HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-04 City Council Agenda PacketCity Council
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.
Monday, December 4, 2017
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
Study Session 5:00-6:00 PM
1.Joint Meeting With the Public Art Commission - Discussion of
Accomplishments and Future Initiatives
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 6:00-6:10 PM
Oral Communications 6:10-6:25 PM
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 6:25-6:30 PM
2.Approval of Action Minutes for the November 13, 2017 Council Meeting
REVISED
2 December 4, 2017
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 6:30-6:35 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
3.Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Verified Emission Reduction
Agreement (VER Agreement) With the Integrative Organization of
Oaxaca Indigenous and Agricultural Communities to Purchase 17,000
Tons of CO2e for a Total Purchase Price of $136,000
4.Approval of an Agreement With Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
in the Amount of $83,838 for 2018 Caltrain Go Pass Program
5.Finance Committee Recommendation That the City Council Approve a
Second Allocation of FY2018/19 Human Services Resource Allocation
Process (HSRAP) Funding in the Amount of $311,118
6.Approval of the Purchase of Mobile and Portable Radios for the Police,
Fire, Public Works, Utilities and Community Services Departments in
an Amount Not-to-Exceed $800,000
7.Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Administrative
Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code
8.Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.040.160 (City Council
Minutes) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Provide for Action Minutes
and Video/Audio Recordings as the Official Record of Council Business,
and Directing the Clerk to Prepare Sense Summaries of Council and
Council Standing Committee Meetings for the use and Convenience of
Council and the Public
9.Adoption of an Addendum to the Rail Committee Charter
10.Policy and Services Recommendation to Accept the Accuracy of Water
Meter Billing Audit
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
6:35-8:15 PM
11.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL, 1451 Middlefield Road
[17PLN-00147]: Council Approval of: (1) a Resolution Adopting the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP), and Rinconada Long Range Plan; (2) a
Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) for the Junior Museum and Zoo
Q&A
Q&A
Q&A
Q&A
Q&A
3 December 4, 2017
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.
(JMZ) Architectural Review Application; (3) a Park Improvement
Ordinance for Improvements to the JMZ Within the Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan Area; (4) Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget
Appropriation Ordinance for the Capital Improvement Fund by
Increasing the Other Revenue by $270,124 and Increasing the JMZ
Renovation Project (AC-18001) by $270,124; and add a Part-time
Unbenefited 0.48 FTE Position Limit Dated Through September 30,
2020
8:15-9:30 PM
12.Review and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding City Comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford General Use
Permit (GUP) Application to Santa Clara County
9:30-11:00 PM
13.Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding the State Housing Bills
Effective January 1, 2018
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
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.
14.Consideration of Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a Letter of Support for
the Dumbarton Rail Link Item on the SamTrans Board Agenda on December 6, 2017
4 December 4, 2017
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
Finance Committee Meeting December 5, 2017
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees - Early Publication of Report for
Public Review
Information Report Regarding Business Registry Certificate Administrative
Changes for 2018 Cycle
Public Letters to Council
Set 1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8639)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 12/4/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Joint Meeting with the Public Art Commission
Title: Joint Meeting with the Public Art Commission - Discussion of
Accomplishments and Future Initiatives
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Executive Summary
The Public Art Commission and the Palo Alto City Council last met jointly in May of 2015
to discuss the Public Art Master Plan. The Commission plans to update the Council on
the following potential topics for Discussion:
1- Public Art Commission Accomplishments
2- PAC Current and upcoming Public Art Projects and Initiatives for 2017-18
3- Question and Answer Session
Attachments:
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2017
SUBJECT: POTENTIAL TOPICS OF DISCUSSION FOR THE JOINT STUDY SESSION SPECIAL MEETING
WITH THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
Below are the proposed topics of discussion for the joint study session with the Public Art Commission
scheduled for December 4, 2017 at 6:00 PM.
1) Public Art Commission Accomplishments
2) Public Art Commission Current and Upcoming Projects for 2017-18
3) Question and Answer Session
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
December 4, 2017
The Honorable City Council
Attention: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
Approval of Action Minutes for the November 13, 2017 Council
Meeting
Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: 11-13-17 DRAFT Action Minutes (PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 8
Special Meeting
November 13, 2017
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:09 P.M.
Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka,
Wolbach
Absent:
Special Orders of the Day
1. Appointment of two Candidates to the Architectural Review Board and
Four Candidates to the Historic Resources Board for Terms Ending
December 15, 2020; and two Candidates to the Planning and
Transportation Commission for Terms Ending December 15, 2021.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
DuBois to vote for one position for the Architectural Review Board and go out
for an additional recruitment to fill the second position.
MOTION FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes
First Round of voting for two positions on the Architectural Review Board with
terms ending December 15, 2020.
Voting For: Wynne Furth DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman,
Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka,
Wolbach
Voting For: Amie Neff Filseth
Voting For: Osma Dossani Thompson DuBois, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Scharff,
Tanaka, Wolbach
Beth Minor, City Clerk announced that Wynne Furth with 9 votes and Osma
Dossani Thompson with 7 votes were appointed to the Architectural Review
Board.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/13/17
First Round of voting for four positions on the Historic Resources Board with
terms ending December 15, 2020.
Voting For: Martin Bernstein DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou,
Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach
Voting For: Carl Darling Tanaka
Voting For: Rita French DuBois, Kou
Voting For: Gogo Heinrich DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou
Voting For: Roger Kohler Fine, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach
Voting For: Michael Makinen Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Scharff,
Tanaka, Wolbach
Voting For: Margaret Wimmer DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou,
Scharff, Wolbach
Beth Minor, City Clerk announced that Martin Berstein with 9 votes, Margaret
Wimmer with 8 votes, Michael Makinen with 7 votes and Roger Kohler with 5
votes were appointed to the Historic Resources Board.
First Round of voting for two positions on the Planning and Transportation
Commission with terms ending December 15, 2021.
Voting For: Michael Alcheck Fine, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach
Voting For: Rebecca Eisenberg
Voting For: David Hirsch Holman, Kou
Voting For: Rebecca Parker Mankey DuBois, Holman, Kou
Voting For: Lisa Peschcke-Koedt Filseth
Voting For: Rishiraj Pravahan DuBois, Filseth
Voting For: William Riggs Fine, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach
Beth Minor, City Clerk announced that Michael Alcheck with 5 votes and
William Riggs with 5 votes were appointed to the Planning and Transportation
Commission.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/13/17
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
None.
Minutes Approval
5. Approval of Action Minutes for the October 30, 2017 Council Meeting.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to approve
the Action Minutes from October 30, 2017.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Consent Calendar
Council Member Tanaka stated he would vote no on Agenda Item Number 8.
MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to
approve Agenda Item Numbers 6-9.
6. Resolution 9719 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Public Nuisance and Setting January 22,
2018 for a Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed Weed Abatement.
7. Ordinance 5419 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 9.17
(Personal Cultivation of Marijuana) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and
Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; Repealing Ordinance No. 4422;
and Amending Chapters 18.04 (Definitions) and 18.42 (Standards for
Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) to Prohibit Medical Cannabis
Dispensaries and Prohibit Commercial Cannabis Activities, Except for
Deliveries. Environmental Assessment: The Ordinance is Exempt in
Accordance With Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (FIRST READING: October 30, 2017
PASSED: 9-0).
8. Ordinance 5420 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Updating the Fiscal Year 2018 Municipal Fee Schedule to Adjust
Development Services Department Fees (FIRST READING: October 2,
2017 PASSED: 7-1 Tanaka no, Scharff Absent).
9. Direct Staff to Return to Policy and Services Committee With
Amendments to the Municipal Code for the Regulation of Seismic
Vulnerable Buildings (Continued From October 16, 2017).
MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 6, 7, 9 PASSED: 9-0
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/13/17
MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 PASSED: 8-1 Tanaka no
Action Items
10. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Comprehensive Plan Update;
a Resolution Adopting Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Related to Significant Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Alternatives; a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
a Resolution Adopting the Updated Comprehensive Plan Dated June 30,
2017 With Desired Corrections and Amendments, Which
Comprehensively Updates and Supersedes the City's 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan, Except for the Housing Element Adopted in
November 2014. (This is the Third Public Hearing; the First Hearing was
on October 23, 2017, Continued to October 30, 2017 and Further
Continued to November 13, 2017.).
Public Hearing continued at 6:24 P.M.
Public Hearing closed at 6:32 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
adopt a Resolution certifying that the Council has reviewed and considered the
Comprehensive Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated
August 30, 2017; the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and the Final EIR reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the City of Palo Alto.
MOTION PASSED: 6-3 DuBois, Holman, Kou no
Council took a break from 7:32 P.M. to 7:43 P.M.
MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to:
A. Adopt a Resolution making required CEQA findings, including findings
related to significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures and
alternatives, adoption of a statement of overriding considerations, and
adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP); and
B. Adopt a Resolution adopting the updated Comprehensive Plan dated
June 30, 2017 with the specific corrections and changes included in
Attachment A and the at places memo, comprehensively updating and
superseding the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan in its entirety, except
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/13/17
for the Housing Element adopted in 2014 which will remain part of the
Comprehensive Plan; and
C. Direct Staff to prepare and disseminate electronic and paper copies of
the updated Comprehensive Plan with appropriate formatting,
illustrations, and acknowledgements.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Kniss to add to the Comprehensive Plan new Program L2.11.1 (under Policy
L2.11), to read: "Collaborate with PAUSD to plan for space to accommodate
future school expansions or new school sites."
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved,
seconded by Council Member Wolbach to amend the Amendment to add to
the Comprehensive Plan new Program L2.11.1 (under Policy L2.11), the
language: “Collaborate with PAUSD to plan for space to accommodate future
school expansions or new school sites, and evaluate zoning space to
accommodate new schools.”
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT PASSED: 9-0
AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council
Member DuBois to modify Goal T-4 of the Comprehensive Plan to read,
“Protect streets and adopted school commute corridors that contribute to
neighborhood character and provide a range of transportation options.”
AMENDMENT PASSED: 9-0
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member
DuBois to reinstate the language in the introduction of the Comprehensive
Plan to read “encourage commercial enterprise, but not at the expense of the
city’s residential neighborhoods.”
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by
Council Member XX to amend the wording in the Meeting Residential and
Commercial Needs section of the Comprehensive Plan Introduction to state,
“It encourages a thriving business community that provides services to local
residents and revenue to the City, but not at the expense of the City’s
residential neighborhoods by vigorously working to protect neighborhoods and
the environment. The City is committed to retaining existing businesses,
maintaining vibrant commercial areas, and attracting quality businesses.”
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 8-1 Kniss no
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 6 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/13/17
AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member
DuBois to add to the Comprehensive Plan Policy T-1.16 the language “promote
personal transportation vehicles as an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles,
skateboards, roller blades)”
AMENDMENT PASSED: 9-0
AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member
Kou to add to Comprehensive Plan Policy T-3.15 the language “and to try to
minimize residential property loss.”
AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 Kou, Kniss, Tanaka yes
AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to add the following to the list of Community Indicators included in
the Comprehensive Plan:
A. Percentage of commute trips to Employment Centers by Single
Occupancy Vehicles (SOV); and
B. Commercial District Parking overflow into neighborhoods; and
C. Park acreage per capita; and
D. Urban tree canopy coverage.
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council
Member Fine to add the following to the list of Community Indicators included
in the Comprehensive Plan:
A. Traffic volumes on city streets; and
B. Availability of parks; and
C. Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) school enrollments.
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-3 DuBois, Holman, Kou no, Tanaka
not participating
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member
Filseth to amend the Comprehensive Plan Policy T-5.1 to read “All new
development projects should meet parking demand generated…”
AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 7 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/13/17
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member
Holman to amend the Comprehensive Plan Policy L-6.7 to eliminate the
language “where possible.”
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by
Council Member Fine to amend the Comprehensive Plan Policy L-6.7 to remove
the language “to promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land
uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along
streets wherever possible” and make conforming changes to the finding
regarding Mitigation Measure Land-1 in Attachment C.
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
add to the Comprehensive Plan Policy T-2.3 the language “LOS shall be
retained for informational purposes.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER
AND SECONDER the language “Following the development and acceptance
of MMLOS, LOS shall be…”
AMENDMENT RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Vice
Mayor Kniss to add to the Comprehensive Plan Policy T-2.3 the language
“Following the development and acceptance of MMLOS, then LOS shall be
retained for informational purposes.”
AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-5 Fine, Kniss, Tanaka, Wolbach yes
AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to
strike “only” from Program L 2.4.6.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou no
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by
Vice Mayor Kniss to:
A. Adopt a Resolution making required CEQA findings, including findings
related to significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures and
alternatives, adoption of a statement of overriding considerations, and
adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP); and
B. Adopt a Resolution adopting the updated Comprehensive Plan dated
June 30, 2017 with the specific corrections and changes included in
Attachment A and the at places memo, comprehensively updating and
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 8 of 8
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 11/13/17
superseding the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan in its entirety, except
for the Housing Element adopted in 2014 which will remain part of the
Comprehensive Plan, including the following changes:
i. Add new Program L2.11.1 (under Policy L2.11), to read:
“Collaborate with PAUSD to plan for space to accommodate future
school expansions or new school sites, and evaluate zoning space
to accommodate new schools.”
ii. Modify Goal T-4 to read: “Protect streets and adopted school
commute corridors that contribute to neighborhood character and
provide a range of transportation options.”
iii. Reinstate the language in the introduction to read “encourage
commercial enterprise, but not at the expense of the city’s
residential neighborhoods.”
iv. Add to Policy T.1.16 “promote personal transportation vehicles as
an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, roller blades)”
v. Add the following to the list of Community Indicators included in
the Comprehensive Plan:
a) Traffic volumes on city streets; and
b) Availability of parks; and
c) Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) school
enrollments.
vi. Strike the word “only” from Program L-2.4.6
C. Direct Staff to prepare and disseminate electronic and paper copies of
the updated Comprehensive Plan with appropriate formatting,
illustrations, and acknowledgments.
MOTION FOR PART A PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou no
MOTION FOR PARTS B and C PASSED: 7-2 Holman, Kou no
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
None.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8564)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/4/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Resolution Approving Mexican Carbon Offset Purchase
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Verified Emission Reduction
Agreement (VER Agreement) with the Integrative Organization of Oaxaca
Indigenous and Agricultural Communities to Purchase 17,000 tons CO2e for a
Total Purchase Price of $136,000
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council (Council):
1. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A:)
a. approving the Verified Emission Reduction Agreement (VER Agreement) with the
Integrative Organization of Oaxaca Indigenous and Agricultural Communities
(ICICO), to purchase 17,000 tons CO2e at $8 per ton CO2e, for a total purchase price
of $136,000; and
b. waiving the application of the investment-grade credit rating requirement of
section 2.30.340(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which applies to energy
companies that conduct business with the City; and
2. Delegate to the City Manager, or his designee, the authority to execute on behalf of the
City the VER Agreement and the attached confirmation (Attachment B) with ICICO.
Executive Summary
To implement the Council-approved Carbon Neutral Natural Gas Plan (Resolution 9649), the
City must purchase an annual quantity of carbon offsets (a.k.a. Verified Emissions Reductions
or VERs) equal to the greenhouse gas emissions caused by natural gas use by City gas utility
customers. In August 2017 Council adopted a Standard Form VER Master Agreement
(Resolution 9703) (Attachment C) and approved VER Master Agreements with two suppliers
(Resolution 9704). In approving the Carbon Neutral Natural Gas Plan, Council approved a rate
impact cap of 10 cents per therm; the cost of VERs was anticipated to be $8 per ton CO2e or
approximately 4 cents per therm.
The City has been working with its sister city Oaxaca, Mexico on a number of sustainability
issues, and, through that process learned about a forestry project that has produced high-
City of Palo Alto Page 2
quality carbon offsets managed by Integrative Organization of Oaxaca Indigenous and
Agricultural Communities (ICICO), a non-governmental organization (NGO). The Council-
approved Carbon Neutral Gas Program contemplates the purchase of carbon offsets from U.S.
project types approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), one of which is a forestry
project type. CARB approved offsets may be registered on several registries, one of which is
the Climate Action Reserve (CAR). The carbon offsets generated by the Oaxaca forestry project
are quite similar to the offsets contemplated by the Carbon Neutral Gas Plan. The Oaxaca
forestry project meets CAR’s Mexican forestry protocol which has only minor differences from
its U.S.-based forestry protocols. Further, the agreement (Attachment B) proposed to purchase
the Oaxaca carbon offsets is substantially similar to the terms and conditions in the City’s
Standard Form VER Agreement, with minor changes to accommodate the international
transaction. Unlike the VER Master Agreements approved by Council in September, this
agreement is specific to one transaction for 17,000 tons CO2e at $8 per ton CO2e,or $136,000,
and is not a master agreement for future purchases. The proposed quantity is about 10% of
the City’s annual carbon offset needs. The price is consistent with staff estimates for the
program, but is $0.30 per ton CO2e (0.159 cents per therm) or 3.9% more than the price of U.S.
forestry project carbon offsets purchased by the City for FY 2018. Palo Alto’s $136,000
investment is supporting conservation and restoration activities within 5,900 acres of native
forest.
Background
In December 2016, Council adopted Resolution 9649 approving a Carbon Neutral Natural Gas
Plan to achieve carbon neutrality for the gas supply portfolio by FY 2018 using high-quality
carbon offsets with a cost cap of no greater than a 10 ₵/therm. Forestry projects are one of 6
projects types approved for use by the City’s program (Staff Report 7533).
Implementation of the Carbon Neutral Gas Plan requires executing contracts to enable the
City to purchase carbon offsets. In September 2017 Council adopted a Standard Form VER
Master Agreement (Resolution 9703) and approved VER Master Agreements with 3Degrees
Group, Inc. and Element Markets, LLC (Resolution 9704). Under those agreements, the City
has purchased U.S. forestry project carbon offsets for FY2018 at $7.70 per ton CO2e.
Discussion
Through Neighbors Abroad of Palo Alto, the City learned of a carbon offset program
implemented by ICICO, an NGO established in 2012 with the objective to commercialize
ecosystem services on behalf of 12 indigenous and agricultural communities near Oaxaca,
Mexico, one of Palo Alto’s sister cities. ICICO implements projects located in High Biological
Value Zones which contain flora and fauna listed in the Mexican Endangered Species List and
the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species. The
environmental projects have made local residents more aware of the health benefits of a
well-maintained ecosystem and have provided opportunities for all community members to
become involved, including women and youth. Revenue from the sale of carbon offsets
City of Palo Alto Page 3
through ICICO’s program has funded fire protection, tree care, fresh water spring recharge,
and transportation and equipment for local schools.
The carbon offsets contemplated in the proposed agreement are from a forestry project in
San Juan Lachao, Oaxaca and comply with a Mexican Forestry Protocol developed by CAR, a
carbon offset registry used by CARB. The U.S. Forestry protocol and the Mexican protocol are
similar; the minor differences are outlined in Attachment D. The Carbon Neutral Gas Plan
anticipates the purchase of high quality carbon offsets approved by CARB, which includes six
project types, one of which is forestry. A preference (with no specified premium) for local
projects was also discussed. Sister city projects and international projects were not
contemplated.
ICICO has available for purchase 17,000 offsets, about 10% of the Palo Alto’s annual need,
that have already been generated and certified by CAR. The proposed agreement is
substantively the same as the Council-approved Standard Form VER Master Agreement.
Minor modifications were made to accommodate the international transaction and restrict
the agreement to this specific carbon offset purchase. If Council approves the attached
agreement, then staff will implement it by executing the VER Agreement, including the
attached confirmation letter, purchase of 17,000 tons CO2e at $8 per ton CO2e, or in amount
equal to $136,000.00.
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.340 (c) requires that commodity contracts
include the following: (1) governing law shall be the laws of the state of California; (2) choice
of venue shall be the county of Santa Clara; and (3) a counterparty shall obtain and
maintain during the term of the contract the minimum credit rating established as of the
date of award of contract of not less than a BBB- credit rating established by Standard &
Poor’s and a Baa3 credit rating established by Moody's Investors Services. The proposed
agreement, like the Standard Form VER Master Agreement, includes the first 2 provisions.
Since this agreement is for one spot purchase (a purchase for immediate or near-term
delivery), like the Standard Form VER Master Agreement, there is no credit risk associated
with the one transaction. Thus, the third provision regarding credit worthiness is not included
as inapplicable. As such, a waiver of the application of the investment-grade credit rating
requirement is requested.
The City’s energy Risk Management Counterparty Contractual Guidelines require master
agreement counterparties to provide audited financial statements of the counterparty or its
parent, and a contract termination provision that does not provide a defaulting party with
any termination payment or settlement amount for any product. Since this proposed
agreement is for one spot purchase, there is no credit risk associated with this transaction.
Thus, these two requirements are not included since they do not apply.
Resource Impact
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Funding for purchase of carbon offsets was included in the FY 2018 budget. Approval of the
recommendation will not impact the FY 2018 budget.
Policy Implications
Adoption of the proposed resolutions conforms to the Council-approved Energy Risk
Management Policy and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Further, the recommendation is
consistent with the Council-approved Carbon Neutral Gas Plan, the Gas Utility Long-term
Plan and the Utilities Strategic Plan objective to manage supply cost by negotiating supply
contracts to minimize financial risk.
Environmental Review
Council’s adoption of the attached resolution approving the VER Agreement with ICICO is
categorically exempt from CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308, as
an action taken for the protection of natural resources and the environment.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Approving the Verified Emission Reduction Agreement (VER
Agreement) with the Integrative Organization of Oaxaca Indigenous and Agricultu
Attachment B: Verified Emission Reduction Agreement with the Integrative Organization
of Oaxaca Indigenous and Agricultural Communities
Attachment C: Resolution 9703
Attachment D: Mexican Forestry Protocol Compared to U.S. Forestry Protocol
ATTACHMENT A
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No. ____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Verified
Emission Reduction Agreement (VER Agreement) with the Integrative
Organization of Oaxaca Indigenous and Agricultural Communities
RECITALS
A. On December 5, 2016, the Council adopted Resolution 9649 approving a
Carbon Neutral Natural Gas Plan to achieve a carbon neutral gas portfolio by fiscal year
2018 with no greater than a 10¢/therm rate impact.
B. In accordance with the Carbon Neutral Natural Gas Plan, the City must
purchase environmental offsets or verified emission reductions equal to the annual emissions
from natural gas use by all City of Palo Alto Natural Gas Utility customers.
C. By Resolution 9703 approved August 21, 2017, Council approved the
standard form Verified Emissions Reduction Master Agreement (Standard Form VER
Agreement).
D. Oaxaca, Mexico is a sister city of the City of Palo Alto.
E. The integrative organization of Oaxaca Indigenous and Agricultural
Communities (ICICO) sells environmental offsets from a forestry project in Oaxaca,
Mexico (the Oaxaca Project).
F. The carbon offsets generated by the Oaxaca Project are substantially
similar in type, protocol and price to those contemplated by the Carbon Neutral
Natural Gas Plan.
G. The proposed Verified Emission Reduction Agreement to be entered
into with ICICO to purchase $136,000 of carbon offsets generated by the Oaxaca
Project (the Oaxaca VER Agreement) is substantively similar to the Standard Form VER
Agreement, with minor changes to reflecting the international transaction.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the Oaxaca VER Agreement with the
ICICO to purchase 17,000 tons CO2e at $8 per ton CO2e from the Oaxaca Project, for a
total purchase price of $136,000; and
SECTION 2. The Council waives the application of the investment-grade credit
rating requirement of Section 2.30.340(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which applies
to energy companies that do business with the City; and
SECTION 3. The Council hereby delegates to the City Manager, or his designee,
the authority to execute the Oaxaca VER Agreement, and confirmation letter, and any
documents necessary to administer the Oaxaca VER Agreement that are consistent with the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and City Council approved policies; and
SECTION 4. Adoption of this Resolution approving the Oaxaca VER Agreement is
categorically exempt from CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308, as
an action taken for the protection of natural resources and the environment.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
Director of Administrative Services
Director of Utilities
ATTACHMENT B
170808 jb 6053990
Resolution No. 9703
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving a
Standard Form Master Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of
Verified Emission Reductions
RECITALS
A. On December 5, 2016, the Council adopted Resolution 9649 approving a
Carbon Neutral Natural Gas Plan to achieve a carbon neutral gas portfolio by fiscal year
2018 with no greater than a 10¢/therm rate impact.
B. In accordance with the Carbon Neutral Plan, the City must purchase
environmental offsets or verified emission reductions equal to the annual emissions from
natural gas use by all City of Palo Alto Natural Gas Utility customers.
C. By Ordinance 5387 adopted August 15, 2016, Council approved changes to
the Municipal Code specifically streamlining the purchase and sale of wholesale utility
commodities and services and explicitly allowing for standard form Master Agreements.
D. Negotiated Master Agreements with specific verified emission reduction
gas suppliers will be recommended to Council for approval with maximum expenditure
limits and transaction terms.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as
follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves that attached standard form Verified
Emission Reduction Master Agreement.
SECTION 2. The Council waives the application of the investmentgrade credit rating
requirement of Section 2.30.340(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which applies to energy
companies that do business with the City.
//
//
//
//
DocuSign Envelope ID: EEE7FCF3-601F-4D93-81FC-EBFE75A7C5CB
ATTACHMENT C
170808 jb 6053990
SECTION 3. Adoption of this Resolution is not subject to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as an administrative governmental activity that will
not result in any direct or indirect physical change to the environment as a result (CEQA
Guidelines section 15378(b)(5)).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: August 21, 2017
AYES: DUBOIS, FILSETH, FINE, HOLMAN, KNISS, KOU, TANAKA, WOLBACH
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT: SCHARFF
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Counsel to the City of Palo Alto City Manager
Director of Administrative Services
Director of Utilities
DocuSign Envelope ID: EEE7FCF3-601F-4D93-81FC-EBFE75A7C5CB
ATTACHMENT D
September 27, 2017
Climate Action Reserve Mexico Forest Protocol
Comparison to ARB Compliance Offset Protocol
The Climate Action Reserve (Reserve) adopted Version 1.5 of the Mexico Forest Protocol (MFP)
in September 2017. The Reserve initially envisioned that the MFP would be a simple adaption of
the Reserve’s Forest Project Protocol, which was adapted in 2011 by the California Air Resources
Board (ARB) to be the Compliance Offset Protocol for U.S. Forest Projects. However, due to
differences in laws and conditions in Mexico, more than a simple adaptation was required. The
Reserve thus modified certain methodologies for Mexico forest projects, while still ensuring that
the MFP complies with the Reserve’s rigorous standards for greenhouse gas quantification that
ensure that all offsets generated are real, additional, permanent, quantifiable and verifiable. The
primary modifications made to the MFP, as compared to the Reserve’s Forest Project Protocol
or the ARB’s compliance protocol, are detailed below.
Permanence: Permanence is defined as a period of 100 years in both ARB’s compliance protocol
and the MFP. In order to comply with this principle, the compliance protocol requires that each
forest owner sign a contract for 100 years. In Mexico, however, the Agrarian law does not
permit communities and ejidos to sign a contract for longer than 30 years. In order to comply
with the permanence period of 100 years, the Reserve employed tonne-year accounting, which
proportions credits by the amount of time each tonne of carbon is secured by contract
proportionate to 100 years and the radiative forcing coefficient for maintaining that tonne out
of the atmosphere for each year.
Permitted activities: The ARB compliance protocol permits crediting for improved forest
management, reforestation or avoided emissions. Each project under ARB’s compliance protocol
must submit the project under one defined activity type. However, the Mexican Norm 173
states that avoided emissions may only be credited under a jurisdictional accounting framework
such as REDD or REDD+. For this reason, the MFP only permits crediting for enhanced carbon
sequestration, such as improved forest management or reforestation. The MFP further permits
each project to implement various carbon enhancing activities under one project.
