 5 13 24 Good intent call, Other 30 33 34 71 65 53 Hazardous condition, Other 3 11 4 12 27 15 Rescue, EMS incident, other 199 198 198 445 442 422 Service Call, other 17 35 39 26 42 53 Total 263 300 305 576 611 598 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 9 7 11 5 12 9 8 61 1 5 0 5 2 6 4 6 28 2 8 5 10 5 7 12 4 51 3 6 2 10 8 7 8 5 46 4 4 10 2 5 5 2 2 30 5 4 0 5 9 7 15 10 50 6 18 5 3 2 11 4 4 47 7 6 7 9 11 10 2 6 51 8 16 13 10 13 9 2 15 78 9 13 9 6 17 20 7 8 80 10 10 12 12 14 23 2 4 77 11 10 17 13 20 18 10 13 101 12 20 13 10 34 8 10 11 106 13 17 25 14 18 10 11 20 115 14 6 18 14 6 14 21 3 82 15 11 26 11 11 13 6 17 95 16 11 16 4 18 12 10 14 85 17 19 27 25 15 8 10 4 108 18 15 21 18 16 10 4 7 91 19 12 10 8 11 11 15 9 76 20 17 9 11 18 20 14 9 98 21 16 4 13 16 12 13 14 88 22 13 20 13 7 17 12 16 98 23 4 11 6 2 8 7 5 43 Total 270 287 243 283 278 210 214 1785 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 156 Hex Bin Map: 511000 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 157 Census Block Group: 511100 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 36 27 35 47 33 38 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 6 8 5 30 31 10 Good intent call, Other 39 30 53 72 57 97 Hazardous condition, Other 6 7 6 18 14 16 Rescue, EMS incident, other 161 167 187 350 380 412 Service Call, other 32 48 45 42 70 65 Total 280 287 331 559 585 638 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 9 6 2 6 7 6 6 42 1 10 6 6 8 2 1 4 37 2 1 5 5 7 2 4 8 32 3 6 2 4 5 2 8 4 31 4 5 7 7 1 5 8 4 37 5 5 2 3 4 7 16 6 43 6 9 4 10 4 4 7 9 47 7 19 12 11 11 1 5 16 75 8 10 5 7 9 5 20 11 67 9 12 9 24 14 10 21 19 109 10 18 13 6 18 19 14 14 102 11 22 13 12 6 24 16 5 98 12 15 8 15 18 25 15 16 112 13 8 15 9 16 11 12 22 93 14 11 16 7 26 16 14 7 97 15 16 9 9 16 6 35 19 110 16 15 12 26 18 6 9 8 94 17 9 18 20 22 14 12 9 104 18 22 7 15 8 10 26 12 100 19 22 8 18 14 11 16 13 102 20 16 7 9 4 12 14 25 87 21 8 19 12 14 4 16 1 74 22 11 11 9 4 8 8 5 56 23 9 8 14 6 4 4 3 48 Total 288 222 260 259 215 307 246 1797 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 158 Hex Bin Map: 511100 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 159 Census Block Group: 511200 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 32 47 43 38 60 53 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 5 4 2 29 18 11 Good intent call, Other 57 60 58 114 105 96 Hazardous condition, Other 7 12 6 21 35 14 Rescue, EMS incident, other 148 170 174 336 372 377 Service Call, other 29 17 23 36 24 26 Total 278 310 306 574 614 577 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 10 10 6 5 11 4 4 50 1 6 6 4 2 2 0 4 24 2 8 4 5 3 5 5 9 39 3 2 3 9 4 10 4 9 41 4 4 3 2 1 2 1 3 16 5 0 5 20 4 4 7 2 42 6 3 3 4 5 7 7 2 31 7 6 13 8 11 7 7 4 56 8 16 7 0 7 12 12 5 59 9 0 12 2 10 15 18 7 64 10 17 18 30 31 9 15 7 127 11 11 18 11 18 17 10 20 105 12 13 27 22 11 8 11 12 104 13 13 12 17 22 20 15 7 106 14 23 17 25 25 6 14 20 130 15 14 20 24 14 6 14 15 107 16 15 12 13 14 10 16 10 90 17 12 5 15 24 30 20 14 120 18 10 23 22 15 16 17 17 120 19 19 14 7 13 11 7 14 85 20 14 9 10 10 13 10 12 78 21 12 4 2 14 10 14 12 68 22 5 10 16 8 9 0 7 55 23 7 8 8 5 10 4 6 48 Total 240 263 282 276 250 232 222 1765 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 160 Hex Bin Map: 511200 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 161 Census Block Group: 511301 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 29 42 31 32 60 37 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 11 2 7 42 36 21 Good intent call, Other 55 35 48 127 60 84 Hazardous condition, Other 5 13 9 19 27 20 Rescue, EMS incident, other 209 204 254 461 443 548 Service Call, other 19 35 35 25 48 43 Total 328 331 384 706 674 753 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 3 4 5 3 10 6 7 38 1 6 2 4 7 2 0 10 31 2 4 2 9 6 7 6 3 37 3 4 2 7 1 4 9 8 35 4 8 4 2 5 4 2 3 28 5 5 3 4 7 4 5 4 32 6 0 2 5 9 8 8 4 36 7 6 13 7 10 20 13 9 78 8 10 7 16 30 17 11 16 107 9 6 19 38 23 24 18 11 139 10 23 26 34 21 9 21 17 151 11 14 25 36 19 27 23 21 165 12 15 13 11 10 11 20 19 99 13 18 26 15 30 21 14 4 128 14 13 21 16 31 20 34 12 147 15 16 18 17 15 9 20 10 105 16 16 11 9 21 9 14 16 96 17 10 19 18 13 8 17 13 98 18 13 14 36 24 18 13 12 130 19 25 12 14 25 13 17 24 130 20 29 14 10 11 17 16 9 106 21 21 12 9 8 8 12 19 89 22 12 11 15 8 2 4 28 80 23 5 4 4 8 6 10 11 48 Total 282 284 341 345 278 313 290 2133 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 162 Hex Bin Map: 511301 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 163 Census Block Group: 511302 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 80 110 114 109 154 162 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 14 8 16 36 68 32 Good intent call, Other 172 163 162 358 330 312 Hazardous condition, Other 13 13 18 29 45 54 Rescue, EMS incident, other 541 513 539 1190 1113 1161 Service Call, other 67 54 71 91 76 92 Total 887 861 920 1813 1786 1813 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 25 12 10 14 18 37 62 178 1 30 15 25 17 21 29 25 162 2 33 17 11 16 15 14 38 144 3 24 12 13 16 18 24 19 126 4 20 6 13 8 21 17 14 99 5 17 11 15 13 22 13 10 101 6 18 23 11 22 14 20 13 121 7 26 34 23 20 23 17 17 160 8 14 35 25 39 35 28 18 194 9 23 36 43 38 49 29 30 248 10 46 55 44 50 48 28 38 309 11 29 39 57 37 48 58 46 314 12 46 54 85 44 32 54 34 349 13 31 42 59 39 45 48 35 299 14 44 40 31 61 39 39 45 299 15 30 31 61 55 52 37 39 305 16 48 32 29 35 27 41 29 241 17 54 40 47 33 38 45 69 326 18 42 29 53 71 37 30 45 307 19 29 35 36 44 34 39 29 246 20 32 40 38 45 21 47 58 281 21 24 25 26 39 28 54 39 235 22 20 20 30 20 26 39 25 180 23 18 31 19 20 22 36 42 188 Total 723 714 804 796 733 823 819 5412 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 164 Hex Bin Map: 511302 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 165 Census Block Group: 511400 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 24 35 40 24 38 50 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 1 3 4 2 7 27 Good intent call, Other 33 35 40 53 53 79 Hazardous condition, Other 7 6 8 25 24 19 Rescue, EMS incident, other 105 97 116 239 220 260 Service Call, other 24 27 21 31 36 27 Total 194 203 229 374 378 462 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 4 2 2 2 1 2 2 15 1 3 2 1 2 0 3 9 20 2 1 0 5 3 2 3 2 16 3 4 2 9 7 3 0 0 25 4 0 4 2 2 7 1 5 21 5 2 2 1 3 0 0 2 10 6 4 7 1 2 5 1 3 23 7 4 4 3 5 2 0 5 23 8 6 8 6 19 10 4 3 56 9 17 2 15 15 8 17 8 82 10 20 14 12 17 22 17 3 105 11 24 4 15 22 18 10 12 105 12 9 11 9 5 6 3 8 51 13 1 9 4 11 23 6 8 62 14 0 22 10 15 8 7 9 71 15 7 7 11 14 8 13 9 69 16 4 13 12 19 16 9 3 76 17 5 7 7 12 9 16 1 57 18 13 16 6 16 8 11 1 71 19 3 5 13 14 12 6 9 62 20 10 4 13 11 5 8 6 57 21 11 11 12 13 9 3 0 59 22 4 4 4 5 4 7 11 39 23 2 2 2 5 9 7 12 39 Total 158 162 175 239 195 154 131 1214 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 166 Hex Bin Map: 511400 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 167 Census Block Group: 511500 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 102 102 120 117 115 132 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 10 14 18 32 45 55 Good intent call, Other 100 71 94 176 148 148 Hazardous condition, Other 11 24 12 16 50 28 Rescue, EMS incident, other 484 487 473 1120 1082 1044 Service Call, other 36 39 37 48 48 55 Total 743 737 754 1509 1488 1462 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 21 12 14 9 14 23 32 125 1 32 7 4 12 6 18 23 102 2 12 4 16 4 9 9 11 65 3 8 8 12 3 12 2 7 52 4 9 3 14 7 16 12 9 70 5 11 1 9 10 3 8 7 49 6 7 25 19 20 14 5 11 101 7 19 28 29 42 26 36 18 198 8 16 34 33 19 33 39 10 184 9 34 46 49 61 32 58 20 300 10 48 42 41 50 53 39 24 297 11 31 51 31 42 46 29 53 283 12 34 49 41 37 29 54 37 281 13 42 62 39 43 48 47 49 330 14 16 57 50 31 24 35 17 230 15 21 36 36 36 43 24 35 231 16 15 62 51 36 47 43 20 274 17 18 23 25 41 34 32 38 211 18 31 37 42 46 15 27 38 236 19 18 18 37 32 26 24 23 178 20 19 16 31 34 25 24 17 166 21 19 42 35 20 22 20 26 184 22 16 27 24 24 34 24 13 162 23 28 10 29 9 8 24 42 150 Total 525 700 711 668 619 656 580 4459 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 168 Hex Bin Map: 511500 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 169 Census Block Group: 511608 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 130 139 194 146 161 215 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 8 6 4 25 6 13 Good intent call, Other 62 56 45 102 102 64 Hazardous condition, Other 8 11 10 28 30 21 Rescue, EMS incident, other 238 283 247 547 619 551 Service Call, other 6 3 8 8 4 13 Total 452 498 508 856 922 877 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 28 9 4 15 5 11 34 106 1 37 6 3 8 3 12 19 88 2 13 0 5 9 4 5 25 61 3 7 4 5 5 3 2 0 26 4 2 4 2 11 2 9 9 39 5 6 3 2 1 1 4 5 22 6 4 10 8 10 4 5 5 46 7 1 11 7 8 11 7 6 51 8 2 19 19 7 28 24 4 103 9 3 18 30 15 41 27 13 147 10 4 31 19 43 35 37 16 185 11 13 27 40 36 41 38 10 205 12 19 38 32 24 20 43 13 189 13 15 28 24 36 24 32 12 171 14 10 15 46 38 31 32 22 194 15 13 26 40 33 38 29 13 192 16 13 20 32 29 44 19 12 169 17 12 19 25 24 18 13 17 128 18 10 8 14 14 16 8 17 87 19 12 18 8 14 9 15 16 92 20 8 15 27 26 11 13 11 111 21 7 12 16 8 8 15 9 75 22 6 7 10 15 11 13 14 76 23 12 8 9 14 15 18 19 95 Total 257 356 427 443 423 431 321 2658 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 170 Hex Bin Map: 511608 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 171 Census Block Group: 511609 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 69 75 91 92 88 117 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 8 12 14 27 24 100 Good intent call, Other 291 313 282 528 567 542 Hazardous condition, Other 12 13 15 38 26 47 Rescue, EMS incident, other 1128 1153 1144 2558 2544 2487 Service Call, other 31 21 15 40 32 28 Total 1539 1587 1561 3283 3281 3321 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 31 29 28 23 20 36 47 214 1 24 19 25 42 34 26 29 199 2 26 35 30 28 34 37 19 209 3 29 26 28 24 25 38 28 198 4 34 7 34 23 42 20 31 191 5 22 19 14 22 23 30 26 156 6 17 30 20 25 22 47 29 190 7 21 52 38 50 55 40 40 296 8 40 68 83 63 65 63 44 426 9 39 70 82 99 79 68 58 495 10 58 82 85 125 117 104 92 663 11 48 126 98 124 121 122 86 725 12 57 113 119 78 161 126 93 747 13 46 104 89 109 110 107 61 626 14 55 106 121 105 122 129 66 704 15 64 123 100 130 93 93 30 633 16 73 73 87 110 79 70 84 576 17 60 84 82 69 84 80 64 523 18 57 83 