Baseline: The ARB compliance protocol has different methodologies for establishing the
baseline based on the different project types. The improved forest management projects
require the use of a common practice, which establishes the average carbon stock for any given
region and forest type based on FIA data. A project’s baseline is then established by developing
a project-specific 100-year average for forest carbon stocks (taking into account legal and
financial feasibility) and comparing this average to common practice. In Mexico, since avoided
emissions are not credited at a project level accounting, there was no need to develop the long-
term trend for carbon stocks, nor the more complicated common practice values and
comparison. Instead, the baseline must pass a risk analysis demonstrating that the forest is at
risk of landcover conversion, and if a forest passes this analysis, the baseline for the crediting
ATTACHMENT D
September 27, 2017
period is calculated as the initial carbon stocks at the time of project initiation. In the MFP,
under no scenario can a project receive credits for carbon that was stored prior to the project’s
start date.
Social safeguards: The Reserve developed social safeguards for communities and ejidos that
implement a forest carbon project. These safeguards ensure free, prior and informed consent,
transparency, notification and documentation, and a communal governance structure for the
project. The ARB compliance protocol does not have such social safeguards.
GHG Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs: The ARB compliance protocol allows for crediting for carbon
stored in in-use forest products; however, the MFP does not allow for any crediting for carbon
stored in in-use forest products, maintaining a conservative quantification.
Standardized methodology: The MFP has a standardized inventory methodology designed to
reduce costs for project implementation as well as support local employment by promoting the
use of local forest technicians to develop and maintain the carbon inventory. The MFP further
has a companion access database tool, developed by the Reserve, that project operators must
use to manage inventory data, calculate forest carbon based on approved biomass equations,
develop project baselines, and grow inventory data with the use of approved growth equations
and updated plot data. The use of the approved database tool helps to ensure quality control of
project data management as well as reduce costs for project development and verification. The
ARB compliance protocol does not have a standardized inventory methodology, nor an
approved database tool.
The Mexico Forest Protocol maintains rigorous standards for forest management and native species
protection through the development of environmental safeguards, which are similar to the
Sustainable Harvesting and Natural Forest Management criteria included in the ARB compliance
protocol. The MFP further employs similar methodologies for dealing with secondary effects,
confidence deductions, and regular monitoring and verification requirements.
All of the Reserve’s protocols, including the MFP, are based on the principles of ensuring a complete,
consistent, precise, transparent, and conservative accounting.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8625)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/4/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Caltrain Go Pass Reauthorization for 2018
Title: Approval to an Agreement With Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
in the Amount of $83,838 for 2018 Caltrain Go Pass Program
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources
Recommended Motion
Staff recommends that City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
sign an agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for continuation of the
Caltrain Go Pass program for the 2018 calendar year.
Recommendation
On February 24, 2014, Council directed staff to move forward with several Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) initiatives, including the authorization for City staff located in
Downtown Palo Alto offices to participate in the Caltrain Go Pass Program for a 9 month trial
period. The trial period resulted in 51 employees participating in the program.
On November 11, 2014, the City Council reaffirmed the action by approving the extension of
the program through December 2015 and since this date, the program has been continuously
approved. The cost of the program was funded out of the General Benefits Fund, an internal
service fund that collects funds from City departments to pay for various employee benefits. As
of November 7, 2017, 200 employees participate in the program, which represents an increase
of 14% Go Pass participation in comparison from 2016. Through a 2017 end of year survey, 66%
of respondents answered that they commute on Caltrain three round trips or more per week
(6+ commute trips) and highly rate this benefit as a valuable incentive. It is expected that the
City will see increased ridership as we continue outreach and promote the Go Pass program.
Extending the Go Pass program will continue to reduce the inflow and outflow of traffic during
peak commute hours and help address record level congestion as detailed in the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission’s report released in September of 2017.
Discussion
Staff is returning to Council for authorization of the Caltrain Go Pass program to continue
City of Palo Alto Page 2
forward as parking and traffic remain a concern in Downtown Palo Alto. The City is focused on
developing a commuter incentive program to encourage employees to use sustainable
transportation modes. Staff recommends that all employees located at Civic Center (City Hall,
Development Center, Palo Alto Police Department and the Downtown Library) receive a
Caltrain Go Pass through 2018.
Caltrain’s Go Pass pricing program for the City of Palo Alto is based on a per eligible employee
structure and per active user. In 2018, the cost per eligible employee cost increased by 25%,
from $190 to $237.50, due to Caltrain’s increasing operating costs. Through an extensive audit
of employee by location, we were able to accurately identify the employees that were
previously mistakenly counted as being situated in a City Hall location. Therefore the total
eligible employees decreased from 402 to 353 in 2018. Therefore, the total cost for 2018 will be
$83,838 which represents a net 10% increase in cost to the City.
This total headcount excludes sworn public safety employees as they are not subject to
ridership fees. In addition, the City is responsible for the replacement of any lost passes,
estimated to reach $2,400, though actual costs depend on actual passes lost. Staff members
who receive a Go Pass will be required to complete a quarterly reporting of usage in order to
keep their Go Pass active throughout 2018. Staff will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of
implementing the Go Pass at all City work sites in the coming year and will be promoting
increased use of the Go Pass in conjunction with other TDM initiatives currently being
considered. Staff will return to Council in November 2018 with an update on the program and
recommendations for 2019.
Resource Impact
Sufficient funding for this program was approved in the Fiscal Year 2018 Adopted Operating
Budget General Benefits Fund in anticipation of staff recommending an extension of the Go
Pass Program through the end of calendar year 2018. As discussed above, the 25% increase in
per eligible employee cost was partially offset by an extensive location audit of eligible
employees resulting in a net total increase year over year of 10%. The program cost for 2018 is
$83,838 compared to $76,380 in 2017.
Environmental Review (If Applicable)
The Agreement is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act and
therefore no environmental review is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A
1
12644612.1
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD
2018 CALTRAIN GO PASS AGREEMENT
Participant Name: City of Palo Alto
Address: 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto CA 94301
Legal Notice Address (if different from above):
Contact Person: Frank Lee Email: frank.lee@cityofpaloalto.org
Phone: 650-329-2125 Fax: 650-329-2696
Total Payment: $83,837.50 Number of Participating Sites: 1
Number of Go Pass Users as defined below: 353
Go Pass Eligibility
Business
All staff working more than 20 hours per week, excluding temporary employees, interns, contractors, consultants and
sworn peace officers** are considered “Go Pass Users” for the purpose of this Agreement. Temporary employees,
interns, contractors, consultants and sworn peace officers** are not eligible to participate in the Go Pass Program.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if one or both of the Options offered below is selected, employees working less than
20 hours per week and/or interns will be considered “Go Pass Users” under this Agreement.
Options
Include staff working less than 20 hours per week: N/A – Not including
Include interns: N/A – Not including
Residential
All residents five years old and older are considered “Go Pass Users” for the purpose of this Agreement. Employees
of residential developments are excluded from the Go Pass Program.
Educational
All students per selected group (i.e. Part-time, Full-time, Post graduates) are considered “Go Pass Users” for the
purpose of this Agreement.
Agreement Term: January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018
Participant agrees to the attached terms and conditions
CITY OF PALO ALTO *
By:
Print Name:
Its:
By:
Print Name:
Its:
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD
By:
Print Name: Seamus P. Murphy
Its: Chief Communications Officer
* If Participant is a corporation or limited liability company, two corporate officers must sign on behalf of the corporation as
follows: 1) the chairman of the board, president or vice-president; and 2) the secretary, assistant secretary, chief financial
officer, or assistant treasurer. In the alternative, this Agreement may be executed by a single officer or a person other than
an officer provided that evidence satisfactory to the JPB is provided demonstrating that such individual is authorized to bind
the corporation (e.g. a copy of a certified resolution from the corporation’s board or a copy of the corporation’s bylaws). **
Uniformed and non-uniformed, sworn peace officers are allowed to ride Caltrain for free subject to showing the proper
identification.
Attachment A
2
12644612.1
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This Go Pass Agreement (“Agreement”) is made between the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, a public agency
("JPB") and the Go Pass Participant (“Participant”) identified on page 1 of this Agreement.
1. PAYMENT: Full payment for all Go Pass stickers shall be due prior to JPB issuing stickers. The total cost of
participating in the Go Pass program will be the greater of $19,950.00 or $237.50 per eligible Go Pass User, which
includes a non-refundable Administration Fee (the “Administration Fee”) of $3 per Go Pass User. If the number of Users
increases during 2018, the cost of additional Go Pass stickers will be a pro-rated per amount based on Exhibit A on page
5 of this Agreement. Go Pass Participant may share the cost of participation in the Go Pass program with its Users, but
the cost to a particular User cannot be higher than the first-time replacement rate stated in Section 10 below. Participant
must submit payment for any invoices within 30 days of the date shown on the invoice. Payments after 60 days will be
charged a late fee of $5 per day. Accepted payment methods include ACH, EFT and Participant checks. Personal Go
Pass User checks are not accepted. The return of a check (electronic or paper) issued to JPB will result in a $25 returned
check fee being placed on the account of the Participant.
2. PROGRAM: JPB operates the “Caltrain” rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy, California, and Participant
desires to provide a transit benefit for use on Caltrain to all of the Go Pass Users as defined on Page 1, in the form of a
sticker affixed to a valid Participant-issued, JPB-approved, Go Pass User photo identification card (hereafter referred to as
"Go Pass"). In order to facilitate the Caltrain Go Pass Program (“Program”) JPB shall provide the necessary stickers and
accept the Go Pass as valid fare media for travel on the Caltrain system. Participant is responsible for any stickers in its
possession. Failure to comply with the terms in this Agreement may result in termination pursuant to Section 12.
3. ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS: Only individual Participants are eligible to participate in the Program. Participants with
multiple locations, branches or campuses are eligible to participate in the Program and must provide a Go Pass User
count for each individual Participant site. However, such Participants must enroll in the Program under a single Go Pass
Agreement and designate a single contact and administrator. Such Participants’ employees/students/residents at non-
participating locations are not eligible to participate in the Program.
4. ELIGIBLE GO PASS USER VERIFICATION: Go Passes must be purchased for each and every Go Pass User at
each Participant work site participating in the program (“Participating Site(s)”). Participant will be required, prior to the JPB
issuing the Go Pass stickers, to provide JPB with a Letter of Intent (“Letter”) signed by the Human Resources Director, an
officer of the Participant or Development Manager verifying the then-current number of Go Pass Users of the Participant
at each Participating Site. If a Business Participant selects an Option identified on Page 1, the letter must indicate the
number of Users working more than 20 hours per week, working less than 20 hours per week and/or interns. If there are
multiple Participating Sites, the Letter must indicate the individual site addresses and the number of then-current Users at
each site. Neither Participant nor any of its affiliates shall be required to participate in the Program with respect to other
sites other than the Participating Site(s) identified in the Letter.
5. GO PASS IDENTIFICATION: Participant must have an official Participant-issued photo ID card in order to participate
in the Program and must supply a hard copy of that ID card to the JPB for review. Any Participant that doesn’t have a
photo ID card must create one. The ID card must display a clear Go Pass User headshot, Go Pass User first and last
name, have a 1” x 1” square space for the Go Pass sticker and display the Participant name or logo. The ID cannot
contain Caltrain’s logo as part of the design. If the ID changes, it is the Participant’s responsibility to submit the new
version to the JPB three weeks in advance for approval. Participants may only use one JPB-approved ID card. The JPB
will produce and issue serialized Go Pass stickers which will be distributed to Participant so that Participant can affix them
to the Participant-issued Go Pass User ID card. Participant’s designated administrator shall place the Go Pass sticker on
each eligible Go Pass User’s ID card, preferably on the front. Participant shall not distribute the Go Pass stickers to Users,
as this practice may lead to unauthorized use of the sticker. Participant shall be responsible for retaining the Go Pass
User’s ID card or removing the Go Pass sticker from a Go Pass User’s ID card when a Go Pass User leaves the
employment of the Participant or relocates to non-participating location. Returned ID cards or stickers shall be presented
to the JPB for verification upon request. A photocopy of the identification card with the Go Pass sticker attached is
acceptable as proof that the Go Pass is no longer in use by a Go Pass User who has left the Participant. All Go Pass
stickers allotted to the Participant at the beginning of the Participant’s participation in the Program that are not issued to
Users are to be returned to the JPB by December 15 of the Agreement year. Go Pass sticker is JPB’s property.
6. PROGRAM RECORDS: Participant will create and maintain a file of documents to be available for review upon JPB
request (“Go Pass File”). The Go Pass File must include a log (Go Pass Log) of its Users who currently hold Go Passes.
The Go Pass Log shall include the Go Pass User’s first and last name, unique serial number for the individual pass each
Go Pass User holds, pass status (i.e. active, lost, damaged, etc.), date of issue, date of Go Pass User separation, if
applicable, and any other pertinent information. The file must also include all separated Go Pass User’s ID cards or Go
3
12644612.1
Pass stickers unless sent to JPB and Participant received an acknowledgement e-mail.
7. SURVEY AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Prior to affixing the Go Pass sticker to the Go Pass User’s Participant-issued
ID card, Participant shall require each Go Pass User receiving a Go Pass, for the first time, to complete an online
questionnaire ("Survey"). Once the Survey is complete, Participant administrator will receive an e-mail confirmation from
the Go Pass User via the JPB. As part of completing the survey, the Go Pass User will be required to acknowledge that
he or she understands the proper use of the Go Pass. The Surveys may be used to analyze the success of the Program
and develop ridership projections for the Program. However, the Surveys are subject to disclosure under requests made
pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Prior to disclosing Surveys, any identifying information concerning the
Participant and/or the Go Pass User shall be redacted.
8. PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND AUDIT: JPB reserves the right to audit Participant’s Go Pass Program at any point
during the Program year with five (5) working days' notice. The purpose of the audit is to ensure that appropriate
accounting, sticker distribution and security procedures are in place. JPB has the right to audit any internal Participant Go
Pass-associated records, including Participant’s Go Pass File. A current list of qualifying Users shall be provided to the
JPB upon request. Within 10 working days of receipt of any audit report from the JPB, Participant must, in conjunction
with JPB staff, develop a mutually agreeable action plan to satisfy any audit findings. If no mutually agreeable plan can
be developed, JPB may terminate the Program upon 10-days’ notice pursuant to the terms of Section 12, Termination.
9. PARKING PERMITS: Monthly parking permits for Caltrain lots may be purchased through any Caltrain station ticket
machine. Go Pass Users will be required to complete an application for an access code in order to purchase the permit
through the machine.
10. LOST, STOLEN, DAMAGED AND REPLACEMENT GO PASSES: For lost or stolen Go Passes, JPB will charge a
$237.50 first-time replacement fee. Participant must submit to the JPB documentation including the Go Pass User first
and last name and Go Pass serial number. For stolen Go Passes, the JPB will replace the Go Pass at no additional
charge provided that a police report is supplied to the JPB which describes the Go Pass as stolen. If the same Go Pass
User loses the Go Pass or has the Go Pass stolen a second time, the replacement fee will be 2x the first-time
replacement fee regardless of whether a police report is provided to the JPB. If a replacement Go Pass is issued and then
the original is found, JPB will not provide a refund. Participant may not resell the Go Passes to Users at a rate higher
than the replacement fee. A Go Pass will not be issued as a replacement for lost or stolen Go Passes a third time.
For Damaged Go Passes: If the Participant or a Go Pass User damages a Participant-issued ID card and thus renders the
Go Pass sticker unusable, or if the sticker itself is damaged, a replacement Go Pass sticker may be issued to the Go Pass
User or taken from the Participant’s Go Pass inventory, provided that the Participant documents that the Go Pass sticker
has been taken out of circulation in its Go Pass File. Participant must retain the damaged ID card or Go Pass sticker in
its Go Pass File unless sent to JPB and Participant received an acknowledgement e-mail. If no additional stickers remain
in the Participant inventory, the Participant shall return damaged Go Pass stickers or ID cards, or a photocopy, with
complete documentation to the JPB prior to the JPB issuing a replacement Go Pass sticker to Participant at no charge.
This courtesy will be extended no more than two times per Go Pass User per calendar year, after which the replacement
cost for a damaged Go Pass sticker will be $237.50.
For Separated Users: If the Go Pass User separates with the Participant, Participant shall retain the separated Go Pass
User ID card or Go Pass sticker in its Go Pass File and document that the Go Pass sticker has been taken out of
circulation in its Go Pass Log (See Section 6 above) unless sent to JPB and Participant received an acknowledgement e-
mail. If no additional stickers remain in the Participant inventory, the Participant shall return separated Go Pass stickers
or ID cards, or a photocopy, prior to the JPB issuing a replacement Go Pass sticker to Participant at no charge.
For Missing Go Passes: Participant shall be responsible for safeguarding the Go Pass stickers prior to issuing them to
Users and shall be liable for any loss of Go Pass stickers. Replacement Go Pass stickers shall be issued under the lost
terms above.
11. QUARTERLY REPORTING: Participant must submit a quarterly report to JPB by 3/1/18, 6/1/18, 9/1/18 and 12/1/18.
The quarterly report must list all lost, stolen, damaged and replacement Go Passes issued and separated Users. It must
include the reason for replacement, if applicable, Go Pass User first and last name and corresponding Go Pass serial
number and the current number of Users working at the work site(s) /residing in the development enrolled in the program.
Participant may submit its Go Pass Log (See Section 6 above) in lieu of the quarterly report.
12. TERMINATION: Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving the other party written notice at least 90 days
prior to the desired termination date, which shall be the last day of a calendar month. If either party terminates the
4
12644612.1
Agreement pursuant to this provision, JPB shall refund to Participant a pro-rata portion of Participant’s total payment in
accordance with the Proration Schedule attached to and incorporated in this Agreement as Exhibit A, less the
Administration Fee, as listed on Page 1, within 30 days of the termination date, provided that within 10 working days of the
effective termination date: (a) all undistributed Go Passes issued to Participant are returned to JPB and (b) Participant
verifies in writing that it has made every Good faith effort to collect or destroy all Go Passes that have been distributed to
Users. In the event Participant fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, JPB may terminate this Agreement with
15 days’ notice. Non-compliance by Participant may make Participant ineligible to participate in the Go Pass program in
subsequent years. This Agreement shall automatically terminate if Participant discontinues its business at the
Participating Site(s) and it will be up to Participant to notify its Go Pass Users that the Go Pass will no longer be valid. In
the event that Go Pass Users continue to use invalid Go passes, JPB will confiscate such passes in accordance with
Section 14.
13. MISUSE OF GO PASS: The Go Pass constitutes a Go Pass sticker affixed to a valid, Participant-issued, JPB-
approved Go Pass User photo ID card. Any other use of the Go Pass sticker is prohibited and will not be valid as fare
payment on Caltrain.
Go Pass Participant – JPB agrees not to pursue any claims or demands against Participant for a Go Pass User's
unauthorized use of the Go Pass, unless the unauthorized use is the result of Participant's failure to follow the sticker
issuance procedures in Section 5, gross negligence or willful misconduct. The transfer of the Go Pass sticker constitutes
fare evasion, a violation of California Penal Code 640. At the time of Go Pass issuance, Participant shall (1) notify its
Users that Go Pass stickers are non-transferrable and that transferring a Go Pass constitutes fare evasion under the law,
and (2) shall remind Users of their agreement to the terms of usage provided in the Survey.
Go Pass User - All Go Pass Users shall be subject to JPB's fare inspection regulations. JPB may confiscate and/or
destroy the Go Pass sticker and pursue claims or demands against, or seek prosecution of, anyone who duplicates,
alters, transfers, sells or commits unauthorized use of the Go Pass. Unauthorized use of the Go Pass includes, but is not
limited to, allowing a non-eligible person to use a Go Pass or affixing a Go Pass sticker to any form of identification other
than a valid Participant-issued, JPB-approved, Go Pass User ID card.
JPB may cancel any individual Go Pass if it has reason to believe that the Go Pass was issued and/or used in a manner
that fails to comply with the requirements herein. JPB will notify Participant if it has any such concerns and, after
appropriate investigation, revoke those passes in question. Participant agrees to cooperate with JPB in such an
investigation, including assisting the JPB in determining the identity of the Go Pass User(s) who are alleged to have
misused the Go Pass. Participant waives all remedies and rights to refunds for any Go Passes revoked for misuse. JPB
will incur no liability resulting from confiscation of misused Go passes or Go passes from a Go Pass User whose
Participant’s Agreement has been terminated.
14. PROTECTION OF PRIVACY: JPB acknowledges that it may review documents in the Go Pass File or other
materials that contain personal or confidential information about the Participant or the Go Pass User
(“Information”). Except as required to administer the Go Pass Program in accordance with this Agreement or as
otherwise required by law, JPB agrees not to use or to disclose to third parties the Information. JPB may use Participant’s
name in a list showing Go Pass Program participants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, JPB shall be free to use and
disclose to third parties information in an aggregate format that does not personally identify a Go Pass User.
15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This contract contains the entire Agreement between the parties hereto for the term
specified on Page 1 of this Agreement and cannot be changed or altered except by written agreement signed by both
parties hereto. Neither party shall be bound by any oral agreement or other understandings contrary to or in addition to
the terms and conditions as stated herein.
16. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: The terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement shall bind and
inure to the benefit of Participant and JPB and, except as otherwise provided herein, their personal representatives and
successors and assigns.
17. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES: There are no third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement.
18. NO JOINT VENTURE: It is expressly agreed that Participant is not, in any way or for any purpose, a partner of the
JPB in the conduct of JPB’s business or a member of a joint enterprise with JPB, and does not assume any responsibility
for JPB’s conduct or performance of this Agreement. It is expressly agreed that JPB is not, in any way or for any purpose,
a partner of the Participant in the conduct of Participant’s business or a member of a joint enterprise with Participant, and
does not assume any responsibility for Participant’s conduct or performance of this Agreement.
5
12644612.1
19. ATTORNEYS’ FEES: In the event that either JPB or Participant fails to perform any of its obligations under this
Agreement or in the event a dispute arises concerning the meaning or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement,
the defaulting Party or the Party not prevailing in such dispute, as the case may be, shall pay any and all costs and
expenses incurred by the other Party in enforcing or establishing its rights hereunder, including, without limitation, court
costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
20. GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
California. Any action relating to, and all disputes arising under, this Agreement shall be instituted and prosecuted in a
court of competent jurisdiction in the State of California.
21. NOTICES: All notices, requests, communications and legal notices to be made or given to Participant under this
Agreement shall be addressed as shown on page 1 of this Agreement. All notices, including legal notices,
communications and requests to be made or given to JPB shall be addressed as follows:
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain)
1250 San Carlos Ave.
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
Attn: Market Research and Development
6
12644612.1
Exhibit A
Proration Schedule
New Participants
Effective Date
(falling in month)
Portion of Total Fee per Go Pass
More than Minimum
(includes administration fee)
Portion of Total Fee per Go Pass
Less than Minimum
(includes administration fee)
February $217.96 $18,308.50
March $198.42 $16,667.00
April $178.88 $15,025.50
May $159.33 $13,384.00
June $139.79 $11,742.50
July $120.25 $10,101.00
August $100.71 $8,459.50
September $81.17 $6,818.00
October $61.63 $5,176.50
November $42.08 $3,535.00
December $22.54 $1,893.50
Terminating Participants
Effective Termination
Date
(falling in month)
Portion of Total Fee Returned per
Go Pass More than Minimum
(less administration fees)
Portion of Total Fee Returned per
Go Pass Less than Minimum
(less administration fees)
February $214.96 $18,056.50
March $195.42 $16,415.00
April $175.88 $14,773.50
May $156.33 $13,132.00
June $136.79 $11,490.50
July $117.25 $9,849.00
August $97.71 $8,207.50
September $78.17 $6,566.00
October $58.63 $4,924.50
November $39.08 $3,283.00
December $19.54 $1,641.50
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8642)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/4/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Finance Committeee Recommendation to Approve Second
HSRAP Allocation of $311,118
Title: Finance Committee Recommendation that the City Council Approve
for Second Allocation of FY2018 & 19 Human Services Resource Allocation
Process funding in the amount of $311,118
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff, the Human Relations Commission (HRC), and the Finance Committee recommend
that the City Council:
1. Approve the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) agency
funding allocations as recommended by the HRC.
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute year one contracts with
the organizations recommended by the HRC for not-to-exceed amounts
recommended by the HRC for Fiscal Year 2018, with an option to renew for one
additional year (Fiscal Year 2019). The total amount of these contracts shall not
exceed $155,559 per fiscal year (for a total not to exceed of $311,118 over two
years).
Executive Summary
This report transmits to the City Council the proposed funding recommendations from
the Finance Committee for a second allocation of funds available for the Human
Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019.
(Attachment A)
The funding recommendations will provide $155,559 distributed between eight agencies
for Fiscal Year 2018 with an option to renew for Fiscal Year 2019 for the same amount,
for a total of $311,118 over two years.
This is the second allocation of HSRAP funding for Fiscal Year 2018. During the regular
HSRAP funding period in spring of 2017, Adolescent Counseling Services (ACS) reduced
its funding request late in the allocation process due to a decision not to participate in a
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) for on-
campus counseling. ACS had provided on-campus counseling services for PAUSD for
over 30 years, and the City had allocated HSRAP funds of approximately $100,000 to
ACS annually. Due to the significant dollar amount and late withdrawal by ACS in the
HSRAP process, staff and the HRC recommended to Council as part of the proposed
Fiscal Year 2018 Community Services Department (CSD) Operating Budget, to re-open
the HSRAP application period for a second time to seek additional applications for the
unallocated funds. Council approved the recommendation and also increased the HSRAP
fund by an additional $44,000.
Funding requests were received from eight applicants in an amount that exceeded the
available funding by $205,727. The applications were first reviewed by an ad hoc
committee of the HRC, the full HRC at their October 12, 2017 meeting, and then
forwarded to the Finance Committee at their November 8, 2017 meeting. The Finance
Committee unanimously supported the HRC’s funding recommendation.
Discussion
The HRC met on October 12, 2017 and had a thorough discussion on the funding
recommendations from the HSRAP Selection Commission; an ad hoc subcommittee of
the HRC charged with thoroughly reviewing the applications and providing a
recommendation to the full HRC. The HRC was in agreement with the Selection
Committee’s recommended funding allocations for five of the applicant agencies and
opinions varied regarding the amount of funding to recommend for Counseling &
Support Services for Youth (CASSY), Community Working Group (CWG), and Downtown
Streets Team (DST). After an extended discussion, a motion was passed.
The staff report to the Finance Committee included background on the HSRAP process,
details on the funding deliberations at the HSRAP Selection Committee and the full HRC
levels, HRC Funding Recommendation to the Finance Committee, HSRAP Priority of
Needs for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019, and the proposal summaries submitted for
funding consideration. (Attachment B)
The Finance Committee reviewed the recommendation at its November 8, 2017
meeting. Discussion centered around understanding the deliberations surrounding the
funding allocations, especially for CASSY, CWG and DST. The Finance Committee was
interested in understanding how the HRC made funding recommendations in regards to
evaluating the return on investment of each agency, suggesting that perhaps the HRC
consider funding less agencies but investing deeper into others for maximum impact.
The Finance Committee voted unanimously to pass the HRC’s recommended funding
amounts. The draft action minutes from the Finance Committee’s November 8, 2017
meeting are provided as Attachment C.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1. Counseling and Support Services for Youth (CASSY) provides on-site
mental health services on thirteen Palo Alto Unified School District School
sites. ($35,000 per fiscal year)
2. Community Working Group (CWG) provides a comprehensive, one-stop,
multi-service, day service center for homeless Palo Alto residents.
($30,000 per fiscal year)
3. Downtown Streets Team, Inc. (DST) provides job training and job
opportunities for homeless individuals as well as operates the Downtown
Food Closet. ($34,600 per fiscal year)
4. Dream Catchers provides afterschool tutoring for middle school students.
($10,000 per fiscal year)
5. Kara provides comprehensive grief support, crisis intervention and
education to individuals and organizations facing the difficult realities of
grief and loss. ($10,000 per fiscal year)
6. Momentum for Mental Health provides a homeless outreach program in
Palo Alto. The outreach program provides emergency on-call services to
City departments, libraries, community centers and homeless service
providers. ($10,000 per fiscal year)
7. Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired provides outreach efforts
to educate seniors about eye health, common eye conditions that affect
the elderly, and training those with vision loss to carry out activities of
daily living. ($15,000 per fiscal year)
8. PARCA provides services to people with developmental disabilities and
their families. ($10,959 per fiscal year)
Timeline
Upon approval by the City Council, the contract period will be January 1, 2018-June 30,
2018 and renewable for one more year at the same funding level for funding for the
budget period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019.
Resource Impact
The HSRAP funding recommendation will allocate $155,559. This funding is already
included in the Community Services Department’s adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2018.
Subsequent funding will be considered as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 annual budget
development process.
Environmental Review
This grant program is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and is not subject to CEQA review.
Attachments:
Attachment A - 2018-19 Finance Committee Recommendation-Second Round
Attachment B - HSRAP STAFF REPORT TO FINANCE COMMITTEE #8581
ATTACHMENT C - 11-08-17 FCM Final Action Minutes
Recommendation of the Finance Committee
HSRAP Second Funding Allocation FY2018-19
Attachment A
Agencies Program Descriptions FY2018 Agency
Requests
FY2018
Proposed
Approved
FY2018 First
Round*
Counseling and Support
Services for Youth (CASSY)
A comprehensive, school-based
youth mental health support
program
$50,000.00 $35,000.00
Community Working Group Funds for support of continued
operation and maintenance of
the Day Services Center
$155,559.00 $30,000.00
Downtown Streets Team, Inc.Downtown Food Closet
providing meals to low-income
and homeless residents
$50,000.00 $34,600.00 $39,972.00
Dreamcatchers After School Tutor & Mentorship
Program for low-income youth
$10,000.00 $10,000.00 $13,609.00
KARA Grief Support to facilitate healing
and resilence-building to the
vulnerable
$22,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,565.00
Momentum Mental Health Case management, outreach
and mental health for the
homeless
$39,685.00 $10,000.00 $34,724.00
PARCA On-site supervision ,
independent living training,
social and recreation activies at
the Page Mill Court, 24-unit
assisted living apartment
complex
$13,000.00 $10,959.00
Vista Center for the Blind and
Visually Impaired
Vision rehabilitation outreach to
seniors with vision loss or
blindness
$21,042.00 $15,000.00 $11,475.00
$361,286.00 $155,559.00
* This notes the funding approved for these agencies during the first round of HSRAP approved July, 2017
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8581)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/7/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval of Second HSRAP Allocation of $311,118
Title: Approval of Human Relations Commission Recommendations for
Second Allocation of FY2018 & 19 Human Services Resource Allocation
Process funding in the amount of $311,118
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff and the Human Relations Commission (HRC) recommend that the Finance
Committee recommend that Council:
1. Approve the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) agency
funding allocations as recommended by the HRC.
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute year one contracts with
the organizations recommended by the HRC for not-to-exceed amounts
recommended by the HRC for Fiscal Year 2018, with an option to renew for one
additional year (Fiscal Year 2019). The total amount of these contracts shall not
exceed $155,559 per fiscal year.
Executive Summary
This report transmits to the Finance Committee the proposed funding recommendations
for a second allocation of funds available for the Human Services Resource Allocation
Process (HSRAP) for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 (Attachment A). Also attached is
Human Relations Commission’s (HRC) HSRAP Priority of Needs for Fiscal Years 2018
and 19 (Attachment B), and the proposal summaries submitted for funding
consideration (Attachment C). The funding recommendations will provide $155,559
distributed between eight agencies for Fiscal Year 2018 with an option to renew for
Fiscal Year 2019 for the same amount, for a total of $311,118 over two years.
During the regular HSRAP funding period in spring of 2017, Adolescent Counseling
Services (ACS) reduced its funding request late in the allocation process due to a
decision not to participate in a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) for on-campus counseling. ACS had provided on-campus
counseling services for PAUSD for over 30 years, and the City had allocated HSRAP
City of Palo Alto Page 2
funds of approximately $100,000 to ACS annually. Due to the significant dollar amount
and late withdrawal by ACS in the HSRAP process, staff and the HRC recommended to
Council as part of the proposed Fiscal Year 2018 Community Services Department
(CSD) Operating Budget, to re-open the HSRAP application period for a second time to
seek additional applications for the unallocated funds. Council approved the
recommendation and also increased the HSRAP fund by an additional $44,000.
Eight applications were received during the current HSRAP allocation period. A
Selection Committee comprised of members of the HRC reviewed the applications
received and presented a funding recommendation to the full HRC at their October 12,
2017 commission meeting. The HRC discussed the Selection Committee
recommendation at length and voted 4-2 in support of the proposal (Attachment A),
with one commissioner absent. The two dissenting commissioners were supportive of
the eight agencies receiving funding but differed in the amount of funding
recommended for three agencies, namely Counseling and Support Services for Youth,
Community Working Group and Downtown Streets Team.
Background
The Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) is a City of Palo Alto grant
program open to organizations who deliver direct services to Palo Alto residents so that
they have a safety net of services that otherwise may not be available. Developed in
1983, the process includes an assessment to identify the community’s service needs.
Human services needs were identified through information provided by the community
at the HRC’s monthly meetings and through findings from the extensive research the
HRC conducted for the Human Services Needs Assessment report completed in 2012,
and supplemental needs assessments conducted in 2014 and 2016. These needs
assessment activities assisted in establishing biennial priorities of human services needs
for the Palo Alto community, which has included low income healthcare, early care and
education, youth, seniors, developmentally disabled and the unhoused.
This is the second HSRAP allocation process for FY 2018-2019. Late in the review
process of the first allocation process, in spring of 2017, staff and the HRC were
informed that one applicant, ACS, the contracted provider of on-campus counseling
services on all PAUSD secondary school campuses, was reducing its original funding
request by $111,559.
PAUSD issued an RFP for on-campus counseling and ACS decided not to respond to the
school district’s RFP, and subsequently withdrew its funding request for HSRAP funding
for the on-campus counseling program.
In light of the City’s longtime (30 plus years) support for mental health services on
PAUSD campuses, the Selection Committee was reluctant to immediately reallocate
these newly available HSRAP funds to other applicants. Moreover, given that a new on-
campus counseling program provider was not to be named until after HSRAP funding
City of Palo Alto Page 3
allocation was complete, the HRC wanted to provide an opportunity for that agency to
apply for HSRAP funding, if it choose to do so. Staff and the HRC recommended that
the HSRAP process be re-opened for new proposals; from current HSRAP grantees and
from other social service providers in the community.
The recommendation to Council to conduct a second HSRAP grant application process
was approved by the Council during its review of the FY 2018 CSD Operating Budget. In
addition, Council increased the HSRAP fund by $44,000, which resulted in a total of
$155,559 available for the second HSRAP allocation process.
In August 2017, the second HSRAP Request for proposals was released.
Discussion
Funding requests were received from eight applicants in an amount that exceeded the
available funding by $205,727. The Selection Committee was composed of three HRC
Commissioners. They met on two occasions to review and analyze the merits of the
funding requests submitted and provided funding recommendations to the full HRC
based on the established funding criteria and the biennial priority of needs.
The Selection Committee came to an unanimous recommendation for additional
allocations to current HSRAP grantees DreamCatchers, Kara, Momentum for Mental
Health, and Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired, as they presented the
most compelling requests to assist additional Palo Alto residents. They were also
unanimous in recommending funding for a new agency, Parca, which provides services
for developmentally disabled adults.
The Selection Committee was not unanimous, though a majority opinion was forwarded
to the HRC, on funding recommendations for three other applicants: Counseling and
Support Services for Youth (CASSY) – mental health services for youth, Downtown
Streets Team (DST) – Downtown Food Closet, and Community Working Group (CWG) –
day services at the Opportunity Services Center. The Selection Committee all agreed
that the services provided by these three agencies were vital in the community;
however, they differed in the recommended grant amounts to be submitted to the full
HRC for their consideration based on varying factors.
The Selection Committee’s funding allocation recommendation was discussed at the
October 12, 2017 HRC meeting. A report from the Selection Committee along with their
funding recommendation was presented to the full commission. Representatives of
following agencies were present at the Commission meeting and spoke during oral
communications: CASSY, CWG, DST, DreamCatchers, Kara, Parca and Vista Center for
the Blind and Visually Impaired.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The Commission had a thorough discussion on the funding recommendations from the
Selection Commission. The HRC was in agreement with the Selection Committee’s
recommended funding allocations for five of the applicant agencies and opinions varied
regarding the amount of funding to recommend for CASSY, CWG and DST. After an
extended discussion the following motion was passed (Attachment D: Excerpt from HRC
Action Minutes 10-12-17).
MOTION: Chair Stinger moved, seconded by Commission O‘Nan to:
1. Approve the following HSRAP funding recommendations for FY2018-19:
a. Counseling and Support Services for Youth - $35,000
b. Community Working Group - $30,000
c. Downtown Streets Team - $34,600
d. DreamCatchers - $10,000
e. Kara - $10,000
f. Momentum for Mental Health - $10,000
g. Parca - $10,959
h. Vista Center - $15,000
MOTION PASSED: 4-2 vote – Alhassani, Lee - no, Brahmbhatt absent
The following agencies are recommended for HSRAP funding in Fiscal Years 2018 and
2019:
1. Counseling and Support Services for Youth (CASSY) provides on-site
mental health services on thirteen Palo Alto Unified School District School
sites. ($35,000 per fiscal year)
2. Community Working Group provides a comprehensive, one-stop, multi-
service, day service center for homeless Palo Alto residents. ($30,000 per
fiscal year)
3. Downtown Streets Team, Inc. provides job training and job opportunities
for homeless individuals as well as operates the Downtown Food Closet.
($34,600 per fiscal year)
4. Dream Catchers provides afterschool tutoring for middle school students.
($10,000 per fiscal year)
5. Kara provides comprehensive grief support, crisis intervention and
education to individuals and organizations facing the difficult realities of
grief and loss. ($10,000 per fiscal year)
6. Momentum for Mental Health provides a homeless outreach program in
Palo Alto. The outreach program provides emergency on-call services to
City departments, libraries, community centers and homeless service
providers. ($10,000 per fiscal year)
7. Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired provides outreach efforts
to educate seniors about eye health, common eye conditions that affect
City of Palo Alto Page 5
the elderly, and training those with vision loss to carry out activities of
daily living. ($15,000 per fiscal year)
8. PARCA provides services to people with developmental disabilities and
their families. ($10,959 per fiscal year)
Timeline
Upon approval by the City Council, the contract period will be January 1, 2018-June 30,
2018 and renewable for one more year at the same funding level for funding for the
budget period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019.
Resource Impact
The HSRAP funding recommendation will allocate $155,559. This funding is already
included in the Community Services Department’s adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2018.
Subsequent funding will be considered as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 annual budget
development process.
Environmental Review
This grant program is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and is not subject to CEQA review
Attachments:
Attachment A - Finance 2018-19 HRC Recommendation-Second Round
Attachment B - Priority of Needs
ATTACHMENT C - HSRAP PROPOSAL SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT D - EXCERPT FROM HRC ACTION MINUTES 10-12-17
Recommendation of the Human Relations Commission
HSRAP Second Funding Allocation FY2018-19
Attachment A
Agencies Program Descriptions FY2018 Agency
Requests
FY2018
Proposed
Approved
FY2018 First
Round*
Counseling and Support
Services for Youth (CASSY)
A comprehensive, school-based
youth mental health support
program
$50,000.00 $35,000.00
Community Working Group Funds for support of continued
operation and maintenance of
the Day Services Center
$155,559.00 $30,000.00
Downtown Streets Team, Inc.Downtown Food Closet
providing meals to low-income
and homeless residents
$50,000.00 $34,600.00 $39,972.00
Dreamcatchers After School Tutor & Mentorship
Program for low-income youth
$10,000.00 $10,000.00 $13,609.00
KARA Grief Support to facilitate healing
and resilence-building to the
vulnerable
$22,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,565.00
Momentum Mental Health Case management, outreach
and mental health for the
homeless
$39,685.00 $10,000.00 $34,724.00
PARCA On-site supervision ,
independent living training,
social and recreation activies at
the Page Mill Court, 24-unit
assisted living apartment
complex
$13,000.00 $10,959.00
Vista Center for the Blind and
Visually Impaired
Vision rehabilitation outreach to
seniors with vision loss or
blindness
$21,042.00 $15,000.00 $11,475.00
$361,286.00 $155,559.00
* This notes the funding approved for these agencies during the first round of HSRAP approved July, 2017
FY 2018-19 HSRAP Priority of Needs
Basic Needs
Food/Nutrition
Housing
Mental Health
Emergency Assistance
Health Care (Physical and Dental Care)
Transportation
Homelessness
Outreach
Day Services
Case Management
Social Services
Seniors
Social Service
Legal Assistance
Elder Abuse Prevention
Special Needs
Children: Early Intervention
Respite Care
Recreational Activities
Adults: Day Programs
Mentoring Programs
Recreation Programs
Children & Youth
Early Care & Education
Youth Well-being
Counseling
Children/Youth Programs
Tutoring
Social Services Coordination
Encourage collaboration, coordination, and exchange of ideas among agencies
Human Service Resource Allocation (HSRAP)
CASSY -Palo Alto Unified
Attachment C: Proposal Summary
Priohty ofNeeds Category: Children & Youth Counseling
I
Nruie of Program: School-based Mental Health Supports for Palo Alto Unified Students
Funhing Request: $50,000/yr '
I
Agdncy Name: Counseling and Support Services for Youth (CASSY)
I Adqress: 544 Valley Way, Milpitas, CA 95035
Contact Person: Christy Hayes, Executive Director, (650) 521-5311 x12
~. Proposal Summary: The proposed program goals and objectives. i • I
Deslcription of Program Services: Counseling & Support Services for Youth (CASSY) of,ers a
c0n?prehensive, school-based youth mental health support program at no cost to students of their
fa:nqilies, ensuring that all students have easy access to strong social emotional support on tpeir
cat4Pus. We have worked within the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) for the p~st six
years; in the 2017-2018 school year, we will offer mental health services in 13 Palo Alto I
elerpentary and secondary schools. We are committed to serving any student in need of support,
tailoring our program to meet each school's unique needs, continuously improving our program
thr~ugh the incorporation of best-and evidence practices, and collaborating closely with s4hool an~ district administration and staff to ensure integrated support. i
W~offer short-term individual and group therapy with students to increase their social-emoJional wel~ being, self-regulation, self-control, positive relationships, and coping strategies. We connect iwith
and support the entire school community, including students, families, and school staff, t~ough
prol~ctive mental health education. We provide trainings, professio~al dev~lopment and in~ormal
sU.Bport for staff so that they have the tools to handle mental health Issues In the classroom; We
wOfk with students to increase coping skills (resilience and grit) so that crises may be averted. If
a qisis does occur on a school campus, we have a strong and 'effective crisis intervention plan in
place. We employ therapists who are trained in evidence-based practices, support their ongoing
pr9fessional development, and are among few organizations that may act as a continuing i
education provider, which ensures that we hire and retain the highest quality staff.
!
oUf commitment to high-quality care earned CASSY the 2014 Honorary Service Award f~om
thei Palo Alto Council of PT As for our work in PAUSD elementary schools. This award is!
presented to programs in Santa Clara County that have a significant impact on students an~ are
iJovative, creative, replicable and sustainable. We were also awarded the prestigious Glebn
Hdffman Award for Excellence for our work at Los Gatos High School in 2009-2010.
I .
1
,
i
. !
Acr9ss PAUSD, therapists provide students with the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessfry to
manage their emotions, set and achieve goals, develop and demonstrate empathy for others, i
establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible choices. Our individual and grou~ work help students gain valuable coping skills and build resiliency, determination, :
emp~.·thy, and other social-emotional skills, which are strong predictors of success in SChOOl.iand
in life. As a result of our work in PAUSD's elementary school classrooms last year, 99% or
! I
studrnts who received direct support from CASSY stabilized or increased positive functiontng.
List!Program Goals: I
GoJI #1: Develop students' coping skills/resiliency to reduce anxiety, stress, and the possi~ility
of negative educational outcomes.· I
GoJI #2: Nurture a student's ability to form and maintain positive peer and/or familial .
relationships.
GoJI #3: Increase parent and staff awareness of, and positive responses to, mental health
I I ~~. !
Goal #4: Develop additional community partnerships that enhance the services provided to
stu1ents and are a resource when services beyond school-based therapy are necessary. !
Proigram Objectives:
Objective #1: By June 2018, CASSY therapists will conduct initial assessments of
apptoximately 650-700 students throughout the school year at 13 P AUSD schools.
I . . I
Objective #2: By June 2018, CASSY therapists will provide individual therapy to approxilTIately
50~-550 students across 13 PAUSD schools throughout the year. !
Ob~ective #3: By June 2018,90% ofstudents who work directly with CASSY therapists vJiu
sho[w an increase in pro-social behaviors and a decrease in antisocial behaviors, resulting i~ an
inctease or stabilization in his or her overall level of functioning. I Ob~ective #4: By June 2018,80% ofstudents who work directly with CASSY therapists ~ll
sh~w an increase in their attendance rate or show a reduction in disciplinary referrals, ifth~se
isstkes are present. :
! O~jective #5: CASSY staff will provide approximately 1,300 parent consultations and 2,~OO
staffconsultations in our efforts to support the entire family and school community. i
oJjective #6: Collaborate with a variety of community partners, formally meeting at leas~ twice
i !
a lar, to develop and implement an integrated referral process. I
2
Program Methods:
Met~od #1: Prevention Services -CASSY therapists will lead classroom presentations, .
wor4shops, and all-school assemblies on emotional literacy, anxiety, depression, and suicidb
prevpntion, mindfulness, and anti-bullying, among other topics. These interventions will prJmote
and enhance wellness by increasing pro-social behaviors, emotional wellbeing, skill
dev910pment, and mental health.
Method #2: Referrals -CASSY therapists will work closely with schools and Wellness CeJter
stafito conduct initial assessments ofstudents referred for treatment by school staff, parent~,
frietids, or outside agencies. I
Me~Od #3: Assessments -CASSY therapists will conduct individualized, strengths-based'iland
cult¥rally responsive assessments with students (and their family or caregiver whenever ,
possible). Assessments identify goal-directed interventions that will allow students to mak~ gains
in symptom reduction, including: improved self-regulations, reduction ofdistress/anxiety, Jnd
• I d d 'I fun ., d d . IImpfove at y ctlOnmg an aca emlC success. I
I i
Me1hod #4: G:oup Therapy -~ASSY will offer small group ~ounseling based on th~ indi~idual
needs ofthe chents. Groups tYPIcally run for 6-8 weeks, four times a year, Group tOPICS can
incHlde, but are not limited to: anxiety/depression, grief & loss, anger management, LGBTQ
support, international students new to America, social skills training, coping skills, relation~hip, I
issues (communication), stress management, and substance use/abuse. I
Me~hod #5: Ongoing Individual Therapy Students enter into a 12-week therapy model (dr
longer if necessary). CASSY therapists utilize evidence-based practices to address a variety of
issqes, including Motivational Interviewing, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), and I
Diajlectical Behavior Therapy (DBT). In individual therapy, therapists and students create i
m~t.surable and achievable clinical goals which are linked directly to the student's diagnosfs and
clImcal needs. :
I i
Me~hod #5: Crisis Intervention& Treatment -CASSY therapists will develop individual abd all
school crisis intervention and treatment plans in collaboration with school staff.
12. Population Served:
Total number ofpeople served by this program: 1,050 To~al number ofPalo Alto residents served by this program: 1,050
Total number ofunduplicated Palo Alto residents served: 1,050
Toial number of Palo Alto residents served by the Requested Funding Amount: 100
Jposer's Signature: ~llF-~----~-
3
Attachment E
One-Year
Program Budget
If submitti~g a proposal for multiple programs, please use a separate Budget Form for each rogram.
the table below and round figt..;res to the nearest dollar.
Total Agenc~ Budget: ----'$r..:3'-1-',6=2=8'"'-',8:;..:.7-"'O________
Total Agenci Administrative Costs:_....;:z:$=2=89=.4...!-4..:....:1:-..___
Total Agenc~ Program Costs: $3,339.429
Proposer's Signature: rt:J.;;::-: ~
I -f----,It:7J~')--\--~-IH---f-----
22
Attachment F
Proposed Program Positions/Staffing
comPlek the following pfoposed program position chart.
• ! List each emplQyee and their position for the proposed programs(s) I
• I Indicate the total number hours each position is budgeted for at youragency I
• i Indicate the pe~centlweek each position will dedicate to the proposed program(s)
• Indicate the annual salary that this position is budgeted for at youragency. I
• Indicate the a~ount that will be charged to the City of Palo Alto. i
• . Include an org~nizational chart for the organization and each program that high being
I funded (unless ipositions reflected on agency/organizational chart) I
example is based on a full-time position)
Propos~r's Signature:. I ;-~~--~~r--r+-~~---
1
Attachment C
Proposal Summary
Priority of Needs Category: Mental Health
Name of Program: Grief Support for Our Community
Funding Request: $22,000 per year.
Agency Name: Kara
Address: 457 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Contact Person: Jim Santucci, Title: Executive Director Phone No.: (650) 321-5272 ext. 12, Email Address: jims@kara-grief.org
Clearly and concisely, summarize each section below in no more than three (3) typed
pages.
1.Proposal Summary: The proposed program goals and objectives.
Description of Program Service:
As the only ‘stand-alone’ grief focused agency in the Bay Area, Kara provides crucial grief
support services to vulnerable populations in Palo Alto and beyond. From children and teens, to
those experiencing complicated grief, to the elderly, Kara’s experienced staff and volunteers
provide the support necessary to facilitate healing and resilience-building for individuals, families
and organizations in our community.
Serving our community since 1976, Kara provides comprehensive grief support, crisis
intervention and education to individuals and organizations facing the difficult realities of grief
and loss. Guided by empathy, every day we offer care, compassion, connection and community
to grieving children and adults and provide a space for deep relief in the company of others.
Through a time-tested and highly effective peer based model (adopted from the Shanti Model of
peer support originated by Dr. Charles Garfield), over 150 volunteers guided by our professional
staff, serve and support others on their journey through grief so they can move toward renewed
hope and meaning. Intentionally designed to be accessible, our peer support services are
provided free of charge. Agency funding comes primarily from charitable donations from the
community we serve. Our clients include those who are grieving a death as well as those
managing a terminal illness. While our agency is unique – the only local organization solely
dedicated to providing grief support – our peer based delivery model and the availability of our
services to those in need helps build a more caring and resilient community.
With a steady increase of the need for our services (nearly 80 inquiries our received monthly),
combined with greater public awareness and significant issues around mental health and
wellness, stable funding to complement the current donations from individuals and private
foundations will empower our efforts in compassionately serving those along the difficult
journey of loss and grief. HSRAP funding will ensure that with the increased demand for grief
2
services, the Palo Alto community will continue receiving the grief support and crisis
intervention services it deserves.
List Program Goals: Goal #1: Enable bereaved individuals and families to move through their grief towards renewed
hope and meaning.
Goal #2: Foster a community with the ability to respond to grief, loss and trauma with
compassion and resilience.
Goal #3: Restore the effective and healthy setting and learning environments in schools and
community organizations after trauma or loss.
Program Objectives:
Objective #1: Improve the physical, emotional, and mental health of those in grief and restore
their ability to relate to others.
Objective #2: Prepare community organizations for dealing with future grief or loss events.
Objective #3: Prepare community organizations for dealing with the immediate impact of
their recent grief or loss events. .
Program Methods: Method #1: Provide an array of customized, age-appropriate grief support, including individual
peer counseling and specialized grief support.
Method #2: Provide crisis preparedness, grief education and grief support to community institutions and individuals working in a capacity to support others (teachers, mental health clinicians, first
responders, etc.), as well as support preventative mental health activities in the community through workshops and information sessions.
Method #3: Provide onsite crisis response support in the community immediately following loss and trauma.
2.Population Served:
•The population served by the proposed program: 4,750
•Total Palo Alto population served by this program: 1,750
•Total unduplicated Palo Alto residents served: 1,250
•Total Palo Alto population served by the Requested Funding Amount: 100+
Proposer’s Signature
1
Attachment E
Program Budget
If submitting a proposal for multiple programs, please use a separate Budget Form for
each program.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Note: Complete the table below and round figures to the nearest dollar.
Programs(s)
Funding Sources
Anticipated Program Funding*
Sources for 2018-19
City of Palo Alto 30,000, (includes this request $22K)
Other Cities
County
State
Federal
Foundations 270,000
Fundraising 630,000 (Individuals & events)
In-Kind Contributions 50,000
Fee for Services 150,000
Other (specify)
TOTAL 1,135,000
Total Program*
Expense Budget
Total Program
Expense Budget
Serving Palo Alto
Residents
Total Program
Expense Budget
for Requested
Funding
Salaries 585,000 215,500 22,000
Program Operating Expenses 415,000 152,900
Non-Operating Expenses 134,000 49,400
List Other (if appropriate)
TOTAL 1,134,000 417,800 22,000
*Total Program amounts reflect agency budget
Total Agency Budget: $1,134,000
Total Agency Administrative Costs: $250,000
Total Agency Program Costs: $884,000
Proposer’s Signature : _
Attachment F
Proposed Program Positions/Staffing
Complete the following proposed program position chart.
•List each employee and their position for the proposed program(s).
•Indicate the total number hours each position is budgeted for at your agency.
•Indicate the percent/week each position will dedicate to the proposed program(s).
•Indicate the annual salary that this position is budgeted for at your agency.
•Indicate the amount that will be charged to the City of Palo Alto.
•Include an organizational chart for the organization and each program that is being
funded.
(Note: The example below is based on a full-time position)
Program or Administrative
Position
Total Hours
per Week
Budgeted
for this
Position
% per Week
Allocated to
the
Proposed
Program
Annual Salary
Budgeted for
this Position
Funding
Request
Amount
Shelly Gillan, Director of Programs
& Client Services
40 100% $73,000 $5,000
Jaymie Byron, Director of Community
Outeach & Education Services 40 100% $50,000 $5,000
30 100% $47,000 $4,000
Beth Keller, Director of Youth & Family
Services 30 100% $45,000 $4,000
Marizela Maciel, Client Services &
Operations Manager 40 100% $55,000 $4,000
TOTAL $315,000 $22,000
See next page – ORG CHART
Proposer’s Signature_
Sue Carter, Director of Adult Services
6
Attachment C
Proposal Summary
Agency Name: PARCA
Address: 800 Airport Blvd., #320, Burlingame, CA 94010
Contact Person: Diana Conti _Title: CEO Phone No.: 650-312-
0730
Clearly and concisely summarize each section below in no more than three (3) typed pages. Please
provide numbered pages and use paragraphs to provide your proposal summary. Goals, objectives and
methods listed must be specific and measurable.
1. Proposal Summary: The proposed program goals and objectives.
Description of Program Service:
PARCA’s Page Mill Court, a 24-unit assisted living apartment complex located in Palo Alto, is home to
24 adults with developmental disabilities. Here PARCA provides on-site supervision, independent
living skills training and social and recreational activities to residents. Page Mill Court strengthens and
enriches quality of life for people with developmental disabilities and addresses an unmet community
need. To our knowledge, there is no other such program in Palo Alto. The California Department of
Developmental Services estimates that more than 1,200 Palo Alto residents are affected by one or
more developmental disabilities.