64 35 62 50 62 413 19 42 53 58 81 59 81 72 446 20 43 40 34 59 70 56 70 372 21 66 49 61 50 60 52 64 402 22 43 41 20 42 41 35 37 259 23 25 52 16 33 45 21 30 222 Total 1020 1484 1416 1549 1623 1531 1262 9885 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 172 Hex Bin Map: 511609 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 173 Census Block Group: 511701 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 1 2 3 1 3 3 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 2 2 3 2 2 8 Good intent call, Other 33 35 37 38 45 40 Hazardous condition, Other 1 1 4 4 1 8 Rescue, EMS incident, other 15 20 26 27 34 52 Service Call, other 2 0 0 2 0 0 Total 54 60 73 74 85 111 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 6 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 8 2 0 0 3 0 2 15 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 6 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 7 7 1 0 2 0 6 1 2 12 8 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 7 9 2 8 7 1 3 1 2 24 10 0 0 3 0 2 1 1 7 11 1 0 9 3 0 5 3 21 12 1 0 5 0 2 0 7 15 13 5 2 2 5 6 3 0 23 14 0 1 0 1 1 4 4 11 15 2 1 0 4 5 3 1 16 16 2 0 4 2 4 5 7 24 17 3 2 7 1 1 2 0 16 18 2 1 8 2 1 3 2 19 19 0 1 3 0 2 1 2 9 20 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 5 21 0 3 0 1 0 4 0 8 22 1 0 1 1 2 0 4 9 23 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Total 35 27 52 25 47 41 43 270 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 174 Hex Bin Map: 511701 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 175 Census Block Group: 511704 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 0 0 1 0 0 1 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 0 1 4 0 2 6 Good intent call, Other 19 6 15 26 10 22 Hazardous condition, Other 0 0 1 0 0 1 Rescue, EMS incident, other 6 4 2 20 10 6 Service Call, other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 25 11 23 46 22 36 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 7 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 6 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 3 1 5 0 9 10 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 0 1 5 3 3 2 0 14 13 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 4 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 6 16 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 6 17 1 4 1 3 0 1 2 12 18 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 7 19 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 6 20 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 7 21 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 23 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 Total 6 16 15 23 13 16 15 104 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 176 Hex Bin Map: 511704 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 177 Census Block Group: 511705 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 70 64 91 81 77 111 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 7 7 8 23 23 24 Good intent call, Other 77 79 79 147 148 138 Hazardous condition, Other 13 8 6 31 15 17 Rescue, EMS incident, other 208 203 189 496 471 440 Service Call, other 22 11 12 33 16 14 Total 397 372 385 811 750 744 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 1 7 0 0 5 2 7 22 1 1 3 4 2 8 0 7 25 2 7 0 6 2 1 6 1 23 3 3 0 2 0 0 3 3 11 4 0 2 6 4 4 9 5 30 5 3 3 5 0 5 1 4 21 6 0 14 11 11 5 21 7 69 7 5 18 17 13 13 17 8 91 8 11 13 37 26 27 20 16 150 9 9 28 28 22 44 19 11 161 10 21 18 35 20 45 48 14 201 11 9 47 33 25 39 26 13 192 12 18 36 35 21 32 34 17 193 13 18 39 26 16 16 19 9 143 14 15 27 28 16 21 37 10 154 15 6 15 25 27 24 27 13 137 16 9 19 24 17 14 18 28 129 17 4 16 24 29 17 29 12 131 18 8 13 22 12 18 12 16 101 19 14 11 14 22 22 23 5 111 20 4 7 10 9 9 14 9 62 21 3 11 6 4 9 12 8 53 22 12 2 8 1 8 13 6 50 23 8 4 7 7 8 4 7 45 Total 189 353 413 306 394 414 236 2305 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 178 Hex Bin Map: 511705 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 179 Census Block Group: 511707 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 2 1 1 2 2 1 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 2 0 1 9 0 27 Good intent call, Other 21 9 21 57 39 58 Hazardous condition, Other 1 1 0 2 3 1 Rescue, EMS incident, other 21 23 26 109 112 119 Service Call, other 1 1 3 1 1 4 Total 48 35 52 180 157 210 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 1 1 3 0 0 0 2 2 8 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 6 1 0 1 2 8 0 0 12 7 0 5 4 0 6 1 2 18 8 1 0 4 2 2 8 6 23 9 2 3 7 3 0 12 4 31 10 5 10 0 7 7 8 12 49 11 11 8 2 2 12 12 14 61 12 0 0 9 5 5 14 9 42 13 0 4 5 9 2 7 9 36 14 24 0 13 12 5 11 2 67 15 3 0 8 13 9 12 2 47 16 7 0 8 8 9 4 0 36 17 2 1 8 3 0 5 8 27 18 2 6 8 2 0 0 0 18 19 13 11 2 9 4 1 0 40 20 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 6 21 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 7 22 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 Total 76 53 84 88 69 100 77 547 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 180 Hex Bin Map: 511707 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 181 Census Block Group: 513000 NFIRS Group 2015 Incidents 2016 Incidents 2017 Incidents 2015 Total Response 2016 Total Response 2017 Total Response False alarm or false call, Other 224 199 233 283 241 298 Fire: Structure, Wildland, Other 21 20 15 52 33 42 Good intent call, Other 69 72 91 132 131 162 Hazardous condition, Other 11 6 9 22 12 26 Rescue, EMS incident, other 357 317 341 774 668 737 Service Call, other 24 9 14 28 14 22 Total 706 623 703 1291 1099 1287 2015-17 Total Responses Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total 0 31 3 8 16 13 18 58 147 1 45 7 8 27 7 20 48 162 2 38 1 5 3 16 16 27 106 3 14 10 3 4 5 8 7 51 4 3 4 4 6 3 3 5 28 5 6 2 3 5 12 2 6 36 6 6 5 8 10 13 14 11 67 7 16 11 11 7 16 20 9 90 8 8 28 16 22 29 27 18 148 9 9 31 32 27 24 34 25 182 10 37 27 18 34 28 25 27 196 11 15 15 37 42 34 52 42 237 12 28 46 49 36 47 20 37 263 13 30 23 41 10 30 21 25 180 14 13 33 28 38 31 12 33 188 15 23 28 18 24 35 21 43 192 16 13 7 21 26 19 26 38 150 17 10 21 23 18 35 29 34 170 18 21 19 17 19 46 29 54 205 19 35 30 16 23 31 33 61 229 20 23 32 14 14 42 35 45 205 21 20 37 19 11 17 27 35 166 22 12 14 22 19 10 17 30 124 23 10 4 21 20 22 43 37 157 Total 466 438 442 461 565 552 755 3679 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 182 Hex Bin Map: 513000 Response Unit Workload The workload on individual response units during the study period is shown in the following table. Individual response unit workload can be greater than the workload in its home station area. Many incidents, such as structure fires, require more than one response unit. Engine 61, Medic 61, and Medic 62 are the busiest PAFD response units. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 183 Figure 106: Response Unit Workload During 2016, there were 8,867 total incidents within the PAFD. Total unit responses to the city incidents were 17,760 (including mutual aid). The amount of time a given unit is committed to an incident is also an important workload factor. The following figure illustrates the average time each unit was committed to an incident, from initial dispatch until it cleared the scene. Figure 107: Average Time Committed to an Incident by Unit Unit Responses Average Minutes Per Response Battalion 66 444 23.88 Engine 61 2443 19.20 Engine 62 1098 21.29 Engine 63 1433 21.23 Engine 64 1250 24.72 Engine 65 1134 21.92 Engine 66 1765 20.52 Medic 61 2820 45.48 Medic 62 2797 49.41 Medic 63 527 34.96 Medic 64 31 27.67 Truck 66 876 19.52 Unit hour utilization is an important workload indicator. It is calculated by dividing the total time a unit is committed to all incidents during a year divided by the total time in a year. Expressed as a percentage, it describes the amount of time a unit is not available for response since it is already committed to an Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 184 incident. The larger the percentage, the greater a unit’s utilization, and the less available it is for assignment to an incident. Unit hour utilization is an important statistic to monitor for those fire agencies using percentile-based performance standards, as does PAFD. In PAFD’s case, where performance is measured at the 90th percentile, unit hour utilization greater than 10 percent means that the response unit will not be able to provide on-time response to its 90 percent target even if response is its only activity. Figure 108: Unit Hour Utilization Mutual and Automatic Aid PAFD is a participant in the regional mutual and automatic aid system. This system provides for the automatic dispatch of adjacent agency response units into PAFD and from PAFD to adjacent agencies to ensure the closest appropriate units are sent to an emergency. This system provides PAFD with quick access to a significant number of response resources. PAFD maintains boundary drop and automatic aid agreements with the City of Mountain View. For the remaining agencies, the PAFD has mutual aid agreements with the exception of freeway responses on US Highway 101 and Interstate 280 with Menlo Park Fire District and Woodside Fire District. Study period incident data was evaluated to determine the benefit to and commitment of PAFD to this system. The results show that depending on the agency, PAFD both benefits from and supports agencies in the auto and mutual aid system. In the Study Period, PAFD provided service to 446 adjacent agency incidents. Other agencies provided service to 415 incidents in the PAFD service area. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 185 Figure 109: Mutual and Automatic Aid Mutual and Automatic Aid CY 2016 Study Period Aid Provided Agency Count Percent Mountain View Fire 369 82.7% Santa Clara County Fire 69 15.5% Menlo Park Fire 3 0.7% San Jose Fire 1 0.2% San Mateo Fire 1 0.2% Cal Fire 3 0.7% All Mutual and Auto Aid Provided 446 100.0% Aid Received Agency Count Percent Mountain View Fire 266 64.1% Menlo Park Fire 74 17.3% Santa Clara County Fire 52 12.5% Woodside Fire 20 4.8% Cal Fire 2 0.5% Moffett Fire 1 0.2% All Mutual and Auto Aid Received 415 100.0% Source: Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Reports FY15 Q3, Q4 and FY16 Q1, Q2 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 186 Second Unit Arrival Time All PAFD fire engines are staffed with three personnel. The ladder truck is staffed with three. Safety regulations require that at least four firefighters be on scene before firefighters can enter a burning building. The only exception is if it is known that a person is inside the building and needs rescue. Current staffing levels on apparatus require the arrival of a second response unit before non-rescue interior firefighting activities can be initiated. Incident data for building fires during the study period was reviewed to determine the time the second response unit arrived on the scene. According to the data the second unit arrived on scene of a structure fire within two minutes, 51 seconds, 90 percent of the time after the arrival of the first unit. Call Concurrency and Reliability When evaluating the effectiveness of any resource deployment plan, it is necessary to evaluate the workload of the individual response units to determine to what extent their availability for dispatch is affecting the response time performance. In simplest terms, a response unit cannot make it to an incident across the street from its own station in four minutes if it is unavailable to be dispatched to that incident because it is committed to another call. Concurrency One way to look at resource workload is to examine the number of times multiple incidents happen within the same time frame in each station area. Incidents during the study period were examined to determine the frequency of concurrent incidents within each station’s response area. This is important because concurrent incidents can stretch available resources and extend response times. The following figure shows the number of concurrent and non-current calls for each PAFD station during the study period. Concurrent calls were highest in the Station 1 area at seven percent of total. Figure 110: Call Concurrency by Station 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 In c i d e n t s Station Concurrent Total Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 187 The number of incidents occuring at the same time city-wide was also evaluated. The following figure shows the number of times one or more incidents occurred during the same time period and the percentage of such occurrances. Figure 111: Incident Concurrency Number of Concurrent Incidents Count Percentage of Total 1 3787 46.74% 2 2759 34.05% 3 1196 14.76% 4 301 3.71% 5 51 0.63% 6 7 0.09% 7 2 0.02% Figure 112: Drawdown Summary (Engines) Number of Concurrent Incidents Count Percentage of Total 0 5326 64.58% 1 7958 25.98% 2 3578 7.38% 3 1087 1.55% 4 247 0.38% 5 65 0.11% 6 23 0.01% Figure 113: Drawdown Summary (Ambulances) Number of Concurrent Incidents Count Percentage of Total 0 3269 58.49% 1 5566 29.31% 2 3204 9.34% 3 1190 2.28% 4 340 0.49% 5 83 0.07% 6 16 0.01% 7 2 0.00% Reliability The ability of a fire station’s first-due unit(s) to respond to an incident within its assigned response area is known as unit reliability. The reliability analysis is normally done by measuring the number of times response units assigned to a given fire station were available to respond to a request for service within that fire station’s primary service area. PAFD does not dispatch response units based on a particular geographic service area. Instead, the computer aided dispatch system assigns the closest unit to an incident based on calculated travel time. This is a far superior way to select response units for an incident. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 188 Hour: SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT Weekday Weekend Overall 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 26.40%31.70%21.90%21.10% 26.90%27.10%22.60%20.90% 28.00%23.70%23.70%18.60% 32.50%34.60%27.50%19.30% 35.90%29.10%28.00%21.10% 29.80%34.90%22.50%22.10% 36.90%33.90%36.00%32.10% 30.62%29.88%24.86%20.40% 31.65%32.80%28.95%26.60% 30.91%30.71%26.03%22.17% To determine reliability under this system, data should be collected to determine the number o f times any response unit was available for an incident within the target travel time, in this case four minutes. Data is not currently available to make that calculation. Unit Hour Utilization Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) is a standardized way to measure workload levels in an agency’s system and to allow comparison to other systems. Typically used for measuring ambulance activity, UHU is calculated by dividing the time committed to calls by the number of "unit hours," with one unit hour defined as a fully equipped and staffed vehicle in the agency’s system. UHU does not measure other time activities such as training, vehicle maintenance, administrative details or fire inspections. Figure 114: 2016 UHU (8am - 8pm) for M61, M62, M64(E64) Figure 115: 2016 UHU (8pm - 8am) for M61, M62, M64(E64) Hour:8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 SUN 22.90%22.80%34.30%29.30%28.70%29.20%30.10%32.30%35.00%32.40%30.50%28.70% MON 35.30%37.40%39.10%40.10%41.60%43.40%44.30%38.90%40.50%40.80%39.60%38.00% TUE 30.30%42.40%48.40%48.00%44.80%39.90%43.60%44.20%37.40%33.80%43.10%34.10% WED 34.30%35.80%52.70%46.40%35.30%43.10%41.50%43.00%48.60%43.50%41.30%37.70% THU 24.40%28.50%38.80%45.20%50.00%31.20%38.50%42.40%33.80%37.20%37.30%29.40% FRI 34.90%34.20%41.20%44.40%40.60%41.90%41.80%39.30%33.20%38.30%37.90%36.50% SAT 25.40%30.90%34.10%42.30%42.60%33.90%36.90%37.60%37.30%34.50%31.00%42.00% Weekday 31.84%35.66%44.04%44.82%42.46%39.90%41.94%41.56%38.70%38.72%39.84%35.14% Weekend 24.15%26.85%34.20%35.80%35.65%31.55%33.50%34.95%36.15%33.45%30.75%35.35% Overall 29.64%33.14%41.23%42.24%40.51%37.51%39.53%39.67%37.97%37.21%37.24%35.20% Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 189 Appendix APPENDIX A – COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary Introduction The Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE) is an organization that provides a framework for continuous quality improvement for Fire and Emergency Services agencies. The cornerstone of the CPSE’s continuous quality improvement process is through agency accreditation, through which the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) provides a model for Fire and Emergency Services agencies to conduct self-assessments that are validated and reviewed by external peer assessors. On completion of the self-assessment the accrediting agency, along with the peer assessor team lead, sits before the commission to seek approval for agency accreditation. The accreditation process requires every agency applying for accreditation to perform a community- based strategic plan, a self-assessment of over 250 performance indicators that includes a Standards of Cover and a Community Risk Assessment – both substantial written works with considerable background work and support The risk assessment is a core component of the self-assessment because only through identifying the risks within its community, can a department improve its service delivery and ensure the appropriate resources are delivered to incidents to meet the community needs. The CFAI requires that the risk assessment systematically both identifies risks within the service area/jurisdiction and quantifies in a score what those risks represent -- specifically, the probability that certain events will occur, and the potential consequence(s) to the community associated with each risk. Various methodologies exist for quantitatively assessing risk; however, at the most basic level, a risk assessment is about determining what and where the risks are. For every jurisdiction risks can be different because of the differences in variables that contribute to each risk, for example demographic factors, construction types, land uses, and vegetation fuel models. The CFAI requires a methodology that logically, systematically, and consistently classifies variables associated with the risks. The 9th edition of the Fire and Emergency Services Self-Assessment Manual (FESSAM) and the 6th edition of the Risk Assessment Standards of Cover Manual, identify core competencies which must be considered when performing a risk assessment such as organizing response areas into geographical planning zones, considering population density within each planning zone, and identifying characteristics of each planning zone that include hazards, risks, and service demands. In order to meet the requirements of the accreditation process, the Palo Alto Fire Department with the assistance of FireStats, LLC., used the guidance within the 6th Edition of the Risk Assessment Standards of Cover Manual to produce a comprehensive risk assessment for the Palo Alto Fire Department’s service area. Methods The CFAI offers guidance for two quantitative approaches of a risk assessment. One approach uses a standard two-axis methodology that seeks to quantify the probability of events occurring and the consequences associated with those events. The other approach is a three-axis methodology that seeks to quantify probability, consequence, and a third dimension called organizational impact. Palo Alto Fire Department’s risk assessment used both the traditional two-axis methodology and the three-axis Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 190 methodology to quantify risk within the response jurisdiction. The three-axis methodology is newer and more complex than the two-axis approach and will be refined by its Fire and Emergency Service users as it becomes more widely adopted. By producing a risk assessment which included both approaches, the comprehensiveness of the risk analysis could be incorporated into the Standards of Cover document as required by the CFAI. Maps were produced to illustrate the differences in each approach’s outcomes. Risks were analyzed and quantified for seven services that Palo Alto Fire Department provides to the community: 1. Structure Fires 2. Non-Structure Fires 3. Emergency Medical Services 4. Technical Rescue 5. Hazardous Materials Incidents 6. Wildland Fires 7. Domestic Preparedness-related Incidents The geographical planning zones used for the risk assessment were the city’s 2010 census block groups. To calculate the risks, the first step applied a geographical equally-distributed hexagonal grid across the service area. Risk variables were then applied into each hexagon based on a weighting of factors related to each service being analyzed. Finally, data was summarized into the census block groups in order to allow the Palo Alto Fire Department to drive deployment and response based on the calculated risk of each planning zone. Data for the variables included in the calculation of the risk scores were gathered from open data sites, internally produced data layers from the City of Palo Alto, and through datasets provided by the Palo Alto Fire Department. Historical demands for service, consequence and loss data, population density, demographic characteristics, critical infrastructure, roadways, and remediation factors were all considered within the quantitative process for defining risk. The following few pages summarize the risks for each service provided by the Palo Alto Fire Department and categorize the risk scores into low, moderate, high, and maximum risk categories. Structure Fire Risk Multiple variables are incorporated into the assessment of Structure fire risk: historical demands for service, population density, income, the presence of special populations (for example the elderly and children), as well as land use type such as multifamily dwellings. Land use, population density, and historical demands for service were used as the major factors in calculating the probability score for structure fire risk. Consequence variables, included critical infrastructure impacted, the expected dollar loss from fire, and population displaced. Impact, however, was assessed differently, as the impact of a structure fire, for example, can be reduced through prevention and mitigating measures. Impact must consider the resources that will be required by Palo Alto Fire Department as well as mitigating factors which help reduce risk or the potential impact. In Palo Alto, many buildings have sprinklers and are within 500 feet of hydrants; variables such as these were used to calculate the overall impact to the organization. Once probability and consequence were determined, impact was added to derive a complete risk score and each census block was identified as being low, moderate, high or maximum risk. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 191 Structure Fire Risk Scores Score Categorical Risk ≤ 20.1751 Low ≤ 25.358 Moderate ≤ 30.617 High ≤ 43.047 Maximum Four census blocks were identified with the maximum risk. The areas around the Stanford University campus are identified with a maximum risk for structure fires considering the probability, consequence, and impact should a structure fire occur. Although a maximum risk was calculated, when determining deployment, consideration must be made to the seasonal nature of the university campus. Twelve areas were identified as being high risk, 15 areas were identified with moderate risk and 30 areas were considered low risk for structure fires. The low risk areas include the census blocks near the airport and in the foothills as well as other areas with low populations and few residential structures. Non-Structure Fire Risk Non-structure fires include fires such as trash fires, vehicle fires, railway fires, and other outside fires that are not considered wildland fires. All, however, have the potential to extend to structures and/or adjacent or nearby vegetation. Based on an analysis of historical non-structure fires, the probability in Palo Alto is linked to the presence of roadways/highways, public and mixed use spaces, as well as land use zones that are undefined. Consequence and impact for non-structure fires is very similar to structure fires in that property values, expected loss, and critical infrastructure are variables that affect the consequence scores, and proximity to fire hydrants, distance from fire station and resources required are all variables that affect the impact to the organization. Using the CFAI’s formula, the risk scores derived for non-structure fires were distributed by census block with values ranging between 0 and 20 with a low statistical dispersion of approximately 1.4. Considering probability, consequence, and impact, most of the jurisdiction has a least a moderate fire risk to non-structures. Non-Structure Fire Risk Scores Score Categorical Risk ≤ 5.12 Low ≤ 7.54 Moderate ≤ 9.94 High ≤ 19.14 Maximum Emergency Medical Services Risk Emergency Medical (EMS) risks have high probabilities. The consequence to the community, however, may not score as high as structure fires or non-structure fires. EMS risk is very closely related to the demographics of the community, with age and socioeconomic status being key drivers of demand due to frequency of illness and injury as well as access to primary care and preventative resources – the latter two being close proxies for wealth. The variables used to calculate the probability scores for EMS included population density, historical demands for service, the presence of nursing home facilities, land use types, and presence of special populations (children and the elderly). Consequence was calculated using expected transport rate as well as cardiac arrest return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate as proxies for EMS consequence because outcome data from the hospitals was not available for analysis as part of the risk assessment. Fire department resources required, distance from fire station, and time spent committed to EMS events were the variables used in the impact calculation. Total EMS risk scores Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 192 ranged from 19 to 62, the two geographically most distant ends of the department’s service area were found to have the highest risks, as long response times to an emergency medical incident in those geographic areas may impact the outcome of the patient. Technical Rescue Risk Technical Rescue emergencies include rescues of people from collapsed structures, rescues from high angles (above and below grade, vehicles, confined spaces, entanglements and entrapments, trenches, remote locations and swift water). These types of emergencies require specialty skills, training, and equipment. They have a high risk to life, and potentially to property, but they have a low probability of occurring and those probabilities are not distributed equally across the city. To quantify the risks, probability was determined by including variables such as presence of trails, fault lines, and major high- speed highways and roads. Consequence was based on the associated risk to life, and impact was quantified by considering variables such as fire department resources required, the time spent on these events, as well as expected response time to the event. Technical Rescue Risk Scores Risk Score Categorical Risk ≤ 3.82 Low ≤ 9.06 Moderate ≤ 19.37 High ≤ 42.68 Maximum The maximum risk areas include the foothills and near the Pearson-Arastradero preserve, where fire department response times can be long and where hikers can get entrapped or injured. Hazardous Materials Risk The probability for hazardous materials events is highly dependent on where hazardous materials are stored and/or transported. Facilities that contain certain hazardous materials are required by California State law to report the specific materials and quantities to the local government entities that need to know – including the fire department. Businesses that store hazardous materials in quantities greater than or equal to 55 gallons of a liquid, 500 pounds of a solid, 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, and/or store extremely hazardous substances, must report to Local Emergency Preparedness Committees (LEPC) so that fire departments are aware of the hazards when responding to incidents. Knowing where these materials are geographically located is critical to assessing the risk. Knowing the type(s) of material and the population or critical infrastructure likely to be impacted was used to calculate the risk scores. The probability of these events was determined by using historical hazmat event incidence, running an analysis to evaluate the relationship between hazmat events and land use/building types, as well as the presence of hazardous materials as a predictor. EMS Risk Scores Risk Score Categorical Risk ≤ 25.53 Low ≤ 32.625 Moderate ≤ 40.91 High ≤ 62.77 Maximum Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 193 Hazmat Risk Scores Risk Scores Categorical Risk ≤ 3.90 Low ≤ 7.56 Moderate ≤ 12.45 High ≤ 19.46 Maximum Wildland Fire Risk Wildland fires pose potentially devastating risk to property and life. In recognition of this, the City of Palo Alto has a comprehensive Local Hazards Mitigation Plan in which fire severity was analyzed. Using this data as a variable as well as several other variables to include land use information, distance from fire stations, population and critical infrastructure, the CFAIs model enhances the traditional fire severity analysis to comprehensively look at the risk of wildland fires. Probability of the event was primarily based on the fire severity maps. Not quantified within the risk calculations, but factors that should be considered in the probability of wildland fires include seasonal weather patterns and rainfall – proxies for wind, fuel moistures, fuel types, and fuel volumes. Wildland Risk Scores Risk Score Categorical Risk ≤ 2.18 Low ≤ 9.06 Moderate ≤ 24.35 High ≤ 40.66 Maximum Domestic Preparedness-related Incident Risk Quantifying the risk of domestic incidents (disasters, terrorist incidents, mass casualty incidents, damage to infrastructure) presents some challenges as the probability cannot be estimated as well as the consequence on the community. Some domestic events can be seasonally predicted and many of these hazards were also addressed in the local hazards mitigation plan, this includes flooding and mudslides. The more unpredictable domestic events include earthquakes and human-caused terrorist events such as mass shootings. Because of the unpredictability of some of these events and the broad category of domestic-related emergencies, the major variables used to calculate a score included critical infrastructure/target hazards and population density. Note, though, that dense population is itself a target hazard. The diversity in the types of events that are considered domestic incidents