Without Page Mill and the other residential programs provided by PARCA in Redwood City, Belmont
and San Carlos, many Peninsula residents with developmental disabilities would need to be relocated
into more costly and less independent group homes or would continue to live at home with family
members.
List Program Goals:
• Goal #1: Provide affordable apartment units for low-income people with developmental disabilities;
• Goal #2: To train and mentor tenants in critical Independent Living Skills (ILS) instruction to
strengthen tenants’ self- sufficiency skills (budgeting, cooking, cleaning, shopping, job -hunting and
retention, etc.)
Priority of Needs Category: Housing/Mental Health/Special Needs Name of Program: Page Mill Court
Funding Request: $ 13,000 Per Year
7
• Goal #3: Organize socialization programs social and extended recreational network of activities
such as games, movies, art projects, computer skill training, cooking classes, health and
nutrition information and community outings to parks and events, which offer not only a source of
relief, respite and entertainment, but that teach new skills and allow them to practice previously
learned socialization and independent living skills in a real world environment safely; under
professional supervision.
• Goal #4: Provide additional support services, such as family assistance, referral and coordination
with other community services (such as job placement assistance), personal assistance for tenants,
and assessment of eligibility for tenancy at the complex.
Program Objectives:
• Objective #1: Resident clients will become more independent and self-sufficient in performing daily
living tasks;
• Objective #2: Resident clients will develop greater social skills;
• Objective #3: Resident clients will enjoy greater quality of life;
• Objective #4: Resident clients who are capable of seeking regular employment will seek and find
employment and;
• Objective #5: Resident clients who are currently employed will remain successfully employed and
satisfied with their jobs.
Program Methods:
• Method #1: Dedicated PARCA staff and contractors provide supervision, counseling, Independent
Living Skills training, counseling and social recreation planning and coordination on an ongoing
basis which emphasize skill acquisition, community integration, and independence. .
• Method #2: Collaborate with Mid-Peninsula Housing Corporation (MPHSC), which owns the
complex. MPHSC owns and manages the property, while PARCA coordinates the important social
and educational services to tenants. Apartments are offered to eligible tenants at rents based upon
30% of their income, making the units affordable. PARCA and MPHSC employees work together to
screen prospective residents, assess their service needs, and maintain a safe and comfortable
living environment.
• Method #3: PARCA works with other non-profits and agencies such Stanford University’s Best
Buddies program and the Friends of Frances Club, which supply volunteers to help with social and
recreational activities, and has collaborative relationships with dozens of other agencies for a
variety of purposes. These include: Golden Gate Regional Center, Legal Aid, school districts,
Community Gatepath, InnVision, San Mateo County Office of Education, Notre Dame de Namur
Social Justice Center and Disability Rights California.
8
2. Population Served:
Total number of people served by this program: 24
Total number of Palo Alto residents served by this program: 24
Total number of unduplicated Palo Alto residents served: 24
Total number of Palo Alto residents served by the Requested Funding Amount: 24 _
Proposer’s Signature_ _
17
Attachment E
One-Year
Program Budget
If submitting a proposal for multiple programs, please use a separate Budget Form for each program.
Note: Complete the table below and round figures to the nearest dollar.
Program(s) Funding Sources Anticipated Program Funding Sources for 2018-2019
City of Palo Alto $13,000
Other Cities
County
State $56,450
Federal
Foundations $ 8,600
Fundraising
In-Kind Contributions
Fee for Services $ 8,100
Other (specify)
TOTAL $86,150
Total Program
Expense Budget
Total Program
Expense Budget
Serving Palo Alto
Residents
Total Program
Expense Budget for
Requested Funding
Salaries $70,336 same $ 70,336
Program Operating Expenses $17,080 same $ 17,080
Non-Operating Expenses $15,713 same $ 15,713
List Other Expenses (if appropriate) $ 5,010 same $ 5,010
$108,139 same $108,139
Total Agency Budget:$2,828,703____________________________
Total Agency Administrative Costs: $391,988___________________
Total Agency Program Costs: _$1,310,585______________________
Proposer’s Signature:
18
Attachment F
Proposed Program Positions/Staffing
Complete the following proposed program position chart.
• List each employee and their position for the proposed programs(s)
• Indicate the total number hours each position is budgeted for at your agency
• Indicate the percent/week each position will dedicate to the proposed program(s)
• Indicate the annual salary that this position is budgeted for at your agency.
• Indicate the amount that will be charged to the City of Palo Alto.
• Include an organizational chart for the organization and each program that high being
funded (unless positions reflected on agency/organizational chart)
Program or
Administrative Position
Total Hours
per Week
Budgeted for
this Position
% per Week
Allocated to
the Proposed
Program
Annual Salary
Budgeted for
this Position
Funding
Request Amount
Sample: Sam, Director 40 12% $40,000 $4,800
Program Director 40 20% $64,890 0*
Social Recreation Director 40 18% $46,000 0*
ILS Trainer 20 37% $19,900 0*
ILS Trainer 24 45% $20,500 0*
ILS Trainer 6.25 100% $4,500 0*
ILS Trainer 5 100% $3,600 0*
Client Services Specialist 6.5 18% $37,450 0*
TOTAL
(Note: The example is based on a full-time position)
• Funding proposal is for other program expenses as described; staff salaries are paid
from general PARCA operating budget
Proposer’s Signature:
2. Recommendation from Ad hoc Subcommittee for the Human Services Resource Allocation
Process (HSRAP) second funding for FY2018-19
MOTION: Commissioner O’Nan moved, seconded by Commissioner Gordon-Gray to:
1. Approve the following HSRAP funding recommendations for FY2018-19:
a. Counseling and Support Services for Youth - $33,200
b. Community Working Group - $33,200
c. Downtown Streets Team - $33,200
d. DreamCatchers - $10,000
e. Kara - $10,000
f. Momentum for Mental Health - $10,000
g. Parca - $10,959
h. Vista Center - $15,000
MOTION FAILED: 3-3 vote - Chen, O‘Nan, Gordon-Gray - yes, Brahmbhatt absent.
MOTION: Commissioner Lee moved, seconded by Commissioner Alhassani to:
1. Approve the recommendation of the HSRAP Ad hoc Subcommittee for FY2018-19 as
follows:
a. Counseling and Support Services for Youth - $35,000
b. Community Working Group - $30,000
c. Downtown Streets Team - $34,600
d. DreamCatchers - $10,000
e. Kara - $10,000
f. Momentum for Mental Health - $10,000
g. Parca - $10,959
h. Vista Center - $15,000
MOTION FAILED: 3-3 vote – Alhassani, Lee, Stinger - yes, Brahmbhatt absent
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
EXCERPT FROM ACTION MINUTES
OCTOBER 12, 2017
MOTION: Chair Stinger moved, seconded by Commission O‘Nan to:
1. Approve the following HSRAP funding recommendations for FY2018-19:
a. Counseling and Support Services for Youth - $35,000
b. Community Working Group - $30,000
c. Downtown Streets Team - $34,000
d. DreamCatchers - $10,000
e. Kara - $10,000
f. Momentum for Mental Health - $10,000
g. Parca - $10,959
h. Vista Center - $15,000
MOTION PASSED: 4-2 vote – Alhassani, Lee - no, Brahmbhatt absent
FINANCE COMMITTEE
ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 1
Regular Meeting
November 8, 2017
Chairperson Filseth called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. in the
Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Filseth (Chair), Fine; Holman arrived at 7:04 P.M.; Tanaka
Absent:
Oral Communications
None.
Agenda Items
1. Approval of Human Relations Commission Recommendations for
Second Allocation of FY 2018-19 Human Services Resource Allocation
Process (HSRAP) Funding in the Amount of $311,118.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Chair Filseth to
recommend the Council:
A. Approve the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP)
agency funding allocations as recommended by the Human Relations
Commission (HRC); and
B. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute year one
contracts with the organizations recommended by the HRC for not-to-
exceed amounts recommended by the HRC for Fiscal Year 2018, with
an option to renew for one additional year (Fiscal Year 2019). The total
amount of these contracts shall not exceed $155,559 per fiscal year.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Future Meetings and Agendas
The Committee Members and Staff discussed the schedule for upcoming
meetings and agenda items.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:03 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8658)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/4/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Purchase of Radios for Multiple Departments
Title: Approval of the Purchase of Mobile and Portable Radios for the Police,
Fire, Public Works, Utilities and Community Services Departments in an
Amount Not-to-Exceed $800,000
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommended Motion
Staff recommends that Council consider the following motion:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the purchase of
mobile and portable radios and accessories for City Departments in an amount not to
exceed $800,000.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute the purchase of mobile and portable radios and accessories for City Departments in an
amount not to exceed $800,000.
Discussion
The City of Palo Alto (CPA) committed to participation in the Silicon Valley Regional
Communications System (SVRCS) in May 2015 (Attachment B). This 700 MHz radio system will
be utilized by all Santa Clara County Municipal and County agencies, as well as VTA. It will
provide interoperable communications for Police and Fire and enhanced capabilities for Public
Works, Utilities and all other CPA radio users. Palo Alto’s migration to the new system will
occur in 2018.
In anticipation of the move to SVRCS, the Police Department began purchasing multiband
radios for Police and Fire several years ago. These multiband radios allow communication on
multiple frequencies providing interoperability with other public safety agencies that do not
operate in the 700 MHz band. Participation in a regional grant effort reduced the cost of Fire
portables and mobiles by 75 percent. Most public safety personnel and vehicles have been
equipped with multiband radios compatible with the new radio system. There are still a few
public safety personnel and a number of vehicles that will require new radios for the transition.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Public Works, Utilities and other Departments’ radio users will need new radios to operate on
the 700 MHz band. Single band radios will be purchased for these departments as they do not
require interoperable communications capabilities. The SVRCS provides additional talk groups
and functionality that allows Utilities and Public Works to communicate with each other, and
other municipalities, as well as public safety during emergencies. These capabilities are not
available on the legacy conventional system. Single band radios are significantly less expensive
than public safety multiband radios.
Police and Fire need approximately 15 portable and 20 mobile radios to complete the
replacement process. Utilities will need 95 portables and 27 mobiles. Public Works needs 60
portables and 41 mobiles. Community Services and other Departments require approximately
20 portables and 10 mobiles.
Resource Impact
The Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) negotiated favorable pricing on
these radios and accessories. The costs represent a 44 percent discount from Motorola’s retail
pricing (see Attachment A). The Police Department has negotiated similar pricing for the Harris
radios. Municipal Code PAMC 2.30.360(k) authorizes a purchase utilizing another agency’s
competitive bid process.
Council allocated necessary funding for SVRCS participation and the necessary radios purchases
in May 2015 as part of the approval of CMR ID# 5811 in May 2015 (Attachment B). Accordingly,
the purchase of City of Palo Alto radios will be funded from the Radio Infrastructure CIP (TE-
05000-080) as planned.
SVRIA will begin assessing a subscriber-based fee for operating radios on the regional system
beginning in fiscal 2019. Each department will be responsible for allocating funds for the radios
they have registered on the SVRCS system. The anticipated monthly cost is $35-$40 per radio.
There may be some offset for public safety due to reduced maintenance costs for the legacy
system. These factors will be incorporated into the development of the Fiscal Year 2019
Operating Budget and discussed through the budget process.
Policy Implications
Expenditure of funds is consistent with City policy.
Environmental Review
The equipment being supplied is in conformance with all applicable emissions laws and
regulations.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Motorola Quotes
Attachment B - ID# 5811
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5811)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/22/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: SVRIA MOU
Title: Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding With the Silicon Valley
Regional Interoperability Authority for Participation in the Regional Radio
System, and the Associated Budget Amendment Ordinance for $1 Million
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the
attached agreement which will allow the City of Palo Alto to enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding with all the Joint Powers Authority members in the Silicon Valley Regional
Interoperability Authority whereby the City will participate in a regional radio system. In
addition, staff recommends approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance to transfer $1.0
million from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve to the CIP Project TE-05000 – Radio
Infrastructure Replacement in the Capital Improvement Fund.
Analysis
The City of Palo Alto has been participating in a multi-year project with all the Joint Powers
Authority members in the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) to fund and
construct a county-wide radio communications system that will permit all public safety officers
across Santa Clara County to communicate with one another. Palo Alto and other municipalities
will also use the system for local government radio communication (Public Works, Utilities, etc.)
This effort has culminated in the preparation of the attached Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) incorporating the terms required for the funding and construction of the Silicon Valley
Regional Communications System (Attachment A). The document is based upon a County of
Santa Clara MOU and one entered into by a similar JPA in Alameda County.
The MOU has been approved by the Working Group of the SVRIA consisting of Gilroy Police
Chief Denise Turner, County Communications Director Bert Hildebrand, Morgan Hill City
Manager Steve Rymer, Mountain View City Manager Dan Rich, Palo Alto Police Technical
Services Director Charlie Cullen, City of Santa Clara Fire Chief Bill, City of San Jose OES Director
Ryan Broughton, Santa Clara County Deputy County Executive James Williams, City of San Jose
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Deputy Police Chief Jeff Marozick, Sunnyvale DPS Battalion Chief Jeff Hunter, and Los Altos
Communications Manager Elizabeth Vargas.
The MOU provides for joint funding for implementing interoperability countywide, and SVRIA
selected Motorola to build the radio system after a competitive RFP process. It also provides
that SVRIA agrees to hire contractors, the County of Santa Clara, City of San Jose and/or other
contractors to operate and maintain the System. The City of Palo Alto agrees to purchase the
components it uses with the Silicon Valley Regional Communications System (SVRCS) service
from or with the cooperation of SVRIA.
Palo Alto anticipates migrating all of its departments and radio users to the new system within
two years. A Palo Alto radio site was financed by phase one project funding, and has been
installed at City Hall. The system will provide improved radio coverage, additional talk groups
and true radio interoperability throughout Santa Clara County and ultimately the Bay Area.
The License and Asset Transfer Agreement which governs the SVRIA’s installation of certain
equipment can be found in Attachment B. Many of the SVRIA facilities were grant funded
through the City of San Jose or the County of Santa Clara. San Jose is completing an asset
transfer of these sites from San Jose to SVRIA. This will allow SVRIA to separately insure each
site. Currently all these sites are owned or licensed by San Jose. The City of San Jose is
requiring each City who has a site to assign San Jose's rights to SVRIA to complete the transfer.
Also attached is Attachment C, which provides information on participant cost by jurisdiction.
Resource Impact
The MOU obligates the City to participate in the regional radio system and as a result there are
three associated cost impacts, infrastructure costs (noted in Attachment C), ongoing
maintenance costs (noted in Attachment C) and the costs for radio subscriber units and radio
consoles for public safety, public works, utilities and other City users. The costs owed to SVRIA
for infrastructure build out and ongoing maintenance are identified in the MOU. The costs for
radios and consoles are based on Palo Alto’s goal to migrate all of its departments and radio
users to the new system within two years. The funding for infrastructure and radios and
consoles will be budgeted in the Radio Infrastructure Replacement project (TE-05000), and in
accordance with the Palo Alto - Stanford Emergency Communications Agreement, it is expected
that Stanford will reimburse the City for a portion of the public-safety related costs associated
with this project.
Over the next three years, as the system is built out, it is anticipated that the City's share of the
total project will be $4.0 million, representing a reduction of $0.2 million from the amount
previously estimated and described in the 2016 Proposed Capital Budget. Of the total cost of
$4.0 million, it is estimated that the General Fund is responsible for approximately $3.0 million,
with the Utilities Department responsible for the remaining $1.0 million.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Investment Type
General
Fund
Enterprise
Funds Total Cost
Infrastructure $1,370,000 $560,000 $1,930,000
Radios and Consoles $1,640,000 $440,000 $2,080,000
Total Anticipated Project Cost $3,010,000 $1,000,000 $4,010,000
Available Funding (TE-05000) $800,000 $500,000 $1,300,000
June 22, 2015 Budget Amendment Ordinance $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Total Available Funding (if recommendation is
approved) $1,800,000 $500,000 $2,300,000
Amount to be funded in Future Years $1,210,000 $500,000 $1,710,000
As discussed in the Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Capital Budget, a recommendation to carry over
existing funding in Fiscal Year 2015 from the Radio Infrastructure Replacement Project to Fiscal
Year 2016 ($1.3 million) is proposed to fund a portion of the infrastructure and radio
replacement costs. This funding, when combined with the recommended $1.0 million transfer
from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve Budget Amendment Ordinance as part of
this memorandum, results in a projected General Fund project shortfall of $1.2 million that will
be funded in future years as the costs associated with this project are refined. The $0.5 million
recommended to be carried over from the Utility Funds will leave an unfunded amount of $0.5
million. As with the General Fund, the remaining share will be funded in future years as the
costs associated with this project are further refined.
Annual maintenance costs are anticipated to begin in Fiscal Year 2019 and cost approximately
$0.3 million per year. Maintenance costs are not included in the CIP and will instead be
budgeted in each department’s operating budget based on the percentage of system usage.
Policy Impact
The agreement will further the City’s policies of having updated infrastructure and technology
and cooperation with regional partners on public safety matters.
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A - SVRIA Memorandum of Understanding (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B - SVRIA License Agreement (PDF)
ATTACHMENT C - Cost Per Agency Breakdown (PDF)
ATTACHMENT D - DRAFT Ordinance Radio Infrastructure Repalcement Project (PDF)
Page 1 of 19
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
BETWEEN THE SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY
AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made and entered into this ___ day of
_____________ , 2015, by and between the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability
Authority, a California Joint Powers Authority ("SVRIA”), and the City of Palo Alto, a
municipal corporation of the State of California (“AGENCY”) (together “Parties”).
WHEREAS, in 2001, the Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas,
Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, San Jose,
Saratoga, and Sunnyvale; the Towns of Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills; the South Santa
Clara County Fire District; the County of Santa Clara; San Jose State University; and
the Santa Clara Valley Water District executed a Joint Funding Agreement (“Joint
Funding Agreement”) pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Title 1, Division 7,
Chapter 5 of the California Government Code, Government Code Section 6500 et seq.,
to jointly hire consultants to complete the conceptual design and implementation
strategy for a regional interoperable communications network, to jointly purchase a
radio and data communications system, to integrate this system or network with other
nearby regional public safety communications systems, to participate in regional
interoperability systems, to jointly fund activities and systems related to interoperability
and to jointly apply for grants and funding to facilitate accomplishing these goals;
WHEREAS, in 2010, the Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas,
Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, San Jose,
Saratoga, and Sunnyvale; the Town of Los Gatos and the County of Santa Clara
(collectively “MEMBERS”) entered into a joint powers agreement (“JPA Agreement”) to
form the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (“SVRIA”), with similar goals
and purpose as commenced under the Joint Funding Agreement;
WHEREAS, paying entities, which are not MEMBERS of SVRIA (“PARTICPANTS”) will
execute this MOU;
WHEREAS, SVRIA continues to plan and develop a regional communications
interoperability system that will require the financial commitment of SVRIA MEMBERS
and PARTICIPANTS by and through this MOU to fund the construction, operation and
maintenance of such system;
WHEREAS, grant and local funds have been provided to SVRIA directly or through
MEMBERS to improve interoperability through the multi-stage build out of a three cell,
multi-site P25 Phase 2 TDMA 700 MHz Trunked Radio Simulcast Communications
System, to be known as the Silicon Valley Regional Communications System ("SVRCS");
Page 2 of 19
WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara (“County”) is the Fiscal Agent and the Contract
Manager for SVRIA and the SVRCS build-out (“System”);
WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the construction of the SVRCS, the Parties wish to affirm
their continued financial support for a regional interoperable communication system as
agreed in this MOU;
WHEREAS, AGENCY and SVRIA enter into this MOU under which the SVRIA will own
and operate the System for the benefit of AGENCY and other MEMBERS and
PARTICIPANTS, which other MEMBERS and PARTICIPANTS will execute Memoranda
of Understanding similar to this one (collectively, the "MOU’s"). MEMBERS and
PARTICIPANTS will pay, a portion of the cost of the System, consisting of a buy-in cost
based on the number of radios committed for use on the System (the "Construction and
Implementation Payments"), and the cost of annual operation (the "Operation and
Maintenance Payments''), (all Payments are referred to herein collectively as the
"AGENCY Payments'');
WHEREAS, this MOU is intended to establish a means of requiring the MEMBERS’
Payments and PARTICIPANTS’ payments ensuring the sound operation and financing
of the System, and is not in itself an approval of the System or the grant of any land use
entitlement potentially required to develop the System; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that users of the SVRCS will include entities that enter into
a memorandum of understanding similar to this MOU, after the SVRCS is fully
functional. (“FUTURE PARTICIPANTS”).
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows.
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS
AGENCY: The AGENCY entering into this MOU.
Construction: The complete planning, design, construction, acquisition, financing,
improvement, repair, modification and installation of the SVRCS .
Construction and Implementation Payments: Payments made under this MOU for
the purpose of building the SVRCS.
County: The County of Santa Clara.
FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 1: Entities who enter into a MOU and make their payment
after June 30, 2016, but on or before July 1, 2017.
FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 2: Entities who enter into this MOU after July 1, 2017.
Page 3 of 19
Joint Funding Agreement: Joint Funding Agreement is the agreement entered into by
the predecessors to SVRIA in 2001 for the purposes of funding and implementing
interoperability countywide.
JPA Agreement: The original agreement entered into by Members of the SVRIA in
order to form the JPA.
Operations and Maintenance Payments: Payments made based upon this MOU for
the ongoing operations and maintenance of the SVRCS.
MEMBERS: The members of the SVRIA under the Joint Powers Agreement.
MOU: This Memorandum of Understanding.
PARTICIPANTS: Parties to a memorandum of understanding similar to this MOU that
are not members of SVRIA and enter into a MOU on or before June 30, 2016. .
SVRCS or System: The three cell, multi-site System P25 Phase 2 TDMA 700 MHz
Trunked Radio Simulcast Communications System, to be known as the Silicon Valley
Regional Communications System. This includes the entire build out interoperable
communications system envisioned by SVRIA.
SVRIA: The Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority, formed in 2010 for the
purposes of funding and implementing interoperability countywide and as a successor
entity to the entity created under the Joint Funding Agreement.
Termination Date: December 31, 2029, unless earlier terminated by the Parties.
User Count: Radio Subscriber count as provided by the Members or Participants as of
April 13, 2015 and reflected in Exhibit “A”.
The purposes of this MOU are to:
2.1 Require payment by the AGENCY for its share of the regional SVRCS costs; and
2.2 Set forth the MEMBERS, PARTICIPANTS and the SVRIA's responsibilities for
completion of the SVRCS build out.
2.3 Set forth SVRIA’s obligations to maintain and operate the SVRCS.
SECTION 3. OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM
3.1 SVRIA has entered or will enter into purchase orders and contracts to supervise and
Page 4 of 19
provide for, or cause to be supervised and provided for, the complete planning, design,
construction, acquisition, financing, improvement, repair, modification and installation of
the SVRCS (collectively, "Construction"). SVRIA will cause the Construction to be
diligently performed in accordance with the specifications approved by the SVRIA.
3.2 SVRIA shall operate the System in conjunction with the MEMBERS for the duration of
this MOU.
3.3 AGENCY shall have the right to use the System during the term of the MOU, unless
AGENCY is in default on AGENCY Payments required hereunder after the applicable cure
period set forth in Section 20.
3.4 The SVRCS shall only be used for public safety communications and other
governmental uses for the MEMBERS’ and PARTICIPANTS’ benefit and convenience.
SVRIA agrees to maintain and preserve the System in good repair and working order at all
times, to operate the System in an efficient and economical manner, and to pay all the
System’s maintenance and operation costs as they become due. AGENCY
acknowledges that SVRIA has complete ownership and the sole discretion to operate,
control and manage the System. Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to limit SVRIA's
discretion in the System’s operation, control and management.
3.5 SVRIA agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to hire the County of Santa
Clara, City of San Jose and/or other contractors to operate and maintain the System.
3.6 AGENCY agrees to purchase the components it uses with the SVRCS service from or
with the cooperation of SVRIA. AGENCY shall not use any components with the SVRCS
service which SVRIA has not authorized for its use. AGENCY shall not use the SVRCS in
any manner which may adversely affect the service provided by the System.
3.7 SVRIA shall attempt to obtain the land use permits, if any, that are required for
Construction. In the event a particular permit cannot be reasonably obtained for a
particular site, SVRIA will seek one or more reasonable alternate sites.
SECTION 4. MODIFICATION OF SYSTEM
SVRIA shall have the right to make additions, modifications and improvements to the
System or any portion thereof. All additions, modifications and improvements to the
System shall thereafter comprise part of the System and become subject to the MOU’s
provisions. Such additions, modifications and improvements shall not in any way damage
the System, or cause the System to be used for purposes other than those authorized
under the MOU’s provisions, state and federal law. The System, upon completion of any
additions, modifications and improvements made thereto pursuant to this Section, shall be
of a value which is not substantially less than the value thereof immediately prior to the
making of such additions, modifications and improvements.
Page 5 of 19
5.1 AGENCY shall make Construction and Implementation Payments on the dates in
Section 22.1 and in the amounts shown in Exhibit “A”. AGENCY shall make annual
Operations and Maintenance Payments on the dates and in the amounts as calculated
by the formula listed in Exhibit “B” or the amounts listed in Exhibit “B
5.2 AGENCY provided User Counts are contained in Exhibit “A”. Agencies may
increase its User Count after entering into this MOU by the payment of user charge
based upon the following formula: Total User Count as shown on Exhibit “A” divided by
the total Infrastructure Cost = New User Count Charge. Effective January 1, 2016 and
each year thereafter the New User Count Charge shall be increased by an amount
equivalent to the then-current User Count Charge multiplied by the percentage increase
in the Consumer Price Index – Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CPI)
covering San Francisco - Oakland - San Jose, as published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, between the most recent October and the
preceding October. The increase in New User Charge shall be compounded. Agency
Operations and Maintenance Costs shall be increased commensurate with the increase
in User Counts. Should the Agency User Count decrease in any year Operations and
Maintenance Payments will not be reduced except as described in Section 24.
6.1 PARTICIPANTS as listed in Exhibit “A” shall pay their pro rata share of the System
costs in a timely fashion at the same time MEMBERS make their Payments on or
before September 30, 2015. PARTICIPANTS, not listed in Exhibit “A” and join on or
before June 30, 2016 shall pay their pro rata share at the time of execution.
6.2 FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 1 who enter into a MOU after June 30, 2016, but on or
before July 1, 2017 shall make a special Construction and Implementation Payment to
cover previously expended costs by MEMBERS and PARTICIPANTS as well as
periodic payments at the times required of other MEMBERS and PARTICIPANTS
during the term of this MOU. These special Construction and Implementation payments
shall be utilized in part to recalculate payments for Construction and Implementation
payments for all MEMBERS, PARTICIPANTS and FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 1 and for
additional capacity or system enhancements or held in reserve for the same purpose.
6.3 FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 2 who enter into a MOU after July 1, 2017 shall make a
special Construction and Implementation Payment as well as periodic payments at the
times required of other MEMBERS and PARTICIPANTS and FUTURE PARTICIPANTS
1 during the term of this MOU. These special Construction and Implementation
payments shall be utilized in part to recalculate Operations and Maintenance payments
for all MEMBERS, PARTICIPANTS and FUTURE PARTICPANTS 1 and FUTURE
PARTICIPANTS 2 and for additional capacity or system enhancements or held in
reserve for the same purpose.