may have led to why some of the census blocks may have scored low, contradicting what is known about human- made hazards. Notice that the Stanford University area that encompasses the stadium and many of the dorms is scored low; however we know that these areas are at risk potentially for terrorist events or mass shooting. The probability may be low but the consequence could be high despite the score resulted from this analysis. Detailed modeling and an understanding of target hazards within each hazard management zone may be needed to fully understand and explain the risks beyond the quantitative scores calculated as part of this analysis. Conclusions and Limitations For the seven categories of risk analyzed within the Palo Alto Fire Department service area, risk is geographically distributed differently across each type. There are, however, some themes. Population Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 194 density plays a significant role in the many ways, related to both the probability of events occurring as well as consequence to the community. Critical infrastructure is also an important variable in many of these risk categories because a damaged critical infrastructure can significantly affect the community and reduce the effectiveness of the fire department’s response. In other categories, critical infrastructure is a major factor in the probability that an event will occur. Based on the risk assessment analysis, approximately half of Palo Alto’s hazard management zones have a low to moderate risk for structure fires, nearly 70% have moderate risk to non-structure fires and nearly 92% have a low to moderate EMS risk. Despite the risk score being categorized as low or moderate, the severity of the predicted events can be significant. It is simply the probability, consequence and impact collectively that equates to a moderate or low risk. Two-thirds of the hazard management zone has low to moderate technical rescue risk and hazmat risk. Most of the hazard management zones were found to have a low wildland risk -- most likely driven by the probability. However, as mentioned above, the probability of conflagration precipitated by vegetation fire cannot be ignored no matter how seemingly low in probability it may be. When reviewing the risk assessment and determining how it affects the Standards of Cover, consideration must be given to the other variables that were unable to be quantified as part of the risk assessment. The inclusion of other datasets may have more accurately calculated each risk. Moreover, improved data quality of existing datasets could have changed some of the scoring. With each CFAI accreditation process, the risk assessment will improve. Change in risk scoring will necessarily occur from one assessment to another based on improving and changing methods. The foundation of the process, however, is the systematic inventory and scoring of risks and a review of those risks by the appropriate bodies in a well-documented format that can be improved upon each time the self- assessment is completed. Additionally, each time the risk assessment is performed and a Standards of Cover is generated, the Palo Alto Fire Department is the only agency of relevance. The risk scores cannot be extrapolated to compare against other jurisdictions. While there are other models and resources available to fire departments and/or citizens to compare both performance and risk, they are completely different from the CFAI models and do not have the core competency requirements as outlined by the CFAI. Additionally, as the CFAI performs its continuous improvement process, the guidelines for conducting the self-assessment will evolve and be refined. APPENDIX B – CRITICAL TASKING CHARTS AND ALARM ASSIGNMENTS The PAFD service area has a densely populated urban environment and, as such, contains an elevated number, density, and distribution of risk. Further, its suburban and rural areas present unique challenges such as wildland fires. The fire department should have the resources needed to effectively mitigate the incidents that have the highest potential to negatively impact the community. As the actual or potential risk increases, the need for higher numbers of personnel and apparatus also increases. With each type of incident and corresponding risk, specific critical tasks need to be accomplished and certain numbers and types of apparatus should be dispatched. This section considers the community’s identified risks and illustrates the number of personnel that are necessary to accomplish the critical tasks at an emergency. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 195 Tasks that must be performed at a fire can be broken down into two key components: life safety and fire flow. Life safety tasks are based on the number of building occupants, and their location, status, and ability to take self-preservation action. Life safety related tasks involve the search, rescue, and evacuation of victims. The fire flow component involves delivering sufficient water to extinguish the fire and create an environment within the building that allows entry by firefighters. The number and types of tasks needing simultaneous action will dictate the minimum number of firefighters required to combat different types of fires. In the absence of adequate personnel to perform concurrent action, the command officer must prioritize the tasks and complete some in chronological order, rather than concurrently. These tasks include:  Command  Scene safety  Search and rescue  Fire attack  Water supply  Pump operation  Ventilation  Backup/rapid intervention Critical task analysis also applies to non-fire type emergencies including medical, technical rescue, and hazardous materials emergencies. Numerous simultaneous tasks must be completed to effectively control an emergency. The department’s ability to muster needed numbers of trained personnel quickly enough to make a difference is critical to successful incident outcomes. The following figure illustrates the minimum emergency incident staffing recommendations of the Commission on Fire Accreditation International. The following definitions apply to the figure: Low Risk—Minor incidents involving small fires (fire flow less than 250 gallons per minute), single patient non-life threatening medical incidents, minor rescues, small fuel spills, and small wildland fires without unusual weather or fire behavior. Moderate Risk—Moderate risk incidents involving fires in single-family dwellings and equivalently sized commercial office properties (fire flow between 250 gallons per minute to 1,000 gallons per minute), life threatening medical emergencies, hazardous materials emergencies requiring specialized skills and equipment, rescues involving specialized skills and equipment, and larger wildland fires. High Risk—High risk incidents involving fires in larger commercial properties with sustained attack (fire flows more than 1,000 gallons per minute), multiple patient medical incidents, major releases of hazardous materials, high risk rescues, and wildland fires with extreme weather or fire behavior. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 196 Figure 116: Staffing Recommendations Based on Risk Incident Type High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Structure Fire 29 15 6 Emergency Medical Service 12 4 2 Rescue 15 8 3 Hazardous Materials 39 20 3 Wildland Fire 41 (Red Flag level) 20 7 The PAFD has developed the following Critical Task analyses using the risk matrices included in the Critical Task section for various incident types. Further it has defined, based on current unit staffing levels, the number and type of apparatus needed to deliver sufficient numbers of personnel to meet the critical tasking identified. ESCI’s review of the Critical Task analysis concludes that all are generally in keeping with industry standards and provide the minimum number of personnel needed for effective incident operations. Establishing resource levels needed for various types of emergencies is a uniquely local decision. Factors influencing local decisions for incident staffing include the type of equipment operated, training levels of responders, operating procedures, geography, traffic, and the nature of building and other risks being protected. Critical Tasking Critical tasks are those activities that must be conducted early on and in a timely manner by firefighters at emergency incidents in order to control the situation, stop loss, and to perform necessary tasks required for a medical emergency. PAFD is responsible for assuring that responding companies are capable of performing all of the described tasks in a prompt, efficient, and safe manner. These are the minimum number of personnel needed by incident type. More personnel will be needed for incidents of increased complexity or size. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 197 Structure Fire Low Risk Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Pump Operations 1 Attack Line 2 Back-up Line 2 Search and Rescue 2 Ventilation 2 RIT 3 Hydrant 1 Medical Standby 2 Total 16 Structure Fire Moderate Risk Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Pump Operations 1 Attack Line 2 Back-up Line 2 Search and Rescue 2 Ventilation 2 RIT 3 Hydrant 1 Medical Standby 2 Total 16 Structure Fire High Risk Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 2 Pump Operations 1 Attack Line 3 Back-up Line 3 Search and Rescue 4 Ventilation 3 RIT 3 Medical Standby 2 Total 21 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 198 Wildland Interface Low Risk (Baylands) Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Pump Operations/Lookout 1 Attack Line 2 Exposure Lines 2 Water Supply 1 Total 7 Wildland Interface High Risk Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 3 Pump Operations/Lookout 5 Attack Line 20 Exposure Lines 4 Structure Protection 15 Ground Support (cutting line) 36 Water Supply 2 Tender Operator 1 Other (Mop-up, Overhaul, Aircraft, Support) 10 Total 96 Non-Structure Fire Low Risk (Dumpster fire) Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Pump Operations/Lookout 1 Attack Line 1 Total 3 Non-Structure Fire High Risk Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Pump Operations 1 Attack Line 4 Back-up Line / Exposure 2 Hydrant 1 Medical Standby 2 Total 11 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 199 Aircraft Emergency Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Aircraft Fire Suppression 2 Pump Operations 1 Back-up Line 2 Rescue 3 Emergency Medical Care 2 Water Supply 1 Total 12 Hazardous Materials- Level II Task Number of Personnel Command 1 Safety Officer 1 Assistant Safety Officer 1 Decontamination 3 Tech Ref 2 Entry team, and backup team 4 Entry Team Leader 1 Total 13 Hazardous Materials- Level I Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Research/Support 2 Total 3 Emergency Medical Aid Task Number of Personnel Scene Management/Safety 1 Patient Care 1 Transport 2 Documentation 1 Total 5 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 200 Major Medical Response (10+ Patients) Task Number of Personnel Incident Command/Safety 1 Triage 1 Medical Group Supervisor 1 Patient Care Onscene 12 Transportation Manager 1 Transportation / Patient Care to Hospital 14 Total 30 Motor Vehicle Accident (Non Trapped) Task Number of Personnel Scene Management/Documentation 1 Patient Care/Extrication 2 Transport 2 Total 5 *Second Engine or Ladder added as a Safety Support Vehicle for freeway or highway responses Motor Vehicle Accident (Trapped) Task Number of Personnel Command 1 Scene Safety Support 1 Patient Care / Transport 2 Extrication 3 Pump Operator/Suppression Line 2 Vehicle Stabilization 3 Total 12 Technical Rescue – Water Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Rescue Team 2 Backup Team 2 Patient Care / Transport 2 Rope Tender 3 Upstream Spotter 1 Downstream Safety 1 Total 12 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 201 Technical Rescue – Rope Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Technical Safety Officer 1 Rescue Team 2 Backup/support team 2 Patient Care / Transport 2 Rigger 2 Attendant 1 Edge Person 1 Total 12 Technical Rescue – Confined Space Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Rescue Team 2 Backup/support team 3 Patient Care / Transport 2 Attendant 1 Rigger 2 Air Monitor 1 Total 12 Technical Rescue – Trench Task Number of Personnel Command/Safety 1 Technical Safety Officer 1 Rescue Team 2 Backup 2 Patient Care / Transport 2 Shoring 4 Total 12 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 202 Alarm Assignments In order to ensure sufficient personnel and apparatus are dispatched to an emergency event the following first alarm response assignments have been established. “Total Staffing Needed” is the number identified in the Critical Tasking analysis above. The number of personnel and apparatus required to mitigate an active and complex working incident will require additional resources above and beyond the numbers listed below. Structure Fire Low Risk Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 3 9 Ladder 2 6 Ambulance 1 2 Battalion Chief 2 2 Total Staffing Provided 19 Total Staffing Needed 16 Structure Fire Moderate Risk Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 3 9 Ladder 2 6 Ambulance 1 2 Battalion Chief 2 2 Total Staffing Provided 19 Total Staffing Needed 16 Structure Fire High Risk (High-Rise) Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 4 12 Ladder 2 6 Battalion Chief 2 2 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 22 Total Staffing Needed 21 Wildland Interface Low Risk (Baylands) Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Battalion Chief 1 1 Total Staffing Provided 7 Total Staffing Needed 7 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 203 Wildland Interface High Risk Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine Type 1 4 12 Engine Type 3 10 30 Engine Type 6 2 6 Battalion Chief 3 3 Dozers 2 4 Air Tankers 2 2 Air Attack 1 2 Helicopter / Helitack Crew 1 11 Hand Crew 2 32 Total Staffing Provided 102 Total Staffing Needed 96 Non-Structure Fire Low Risk Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 1 3 Total Staffing Provided 3 Total Staffing Needed 3 Non-Structure Fire High Risk Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Truck 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 11 Aircraft Emergency Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Ladder 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 12 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 204 Hazardous Materials – Level II Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Ladder 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Hazardous Materials Unit 1 3 Total Staffing Provided 13 Total Staffing Needed 13 Hazardous Materials – Level I Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 1 3 Total Staffing Provided 3 Total Staffing Needed 3 Emergency Medical Service Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine or Ladder 1 3 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 5 Total Staffing Needed 5 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 205 Major Medical (10+ Patients) Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 3 9 Ladder 1 3 MCI Trailer 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 7 14 Total Staffing Provided 30 Total Staffing Needed 30 Motor Vehicle Accident (Non-Trapped) Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine or Ladder 1 (2)* 3 (6)* Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 5 (8)* Total Staffing Needed 5 *Second Engine or Ladder added as a Safety Support Vehicle for freeway or highway responses Motor Vehicle Accident (Trapped) Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Ladder 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 12 Technical Rescue – Water Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Ladder 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 12 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 206 Technical Rescue – Rope Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Ladder 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 12 Technical Rescue – Confined Space Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Truck 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 12 Technical Rescue – Trench Unit Type Number of Units Total Personnel Engine 2 6 Truck 1 3 Battalion Chief 1 1 Ambulance 1 2 Total Staffing Provided 12 Total Staffing Needed 12 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 207 APPENDIX C – BASELINE AND BENCHMARK PERFORMANCE CHARTS Dynamics of Fire in Buildings Most fires within buildings develop in a predictable fashion, unless influenced by highly flammable material. Ignition, or the beginning of a fire, starts the sequence of events. It may take several minutes or even hours from the time of ignition until a flame is visible. This smoldering stage is very dangerous, especially during times when people are sleeping, since large amounts of highly toxic smoke may be generated during this phase. Once flames do appear, the sequence continues rapidly. Combustible material adjacent to the flame heat and ignite, which in turn heats and ignites other adjacent materials if sufficient oxygen is present. As the objects burn, heated gases accumulate at the ceiling of the room. Some of the gases are flammable and highly toxic. The spread of the fire from this point continues quickly. Soon the flammable gases at the ceiling as well as other combustible material in the room of origin reach ignition temperature. At that point, an event termed “flashover” occurs; the gases and other material ignite, which in turn ignites everything in the room. Once flashover occurs, damage caused by the fire is significant and the environment within the room can no longer support human life. Flashover usually occurs about five to eight minutes from the appearance of flame in typically furnished and ventilated buildings. Since flashover has such a dramatic influence on the outcome of a fire event, the goal of any fire agency is to apply water to a fire before flashover occurs. Although modern codes tend to make fires in newer structures more infrequent, today’s energy - efficient construction (designed to hold heat during the winter) also tends to confine the heat of a hostile fire. In addition, research has shown that modern furnishings generally ignite more quickly and burn hotter (due to synthetics). In the 1970s, scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that after a fire broke out, building occupants had about 17 minutes to escape before being overcome by heat and smoke. Today, that estimate is as short as three minutes.14 The necessity of effective early warning (smoke alarms), early suppression (fire sprinklers), and firefighters arriving on the scene of a fire in the shortest span of time is more critical now than ever. Perhaps as important as preventing flashover is the need to control a fire before it does damage to the structural framing of a building. Materials used to construct buildings today are often less fire resistive than the heavy structural skeletons of older frame buildings. Roof trusses and floor joists are commonly made with lighter materials that are more easily weakened by the effects of fire. “Light weight” roof 14 National Institute of Standards and Technology, Performance of Home Smoke Alarms, Analysis of the Response of Several Available Technologies in Residential Fire Settings, Bukowski, Richard, et al. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 208 trusses fail after five to seven minutes of direct flame impingement. Plywood I-beam joists can fail after as little as three minutes of flame contact. This creates a dangerous environment for firefighters. In addition, the contents of buildings today have a much greater potential for heat production than in the past. The widespread use of plastics in furnishings and other building contents rapidly accelerate fire spread and increase the amount of water needed to effectively control a fire. All of these factors make the need for early application of water essential to a successful fire outcome. A number of events must take place quickly to make it possible to achieve fire suppression prior to flashover. The following figure illustrates the sequence of events. Figure 117: Fire Growth vs. Reflex Time As is apparent by this description of the sequence of events, application of water in time to prevent flashover is a serious challenge for any fire department. It is critical, though, as studies of historical fire losses can demonstrate. The rapid escalation of interior structure fires reinforces the need for active risk reduction and fire prevention activities by the PAFD as flashover is likely to occur prior to the arrival of the first due resources and certainly prior to the arrival of an ERF. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 209 The National Fire Protection Association found that fires contained to the room of origin (typically extinguished prior to or immediately following flashover) had significantly lower rates of death, injury, and property loss when compared to fires that had an opportunity to spread beyond the room of origin (typically extinguished post-flashover). As evidenced in the following figure, fire losses, casualties, and deaths rise significantly as the extent of fire damage increases. Figure 118: Fire Extension in Residential Structures – United States Consequence of Fire Extension In Residential Structures 2003–2007 Extension Rates per 1,000 Fires Civilian Deaths Civilian Injuries Average Dollar Loss Per Fire Confined to room of origin or smaller 2.44 25.67 $5,317 Confined to floor of origin 16.18 72.79 $34,852 Confined to building of origin or larger 27.54 54.26 $60,064 Source: National Fire Protection Association “Home Structure Fires,” March 2010 Emergency Medical Event Sequence Cardiac arrest is the most significant life-threatening medical event in emergency medicine today. A victim of cardiac arrest has mere minutes in which to receive lifesaving care if there is to be any hope for resuscitation. The American Heart Association (AHA) issued a set of cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines designed to streamline emergency procedures for heart attack victims, and to increase the likelihood of survival. The AHA guidelines include goals for the application of cardiac defibrillation to cardiac arrest victims. Cardiac arrest survival chances fall by seven to 10 percent for every minute between collapse and defibrillation. Consequently, the AHA recommends cardiac defibrillation within five minutes of cardiac arrest. As with fires, the sequence of events that lead to emergency cardiac care can be graphically illustrated, as in the following figure. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 210 Figure 119: Cardiac Arrest Event Sequence The percentage of opportunity for recovery from cardiac arrest drops quickly as time progresses. The stages of medical response are very similar to the components described for a fire response. Research stresses the importance of rapid cardiac defibrillation and administration of certain medications as a means of improving the opportunity for successful resuscitation and survival. People, Tools, and Time Time matters a great deal in the achievement of an effective outcome to an emergency event. Time, however, is not the only factor. Delivering sufficient numbers of properly trained, appropriately equipped personnel within the critical time period completes the equation. For medical emergencies this can vary based on the nature of the emergency. Many medical emergencies are not time critical. However, for serious trauma, cardiac arrest, or conditions that may lead to cardiac arrest, a rapid response is essential. Equally critical is delivering enough personnel to the scene to perform all of the concurrent tasks required to deliver quality emergency care. For a cardiac arrest, this can be up to six personnel; two to perform CPR, two to set up and operate advanced medical equipment, one to record the actions taken by emergency care workers, and one to direct patient care. Thus, for a medical emergency, the real test of performance is the time it takes to provide the personnel and equipment needed to deal effectively with the patient’s condition, not necessarily the time it takes for the first person to arrive. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 211 Fire emergencies are even more resource critical. Again, the true test of performance is the time it takes to deliver sufficient personnel to initiate application of water to a fire. This is the only practical method to reverse the continuing internal temperature increases and ultimately prevent flashover. The arrival of one person with a portable radio does not provide fire intervention capability and should not be counted as “arrival” by the fire department. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 212 Benchmark Performance Charts - EMS 90th Percentile EMS 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:07 0:02:09 0:02:11 0:02:04 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:32 0:02:07 0:02:30 0:02:51 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:29 0:05:27 0:05:33 0:05:29 -- -- Last OnScene 0:09:46 0:09:42 0:10:00 0:09:41 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:08:47 0:08:19 0:08:58 0:08:59 -- -- Last OnScene 0:13:33 0:13:04 0:13:54 0:13:43 -- -- Count EMS 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 10902 3757 3637 3508 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 10768 3745 3615 3408 0 0 Travel First OnScene 10848 3737 3639 3472 0 0 Last OnScene 10559 3649 3542 3368 0 0 Response First OnScene 11006 3787 3680 3539 0 0 Last OnScene 10786 3730 3617 3439 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound EMS 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:06 0:02:06 0:02:07 0:02:02 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:30 0:02:05 0:02:27 0:02:47 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:25 0:05:19 0:05:27 0:05:19 -- -- Last OnScene 0:09:39 0:09:24 0:09:43 0:09:32 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:08:41 0:08:13 0:08:48 0:08:48 -- -- Last OnScene 0:13:23 0:12:45 0:13:43 0:13:26 -- -- -- -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 213 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound EMS 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:10 0:02:11 0:02:14 0:02:06 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:24 0:02:10 0:02:34 0:02:55 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:34 0:05:35 0:05:44 0:05:36 -- -- Last OnScene 0:09:55 0:09:57 0:10:17 0:09:55 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:08:53 0:08:30 0:09:07 0:09:07 -- -- Last OnScene 0:13:44 0:12:45 0:14:17 0:14:03 -- -- -- -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 214 Benchmark Performance Charts – Structure response 90th Percentile Structure Response 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:41 0:02:06 0:02:24 0:03:12 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:06 0:01:37 0:02:18 0:01:58 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:04:31 0:04:19 0:04:16 0:04:37 -- -- Last OnScene 0:09:10 0:08:52 0:07:57 0:11:08 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:08:27 0:07:22 0:08:41 0:08:50 -- -- Last OnScene 0:13:46 0:11:21 0:11:44 0:15:47 -- -- Count Structure Fire 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 56 20 21 15 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 56 20 21 15 0 0 Travel First OnScene 56 20 21 15 0 0 Last OnScene 52 18 20 14 0 0 Response First OnScene 56 20 21 15 0 0 Last OnScene 52 18 20 14 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound Structure Fire 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:314 0:01:34 0:01:59 0:02:25 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:01:50 0:01:20 0:01:53 0:01:31 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:03:58 0:03:33 0:03:44 0:03:53 -- -- Last OnScene 0:07:57 0:05:53 0:07:23 0:07:47 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:07:37 0:07:12 0:06:55 0:07:38 -- -- Last OnScene 0:11:44 0:09:19 0:11:11 0:12:18 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 215 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound Structure Fire 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:03:17 0:03:17 0:03:05 0:03:24 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:37 0:02:07 0:03:14 0:02:37 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:06:18 0:07:59 0:06:18 0:06:09 -- -- Last OnScene 0:12:25 0:10:45 0:12:15 0:12:25 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:10:39 0:12:25 0:10:06 0:10:39 -- -- Last OnScene 0:17:50 0:15:01 0:14:55 0:17:50 -- -- Total Response Last OnScene -- -- -- -- -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 216 Benchmark performance charts – Full First Alarm 90th Percentile Full First 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:02:27 0:01:20 0:02:26 0:02:25 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:32 0:01:51 0:03:11 0:02:34 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:29 0:05:46 0:05:26 0:05:00 -- -- Last OnScene 0:12:28 0:13:31 0:10:12 0:10:34 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:09:42 0:09:36 0:08:44 0:08:57 -- -- Last OnScene 0:19:05 0:18:22 0:18:30 0:16:54 -- -- Count Full First 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 33 12 11 10 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 32 12 11 9 0 0 Travel First OnScene 32 12 11 9 0 0 Last OnScene 26 11 8 7 0 0 Response First OnScene 34 12 12 10 0 0 Last OnScene 23 7 10 6 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound Full First 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:01:49 0:01:14 0:01:49 0:01:33 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:15 0:01:26 0:02:07 0:02:18 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:04:38 0:03:33 0:02:53 0:03:53 -- -- Last OnScene 0:10:29 0:09:15 0:08:33 0:09:52 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:08:45 0:06:21 0:06:21 0:08:50 -- -- Last OnScene 0:16:18 0:11:42 0:15:12 0:14:27 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 217 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound Full First 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:03:15 0:01:34 0:03:05 0:03:15 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:03:42 0:02:02 0:03:42 0:02:46 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:07:43 0:07:43 0:06:18 0:05:22 -- -- Last OnScene 0:14:20 0:14:20 0:11:36 0:10:47 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:11:17 0:10:22 0:10:06 0:11:17 -- -- Last OnScene 0:21:47 0:20:01 0:21:47 0:17:49 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 