Page 6 of 19
7.1 AGENCY shall make the AGENCY Payments from any source of legally available
AGENCY funds. AGENCY agrees to include all AGENCY Payments in each proposed
annual AGENCY budget during the term of this MOU. AGENCY shall make the
necessary annual appropriations for Construction and Implementation payments in FY
2015 – 2016, 2016 – 2017 and 2017 – 2018. AGENCY Payments may be made at any
time prior to the deadline for such Payment; there are no prepayment penalties under
this MOU.
7.2 Notwithstanding paragraph 7.1, in accordance with Article XVI, Section 18 of the
California Constitution, if in any fiscal year subsequent to the execution of this MOU the
AGENCY fails to appropriate money for the purpose of funding this MOU, this MOU
shall terminate, without penalty effective upon the close of business on the last day of
the fiscal year for which funding has been appropriated.
SECTION 8. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS
In addition the Payments required in this MOU, AGENCY shall continue to make
MEMBER Assessment payments as required under the JPA Agreement through the
end of fiscal year 2017 – 2018.At the start of fiscal year 2018 – 2019, AGENCY shall
begin to make Operation and Maintenance Payments as listed in Exhibit “B”, in lieu of
Member Assessments so long as the SVRCS is operating.
In the event that grant funding can be utilized to reduce the overall System costs, the
cost reduction will be apportioned to the SVRCS on behalf of all MEMBERS and
PARTICIPANTS in a pro rata fashion for the benefit of the System.
SECTION 10. CONSTRUCTION BUDGET CONTINGENCY
SVRIA has established a 20% construction budget contingency within the System
budget. SVRIA shall use these funds for the SVRCS, if unexpected construction costs
or increased costs occur. If at the conclusion of System Construction, contingency
funds remain, such funds shall be transferred to SVRIA for use as a reserve for
Operations and Maintenance costs.
SVRIA agrees that it will deposit the AGENCY Payments with the SVRIA’s fiscal agent,
the County, for the benefit of the SVRCS.
Time is of the essence with respect to the AGENCY Payments and the performance of
SVRIA under this MOU. AGENCY shall observe and perform all the agreements,
Page 7 of 19
conditions, covenants and terms contained herein. SVRIA shall observe and perform
all the agreements, conditions, covenants and terms contained herein. It is expressly
understood and agreed by the Parties that each of the agreements, conditions,
covenants and terms contained herein is an essential and material term of the MOU
and the operation of the System by SVRIA.
SECTION 13. ACCESS TO SYSTEM
Upon reasonable notice to SVRIA, AGENCY or its authorized representative shall have
the right at all reasonable times to enter, examine and inspect the System or any part
thereof. AGENCY, any Authorized Representative of AGENCY and AGENCY’s
successors or assigns shall further have such rights of access to the System or any
component thereof as may be reasonably necessary to cause the proper maintenance
of the System in the event of failure by the SVRIA to perform its obligations hereunder;
provided, however, that neither AGENCY nor any of their assigns shall have any
obligation to cause such proper maintenance.
SECTION 14. INSURANCE
14.1 SVRIA shall procure and maintain, or cause to be procured and maintained,
throughout the term of this MOU, casualty insurance against loss or damage to the
System. This insurance shall, as nearly as practicable, cover loss or damage that is
normally covered by such insurance with extended coverage. This insurance shall not
be required to cover loss or damage caused by seismic activity. This insurance shall be
subject to deductibles as are customarily maintained by public agencies with respect to
works and properties of a like character. The insurance may be maintained as part of or
in conjunction with any other insurance coverage carried by SVRIA, and may be
maintained in whole or in part in the form of the participation by SVRIA in a joint powers
authority or other program providing pooled insurance. MEMBERS, PARTICIPANTS,
FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 1 and FUTURE PARTICIPANTS 2 as each approves the
MOU and makes their payment shall be named as additional insured on SVRIA’s
liability coverage insurance.
14.2 SVRIA shall maintain or cause to be maintained throughout the MOU’s term, a
standard comprehensive general insurance policy or policies whose minimums are at
least one million ($1,000,000) dollars per occurrence to protect SVRIA, AGENCY, and
their respective members, officers, agents, employees, designated volunteers and
assigns. The policy or policies shall provide for indemnification of said Parties against
direct or contingent loss or liability for damages for bodily and personal injury, death or
property damage occasioned by reason of operating the System as required by the JPA
Agreement. Such policy or policies shall provide coverage in such liability limits and be
subject to such deductibles as SVRIA shall deem adequate and prudent. This
insurance may be maintained as part of or in conjunction with any other insurance
coverage carried by SVRIA. Any available insurance proceeds broader than or in
excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits set
forth in this Agreement shall be deemed to be the minimum amount of insurance
required under this Agreement and shall be available to the Parties.
Page 8 of 19
14.3 Insurance required to be maintained by subparagraphs 14.1 or 14.2 above, may be
obtained under a self-insurance program. SVRIA’s coverage shall be primary insurance
with respect to the Agency; and Agency’s insurance shall be excess of SVRIA's
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
14.4 INSURANCE: AGENCY shall, at its own expense maintain in effect, a program of
self-insurance and/or insurance of general liability coverage, including automobile
liability, in the amount of at least one million ($1,000,000) dollars per occurrence and in
the aggregate as well as statutory California Workers’ Compensation coverage. The
coverage shall remain in effect during the entire term of this MOU. AGENCY shall
provide evidence upon the request of SVRIA that the required insurance coverage is in
effect.
14.5 SVRIA shall require that errors and omissions insurance in the amount of at least
one million ($1,000,000) dollars per claim for any architects or engineers retained for
the design and construction of the system.
SECTION 15. BOOKS AND ACCOUNTS
15.1 SVRIA will keep complete and accurate financial records for the System. SVRIA
shall keep such records separate from all other SVRIA financial records. Upon
reasonable notice to SVRIA, AGENCY may inspect the SVRIA’s System financial
records.
15.2 Not more than two hundred and ten (210) days after the close of each fiscal year,
SVRIA will prepare:
15.2.1 System financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.
15.2.2 An Accountant's Report based thereon, prepared by an Independent Certified
Public Accountant who examined such financial statements.
15.2.3 A summary statement of the System’s financial condition. SVRIA shall furnish a
copy of the summary statement to AGENCY.
15.3 Not more than two hundred and ten (210) days after the completion of all work
associated with SVRCS Construction, the SVRIA shall prepare and submit a final report
to AGENCY disclosing SVRIA’s disbursements of the funds provided by all MEMBERS,
PARTICIPANTS and FUTURE PARTICIPANTS.
SECTION 16. PAYMENT OF TAXES AND COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL
REGULATIONS
SVRIA will pay and discharge all taxes, assessments and other governmental charges,
if any, which may hereafter be lawfully imposed upon the System when due. SVRIA will
conform to the valid requirements of any governmental agency with authority relative to
the Construction or the System. Without limiting the foregoing, SVRIA shall comply with
Page 9 of 19
all applicable laws and written policies and regulations of the federal, state and local
governments in the construction and operation of the SVRCS and the performance of
SVRIA under this MOU.
SECTION 17. FURTHER ASSURANCES
SVRIA and AGENCY will each adopt, deliver, execute and make any and all further
assurances, instruments and resolutions as may be reasonably necessary or proper to
carry out the intention or to facilitate the Parties’ performance of this MOU.
SECTION 18. SVRIA REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
SVRIA represents and warrants to AGENCY as follows:
18.1 Due Organization and Existence. SVRIA is a joint exercise of powers authority
duly organized and validly existing under the JPA Agreement and the laws of the State
of California. SVRIA has the full legal right, power and authority under the laws of the
State of California to enter into this MOU and to carry out all of its obligations herein.
18.2 Due Execution. SVRIA’s representatives, who sign this MOU, are authorized to
sign pursuant to a resolution adopted by the SVRIA’s Board of Directors.
18.3 Valid, Binding and Enforceable Obligations. This MOU has been authorized and
executed by SVRIA and constitutes the legal, valid and binding agreement of SVRIA,
enforceable against SVRIA in accordance with its terms.
SECTION 19. AGENCY REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
AGENCY represents covenants and warrants to SVRIA as follows:
19.1 Due Organization and Existence. AGENCY is a public body, corporate and politic,
duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California. It has full
legal right, power and authority to enter into this MOU and to carry out all of its
obligations herein.
19.2 Due Execution. AGENCY’s representatives, who sign this MOU, are authorized to
sign pursuant to an official action taken by AGENCY’s governing body.
19.3 Valid, Binding and Enforceable Obligation. This MOU has been authorized and
executed by AGENCY and constitutes the legal, valid and binding agreement of
AGENCY, enforceable against AGENCY in accordance with its terms.
SECTION 20. EVENTS OF DEFAULT
The following events are Events of Default hereunder:
20.1 Failure by AGENCY to abide by or perform any of its obligations in this MOU within
the thirty (30) day period from the date of AGENCY’s receipt of SVRIA’s written notice
Page 10 of 19
specifying such failure and requesting that it be remedied. Such failure shall not
constitute an Event of Default if AGENCY diligently and in good faith, commences to
cure the failure within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter completes the cure of
such failure within a reasonable period of time. If AGENCY does not complete the cure
of the Event of Default in a reasonable time or fails to diligently attempt such cure,
SVRIA may terminate this MOU.
20.2 Failure by SVRIA to abide by or perform any of its obligations in this MOU within
the thirty (30) day period from the date of SVRIA’s receipt of AGENCY’s written notice
specifying such failure and requesting that it be remedied. Such failure shall not
constitute an Event of Default if SVRIA diligently and in good faith, commences to cure
the failure within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter completes the cure of such
failure within a reasonable period of time. If SVRIA does not complete the cure of the
Event of Default in a reasonable time or fails to diligently attempt such cure, AGENCY
may terminate this MOU.
20.3 AGENCY files a petition seeking arrangement or reorganization under federal
bankruptcy laws or similar state law, or if a court of competent jurisdiction shall approve
a petition filed against AGENCY seeking arrangement or reorganization under the
federal bankruptcy laws or similar state law, or if under the provisions of any other law
for the relief or aid of debtors any court of competent jurisdiction shall assume custody
or control of such AGENCY or of the whole or a substantial part of its property.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, such filing shall not constitute an Event of Default if
AGENCY continues to pay its AGENCY Payments on time.
20.4 SVRIA files a petition seeking arrangement or reorganization under federal
bankruptcy laws or similar state law, or if a court of competent jurisdiction shall approve
a petition filed against SVRIA seeking arrangement or reorganization under the federal
bankruptcy laws or similar state law, or if under the provisions of any other law for the
relief or aid of debtors any court of competent jurisdiction shall assume custody or
control of SVRIA.
SECTION 21. REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE
No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved in this MOU is exclusive of any other
remedy, and each such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every
other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing in law or in equity or by
statute or otherwise, and all such remedies may be exercised without exhausting and
without regard to any other remedy.
SECTION 22. AGENCY’S OBLIGATIONS
22.1 AGENCY’s Payment. AGENCY shall pay to the SVRIA money in the amount stated
on the SVRIA invoice in an approximate amount as specified in Exhibit “A” to the SVRIA to
fully offset the AGENCY’s portion of the regional SVRCS cost. Payments shall commence
in fiscal year 2015 – 2016 unless otherwise designated in Exhibit “A”. These payments
shall be made by September 30, 2015 and by each succeeding September 30 and shall
Page 11 of 19
last for a minimum of three fiscal years as delineated in Exhibit A. Operation and
Maintenance Payments, as shown in Exhibit “B”, shall commence on September 30, 2018
and continue throughout the term of the MOU. AGENCY shall make these payments on
or before September 30 of each successive fiscal year. Operations and Maintenance
costs for future years may increase, but such increase will be limited to actual costs and
reserve requirements.
22.2 AGENCY’s Role in SVRCS. During the Construction and Operation of the SVRCS:
22.2.1 AGENCY shall provide technical support including testing during the System
Construction and delivery.
22.2.2 AGENCY shall participate in System meetings with SVRIA and its contractor(s).
22.2.3. AGENCY shall coordinate with SVRIA for the System upgrade and maintenance
work at all AGENCY facilities.
22.2.4 AGENCY shall assist SVRIA with the final acceptance of the SVRCS by testing
System performance, evaluating workmanship and verifying installed equipment
inventories.
22.2.5 AGENCY's costs to administer and participate in usage of the SVRCS will not be
reimbursed through the SVRCS grant funds, the JPA Agreement or by SVRIA.
In consideration of AGENCY’s Payment, SVRIA shall fulfill the obligations listed
below:
23.1 Tasks. SVRIA shall perform and be responsible for the following tasks for
completing the SVRCS , including, but not limited to:
23.2.1 Serve as System Manager for the SVRCS, or retain a qualified contractor(s) to serve
as System Manager for the SVRCS,
23.2.2 Fulfill CEQA requirements, if any.
23.2.3 Implement Construction in accordance with UASI and SHSGP Grant guidelines.
24.1 This MOU commences upon the full execution of the MOU ("Effective Date") and
shall expire on December 31, 2029. The MOU shall be automatically extended for two
(2) additional three-year periods. One year prior to each expiration date, SVRIA shall
inform each Member or Participant of the approaching automatic extension of the term
of the MOU. Any Member or Participant may notify the SVRIA in writing within one
Page 12 of 19
hundred and eighty (180) days of such notice, that it does not agree to the extension of
the term of the MOU. The Operations and Maintenance payments for the remaining
MEMBERS or PARTICIPANTS shall be adjusted based upon actual User Count as of
June 30 of the year in which the MOU terminates starting in, 2029, and at the expiration
of the first three year extension period. All financial commitments of AGENCY for
Payments while AGENCY is a MEMBER and/or while this MOU applies to AGENCY
shall extend past the termination date unless the commitments have been satisfied prior
to that date.
24.2 This MOU shall not commence unless and until the City of San Jose and the
County of Santa Clara have approved this MOU and budgeted funding for the first year
of the MOU. If the any Member or Participant terminates this MOU then the SVRIA
shall meet and confer in good faith concerning the continued operation of SVRCS and
possible amendment to this Agreement.
County, as Fiscal Agent for the UASI and SHSGP Grants, shall own, maintain, insure, and
manage all infrastructure equipment and upgrades installed as part of the SVRCS upon
the System’s final acceptance by the County, until such time as SVRIA assumes
ownership, maintenance, insurance, and management responsibilities. If the SVRIA
purchases dispatch consoles, subscriber radios and other related equipment and/or
accessories on AGENCY’s behalf, such equipment shall be transferred from the SVRIA
to AGENCY following SVRIA’s receipt of AGENCY’s full reimbursement of costs.
SECTION 26. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
Each Party shall perform the work and services described herein as an independent
contractor and not as an officer, agent, servant or employee of the other Party. None of
the MOU’s provisions are intended to create, nor shall be deemed or construed to
create, any relationship between the Parties other than that of independent parties
contracting with each other for purpose of effecting the MOU’s provisions. The Parties
are not, and will not be construed to be in a relationship of joint venture, partnership or
employer-employee. Neither Party has the authority to make any statements,
representations or commitments of any kind on behalf of the other Party, or to use the
name of the other Party in any publications or advertisements, except with the written
consent of the other Party.
SECTION 27. MODIFICATION
The Parties may modify this MOU only through a written document, signed by both Parties.
The MOU’s provisions are severable, and if for any reason, a Court with proper jurisdiction
determines a clause, sentence, or paragraph of this MOU to be invalid such invalidity shall
Page 13 of 19
not affect other provisions of this MOU, which shall be given effect without the invalid
provision.
29.1 This MOU may be terminated upon six months written notice to SVRIA. Should
AGENCY terminate this Agreement AGENCY shall have no interest or claim in the
assets of the SVRIA absent an SVRIA approved written agreement which contains
express provisions to the contrary. The terminating AGENCY shall be obligated to pay
a pro rata share of its payments up to the date of termination.
29.2 If the Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 29.1 or Section 7.2 then SVRIA
may remove any SVRCS equipment and relocate the equipment to support the balance
of the system. Should the equipment need to be removed or relocated after termination
the costs of relocation or removal shall be borne by the terminating party.
29.3 Nothing contained in this MOU or the JPA Agreement requires that AGENCY
remain as a MEMBER, however the JPA Agreement does contain terms for withdrawal
from the JPA.
30.1 After the MOU’s termination or expiration, those provisions which by their nature or
context are intended to survive beyond termination or expiration, and all provisions
regarding indemnification and limitations of liability, will survive indefinitely or until the
expiration of the time period specified elsewhere in this MOU with respect to the provision
in question.
30.2 Upon the MOU’s termination or expiration, as between the Parties, the SVRIA retains
all right, title and interest in and to the SVRCS.
This MOU shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of the
Parties. With the exception of asset transfer to SVRIA, and if applicable, AGENCY as
detailed herein, no Party may assign any rights or obligations hereunder without the
written consent of the other Party, except as provided herein.
No waiver by either Party of any breach or default of any of the covenants or agreements
herein shall be deemed to be a waiver as to any subsequent and/or similar breach or
default.
Page 14 of 19
33.1 SVRIA agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the AGENCY, its officers,
agents and employees to the fullest extent allowed by law from any and all claims,
actions, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities and costs of every nature,
including all claims, actions, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities for property
damage, bodily injury, or death, and all costs of defending any claim, action or cause of
action, caused by, arising out of, or resulting from, or alleged to have been caused by,
arise out of, or result from, in whole or in part, SVRIA’s performance under this
Agreement, except for any claims, actions, causes of action, losses, damages, costs or
liabilities proximately caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of AGENCY.
33.2 The foregoing indemnity provision is intended to fully allocate the parties’ risk of
liability to third-parties; and there shall be no rights to indemnity or contribution, in law or
equity or otherwise between the parties that are not set forth in this section. SVRIA
waives all rights to subrogation for any matters covered by this provision. SVRIA's
responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations as set forth in this provision
shall survive the termination or completion of this MOU for the full period of time allowed
by law.
"Force Majeure Event" means any circumstances or occurrence which is beyond the
reasonable control of a Party including, but not limited to, acts of God, war or national
emergency, riot, civil commotion, fire, explosion, flood, epidemic, strike, lock-out or other
form of industrial action (other than those relating solely to any Party’s own workforce). If
a Force Majeure Event affects either Party, that Party shall promptly notify the other Party
of the nature and extent of the Event. No Party shall be liable for any loss or damage
suffered or incurred by the other Party arising from the first Party’s delay in performing or
failure to perform its obligations under the MOU to the extent that and for so long as the
delay or failure results from any Force Majeure Event, provided the same arises without
the fault or negligence of the first Party. Each Party shall use its commercially
reasonable efforts to minimize the effects of any Force Majeure Event on the operation of
this MOU and the System.
SECTION 35. SUCCESSOR IS DEEMED INCLUDED IN ALL REFERENCES TO
PREDECESSOR
Whenever SVRIA or AGENCY is named or referred to herein, such reference shall be
deemed to include the successor to the powers, duties and functions that are presently
vested in SVRIA or AGENCY, and all agreements and covenants required hereby to be
performed by or on behalf of SVRIA or AGENCY shall bind and inure to the benefit of
the respective successors thereof whether so expressed or not; provided; however, that
SVRIA shall not provide service from the System to any successor to AGENCY until
such successor accepts in writing, AGENCY’s obligations.
Page 15 of 19
SECTION 36. WAIVER OF PERSONAL LIABILITY
No board member, officer, attorney or employee of AGENCY or SVRIA shall be
individually or personally liable under the MOU.
SECTION 37. NOTICES
37.1 All deliveries, notices, requests, demands, or other communications provided for or
required by this MOU shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when
sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested or when sent by overnight
carrier;.
Notices shall be addressed to:
SVRIA:
Heather Tannehill-Plamondon
Executive Director, SVRIA
601 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: 408-615-5571
Email:hplamondon@svria.org
AGENCY: City of Palo Alto Police
275 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attention: Charles Cullen
Telephone: 650-329-2331
Email: Charlie.cullen@cityofpaloalto.org
37.2 A Party may change its Notice contact or Notice address by written Notice to the
other Party. Such change becomes effective no sooner than ten (10) days after the date
of such Notice.
The titles, numbers and headings of paragraphs, sections, subsections, and exhibits are
for convenience only and are not intended to affect the MOU’s construction or
interpretation.
This MOU and attached exhibits incorporate all the agreements, covenants, and
understandings between the Parties concerning the subject matter hereof, and all such
agreements, covenants, and understandings have been merged into this MOU. No prior
Page 16 of 19
agreement or understanding, verbal or otherwise, of the Parties or their agents shall be
valid or enforceable unless embodied in this MOU.
This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
California law governs the MOU’s performance and interpretation.
Page 17 of 19
If a Party to this MOU brings a lawsuit connected to the System, the Parties agree that
venue shall be exclusively vested in the State Courts of the County of Santa Clara.
IN WITNESS OF, the Parties have executed the MOU through their duly authorized
representatives as of the last date set forth below.
Signed:
SVRIA AGENCY
By: ___________________________ By: _____________________________
Chair of Board of Directors Name, or Designee
Date: _________________, 2015 Date: ________________, 2015
Attest: Approved as to Form and Legality:
By: ___________________________ By: _____________________________
Name, or Designee
(title) _______________________
Date: _______________, 2015 Date: ________________, 2015
Approved as to Form and Legality:
By: _____________________________
Gary M. Baum
General Counsel, SVRIA
Date: ________________, 2015
MOU SVRIA SVRCS clean version Palo Alto (26) 4-14-15
Page 18 of 19
Exhibit A
Cost per agency Breakdown
FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18
Infrastructure
Cost
San Jose 2,750 26.63% 2,562,234$ 2,562,234$ 2,562,234$ 7,686,703$
Santa Clara County 2,130 20.62%1,984,567$ 1,984,567$ 1,984,567$ 5,953,701$
VTA 2,000 19.36%1,863,443$ 1,863,443$ 1,863,443$ 5,590,329$
Santa Clara 791 7.66% $354,639 618,779$ 618,779$ 618,779$ 2,210,975$
Palo Alto 690 6.68%642,888$ 642,888$ 642,888$ 1,928,664$
Sunnyvale 455 4.41%423,933$ 423,933$ 423,933$ 1,271,800$
Mountain View 300 2.90%279,516$ 279,516$ 279,516$ 838,549$
Gilroy 262 2.54%244,111$ 244,111$ 244,111$ 732,333$
Milpitas 249 2.41%231,999$ 231,999$ 231,999$ 695,996$
Campbell 189 1.83%176,095$ 176,095$ 176,095$ 528,286$
Los Gatos 140 1.36%130,441$ 130,441$ 130,441$ 391,323$
Morgan Hill 135 1.31%125,782$ 125,782$ 125,782$ 377,347$
Los Altos 90 0.87%83,855$ 83,855$ 83,855$ 251,565$
SJSU 73 0.71%68,016$ 68,016$ 68,016$ 204,047$
Community Colleges 43 0.42%40,064$ 40,064$ 40,064$ 120,192$
South County Fire 31 0.30%28,883$ 28,883$ 28,883$ 86,650$
10,328 100.00%28,868,460$
April 13,2015 10,328 354,639$ 9,504,607$ 9,504,607$ 9,504,607$ 28,868,460$
Infrastructre
User Count
Page 19 of 19
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY18/19)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY19/20)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY20/21)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY21/22)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY22/23)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY23/24)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY24/25)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY25/26)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY26/27)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY27/28)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY28/29)
San Jose 2,750 26.63%$1,008,125 $1,008,125 997,406$ 1,014,899$ 1,033,175$ 1,052,376$ 1,072,464$ 1,093,484$ 1,115,525$ 1,138,589$ 1,159,952$
Santa Clara County 2,130 20.62%$780,838 $780,838 772,536$ 786,086$ 800,241$ 815,113$ 830,672$ 846,953$ 864,025$ 881,889$ 898,436$
VTA 2,000 19.36%$733,182 $733,182 725,386$ 738,109$ 751,400$ 765,365$ 779,974$ 795,261$ 811,291$ 828,064$ 843,601$
Santa Clara 791 7.66%$289,973 $289,973 286,890$ 291,922$ 297,179$ 302,702$ 308,480$ 314,526$ 320,866$ 327,500$ 333,644$
Palo Alto 690 6.68%$252,948 $252,948 250,258$ 254,647$ 259,233$ 264,051$ 269,091$ 274,365$ 279,895$ 285,682$ 291,043$
Sunnyvale 455 4.41%$166,799 $166,799 165,025$ 167,920$ 170,943$ 174,120$ 177,444$ 180,922$ 184,569$ 188,385$ 191,919$
Mountain View 300 2.90%$109,977 $109,977 108,808$ 110,716$ 112,710$ 114,805$ 116,996$ 119,289$ 121,694$ 124,210$ 126,540$
Gilroy 262 2.54%$96,047 $96,047 95,026$ 96,692$ 98,433$ 100,263$ 102,177$ 104,179$ 106,279$ 108,476$ 110,512$
Milpitas 249 2.41%$91,281 $91,281 90,311$ 91,895$ 93,549$ 95,288$ 97,107$ 99,010$ 101,006$ 103,094$ 105,028$
Campbell 189 1.83%$69,286 $69,286 68,549$ 69,751$ 71,007$ 72,327$ 73,708$ 75,152$ 76,667$ 78,252$ 79,720$
Los Gatos 140 1.36%$51,323 $51,323 50,777$ 51,668$ 52,598$ 53,576$ 54,598$ 55,668$ 56,790$ 57,965$ 59,052$
Morgan Hill 135 1.31%$49,490 $49,490 48,964$ 49,822$ 50,719$ 51,662$ 52,648$ 53,680$ 54,762$ 55,894$ 56,943$
Los Altos 90 0.87%$32,993 $32,993 32,642$ 33,215$ 33,813$ 34,441$ 35,099$ 35,787$ 36,508$ 37,263$ 37,962$
San Jose State 73 0.71%$26,761 $26,761 26,477$ 26,941$ 27,426$ 27,936$ 28,469$ 29,027$ 29,612$ 30,224$ 30,791$
Community Colleges 43 0.42%$15,763 $15,763 15,596$ 15,869$ 16,155$ 16,455$ 16,769$ 17,098$ 17,443$ 17,803$ 18,137$
South County Fire 31 0.30%$11,364 $11,364 11,243$ 11,441$ 11,647$ 11,863$ 12,090$ 12,327$ 12,575$ 12,835$ 13,076$
10,328 100.00%$3,786,150 $3,786,150 3,745,893$ 3,811,593$ 3,880,229$ 3,952,343$ 4,027,786$ 4,106,729$ 4,189,508$ 4,276,125$ 4,356,358$
April 13, 2015 10,328 $3,786,150 $3,786,150 3,745,893$ 3,811,593$ 3,880,229$ 3,952,343$ 4,027,786$ 4,106,729$ 4,189,508$ 4,276,125$ 4,356,358$
User Count
Exhibit B
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF
SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY AUTHORITY
ECOMM EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION LICENSE AGREEMENT
LICENSOR CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
LICENSOR's
AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE
ASSIGNOR CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
(LICENSEE)
ASSIGNEE SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY
(NEW LICENSEE) AUTHORITY
SITE LOCATION PALO ALTO CIVIC CENTER
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California
This Assignment and Assumption consists of this cover page together with the attached
License Agreement including all of its attachments.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the LICENSOR AND LICENSEE entered into the above referenced
License Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, ASSIGNOR has transferred its duties to manage and operate the
SVRIP ECOMM Project to ASSIGNEE, and it is reasonable and necessary for
ASSIGNEE to become the LICENSEE for access to the all of the Project Sites;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned agree as follows:
1. ASSIGNOR hereby assigns all of its rights, interests and obligations in the
License Agreement to ASSIGNEE.
2. ASSIGNEE hereby accepts such assignment and agrees to perform all of the
obligations of the Licensee as set forth in the License Agreement.
3. In accordance with Section 14 of the License Agreement, by its signature
below LICENSOR hereby consents to the foregoing assignment and
T -20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3-3-15 1
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
assumption, and releases ASSIGNOR from further obligations under the
License Agreement.
This Assignment and Assumption is entered into as of ________ , 2015.
ASSIGNOR (Licensee)
CITY OF SAN JOSE
8y ___________ _
Name: __________ _
Title: ___________ _
Date: ___________ _
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Approved and Consented to:
LICENSOR
CITY OF PALO ALTO
8y ___________ _
Name: __________ _
Title: ___________ _
Date: ___________ _
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
T -20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3-3-15 2
ASSIGNEE (New Licensee)
SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL
INTEROPERABILITY AUTHORITY
By ___ ~~---------
Name: Heath r Plamondon
Title: Executive Director
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Gary . Baum, General Counsel
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
EXHIBIT A
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
SILICON VALLEY REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY PROJECT
ECOMM EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION LICENSE AGREEMENT
LICENSOR CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
LlCENSOR"s
AUTHORIZED FRANK 8ENEST, CITY MANAGr:;R
REPRESENTATIVE
LICENSEE CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
SITE LOCATION PALO ALTO CIVIC CENTER .
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
TERM I End Date I APRIL 4, 2018 Start Date APRIL 4, 2008
This License Agreement consists of this cover page together with the attached Terms and
Conditions of SVRIP ECOMM Equipment Installation License Agreement and the
~II . tt h t o oWing a ac men s:
·UST OF ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A Description of Site Location
Exhibit 8 Description of ECOMM Equipment Area
Exhibit C Description of ECOMMSite Design
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the LICENSOR AND LICENSEE have been and are expected to remain
parties to previous agreements regarding the installation of an ECOMM microwave network
to be deployed for mutual use among them and other public entities (the "SVRIP ECOMM
Project" or the "Project"), and recognize the mutual benefits of sharing the interoperable
communications to be carried by the ECOMM microwave network; and .
WHEREAS, LICENSOR is the owner of that certain real property located at the above
referenced SITE LOCATION, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as further described
in Exhibit "A" (the ECOMM "Description of Site Location") attached hereto and made a part
hereof (the entirety of LICENSOR's property is rererred to hereinafter as the "Property"), and
LICENSOR is authorized to enter into this License Agreement. .
WHEREAS, LICENSEE desires to license a portion of said Property (hereinafter referred
to as the "ECOMM Equipment Area") with access rights thereto, containing approximately 10
square feet of floor space and approximately 50 square feet of ground space located upon
the Property as substantially shown on Exhibit "8" attached hereto and made a part hereof..
WHEREAS, on behalf of the Project LICENSEE will furnish and install certain ECOMM
Equipment, which is more particularly defined and described in the attached Exhibit C (the
"ECOMM Site Design"), on the LICENSOR's property (the "Property"); and
T-20.076.001/PaloAltoSiteLicense032108
T-20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3-3-15
License Agreement
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
WHEREAS, LICENSOR finds that a grant of this right to LICENSEE will be in the public
interest and will not substantially conflict or interfere with the LICENSOR's use of the
Property.
NOW THEREFORE LICENSOR AND LICENSEE AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Grant
Subject to the terms and conditions of this' Agreement, LICENSOR hereby grants to
LICENSEE a non-exciusive,license during the Term (as defined below) to access and use the
portions of the Property described in Exhibit'S (hereinafter referred to as the "ECOMM
Equipment Area").
2. Use
LICENSEE shall have the right to enter the Property and to use the ECOMM Equipment Area
solely for the installation, operation, repair, replacement and maintenance of the ECOMM
Equipment. All ECOMM Equipment shall be installed in accordance with the site plans and
specifications for such ECOMM EqUipment, described in Exhibit C (hereinafter referred to as
the "Site Designs"), and in accordance with the following construction standards:
a) The ECOMM Equipment shall be affix~d and braced to the existing LICENSOR
racks and any other relevant structures, if any, by a means and in a manner
acceptable to LICENSOR's Authorized Representative, or designee.
b) LICENSEE's installation, maintenance, repair, replacement and operation of its
radio, electronic and related ECOMM EqUipment shall be performed by a qualified
technical person. All work shall be done in a workmanlike manner and in
compliance with all applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations and other laws and
in compliance with the Quality Standards for Fixed Network Equipment Instal/ation
R-56 published by Motorola, Inc.
LICENSEE recognizes the pre-existing right of LICENSOR to reserve and utilize, separate
and independent from, and without harmful interference from,any othei" user of the Property
or the ECOMM Equipment Area, a portion of the Property or: ECOMM Equipment Area for
LICENSOR's communication operations. LICENSEE agrees to design, construct, install and
modify, as appropriate, its ECOMM Equipment and communication operations so as to avoid
interference with the signals of LICENSOR and any eXisting licensee. If LICENSEE's
installation, or operation, in any way hinders, obstructs, or through testing described below is
,shown to interfere with the communications existing at the time of this agreement or other
ECOMM EqUipment of LICENSOR, or any licensee at the Property or ECOMM Equipment
Area, LICENSEE shall, at its sole cost and expense, upon receipt of written notification (by e-
mail, fax or otherwise from the LICENSOR's Authorized Representative or designee),
forthwith cease the interfering installation or operation. If such hindrance, interference or
obstruction is not eliminated or does not fully cease within seventy-two (72) hours after
receipt by LICENSEE from LICENSOR of written notification of the existence thereof,
LICENSOR may order LICENSEE to cease, and upon receipt of such order Licensee shall
T -20.076.001/PaloAltoSlleLicense0321 08 2
T -20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3-3-15
License Agreement
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
I Site Name . I PALO ALTO
cease, operation of the offending ECOMM Equipment as may be necessary to continuously
eliminate said interference. In the event of LICENSEE's inability or refusal to eliminate such
interference, LICENSOR may at its option, immediately seek intervention of the Court.
LICENSEE's ECOMM Equipment and operations will be configured so that LICENSOR shall
at all times have access to the main power supply for LICENSEE's ECOMM Equipment so
that it can be disconnected by LICENSOR in the.event of an emergency. LICENSOR may
immediately terminate power supply to LICENSEE's ECOMM Equipment in the event of an
emergency and in such an event, will provide notice to LICENSEE as soon as practicable of
the power supply termination.
Any interference and incompatibility testing required to determine radio interference with
other ECOMM Equipment at the Property or ECOMM Equipment Area shall, at LICENSEE's
'expense, be made by a qualified technician representing LICENSEE and a representative
designated by LICENSOR. If the testis satisfactory to both the technician and the
LICENSOR representative, a certification of such test signed by both the technician and the
LICENSOR representative shall be forwarded to LICENSOR at the location for notices
indicated in this Agreement.
LICENSOR reserves the right to otherwise use the Property and ECOMM Equipment Area
involved in any manner (including the right to alter, replace, improve or otherwise modify the
Property) so long as such use does not unreasonably interfere with LICENSEE's rights
hereunder.
3. Tern-t
This Agreement shall have a term from the Start Date until the End Date indicated on the
cover page of this Agreement ("Term"). The Parties have an option to extend the Term for
up to two additional, consecutive five (5) year periods upon the same terms, covenants and
conditions as are contained in this Agreement ("Options"). LICENSEE shall exercise the
Options by giving written notice of exercise to LICENSOR not less than one hundred twenty
(120) days prior to the expiration of the current Term. Notwithstanding· anything to the
contrary herein, in the event that the governing body of the LICENSOR elect during the Term
to transfer the Property (or portion thereof) or otherwise discontinue LICENSOR operations at
the Property or ECOMM Equipment Area, LICENSOR may terminate this Agreement by
providing LICENSEE with one .hundred-eighty (180) days advance written notice of such
termination.
4. Consideration
In addition to the mutual covenants and obligations of the parties hereunder, the Parties
acknowledge that in return for this Agreement the LICENSEE has give~, and the LICENSOR
has received, good and valuable consideration in the form of the· interoperable
communications channels provided by the ECOMM Equipment installed on LICENSOR's site.
T -20. 076.001/palciAltoSlteLicense0321 06 3
T-20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3-3-15
License Agreement
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
I SiteName I PALO ALTO
5. Condition of ECOMM Equipment Area
LICENSEE agrees to take the ECOMM Equipment Area and Property "as is." LICENSOR
does not warrant or represent that the ECOMM Equipment Area or Property is suitable for
LICENSEE's purposes, LICENSEE having made its own investigation and independent
determination of the satisfactory condition of the ECOMM Equipment Area and Property and
its suitability for its use. LICENSEE' assumes for. itself; its employees, agents and
contractors, all risks associated with its entry into the ECOMM Equipment Area and Property.
LICENSEE waives any claim against LICENSOR, its employees and agents for injuries'
sustained by LICENSEE, its employees, agents and contractors in the ECOMM Equipment
Area and surrounding property and for any damage to LICENSEE's property, except to the
extent of liability for. injuries' or damage caused by LICENSOR's negligence or willful
misconduct.
6. Maintenance and Repair:
LICENSEE shall be responsible for maintaining, repairing and replacing its ECOMM
Equipment. LICENSEE shall perform preventive maintenance on its ECOMM Equipment on
a regular schedule or as recommended by the manufacturer of the specific ECOMM
Equipment. In order to accomplish the required maintenance, LICENSEE will be allowed
access to its ECOMM Equipment 24 hours a day, seven' days a week, subject to compliance
with Section 14. .
LICENSOR, at LICENSOR's expense, shall maintain the ECOMM Equipment Area (other
than the ECOMM Equipment) in good order, condition and repair; provided, however, any
damage in or to the ECOMM Equipment Area or Property or systems caused by LICENSEE
or any agent, officer, employee, or contractor of LICENSEE, shall be promptly repaired by
LICENSEE at its expense. LlCENSEEshall immediately notify LICENSOR of such damage
and obtain LICENSOR's written consent before proceeding with such repairs ..
Upon expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, LICENSEE shall remove all of its
ECOMM Equipment and shall return the ECOMM Equipment Area to its original condition,
less reasonable wear and tear, or as otherwise agreed by the parties.
7. Utilities and SerVices
LICENSOR agrees to furnish ·to the ECOMM Equipment Area (subject to interruption as
provided in this Agreement) all utilities reasonably required for LICENSEE's intended use.
LICENSOR shall not be liable for any damage or loss directly or indirectly resulting from any
interruption, limitation, curtailment, rationing or restriction on use of electricity, water or any
resource or form of energy serving the ECOMM Equipment Area or the Property, whether
such results from mandatory restrictions or voluntary compliance with guidelines, or from any
other cause other than willful misconduct by the LICENSOR or its employees. Subject to
LICENSOR's right to temporarily interrupt power and other services in connection with the
making of repairs or improvements in or around the ECOMM Equipment Area, LICENSOR
. shall use reasonable efforts promptly to correct any interruption in the furnishing of services.
T -20.076. 001/PaloAItoSIteLicense0321 08 4
T-20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3-3-15
License Agreement
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
LICENSEE shall be responsible fOr providing the battery power to operate its ECOMM
Equipment.
8. Damage and Destruction:
If the Property, ECOMM Equipment Area, or any portion thereof is destroyed or made
unusable by fire, flood, vandalism, earthquake or any other causes ("Destruction") so as to
make it impossible or impracticable to carry on business in substantially the same manner it
was conducted before the Destruction, then LICENSEE understands and agrees that any
restoration of the Property, ECOMM Equipment Area, or portions thereof, shall be at the sole
discretion of the LICENSOR. If the Property, ECOMM Equipment Area, or portion there.of
cannot be restored within ninety (90) calendar days of the damage or destruction at a
commercially reasonable cost or LICENSOR determines that it does not have available funds
and authority, (in'its sale discretion), this Agreement and its provisions may be terminated by
election of either party. In the event of the termination of this Agreement, LICENSEE shall
remove its ECOMM Equipment, except as otherwise agreed to by LICENSOR.
9. Default
The following shall constitute Events of Default:
(i) The failure of either Party to perform any of its obligations, exclusive of the
noninterference reqUirements of Section 2 of this Agreement, hereunder which
remains uncured for 15 days after written notice to it by the non-defaulting party will
constitute an Event of Default. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Event of Default is
such that it will reasonably require more than 15 days to cure, then the Defaulting
Party shall not be in default hereunder if it commences the cure. within 15. days after
written notice and thereafter proceeds diligently to complete the cure, but in no case
shall such Event of Default continue for more than 60 days; or
(ii) The failure of LICENSEE to comply with the noninterference requirements of
this Agreement as provided in Section 2.
In an Event of Default, the non-defaulting party may, without waiving any other rights or
remedies, immediately terminate this Agreement. Upon the expiration or termination of this
Agreement, all rights and obligations of the Parties under this Agreement terminate upon the
effective date of such expiration or termination.
Without limiting the Pa~ies' rights or remedies at law or equity, if this Agreement is
terminated, LICENSEE shall (i) immediately. remove all ECOMM Equipment from the
ECOMM Equipment Area and any related LICENSOR Property; and (ii) leave the ECOMM
EqUipment Area and LICENSOR's Property in a clean, neat and safe condition.
10. Indemnification
In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation which might otherwise be imposed
between the Parties pursuant to California Government Code §895.6, LICENSEE shall
T ·20.076.001 IPaloAItoSiteLicense0321 08 5
T·20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3·3·15
License Agreement
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
I Site Name I PALO ALTO J
i'ndemnify, defend, reimburse and hold harmless LICENSOR, its officers, employees and
agents, against any claim, suit, liability, loss, expense or damage, including reasonable
attorney's fees and costs, with respect to injury or death to any person or damage to any
property to the extent such arises from or is related to the use of the Property and ECOMM
Equipment Area by LICENSEE, its officers, employees or agents. LICENSOR shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless LICENSEE, its officers, employees and agents, against
any claim, liability, loss, expense or damage, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs,
with respect to injury or death to any person or damage to any property to the extent such
arises from the negligence or willful misconduct of LICENSOR, its officers, empioyees or
agents in connection with this Agreement. This mutual indemnity shall survive the
termination or expiration of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither party shall
be liable to the other party for any special or consequential damages.
11. Limited L1c,ense Only
This Agreement provides, subject to the terms and conditions herein, only a non-exclusive
License in the ECOMM Equipment Area and does not in any way confer on LICENSEE any
other interest, whether implied or expressed, in any real property. As between LICENSEE
and LICENSOR, LICENSEE retains all right, title and interest in the ECOMM Equipment.
12. Insurance
LICENSEE represents and warrants that, at I,.ICENSEE'S sole cost and expense, it will
maintain for the duration of this' AGREEMENT self-insurance against claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from, or in connection with, the
performance by LICENSEE of its obligations under the Agreement and that of its agents,
representatives, employees or subcontractors and the indemnity provisions of this
agreement.
13. Alterations/Security System
LICENSEE shall not make any alterations to the ECOMM Equipment Area without
LICENSOR's prior written consent and approval of any proposed plans and specifications.
LICENSEE may install a security system in the ECOMM Equipment Area for its own ECOMM
EqUipment, provided LICENSEE submit its plans for same to LICENSOR for LICENSOR's
prior written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. LICENSEE shall
comply with all security reqUirements associated with this secured facility including, for
example, requiring all of its employees, agents and contractors to provide evidence of proper
identification before entry, keeping any keys to the Building provided to LICENSEE in a safe
and secure place and otherwise cooperating with LICENSOR's security requirements.
14. Assignment and Transfer
The rights granted to LICENSEE shall not be assigned, sold, encumbered or transferred by
LICENSEE, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the LICENSOR.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall preclude LICENSEE from altering,
T-20.076,001/PaloAltoSlleLicense032108 6
T-20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3-3-15
License Agreement
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
transferring or moving the ECOMM Equipment to another site or entering into another license
agreement to relocate the ECOMM Equipment. .
15. Notices:
All notices required to be given hereunder, or which either party may wish to give, shall be in
writing and shall be served either by personal delivery, rapid courier (such as Federal
Express or United Parcel Service) or by regular mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
To LICENSOR:
To LICENSEE:
16. Non-Discrimination
City of Palo Alto
City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone: (650) 329-2563
Facsimile: (650) 325:'5025
or to such place as LICENSOR may designate by written
notice.
City of San Jose
City Manager
New City Hall, 17th Floor
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
or to such other place as LICENSEE may designate by
written notice.
A. Requirements. The Parties shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and
local laws and regulations. Such laws inclUde but are not limited to the following: Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; The
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sections 503 and 504); California Fair Employment and Housing·
Act (Government Code sections 12900, et seq.) and California Labor Code sections 1101
and 1102. LICENSEE shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or
applicant for employment because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion,
sex/gender, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition,
political beliefs, organizational affiliations, or marital status. in the recrUitment, selection for
training including apprenticeship, hiring, employment, utilization, promotion, layoff, rates of
payor other forms of compensation, nor shall LICENSEE discriminate in provision of services
provided under this Agreement because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion,
sex/gender, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical .condition,
political beliefs, organizational affiliations or marital status.
B. Failure to Comply. Failure to comply with the requirements set forth herein
shall be deemed cause for cancellation, termination, or suspension of this Agreement.
T-20.076.001/PaloAltoSiteLicense032108 7
T-20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3-3-15
License Agreement
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
LIS_i_te_N_a_m __ e __ ~ __ ~I_PA __ LO __ A_L_T_O __________ ~1
17. Permits
LICENSEE shall, at LICENSEE's soJe cost and expense and prior to the commencement of
activities permitted hereunder, comply with all laws, orders, and obtain all permits which may
be required by public agencies including, without limitation, the Federal Communications
. Commission, CAL-OSHA and other relevant agencies and local jurisdiCtions· to the extent
they have jurisdiction over the activities. of LICENSEE at LICENSOR's Site Location and shall
comply with all conditions and requirements set forth in the permits issued by such agencies.
During the term of this Agreement, LICENSEE shall maintain, to the extent relevant, an FCC
license in full force and attach a copy of such license to each transmitter.
18. Governing LaW and Jurisdiction
This Agreement will be deemed accepted by thE;) Parties in, and governed by and construed
in accordance with,. the laws of the State of California without giving effect to its conflicts of
laws provisions. All actions with respect of this Agreement shall be brought in state courts
having jurisdiction within Santa Clara County, California and the parties -expressly consentto
the personal jurisdiCtion of such courts.
19. Entire Agreement
This Agreement represents the entire Agreement by and between the parties relative to the
use of the subject site_ Any prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements by and
between the parties and/or their agents and representatives relative to such use are revoked .
and extinguished by this Agreement.
20. Representations and Warranties
The Parties represent and warrant that (i) they are not currently bound by any other
agreements, restrictions or obligations, nor will they assume any such obligations or
restrictions which do or would in any way interfere or be inconsistent with this Agreement;
and (ii) the signatories to this Agreement possess all necessary authority to enter into this
Agreement in all respects and render it effective.
21. Amendments
This Agreement may not be modified except in writing signed by duly authorized
representative(s) of the Parties.
22. Waiver
Waiver by the Parties of any breach of any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement
shall not be deemed to waive the same or any other term, covenant or condition of this
Agreement or the right to subsequently enforce such term or condition in the future.
T-20.076.001IPaloAltoSiteLicense032106 8
T-20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3-3-15
License Agreement
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
23. Severability
In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held or construed to be invalid by any
arbitrator or court having jurisdiction over disputes related to this Agreement, such provision
will, if reasonable to do so, be restated to reflect as nearly as possible the original intentions
of the Parties in accordance with applicable law, or, if not reasonable to do so, be deemed to
be excluded from this Agreement. In any event, all other provisions of this Agreement will
remain in full force and effect.
24. Counterparts
This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, each of which will be considered an
original, and all of which will be considered one and t~e same document. This Agreement
may be executed by facsimile signature.
This License Agreement is entered into the date set forth below by and between LICENSOR
and LICENSEE.
DATE
LICENSOR
City of Palo Alto
BY~t44J Name: Emily Harrison
Title: Assistant City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
T-20.076.001/PaloAlloSileUcense032108 9
LICENSEE
City of San Jose
By~J!;
Name: ' "J
Title: Deanna Santana
Deputy City Manager
APPROVED AS rOFORM:
Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of San Jose
T-20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3-3-15
License Agreement
-;-I I\) o
b --.J Ol
b o ~
~ (JI to" :::J 3
CD 3.
""tl tll
0"
:t> 8'
(J) < :JJ »
(J)
tll :::J
r'-o"~ ~ CD
(JI-CDI\)
:t>'(:; (Q , ..... Ul
CD ' CD ...... 30"1
CD 3.
ECOMM LICENSE EXHffiITB EQUIPMENT AREA
. Palo Alto Civic Center Roof: ECOMM Egyipment AIea
The ECOMM microwave dishes toward Mountain View and Los Altos mount at the former location of the satellite antenna
250 HAMIL TON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA
en ;;:
CD
Z D)
3
CD
"'C ~ r-o
~ ~ o
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
ECOMM·LICENSE f-7 -'"
r>
t~I: .
~) .. ; j',':::'
i':;;;1., ":8'...0' ,'f.'RQI,l-:MAIWll~.OF . ~{? .. f~t~'.r:,:1 .!f;p,,:
,if,1: .
EXIDBITB
1
Palo Alto
ANTENNA ELEVATION
Elevation View of new roof mount with antennas,
250 HAMILTON A VENUE, PALO ALTO, CA
T-20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3-3-15
License Agreement
I Site Name I PALO ALTO
ECOMM LICENSE EXHIJlITB EQUIPMENT ROOM
FLOOR PLAN
. '-----. - --, --'. -
';-.' --,-1 :~ L , ,_ _ _
~ - ---, - -- -. -
Palo Alto Equipment Room Floor Plan
S'h Floor, Civic Center Building
250 HAMIL TON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA
T-20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3-3-15
License Agreement
I Site Name PALO ALTO
ECOMM LICENSE EXHIBITC SITE DESIGN
ECOMM Site Design at Palo Alto Civic Center
1) LICENSEE shall furnish & install the following ECOMM components:
a) .One rooftop antenna mount that meets the requirements of the ECOMM structural analysis, at
the location shown in Exhibit B.
b) Two 3 foot microwave antennas on the new rooftop antenna mount facing Los Altos and
Mountain View. .
c). A rooftop penetration above the existing equipment room location, installed by a licensed
roofer.
d) A waveguIde entry port, core drilled into the equipment room by a licensed concrete worker.
e) Two waveguide runs from tpe two new microwave antennas to the microwave radio location
in the existing equipment room through the new waveguide entry port. .
f) One equipment rack containing two new microwave radios and multiplex equipment facing
Los Altos and Mountain View.
g) One equipment rack containing new DC chargers, batteries and dehydrator.
h) An extension of LICENSOR's 220VAC electrical power to the new ECOMM DC rectifier.
2) All LICENSEE work to be performed, tested and accepted per the design documents
contained in the LICENSEE contract with Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., dated December II,
2007, and as amended.
3) Final location and configuration of equipment may be adjusted by mutual agreement of
LICENSEE and LICENSOR to achieve ECOMM system perfonnance objectives and to avoid
conflict with existing LICENSOR structures, equipment and utilities encountered during
installation.
T-20.076.002\ Assignment Palo Alto SVRIA San Jose (2) 3-3-15
License Agreement
EXHIBIT A
Construction and Implementation Payments
Cost per agency Breakdown
FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18
Infrastructure
Cost
San Jose 2,750 26.46% 2,545,720$ 2,545,720$ 2,545,720$ 7,637,159$
Santa Clara County 2,130 20.49%1,971,776$ 1,971,776$ 1,971,776$ 5,915,327$
VTA 2,000 19.24%1,851,432$ 1,851,432$ 1,851,432$ 5,554,297$
Santa Clara 791 7.61% $354,639 614,029$ 614,029$ 614,029$ 2,196,725$
Palo Alto 690 6.64%638,744$ 638,744$ 638,744$ 1,916,233$
Sunnyvale 455 4.38%421,201$ 421,201$ 421,201$ 1,263,603$
Mountain View 310 2.98%286,972$ 286,972$ 286,972$ 860,916$
Gilroy 304 2.92%281,418$ 281,418$ 281,418$ 844,253$
Milpitas 249 2.40%230,503$ 230,503$ 230,503$ 691,510$
Campbell 189 1.82%174,960$ 174,960$ 174,960$ 524,881$
Los Gatos 140 1.35%129,600$ 129,600$ 129,600$ 388,801$
Morgan Hill 135 1.30%124,972$ 124,972$ 124,972$ 374,915$
Los Altos 90 0.87%83,314$ 83,314$ 83,314$ 249,943$
SJSU 86 0.83%79,612$ 79,612$ 79,612$ 238,835$
South County Fire 31 0.30%28,697$ 28,697$ 28,697$ 86,092$
Foothill/DeAnza 23 0.22%21,291$ 21,291$ 21,291$ 63,874$
West Valley/Mission 22 0.21%20,366$ 20,366$ 20,366$ 61,097$
10,395 100.00%28,868,460$
4/30/2015 FINAL 10,395 354,639$ 9,504,607$ 9,504,607$ 9,504,607$ 28,868,460$
User Count
EXHIBIT B
Operations and Maintenance Projected Costs
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY18/19)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY19/20)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY20/21)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY21/22)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY22/23)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY23/24)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY24/25)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY25/26)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY26/27)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY27/28)
Operations
and
Maitenance
(FY28/29)
San Jose 2,750 26.46%$1,001,627 $1,001,627 990,977$ 1,008,358$ 1,026,516$ 1,045,593$ 1,065,552$ 1,086,436$ 1,108,335$ 1,131,250$ 1,152,476$
Santa Clara County 2,130 20.49%$775,806 $775,806 767,557$ 781,019$ 795,083$ 809,860$ 825,318$ 841,494$ 858,456$ 876,205$ 892,645$
VTA 2,000 19.24%$728,456 $728,456 720,711$ 733,351$ 746,557$ 760,432$ 774,947$ 790,135$ 806,062$ 822,727$ 838,164$
Santa Clara 791 7.61%$288,104 $288,104 285,041$ 290,040$ 295,263$ 300,751$ 306,491$ 312,499$ 318,798$ 325,389$ 331,494$
Palo Alto 690 6.64%$251,317 $251,317 248,645$ 253,006$ 257,562$ 262,349$ 267,357$ 272,597$ 278,091$ 283,841$ 289,167$
Sunnyvale 455 4.38%$165,724 $165,724 163,962$ 166,837$ 169,842$ 172,998$ 176,300$ 179,756$ 183,379$ 187,170$ 190,682$
Mountain View 310 2.98%$112,911 $112,911 111,710$ 113,669$ 115,716$ 117,867$ 120,117$ 122,471$ 124,940$ 127,523$ 129,915$
Gilroy 304 2.92%$110,725 $110,725 109,548$ 111,469$ 113,477$ 115,586$ 117,792$ 120,101$ 122,521$ 125,055$ 127,401$
Milpitas 249 2.40%$90,693 $90,693 89,728$ 91,302$ 92,946$ 94,674$ 96,481$ 98,372$ 100,355$ 102,430$ 104,351$
Campbell 189 1.82%$68,839 $68,839 68,107$ 69,302$ 70,550$ 71,861$ 73,232$ 74,668$ 76,173$ 77,748$ 79,207$
Los Gatos 140 1.35%$50,992 $50,992 50,450$ 51,335$ 52,259$ 53,230$ 54,246$ 55,309$ 56,424$ 57,591$ 58,671$
Morgan Hill 135 1.30%$49,171 $49,171 48,648$ 49,501$ 50,393$ 51,329$ 52,309$ 53,334$ 54,409$ 55,534$ 56,576$
Los Altos 90 0.87%$32,781 $32,781 32,432$ 33,001$ 33,595$ 34,219$ 34,873$ 35,556$ 36,273$ 37,023$ 37,717$
San Jose State 86 0.83%$31,324 $31,324 30,991$ 31,534$ 32,102$ 32,699$ 33,323$ 33,976$ 34,661$ 35,377$ 36,041$
South County Fire 31 0.30%$11,291 $11,291 11,171$ 11,367$ 11,572$ 11,787$ 12,012$ 12,247$ 12,494$ 12,752$ 12,992$
Foothill/DeAnza 23 0.22%$8,377 $8,377 8,288$ 8,434$ 8,585$ 8,745$ 8,912$ 9,087$ 9,270$ 9,461$ 9,639$
West Valley /Mission 22 0.21%$8,013 $8,013 7,928$ 8,067$ 8,212$ 8,365$ 8,524$ 8,691$ 8,867$ 9,050$ 9,220$
10,395 100.00%$3,786,150 $3,786,150 3,745,893$ 3,811,593$ 3,880,229$ 3,952,343$ 4,027,786$ 4,106,729$ 4,189,508$ 4,276,125$ 4,356,358$
April 30, 2015 10,395 $3,786,150 $3,786,150 3,745,893$ 3,811,593$ 3,880,229$ 3,952,343$ 4,027,786$ 4,106,729$ 4,189,508$ 4,276,125$ 4,356,358$
User Count
NOT YET APPROVED
1
150603 sh
Ordinance No. ________
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year
2015 in the Technology Fund to Increase the Radio Infrastructure Replacement
Project (Te‐0500) by $1,000,000, Offset by an Increased Transfer from the General
Fund to Fund the City’s Portion of the County‐Wide Radio Infrastructure Project
Administered by the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority. In the
General Fund, the Transfer to the Technology Fund is Increased by $1,000,000 Offset
by a Reduction to the Budget Stabilization Reserve
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto, the Council on June 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2015; and
B. The City of Palo Alto has been participating in a multi‐year project with all the
Joint Powers Authority members in the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority
(SVRIA) to fund and construct a county‐wide radio communications system that will permit
all public safety officers across Santa Clara County to communicate with one another. Palo
Alto and other municipalities will also use the system for local government radio
communication (Public Works, Utilities, etc.); and
C. The City's capital costs related to this project are anticipated to be $4.0 million;
$2.1 million for replacement of the City’s radios and consoles (split between the General
Fund, $1.65 million and the Public Works and Utilities enterprise funds, $0.45 million); and
$1.9 million for the City’s share of the Countywide total $28.9 million infrastructure build
out (split between the General Fund, $1.4 million and the Public Works and Utilities
enterprise Funds, $0.5 million); and
D. As discussed in the Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Capital Budget for CIP TE‐05000, a
recommendation to carry over existing funding in Fiscal Year 2015 ($1.3 million; $0.8 million
from the General Fund and $0.5 million from the Utility Funds) to Fiscal Year 2016 is
proposed to fund a portion of the $4.0 million infrastructure and radio replacement costs;
and
E. The Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Capital Budget for CIP TE‐05000 also recommends
a $1.0 million transfer from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve to fund $1.8
million of the General Fund's $3.0 million projected share of the project. The remaining $1.2
million General Fund share will be funded in future years as the costs associated with the
project are refined; and
F. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2015 budget as hereinafter
set forth.