218 Benchmark performance charts – Motor Vehicle Accidents 90th Percentile MVA 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:02:24 0:02:21 0:02:24 0:02:24 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:31 0:02:07 0:02:36 0:02:38 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:07:10 0:07:09 0:07:13 0:06:52 -- -- Last OnScene 0:10:56 0:11:03 0:10:54 0:10:04 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:11:09 0:10:48 0:11:20 0:11:08 -- -- Last OnScene 0:14:45 0:14:57 0:14:44 0:14:08 -- -- Count MVA 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 709 265 249 195 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 706 266 247 193 0 0 Travel First OnScene 692 260 239 193 0 0 Last OnScene 673 250 235 188 0 0 Response First OnScene 713 266 248 199 0 0 Last OnScene 697 260 242 195 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound MVA 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:02:15 0:02:02 0:02:11 0:02:01 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:24 0:01:55 0:02:30 0:02:27 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:06:44 0:06:10 0:06:44 0:06:07 -- -- Last OnScene 0:10:17 0:10:01 0:09:57 0:08:51 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:10:26 0:09:26 0:10:25 0:10:12 -- -- Last OnScene 0:14:13 0:13:49 0:14:02 0:13:37 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 219 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound MVA 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:02:34 0:02:41 0:02:55 0:03:00 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:37 0:02:17 0:02:49 0:02:52 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:08:01 0:08:28 0:08:35 0:08:26 -- -- Last OnScene 0:11:25 0:12:17 0:11:33 0:11:52 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:11:55 0:12:35 0:12:18 0:12:38 -- -- Last OnScene 0:15:38 0:16:08 0:16:13 0:15:49 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 220 Benchmark performance charts – Rescue Assignments 90th Percentile Rescue 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:02:20 0:02:33 0:01:55 0:01:37 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:42 0:02:19 0:02:40 0:02:38 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:09:02 0:09:04 0:08:13 0:08:11 -- -- Last OnScene 0:12:41 0:13:16 0:12:31 0:09:54 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:13:55 0:13:04 0:13:26 0:15:30 -- -- Last OnScene 0:17:29 0:17:34 0:16:00 0:13:19 -- -- Count Rescue 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 51 18 24 9 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 54 19 25 10 0 0 Travel First OnScene 59 21 27 11 0 0 Last OnScene 51 18 23 10 0 0 Response First OnScene 59 21 27 11 0 0 Last OnScene 53 20 23 10 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound Rescue 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:01:48 0:01:53 0:01:38 0:01:11 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:25 0:01:40 0:02:24 0:02:24 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:07:42 0:08:16 0:06:39 0:03:59 -- -- Last OnScene 0:12:04 0:12:04 0:11:47 0:09:13 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:11:49 0:11:16 0:11:02 0:09:36 -- -- Last OnScene 0:16:08 0:16:29 0:14:44 0:13:08 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 221 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound Rescue 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:03:07 0:02:43 0:03:07 0:02:31 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:03:10 0:03:10 0:03:07 0:03:16 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:11:01 0:11:37 0:11:01 0:09:02 -- -- Last OnScene 0:13:54 0:13:54 0:13:21 0:12:42 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:15:53 0:14:57 0:15:12 0:19:04 -- -- Last OnScene 0:21:21 0:21:09 0:21:21 0:21:39 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 222 Benchmark performance charts – Wildland Fires Count Veg Low 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 2 0 1 1 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 2 0 1 1 0 0 Travel First OnScene 2 0 1 1 0 0 Last OnScene 2 0 1 1 0 0 Response First OnScene 2 0 1 1 0 0 Last OnScene 2 0 1 1 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound Veg Low 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch 0:01:27 0:01:52 0:01:01 -- -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:56 0:02:48 0:03:03 -- -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:04:21 0:06:01 0:02:41 -- -- -- Last OnScene 0:06:28 0:06:46 0:06:09 -- -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:07:16 0:08:49 0:05:44 -- -- -- Last OnScene 0:09:14 0:09:55 0:08:33 -- -- -- 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound Veg Low 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing Last Dispatch -- 0:01:52 0:01:01 -- -- -- Turnout First Dispatch -- 0:02:48 0:03:03 -- -- -- Travel First OnScene -- 0:06:01 0:02:41 -- -- -- Last OnScene -- 0:06:46 0:06:09 -- -- -- Total Response First OnScene -- 0:08:49 0:05:44 -- -- -- Last OnScene -- 0:09:55 0:08:33 -- -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 223 Benchmark performance charts – Single Engine or Truck 90th Percentile Single Engine or Truck 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:11 0:02:12 0:02:11 0:02:09 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:26 0:02:08 0:02:26 0:02:37 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:58 0:05:59 0:06:02 0:05:51 -- -- First Dispatch 0:05:58 0:05:59 0:06:02 0:05:51 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:08:59 0:09:41 0:10:03 0:10:11 -- -- First OnScene 0:09:59 0:09:41 0:10:03 0:10:11 -- -- Count Single Engine or Truck 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 18777 6590 6251 5936 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 18368 6725 6151 5492 0 0 Travel First OnScene 18794 6620 6262 5912 0 0 First Dispatch 18794 6620 6262 5912 0 0 Response First OnScene 19463 6849 6492 6122 0 0 First OnScene 19473 6849 6492 6122 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound Single Engine or Truck 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:09 0:02:10 0:02:09 0:02:07 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:25 0:02:07 0:02:35 0:02:35 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:54 0:05:54 0:05:54 0:05:44 -- -- First Dispatch 0:05:54 0:05:54 0:05:54 0:05:44 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:09:53 0:09:34 0:09:53 0:10:03 -- -- First OnScene 0:09:53 0:09:34 0:09:53 0:10:03 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 224 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound Single Engine or Truck 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:12 0:02:13 0:02:13 0:02:11 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:27 0:02:10 0:02:28 0:02:38 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:06:02 0:06:05 0:06:08 0:06:00 -- -- First Dispatch 0:06:02 0:06:05 0:06:08 0:06:00 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:10:05 0:09:49 0:10:13 0:10:20 -- -- First OnScene 0:10:05 0:09:49 0:10:13 0:10:20 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 225 Benchmark performance charts – Hazardous Materials 90th Percentile Hazardous Materials 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:45 0:02:17 0:02:52 0:02:29 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:33 0:02:34 0:02:33 0:01:57 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:05:22 0:04:59 0:04:00 0:06:42 -- -- First Dispatch 0:09:20 0:07:52 0:07:26 0:09:28 -- -- Response First OnScene 0:09:20 0:08:20 0:08:46 0:10:14 -- -- First OnScene 0:12:42 0:12:05 0:11:09 0:13:59 -- -- Count Hazardous Materials 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 27 12 8 7 0 0 Turnout First Dispatch 25 12 8 5 0 0 Travel First OnScene 28 12 8 8 0 0 First Dispatch 28 12 8 8 0 0 Response First OnScene 28 12 8 8 0 0 First OnScene 28 12 8 8 0 0 90th Percentile C.I. Lower Bound Hazardous Materials 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:02:22 0:01:37 0:02:22 0:01:50 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:10 0:02:10 0:02:02 0:01:33 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:04:38 0:03:33 0:03:13 0:04:38 -- -- First Dispatch 0:07:54 0:07:10 0:06:19 0:08:03 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:08:26 0:07:22 0:07:36 0:07:49 -- -- First OnScene 0:12:15 0:10:01 0:10:28 0:12:19 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 226 90th Percentile C.I. Upper Bound 0 2013- 2017 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Call Processing First Dispatch 0:03:07 0:03:07 0:03:00 0:02:36 -- -- Turnout First Dispatch 0:02:59 0:02:59 0:02:58 0:02:01 -- -- Travel First OnScene 0:07:06 0:05:15 0:05:36 0:07:06 -- -- First Dispatch 0:10:00 0:09:28 0:08:26 0:10:00 -- -- Total Response First OnScene 0:10:43 0:09:20 0:09:22 0:10:43 -- -- First OnScene 0:15:17 0:12:33 0:12:37 0:15:17 -- -- Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 227 APPENDIX C – ADDITIONAL MAPS NOT INCLUDED IN OTHER SECTIONS Figure 120: Engine Distribution: 8-Minute Coverage Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 228 Figure 121: Medic Distribution: 12-Minute Coverage Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 229 Figure 122: All Incidents 2012 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 230 Figure 123: All Incidents 2013 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 231 Figure 124: All Incidents 2014 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 232 Figure 125: All Incidents 2015 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 233 Figure 126: All Incidents 2016 Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 234 Figure 127: EMS Incidents Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 235 Figure 128: Fire Incidents Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 236 Figure 129: False Alarm Incidents Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 237 Figure 130: Good Intent Incidents Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 238 Figure 131: Haz Mat Incidents Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 239 Figure 132: All Incidents Day (0800-2000) hours Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan Palo Alto Fire Department, California Effective January 6, 2018 240 Figure 133: All Incidents Night (2000-0800 hours)