NOT YET APPROVED
2
150603 sh
SECTION 2. The ending fund balance in the General Fund Budget Stabilization
Reserve is hereby reduced by One Million dollars ($1,000,000) and the transfer‐out to the
Technology Fund is increased by One Million dollars ($1,000,000). The transfer‐in to the
Technology Fund is increased by One Million dollars ($1,000,000) and One Million dollars
($1,000,000) is appropriated to the Radio Infrastructure Replacement Capital Improvement
Project (TE‐05000).
SECTION 3. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact
assessment is necessary.
SECTION 4. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this
ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
____________________________
Chief Information Officer
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
December 4, 2017
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Administrative
Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code
Recommendation
Based on input from City departments that exercise code enforcement responsibilities, the City
Attorney’s Office recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution amending the
administrative penalty schedule to update the penalty amounts for certain violations of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (Attachment A).
Background
California Government Code section 53069.4 allows cities to make any violation of an ordinance
enacted by the City subject to an administrative fine or penalty. In 1999, the City Council
adopted an ordinance amending Chapters 1.12 and 1.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(“PAMC”) to provide for administrative citations, penalties, and other remedies for Municipal
Code violations. At the same time, the City Council enacted a resolution setting the
administrative penalty schedule for those violations, as provided for by PAMC 1.12.040.
Personnel in various City departments, including parking enforcement officers, park rangers,
and planning code enforcement officers, use the administrative penalty schedule as one tool
among many that can help increase compliance with City rules.
Approximately once each year the City Attorney’s Office coordinates an update to the penalty
schedule. The intent of this update is to reflect recent Council activity and incorporate
recommendations from City departments based on their enforcement experience. The
amendments generally fall into one of the following three categories:
(1) establishing penalties for code sections that had not been included in previous penalty
schedules;
(2) adding penalties for new additions to the Municipal Code since the penalty schedule
was last revised and deleting penalties for sections no longer in the PAMC; or
(3) amending penalty amounts for violations of certain code provisions where departments
feel changes would aid enforcement activities.
The schedule was last updated in November 2016. The proposed changes to the penalty
schedule for 2017 are shown in underline/strikeout format in the attached resolution.
Discussion
Page 2
The recommended 2017 administrative penalty schedule contains minor revisions. The sole
amendments concern the collection, removal, and disposal of refuse under PAMC Chapter 5.20.
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the proposed changes with the Public Works
Department and supports the recommended revisions.
A. Public Works Department
Currently, the Administrative Penalty Schedule contains an initial penalty of $100 per violation
of PAMC 5.20.030 for failing to sort refuse into separate solid waste, compost, and recyclables
containers at commercial premises. PAMC sections 5.20.090, 5.20,100, 5.20.105, 5.20.108,
5.20.109, and 5.20.120, concerning different aspects of refuse collection and disposal, are all
unaffiliated with any penalty amounts.
This revision would set a $250 penalty for initial violations of PAMC sections 5.20.090, 5.20,100,
5.20.105, 5.20.108, and 5.20.120. For consistency with these penalties, violations of PAMC
5.20.030 would be increased from $100 to $250. Penalties for violating PAMC 5.20.109,
concerning refuse services at special events, will be $100 for an initial violation.
The Public Works Department’s statement accompanying these revisions explains the need for
these penalties:
By April 1, 2016 under California Assembly Bill AB 1826 all jurisdictions in the State of
California were required to collect organic waste (i.e. food waste and food soiled paper) for
composting. In 2016 the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department updated Chapter 5 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (Collection, Removal and Disposal of Refuse) which requires all
business in Palo Alto to separate and sort their waste into solid waste, recyclable materials,
and organic waste. Penalties for the new code sections were not initially established and
need to be added along with a minor edit to an existing penalty. The City of Palo Alto Public
Works Department is recommending an increase for 5.20.030 and adding initial penalty
amounts for sections 5.20.090, 5.20,100, 5.20.105, 5.20.108, 5.20.109, and 5.20.120.
This recommendation is consistent with the Public Works Department’s code enforcement
policy of encouraging voluntary compliance and assisting the public with outreach and
education programs, while punishing the most severe and deliberate violators.
Resource Impact
If approved by the City Council, revenue estimate impacts from changes in these penalties will
be evaluated as part of the development of annual budgets and mid-year budget reviews.
Policy Implications
These recommendations provide the City’s code enforcement officers with an additional tool
they may use to enforce City rules when necessary to promote the safety and welfare of Palo
Alto’s residents and visitors.
Page 3
Environmental Review
Approval of penalties for violations of the PAMC is not a project subject to review under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Updating Administrative Penalty Schedule 2017 (PDF)
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Reso Amending Admin Penalty Schedule 2017 (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 4
Not Yet Approved
1
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating
the Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for
Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California
Vehicle Code Established by Resolution No. 9639
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Administrative Penalties. The administrative penalty schedule for violations
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code established by Resolution No. 9639 is hereby amended and
restated to read as follows:
Standard penalty unless otherwise indicated below. $50
Second violation within 36 month period 150% of listed penalty
(unless otherwise specified)
Third & subsequent violations within 36 month period. 200% of listed penalty
(unless otherwise specified)
Delinquency penalty. 10% per month, simple interest, on
delinquent amount
4.04.020 License or permit required. 300
4.04.100 Display of license or permit. 300
4.10.045 License fees for pushcart vendors. 300
4.10.050 Regulations for solicitors and peddlers. 350
4.10.055 Identification cards for solicitors. 250
4.10.057 Regulations for pushcart vendors. 300
4.10.070 License required - circus etc. 300
4.10.120 Arcade prohibited. 250
4.10.200 Pawn brokers prohibited. 250
4.10.230 Daily report of second hand dealers. 250
4.10.240 Maintaining reports - second hand dealers. 250
4.10.260 Failure to make report - second hand dealers. 250
4.10.270 Second hand goods held for inspection. 250
4.18.040 Unlawful dog or cat kennel. 250
4.30.010 Soliciting without a permit. 250
4.30.100 Conduct of solicitations. 250
4.32.020 Soliciting without a permit. 250
4.32.060 Investigation of records of solicitor. 250
4.32.090 Acts required during solicitation. 250
4.32.100 Restriction of solicitation. 250
4.32.110 Hours of solicitation. 250
4.34.020 Permit required - closing out sale. 250
4.39.030 Audible alarms. 250
4.39.040 Limitation on automatic dialing devices. 250
4.39.060 Registration of alarm. 250
4.39.110 Alarm violations. 100
4.42.020 Certificate of public convenience. 1000
4.42.085 Controlled substance and alcohol testing. 500
4.42.090 Taxi owners permit. 250
Not Yet Approved
2
4.42.100 Taxi driver’s permit expired. 250
4.42.130(b) Taxi driver’s permit not displayed. 250
4.42.160 Unauthorized pickup of passengers. 250
4.42.190 Taximeters. 500
4.42.200 Taxi cab operating regulations. 250
4.42.210(a) Interference with inspection. 500
4.42.210(b) Inspection of vehicles. 500
4.42.220 Operating regulations. 500
4.42.230 Maintenance of vehicles. 500
4.51.030 License required - bingo. 250
4.51.050 Minors restricted - bingo. 50
4.51.080 Staffing and operations - bingo. 250
4.51.110 Physical presence required - bingo. 250
4.52.020 License required - billiards and bowling. 1000
4.52.040 Minors restricted - billiards and bowling. 250
4.52.060 Offensive conduct - billiards and bowling. 250
4.52.070 Interference w/emerg. Access -billiards/bowling. 250
4.54.030(a) Permit required - massage establishment. 1000
4.54.060(a) Permit required - massage tech. 250
4.54.110 Massage establishment facilities. 250
4.54.130 Business name - massage. 250
4.55.030 License required - adult entertainment. 1000
4.56.030 License required - hot tub and sauna. 1000
4.56.060 Employee permit required - hot tub and sauna. 250
4.56.100 Hot tub/sauna establishment and operations. 250
4.56.120 Business name - hot tub and sauna. 250
4.56.150 Display of permit - hot tub and sauna. 250
4.56.200 Employment of persons < 18 - hot tub and sauna. 250
4.57.020 Permit required - firearms sales. 1000
4.57.095 Firearms dealers – business and security. 500
4.58.020 Minors restricted - narcotics paraphernalia shop. 750
4.58.030 Regulations - narcotics paraphernalia shop. 750
4.59.010 Pet shop requirements. 250
4.59.020 Pet shop sanitation. 250
4.59.030 Pet shop food. 250
4.59.040 Pet shop notification. 250
4.59.050 Pet shop - sale of dangerous or wild animals. 250
4.59.070 Dead animals. 250
4.59.080 Permit required - pet shop and kennel. 250
4.59.090 Permit required - grooming shop. 250
4.59.095 Sales of kittens and puppies. 250
4.59.100 Sales of raccoons. 250
4.59.105 Sales of rabbits, chicks, ducklings. 250
4.60.030 Business registration required 250
4.60.060 Business registry application required 250
4.60.120(a) Business registry fee delinquency 50% of registry fee if 1-30 days late
100% of fee or 31+ days late
5.12.010 Permit required - refreshment stand. 250
5.20.030 Discarding solid waste. 100250
5.20.040 Accumulation of garbage. 250
5.20.050 Unauthorized bins, boxes, containers-first violation. 500
Second and subsequent violations. 1000
5.20.080 Number of containers required. 250
5.20.090 Collection of recyclable materials. 250
5.20.100 Collection of compostable materials. 250
Not Yet Approved
3
5.20.105 Contamination of containers. 250
5.20.108 Multifamily properties/Commercial premises. 250
5.20.109 Requirements for special events. 100
5.20.120 Improper container condition. 250
5.20.130 Maintenance of bins and boxes- first violation. 250
Second and subsequent violations. 500
5.20.160 Spillage or leakage of solid waste. 250
5.20.180 No accumulation of solid waste. 250
5.20.190 No burning, burial, or dumping of solid waste. 250
5.20.200 Hazardous waste. 500
5.20.220 Scavenging prohibited. 100
5.30.020 Polystyrene & Non-Recyclable Plastic. 500
5.35.020 Bags at retail establishments. 500
5.35.030 Bags at supermarkets. 500
6.08.020(b) Interference with animal control officer. 250
6.16.010 No dog license. 50
6.16.080 Number of dogs allowed. 100
6.16.100 Leash Law. 100
6.20.010 Animals at large. 100
6.20.020 Animals on unenclosed premises. 100
6.20.030 Animals kept in enclosures. 100
6.20.035 Tying animals to bicycle racks or trees. 100
6.20.040 Nuisance on sidewalk. 100
6.20.045 Animal waste removal - first offense. 25
6.20.045 Animal waste removal - second offense. 50
6.20.045 Animal waste removal - third offense. 125
6.20.055 Animals in vehicles. 250
6.20.060 Bees close to property line. 100
6.20.080 Permit required - livestock. 100
6.20.090 Maintaining birds, goats, pigs and rabbits. 100
6.20.110 Number of cats kept. 100
6.20.120 Permit required - breeding animals. 100
6.20.130 Cat or dog in heat. 100
6.20.140 Barking dogs. 100
6.20.150 Vaccination required - animals. 100
6.20.160 Sanitary enclosures. 100
6.20.170 Slaughter of animals. 500
6.24.020 Permit required - construction of stable. 250
6.24.050 Maintenance of stable. 250
6.28.040 Possession of dangerous or wild animals. 500
6.32.010 Keeping diseased animals. 500
6.32.020 Confining animals with rabies. 500
6.32.050 Dead animals in public. 500
6.36.010 Sales of certain animals. 250
8.04.020 Permit required - tree work. 500
8.04.080 Interference with tree enforcement. 500
8.08.010 Weeds as public nuisance. 250
8.10.050 Protected trees. 500
8.10.070 Care of protected trees. 500
8.10.080(b) Development conditions. 500
9.04.010 Open container in business district. 100
9.04.020 Open container in City parking lot. 100
9.04.030 Open container near liquor store. 100
9.04.040 Social host. First violation 250
Not Yet Approved
4
Second violation 500
Third & subsequent violation 1000
9.08.010 Discharge of firearms/fireworks. 1000
9.09.010(a) Urinating/defecating on street or public place. 250
9.09.010(b) Igniting or maintaining outdoor fire. 250
9.10.030 Residential property noise limits. 100
9.10.040 Commercial property noise limits. 100
9.10.050 Public property noise limits. 100
9.10.060(b) Construction noise signs. 250
9.10.060(c) Construction noise. 250
9.10.060(d) Construction equipment noise. 100
9.10.060(e) Residential power equipment noise. 100
9.10.060(f) Leaf blower noise- first violation. 100
Leaf blower noise- second violation 150
Leaf blower noise- third and subsequent violation 300
9.10.060(g) Street sweeping noise. 100
9.10.060(h) Refuse collection noise. 100
9.10.060(i) Safety device noise. 100
9.10.060(k) Public parking lot cleaning noise. 100
9.10.060(l) Business district street cleaning noise. 100
9.12.010 Loudspeakers. 150
9.14.020 Smoking prohibited - enclosed places. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.025 Smoking prohibited - unenclosed
areas. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.030 Smoking prohibited - city cars. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.035 Smoking prohibited – public parks and public events 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.040 Smoking prohibited - child care facilities. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.050 Smoking prohibited – commercial areas
and public events. 250 (2nd violation in 1 year: $300;
3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
9.14.080 Location of tobacco vending machines. 1000
9.14.090 Display of tobacco products. 500
9.14.100 Failure to post “No Smoking” signs. 50
9.22.010 Impersonating public officials. 500
9.26.020 False representation as police officer. 250
9.28.010 Hotel guest register required. 250
9.28.020 Use of false name by hotel guest. 50
9.40.020 Landing aircraft at other than airport. 1000
9.44.010 Solicitation prohibited - public parking lot. 100
9.48.010 Displaying goods on sidewalk. 50
9.48.025 Sitting or lying on University Avenue sidewalks. 100
9.48.030 Operation of sidewalk elevator. 500
9.48.040 Throwing rubbish on streets. 250
9.48.050 Obligation to clean sidewalk. 200
Not Yet Approved
5
9.50.010 Graffiti prohibited on public property. 500
9.56.030 Abatement of public nuisance. 500 unless otherwise specified
9.56.030(a)(5) Thirty-five foot site triangle. 200
9.56.030(a)(8) Foliage/branch obstruction. 200
9.56.030(a)(10) Excessive planting strip vegetation height. 150
9.60.030 Blocking entrances to City Hall. 500
9.60.050 Placing signs or climbing on City Hall. 500
9.60.060 Bicycles and skateboards at City Hall. 50
9.60.070 Alcoholic beverages prohibited - City Hall. 100
9.64.010 Overnight use of community facilities 250
9.74.030 Discrimination in housing. 250
9.78.020 Mosquito breeding places. 500
9.79.100 News rack violations. 100
12.08.010 Permit required - public right of way. 500
12.08.100 Removal of City Engineer monuments. 500
12.12.010 Building on public easement without or in violation 1000
of encroachment permit
12.12.020 Failure to obtain or violation of commercial 500
sidewalk encroachment permit
12.16.030 Overhead wires in underground districts. 500
12.16.090 Property owner responsibility. 500
12.20.010 Utility rules and regulations 500 unless otherwise specified
12.20.010 Emergency water conservation regulations 100 (2nd violation in 1 year: $250;
(Reso. Nos. 9509, 9460, 9449) 3rd and subsequent violations
in 1 year: $500)
12.20.020 Providing false information to City Utilities. 500
12.32.010 Water use regulation. 100
15.04.110 Violations of Uniform Fire Code. 500 unless otherwise specified
16.04.050 Violations of California Building Code as amended. 500 unless otherwise specified
16.05.040 Violations of California Mechanical Code as amended500
16.06.050 Violations of California Residential Code as amended.500
16.08.040 Violations of California Plumbing Code as amended. 500
16.09.260 Violations of Sewer Use Ordinance 1000
16.10.020 Construction of private sewer system. 750
16.10.050 Permit required - private sewage system. 500
16.14.040 Violations of California Green Building 500
Standards Code as amended
16.14.260 Failure to meet diversion requirements. $150 per ton of waste not
diverted or $3000, whichever is
greater
16.14.370 Failure to meet diversion requirements. $150 per ton of waste not
diverted or $3000, whichever is
greater
16.16.060 Violations of California Electrical Code as amended. 500
16.17.020 Violations of California Energy Code as amended. 500
16.18.020 Violations of International Pool and Spa Code as 500
amended
16.20.020 Design review required - signs. 500
16.20.090 Prohibited signs. 250
16.20.100 Prohibited locations - signs. 250
Not Yet Approved
6
16.20.110 Fuel price signs required. 250
16.20.210 Non-compliance with sign ordinance. 250
16.20.230 Abandoned signs. 250
16.20.250 Parking of advertising vehicles. 250
16.24.080 Fence violation. 250
16.28.060 Permit required - excavation and grading. 500
16.28.330 Protection of adjacent property. 500
16.28.340 Deposits of earth, rock, etc. 500
16.32.010 Permit required - moving a building. 250
16.36.050 Curb painting without a permit. 100
16.36.060 House numbering required. 100
16.38.020 Certificate of occupancy – community housing. 500
16.40.040 Dangerous and substandard buildings. 500
16.40.090 Non-compliance with order of building official. 500
16.40.180 Interference with repair or demolition work. 500
16.42.090 Failure to submit seismic report. 250
16.45.070 Failure to pay fee - Stanford Research Park. 250
16.46.060 Failure to pay fee - San Antonio - West Bayshore. 250
16.47.050 Failure to pay housing impact fee. 250
16.49.050 Exterior alteration of downtown historic structures 10000
or a significant structure outside the downtown
without or in violation of permit
16.49.060 Demolition of a significant downtown building 10000
without or in violation of permit
16.49.070 Demolition of a contributing downtown structure 10000
or significant structure outside the downtown
without or in violation of permit
16.49.080 Maintenance of downtown historic structure. 10000
16.49.090 Demolition of downtown historic structure. 10000
16.52.070 Construction - flood hazards. 500
16.59.090 Failure to pay fee- Citywide Transportation Impact. 250
16.60.090 Failure to pay fee- Charleston/Arastradero. 250
16.62.020 Maintenance of expired building permit 200 for 31st through 60th day
400 for 61st through 120th day
800 for 121st day and thereafter
17.04.020 Violations of hazardous materials storage. 500, unless otherwise specified
17.04.030 Specific obligation - hazardous materials. 500
17.10.010 General obligation - underground storage tanks. 750 unless otherwise specified
17.10.040 Permit required - underground storage. 500
17.10.140 Financial responsibility - underground storage. 500
17.10.150 Monitoring underground storage tanks. 1000
17.10.170 Unlawful abandonment - underground storage tanks.1000
17.12.010 Permit required - hazardous materials storage. 750
17.12.020 New hazardous materials storage facilities. 750
17.12.060 Hazardous materials storage facilities. 750
17.16.010 Hazardous materials management plan. 250
17.20.010 Hazardous materials inventory statement. 250
17.24.010 Hazardous materials discharge report. 750
17.32.010 Permit required - storage of hazardous materials. 1000
18.01.080 Violation of zoning laws. 500
18.16.060(d)Hotel stay in excess of 30 days. 200
18.38.020 Planned Community zoning (unless otherwise 500
specified in PC ordinance) 2500 beginning the 181st day
following notice of violation
Not Yet Approved
7
18.42.060(a)Incompatibility of home occupations. 200
18.42.060(b) Employees of home occupation. 200
18.42.060(c) On site advertising of home occupation. 200
18.42.060(d) Floor area of home occupation. 200
18.42.060(e) Traffic related to home occupation. 200
18.42.060(f) Home occupation as nuisance. 200
18.42.060(g) Outdoor storage related to home occupation. 200
18.42.070 Servicing vehicles in residential zone. 250
18.52.050 Transportation demand management conditions 1000
4000 beginning the 181st day
following notice of violation
18.84.200 Temporary uses. 250
22.04.030 Compliance with park rules. 250
22.04.040 Failure to obtain use permit. 300
22.04.150(a) Resident and guests only - Foothills Park. 50
22.04.150(b) Entrance to park - Foothills Park. 50
22.04.150(c) Person in park after hours - Foothills Park. 250
22.04.150(d) Speed limit 20MPH - Foothills Park. 250
22.04.150(e) Vehicles in Foothills Park after hours. 100
22.04.150(f) Skateboards and motorcycles - Foothills Park. 250
22.04.150(g) Smoking on trails - Foothills Park. 1000
22.04.150(h) Fires in Foothills Park. 1000
22.04.150(i) Use of trails - Foothills Park. 100
22.04.150(l) Unleashed dog - Foothills Park. 250
22.04.155 Restraint of dogs in City parks. 250
22.04.160 Permit required - sales in parks. 250
22.04.170 Violation of park use permit. 250
22.04.180 Sound in parks. 250
22.04.190 Unauthorized golf and other games in parks. 250
22.04.200 Unauthorized models and kites in parks. 100
22.04.210 Parking in parks. 100
22.04.215 Launch and takeout from ramp or dock. 250
22.04.220 Bicycle not permitted on trails. 250
22.04.230 Dumping in park. 1000
22.04.240 Interference with park use permit. 250
22.04.250 Park regulations . 250 unless otherwise specified
22.04.260 Discharge of weapons in park. 500
22.04.270 Removal of flora or fauna. 500
22.04.280 Removal of turf or soil. 500
22.04.290(a) Damaging, defacing, etc., property. 1000
22.04.290(b) Marking, writing or printing on property. 1000
22.04.290(c) Attaching sign, etc., without permit. 500
22.04.290(d) Entering, etc., structure after posted hours. 250
22.04.290(e) Bringing portable tables without a permit. 100
22.04.300 Unlawful fire in city park. 1000
22.04.310 Enid Pearson Arastradero, Esther Park closure. 250
22.04.315 Byxbee Park and Baylands closed. 250
22.04.320 Parks closed. 250
22.04.321(a)Skateboarding in park after hours. 50
22.04.322 Trespass at Rinconada Park pool. 50
22.04.330 Alcohol in Cogswell Park. 250
22.04.331 Alcohol in Lytton Plaza. 250
22.04.332 Alcohol in Johnson Park. 250
22.04.333 Alcohol in Boulware Park. 250
Not Yet Approved
8
22.04.334 Alcohol in Scott St. Minipark. 250
22.04.335 Alcohol in Greer Park. 250
22.04.336(a)Alcohol in Rinconada Park. 250
22.04.337 Alcohol in Mitchell Park. 250
22.04.338 Alcohol in Robles Park. 250
22.04.339 Alcohol in Hopkins Park. 250
22.04.340 Vehicles in park. 250
22.04.341 Alcohol in El Palo Alto Park. 250
22.04.342 Alcohol in Heritage Park. 250
22.04.343 Alcohol in Pardee Park. 250
22.04.350 Consumption of alcoholic beverage in vehicles. 250
22.04.360 Open container in park - alcoholic beverage. 250
22.04.370 Reckless driving in park. 250
22.04.380 Unlawful riding and towing in parks. 250
22.04.390 Duck pond. 100
SECTION 2. Municipal Code Civil Penalties. The civil penalty schedule for violations of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code established by Resolution No. 9554 is hereby amended and restated to
read as follows*:
Standard penalty unless otherwise indicated below. $46
10.36.020 No parking in parkways. 46
10.36.030(a)Storage on the street (72 hours). 86
10.36.040(a)(1)Vehicle for sale on street. 46
10.36.040(a)(2)Repairing vehicle on street. 46
10.36.050 Not w/in 18” of left curb--One-way street. 46
10.36.090 Removal of chalk markings. 111
10.40.020(a)(1)Parking violation – red curb. 46
10.40.020(a)(4)Parking violation – green curb. 46
10.40.020(a)(5)Parking violation – blue curb. 308
10.40.020(b)Parking in violation of sign (except blue curb). 46
10.40.020(b)Unlawful disabled parking - signs (blue curb). 308
10.40.040(b)Commercial vehicle double parking. 46
10.40.050 Unlawful parking in yellow loading zone. 46
10.40.060 Unlawful parking in passenger loading zone. 46
10.40.070 Unlawful alley parking. 46
10.40.100(g)Parking in a bus zone. 46
10.44.010(b)Overtime parking (limited time zone). 41
10.44.010(c)Additional violation of time limited or no 44
parking zones.
10.44.020(a)Oversized vehicle parking in residential or 46
public facilities zones 2am-6am.
10.44.040(b)Not in space marking. 46
10.44.050(b)Parking violation--temporary sign. 46
10.44.060 Dealers--parking for sale or repair. 46
10.44.070(b)Parking in violation of posted sign. 46
10.44.080 Vehicle obstruction of roadway or lot. 46
10.44.090 Unattended vehicle, engine running. 111
10.45.110 Parking in on-street valet parking space. 46
10.46.110 Overtime residential parking permit (CT) 53
10.48.030 Truck route violation. 211
10.50.100(a)Violation of posted RPP permit sign 53
10.60.070(c)Permit not properly displayed. 41
10.60.070(d)Overtime permit parking in City lot. 41
Not Yet Approved
9
10.60.070(e)Parking without permit in permit area. 46
22.04.150(e)In Foothills Park after hours. 111
22.04.210 Parking in parks. 111
Late payment penalty. 35
Collection cost penalty. 35% of listed penalty
*All penalties include state-mandated assessments pursuant to Gov’t. Code 76000, S.B 1407(2008), and
Government Code 76000.3 (S.B. 857, 2008) totaling $12.50.
SECTION 3. Vehicle Code Civil Penalties. The civil penalty schedule for violations of the
California Vehicle Code established by Resolution No. 9554 is hereby amended and restated to
read as follows*:
5200 No front license plate. $78
(If corrected within 31 days) 10 (state mandated)
5204(a) No registration tabs on license plate. 78
(If corrected within 31 days) 10 (state mandated)
21113(a) Parking on public grounds. 46
22500(a) Parking in an intersection. 46
22500(b) Parking in a crosswalk. 46
22500(d) Parking w/in 15 feet--fire station driveway. 46
22500(e) Blocking driveway. 46
22500(f) Parking on sidewalk. 46
22500(g) Parking or stopping--excavation site, etc. 46
22500(h) Double parking on roadway. 46
22500(i) Parking in a bus zone. 261
22500(l) Parking in front of accessible curb. 303
22500.1 Parking in a fire lane (public or private). 46
22502 Right hand wheels not w/in 18” of rt. curb. 46
22505(b) Parking on state highway violation. 46
22507.8(a-b)Unlawful parking in handicapped space. 303
22507.8(c)(1-2)Straddling Lines/Cross hatched, disabled. 303
22511.57(a) Parking/standing of vehicle in disabled parking $753
stall or space with invalid license/placard.
22511.57(b) Unauthorized use of license/placard for vehicle $753
parking/standing in disabled parking stall or space.
22511.57(c) Parking/standing of vehicle in disabled parking $753
stall or space with counterfeit, forged, altered or
mutilated license/placard for disabled.
22514 Parking within 15 feet of fire hydrant. 46
22515 Unattended vehicle, engine running. 111
22516 Person locked in vehicle. 111
22521 Parking within 7 1/2 feet of railroad tracks. 46
22522 Parking near sidewalk access ramp. 303
22523(a) Unlawful abandonment of vehicle on highway. 131
22523(b) Abandoned vehicle--public/private property. 131
22526 Entering/blocking intersection – anti-gridlock. 131
22951 No street, alley parking--patron vehicles. 46
*All penalties include state-mandated assessments pursuant to Gov’t. Code 76000, S.B 1407(2008), and
Government Code 76000.3 (S.B. 857, 2008) totaling $12.50.
Not Yet Approved
10
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the
definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus, no environmental
assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act is required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________
City Manager
__________________________ ____________________________
Deputy City Attorney Police Chief
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
December 4, 2017
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.040.160 (City Council
Minutes) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Provide for Action
Minutes and Video/Audio Recordings as the Official Record of Council
Business, and Directing the Clerk to Prepare Sense Summaries of
Council and Council Standing Committee Meetings for the Use and
Convenience of Council and the Public
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Municipal Code
Section 2.04.160 (council minutes) to provide that action minutes and video/audio
records are the official permanent record of all Council and Council standing committee
meetings, and directing the Clerk to prepare and upload to the website sense minutes
(summaries) of meetings for the use and convenience of Council and the public.
Verbatim transcripts would no longer be prepared.
Background
Prior to October 2015, the Palo Alto Council used action minutes and video/audio
recordings as official records of Council and Council standing committee business.
Clerk’s Office staff also prepared a summary of discussions and proceedings, called
“sense minutes.”
On October 5, 2015 the City Council voted (7-2 DuBois, Kniss no) that action minutes
and video/audio recordings of Council and Council Standing Committee meetings be the
permanent official record of the meetings, that the Clerk have meetings transcribed
verbatim, and that sense minutes no longer be prepared.
Under the current procedures, during a Council meeting, the City Clerk begins the draft
action minutes by typing the names of all speakers and the motions. The second Clerk
staff member types the motions so they appear on the screen for Council and the public
to view. Within one week, Staff produces the final action minutes, which consists of
just the motions. The action minutes are put on the next available Council meeting
agenda for approval. The Clerk’s Office sends the draft action minutes to the
transcriptionist to assist with preparation of a verbatim transcript of the meeting. The
Clerk’s Office reviews completed transcripts and uploads them to the City website.
Verbatim transcripts typically run 100 pages per meeting and require four (4) hours to
prepare. By contrast, sense minutes typically ran approximately 40 pages in length and
Page 2
could be prepared in three (3) hours. Transcriptions services are $33.00 per hour,
regardless of whether the product is a verbatim transcript or sense minutes. Council
Members and members of the public have reported that, due to the length of verbatim
transcripts and video/audio recordings, it is difficult to use either of these records to
quickly review and understand the issues discussed at a meeting and the reasons for
actions taken. Sense minutes were quicker and “more user friendly” for these purposes.
In 2015, the Clerk surveyed surrounding jurisdictions regarding their practices. Of the
72 agencies that responded, 35 use action minutes and relied on the meeting video as
the official record of the meeting. Thirty cities use sense/summary minutes and the
remaining seven used detailed summary minutes. No agency used verbatim minutes.
The proposed ordinance would provide that action minutes and video/audio recordings
are the official records of Council and Council committee business. The ordinance would
further direct the Clerk to prepare sense minutes for the use and convenience of
Council and the public. Sense minutes would be available on the website but would not
be approved by Council as an official record of proceedings. Verbatim transcripts would
no longer be prepared.
Resource Impact,
There will be no additional Staff impacts, however there will be a reduction in the
annual cost for transcription as it does not take as long to create sense minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: ORD Amending City Council Minutes 2.04.160 (2) (DOCX)
Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk
Page 3
Not Yet Approved
171109 th 0140183
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.04
(Council Organization and Procedure), Section 2.04.160 (City Council Minutes),
to Require that Action Minutes and Sense Minutes Be Prepared for All Council
and Council Standing Committee Meetings, and Deleting the Requirement for
Verbatim Transcripts
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 and the public require clear, accessible records of all official
business of the City Council and its committees. The Council finds that action minutes and the
video and audio recordings of Council and committee meetings are the clearest and most
complete records of Council proceedings and actions. For this reason, action minutes and video
and audio records shall be the official records of Council and committee proceedings.
B. Council further finds that there remains a use for summaries of Council
discussions, which provide additional detail in a form that is easier and quicker to review than
video and audio recordings. Council hereby amends the Municipal Code to require the Clerk to
prepare unofficial summaries of Council and committee meetings, for the use and convenience
of Council and the public.
SECTION 2. Section 2.04.160 “City Council Minutes” of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
2.04.160 City council minutes.
(a) The minutes of the council shall be kept by the city clerk. The minutes
shall be neatly typewritten or printed in a book kept for that purpose, with a record of each
particular type of business transacted set off in paragraphs, with proper subheadings.
(b) The minutes shall include a record of all business discussed and all
actions taken at regular or special meetings of the council and council standing committees.
The minutes shall be action minutes. As soon as possible after each council and committee
meeting, the city clerk shall post draft action minutes on the city’s website and transmit a copy
to each council member.
(c) A verbatim transcript of the proceedings shall also be prepared. The city
clerk shall also prepare a summary of discussions and actions taken at all regular and special
council meetings and council standing committees. The summaries, or sense minutes, are for
the use and convenience of council and the public and shall not be approved by council as
official records of proceedings. As soon as possible after each council and committee meeting
Not Yet Approved
171109 th 0140183
the verbatim transcript , sense minutes shall be made publicly available digitally on the city’s
website and hard copies available upon request.
(d) At the meeting following posting of the draft action minutes, council
minutes shall be agendized by the city clerk for the council’s approval. Corrections to the
minutes shall be made at the meeting. Council members may submit their corrections in writing
or orally to the city clerk’s office before the time of the meeting. The city clerk shall distribute a
written copy of all corrections received during regular business hours to all council members at
the meeting.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or
sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance
will have a significant effect on the environment.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Not Yet Approved
171109 th 0140183
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8675)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/4/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Addendum to the Rail Committee Charter
Title: Adoption of an Addendum to the Rail Committee Charter
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Rail Committee’s recommendation
and adopt the following addendum to the Rail Committee’s current charter (attached):
The City Council is committed to robust community engagement regarding grade
separations along the Caltrain corridor and has requested that the Rail Committee
conduct meetings to engage directly with community stakeholders to support the
decision-making process. These meetings will be formatted to allow for and
encourage dialog and to supplement other regular meetings of the Committee as
well as larger community workshops, focus group meetings, and other forms of
engagement utilized to develop a Context Sensitive Solution for the rail corridor.
The Rail Committee will ultimately formulate recommendations to the City Council.
The stakeholder input that the Committee receives will help shape and inform those
recommendations and the Council’s decisions.
Executive Summary
On April 11, 2017, the City Council adopted an updated charter for the Rail Committee
(Attachment A) and on September 11, 2017, the City Council requested an addendum
to the Rail Committee’s charter, reflecting its desire for the Rail Committee to play an
expanded role in community engagement. The Rail Committee considered a draft of
the addendum on November 8, 2017 and recommended its adoption. The goal of the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
addendum is to explain the Committee’s role in the community engagement process.
The ongoing planning effort envisions robust community engagement during a four
phase planning and decision making process, as shown below:
The Rail Committee will provide a recommendation to the City Council at each decision
point based on community input as well as data and analysis developed by a team of
staff and consultants. To use the Rail Committee as a venue for community
engagement, staff has suggested and the Rail Committee has agreed to schedule “town
hall” style Rail Committee meetings in the evening one or two days before the day time
Rail Committee meetings where decision points are discussed. The three remaining
decision points are shown in the diagram above: identify alternatives for evaluation;
evaluate & refine alternatives; and select preferred alternative.
For example, after staff has brought forward a draft circulation study, a white paper on
trenching and tunneling options, a white paper on local financing options, and a
summary of input from community round table meetings and Questionnaire #2, we will
be requesting the Committee’s recommendations on alternatives that should be
evaluated further. The Committee would hold an evening town hall style meeting one
or two days before the regular meeting of the Committee, possibly at a venue other
than City Hall. The meeting would be structured to permit comments and questions
from the community, as well as staff/consultant and Committee responses, and could
be streamed live on Facebook. 1 At its regular morning meeting a couple of days later,
The Committee would have an opportunity to discuss the community input received and
responses to outstanding questions/concerns. The meeting could end with a Rail
Committee motion to recommend a short list of alternatives for further evaluation
and/or request additional staff work.
The advantages of this two-step process would be to let the Committee hear directly
from the public and engage in dialog before being called to make a recommendation to
the City Council.
Note that the traditional and “town hall” style Rail Committee meetings described above
are one of several ways community members can engage on this issue. Staff also plans
to schedule community meetings, focus groups, and use other means to gather and
analyze community input to assist the Council as it moves through the decision making
1 Under the Brown Act, members of the Council who are not on the Rail Committee may attend traditional and
“town hall” Rail Committee meetings in person or via Facebook streaming, but only as observers (meaning that
they cannot speak or otherwise participate in the meeting). This rule applies to all city council subcommittees.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
process.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Rail Committee Charter April 11, 2017 (DOCX)
April 11, 2017 Rail Committee Charter
Page 1 of 2
Rail Committee Charter
[Adopted April 11, 2017]
Preamble
The City of Palo Alto supports transportation and urban design solutions for the Caltrain
corridor that are compatible with community values and that complement the goals and
policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The Caltrain corridor has long been a physical constraint to east-west movement in Palo
Alto, and the current grade crossings create traffic congestion and pose safety and noise
challenges that will get worse as the frequency of train service increases. As a result,
the City actively participates in planning for the rail corridor, and supports changes that
improve and do not exacerbate impacts to the Palo Alto community.
Purpose of the Committee
The City Council’s Rail Committee was re-established in 2015 to analyze and advance grade
separated crossings for all modes of travel (bicycles, motor vehicles, transit, and pedestrians).
While the Committee in the past has focused on High Speed Rail, Caltrain grade separations and
electrification will be the essential focus of the Committee for 2017-2018.
Guiding Principles
1. Palo Alto seeks to improve east-west connectivity, traffic circulation, pedestrian and bicycle
movements, safety, and the noise environment along the Caltrain corridor.
2. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the improved commuter rail service that will come
as a result of modernization (including electrification).
3. Palo Alto will continue to work with Caltrain to ensure that all potential impacts of
modernization are addressed and adopted mitigation measures are implemented.
4. Palo Alto supports Caltrain as the lead agency for all system improvements in the Caltrain
corridor.
5. Palo Alto has long had concerns about the potential impacts of High Speed Rail and believes
that the project should be terminated. If the project proceeds, CHSRA should provide
funding for affected cities to analyze potential impacts.
6. Palo Alto believes that CAHSRA should fund grade separations and should not commence
service until they are complete.
April 11, 2017 Rail Committee Charter
Page 2 of 2
7. Palo Alto will advocate strenuously for its fair share of County Measure B funding for grade
separations and actively seek additional funding from Caltrain, CAHSRA, Santa Clara County,
and other external funding sources.
8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions process for High Speed Rail
and grade separations and will structure a CSS process to engage the community in
selection of a preferred grade separation alternative for the corridor.
9. Palo Alto seeks modernization of freight operations in the corridor and will seek flexibility
from the UPRR to pursue desired improvements in the Caltrain corridor.
10. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and
Caltrain issues of mutual concern, including grade separations.
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
December 4, 2017
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Policy and Services Recommendation to Accept the
Accuracy of Water Meter Billing Audit
The Office of the City Auditor recommends acceptance of the Accuracy of Water Meter Billing
Audit. At its meeting on August 22, 2017, the Policy and Services Committee approved and
unanimously recommended that the City Council accept the report. The attached report
includes updates to Recommendations 1.4 and 2.1 to read, “Explore options for addressing
equity when making changes to customer meter size rates and…,” “Develop a policy and
procedure to transparently report significant, systemic, infrastructure changes to Council for
approval…,” respectively, as well as changes to the City Manager’s response from “Partially
Agree” to “Agree” for both recommendations.
The Policy and Services Committee minutes are included in this packet.
Respectfully submitted,
Harriet Richardson
City Auditor
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Memo to Policy and Services Committee (August 22, 2017) (PDF)
Attachment B: Accuracy of Water Meter Billing Audit (PDF)
Attachment C: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (August 22, 2017)
(PDF)
Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
August 22, 2017
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Accuracy of Water Meter Billing Audit
In accordance with the Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Audit Work Plan, the Office of the City Auditor
has completed the Accuracy of Water Meter Billing Audit. The audit report presents 3 findings
with 11 recommendations. The Office of the City Auditor recommends that the Policy and
Services Committee review and recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Accuracy of
Water Meter Billing Audit.
Respectfully submitted,
Harriet Richardson
City Auditor
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Accuracy of Water Meter Billing Audit (PDF)
Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor
Attachment A
Attachment B
Accuracy of Water Meter Billing Audit
August 16, 2017
Office of the City Auditor
Harriet Richardson, City Auditor
Mimi Nguyen, Senior Performance Auditor
Deniz Tunc, Performance Auditor
Steve Hendrickson, Management Specialist
B
•
•
B
B
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B
B
B
B
•
•
•
•
B
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B
B
B
B
B
•
•
B
B
•
•
•
B
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B
B
B
•
•
•
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
•
•
•
•
•
B
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 1 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
Special Meeting
August 22, 2017
Chairperson Wolbach called the meeting to order at 6:06 P.M. in the
Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: DuBois, Kniss, Kou, Wolbach (Chair)
Absent:
Agenda Items
2.Accuracy of Water Meter Billing Audit.
Chair Wolbach: Moving onto Item Number Two, the accuracy of water meter
billing audit. Again, I’ll look to the City Auditor to begin or to defer to
another member of Staff.
Harriet Richardson, City Auditor: We will begin as soon as she gets that
pulled up here.
Chair Wolbach: Take your time.
Ms. Richardson: Ok, there it is, ok.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I want to make sure we’ve got everything we need. Is the
one marked number two have everything in it?
Chair Wolbach: (Inaudible)
Vice Mayor Kniss: Ok, good because it said there was another one coming
and I don’t know whether (inaudible)…
Ms. Richardson: It was in your Packet last week.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Ok, good. Great.
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 2 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
Ms. Richardson: And the Audit, do you have the Audit Report itself? Ok.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Apparently, I’m all set.
Ms. Richardson: Ok.
Chair Wolbach: Go ahead and introduce yourself.
Ms. Richardson: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor and with me is Mimi
Nguyen. She was the Senior Performance Auditor who worked on this audit,
along with Deniz Tunc who has left our office. He accepted a Management
Analyst position with the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office. So, I’ll go ahead
and start and then I will turn it over to Mimi. The objective of our audit was to determine if water utility customers were accurately billed for their water
meter type, size, and related adjustments. We answered four questions to
address the subject, the first one was -- are meters by their serial or badge
number, size and type correctly billed to the customer? The second question
was, are billing adjustments identified and adjusted correctly and the third
question was, are the water meters used to measure consumption working
effectively and according to standards? The fourth question was do utilities
have a quality assurance quality control process to prevent, detect and
correct billing errors from occurring. The American Water Works Association
(AWWA) is – establishes the guiding principles that we use to inform our
audit. The AWWA is the largest organization of water supply professionals in
the world and the authoritative resource on safe water. Its Standards Committee provides standards, manuals, and guides on selecting, installing,
testing and maintaining water meters. They have three principle manners for
–that they say should be used to measure meter accuracy. The first is the
physical accuracy of the meter as a flow measuring device. The second is the
appropriate sizing of the meter to fit the customer’s consumption profiles
and the third is the appropriate type of meter to best record variations in the
flow. This Audit should be used in conjunction with our prior Audit that we
published in March 2015 and that was an audit of utility meters and it was
the procurement inventory and retirement cycle. That audit focused on the
importance of having accurate meter data to ensure accurate customer
billings. This audit focused on verifying that actual billing errors and
determining the root causes of data inconsistencies. There is a little bit of
overlap between the audits – the two audits as you’ll see as Mimi gets into
some of the discussion. We focused specifically on identifying billing errors
that resulted in a discrepancy in the meter size records in any of five areas.
The first was the purchasing record, the second was the inventory record,
the third was the installation record, the fourth was the billing record and
the fifth was the physical meter installed at the location. Running a report,
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 3 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
Mimi identified 540 discrepancies that could potentially result in billing
errors. So I’m going to turn it over to Mimi now and she’ll talk about what
she found when she did her work.
Mimi Nguyen, Senior Performance Auditor: Thank you. Mimi Nguyen, Senior
Performance Auditor, we found three findings in our review here and the first
finding that Utilities did not adequately prevent, detect, nor correct water
billing errors. Finding 2, utilities did install 1,178 E-Meters throughout the
City, however, the E-Meters do not have industry standards or testing
standards and the accuracy in performance and reliability of these E-Meters are uncertain. The third finding was that the purchase of these E-Meters did
not conform to standardization and sole source policies and the E-Meter
expenditures were not monitored. For finding one, our next two slides show
how we identified the data discrepancies and the actual billing errors in SAP
by looking at those five areas that we identified in the background slide. In
this slide here, it shows that the E-Meter was purchased and also received
into inventory as a one inch meter. We know that the E-Meter is identified as
a one inch meter because the material number that is assigned to it, which
is 028802 is a one inch meter. The serial badge number assigned the meter
is 58817 and this meter number lets us track this meter through its entire
life cycle. On this next slide, as we tracked the meter number 58817 through
SAP, this slide shows that the one inch meter was installed in May 2014 replacing a 5/8-inch meter. You can see this in the change in the material
number in the last row of number three and in this specific example the
reason for changing the meter from a 5/8-inch to a one inch might be valid.
However, the change in the step number three did not trigger a change in
the price class which would have affected the billing to the customer. So, it
remained as the 5/8-inch billing rather than being changed to a 1-inch bill.
The work flow process did not catch the upgraded meter size and there was
no manual controls or oversight to identify and correct this type of error. So,
there were other variations of errors like this example that resulted in meter
size billing errors; this is just one example. In—after physically inspecting
and reviewing the records of all of the 520 data discrepancies that we looked
at, we found that 213 of them actually resulted in billing errors. These errors
were across various meter sizes as shown in this table here and although the
audit report says it’s a two-point seven percent error rate, we were really
unable to determine a true error rate due to the various types of
discrepancies in the meter data records and the various types of billing
errors. The audit really attempted to identify root causes for this single type
of error, not just the data discrepancies itself. We looked at addressing
systemic changes that need to be made to ensure that future errors of this
type are reduced or completely eliminated. It also emphasizes the need to
bill customers accurately, both for the service provided as well as the
equipment that they are receiving. The map here shows the location of all
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 4 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
the errors that were identified as the one, two and three sets in our report.
You’ll see that they are not isolated and they are not contained to any one
area. The meter size errors are not only widespread by location throughout
the City but also in the type of data inconsistencies and the causes. So,
following the audit, the Utilities Department did find an additional 204 errors
–same type of errors so not only do the billing errors need to be corrected
but also the data, where possible, to ensure that accurate data is migrated
when utilities implement its new customer information system. So, moving
to findings two and three, we have it consolidated on this slide here. Utilitiesdid not adequately evaluate, test and transition E-Meters into the City’s
water infrastructure and the purchase of the E-Meters did not conform to the
City’s Standardization and Sole Source Policies and E-Meter expenditures
were not monitored. It’s important to recognize that ninety-four percent of
all City water meters are positive displacement meters. The utilities water –
Gas, Waste, Water and Engineering Standards do cite the AWWA as the
standard for this type of meter. The AWWA however, does not have
standards for the E-Meters and they don’t have standards for testing and
they don’t have the testing method that’s independent of the manufacturer.
The manufacturer does test each meter and they’ve claimed that the meters
do pass within the tolerance level – the error tolerance level but the
manufacturer does test the E-Meters on a displacement meter test benchthat is modified. So, because there are neither industry standards for E-
Meters for testing the accuracy and performance of the E-Meters, neither
utilities nor any other third party vendor has a reliable method for verifying
the accuracy of the City’s E-Meters. Also, we do not have a way to verify
the reliability of the manufacturer's modified test bench. For findings one
and two, this slide summarizes eight recommendations and you know the
Utilities Department, based on these recommendations, it focuses the
Utilities Department on improving the accuracy of water meter rate billings
and ensuring the reliability of E-Meters prior to buying or installing any more
of them. Utilities agrees with six of the recommendations and partially
agrees with two of the recommendations, which are recommendation
numbers 1.4 and 2.1 on Appendix Two, Pages 28 and 29. We question
utilities partial agreement with those two recommendations because their
response appears to be consistent with our recommendation and does not
specifically say what in the recommendation they do not agree with.
Regarding finding three, this slide summarizes three recommendations to
the Administrative Services Department, specifically the Purchasing Division,
that focuses on ensuring that the products go through the appropriate
vetting process before being approved as a standardized item or sole source
purchase and that sole source purchases are tracked to prevent
overspending of approved amounts.
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 5 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
Ms. Richardson: So, we support the Utilities Action Plan and their targeted
work to prevent, detect and correct water meter billing errors and we note
that they have already started taking action to do so and also, to ensure
that consumer confidence in the meter accuracy. We also support ASD’s
action plan to strengthen its procedures regarding sole source purchases and
note that they also have already started taking action to implement those
recommendations. We have a recommendation – a recommended motion
that Policy and Services Committee recommends that the City Council accept
the utilities accuracy of water meter billing audit and that concludes our presentation and we are able to answer any questions you might have.
Chair Wolbach: Any public speakers on this? Any questions or comments
from my Colleagues? I have a couple but I will defer, go ahead, Tom.
Council Member DuBois: Just so I’m clear, so in the past when we detected
this we – do we refund the money to the people who were overbilled and
collect the money from people that were unbilled?
Mr. Shikada: Yes, we have a window of, I think it’s three years, correct? For
both, the refunds as well as back charges and in the case of where there’s
balance owed by the customer that we can work on a payment plan through
which that can be done.
Council Member DuBois: So, are we consistently applying what we did then
to these new ones?
Mr. Shikada: We have, one of the issues that we identify though is in
specifically this capital project that was completed in 1994 where there were
changes to the valve size based upon the capital project – the construction
of a new water main. That we –at the time the differential between the price
for a 5.8-inch valve and a 1-inch was fifty cents and so there were logical
reasons to upsize the valve. Since that time though the differential in valve
–in price – the fixed price on a monthly basis has increased to roughly $17
per month. So, given how at the time the decision made sense but in
hindsight, now 23–22-23-years later the differential as big as it is, we do
want to take a look at that differential. So, that’s an issue that we will be
coming back to City Council with. As the Council Members know, our rates
are set based on a pretty rigorous or extremely rigorous cost of service
analysis that takes into account the various components of this system. So,
we really want to ensure that as we bring back options for the Council, that
we’ve looked at not creating more of an issue than exist in order to address
on what appears to be a disparity; again, in hindsight.
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 6 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
Council Member DuBois: So, are you saying that for that one neighborhood,
we would treat it differently than for areas found in other parts of the City?
Mr. Shikada: That’s where we’re looking more deeply into it. Given that it
looks like that capital project, the construction project was a one-time
situation where a water main replacement actually resulted in a meter…
Council Member DuBois: That’s the Southgate project?
Mr. Shikada: …exchanges – yes, that’s correct.
Council Member DuBois: But that’s only a subset of the errors, right?
Mr. Shikada: Correct. So that’s the one circumstance under which we want to look more closely at it and where it might be justifiable to do something
different, such as come up with a special rate, given the circumstances that
led to those meter change outs. Otherwise to your initial point, the back
billing and the refunding would apply.
Council Member DuBois: Ok, then it looks like there’s a little back and forth
about whether it was mostly about that project. If there was a more
systemic error, have you guys agreed on a path I guess moving forward?
Mr. Shikada: I think quite frankly, I will just speak for myself and behalf of
the Utilities Department and City Administration. The issue that we really
took issue with was the description of the concern as an equity issue and the
decision for how the meter changes were made. From Staff perspective, we
really don’t see that as an equity issue. It was really again, justifiable at the point in time that the decision was made and so it was really more of the
characterization than anything else. With respect to – and I think beyond
that, it may either be a misinterpretation or miscommunication in terms of
whether how that disagreement played out because again, to your point, we
do believe that there are systemic issues with the potential for human error
to just exist indefinitely. Once an error was made when the installation was
done, since that time and really as a result of the audit so giving credit to
the City’s Auditor’s Office, we’ve now implemented regular checks. So, we’ve
now implemented monthly reconciliation of the installation with the billing
records. Now that said, it is a highly labor-intensive process so as we’re
going through it, there’s still the potential for human error to be a part of
what we need to look for. So, all of that leads to the other recommendation
which is as the new Customer Information System is part of the Enterprise
Resource Planning System is put together, that we really need to maximize
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 7 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
the automation and minimize the likelihood that human manual data entry
leads to these errors that can’t be corrected later.
Ms. Richardson: I want to add something to that last comment. If you look
back at Slide 4, those five different areas that we listed on Slide 4. The five
different places where there could be a discrepancy, in SAP each of those
are a manual point of entry and best practice is a single point of entry and
that’s what Ed was referring to when we’re talking about the new Customer
Information System. There would be a single point of entry, you enter it
once and it carries through to all the different places where that meter number is used for billing and so you should automatically have a significant
reduction in the error rate by only having to enter it once.
Council Member DuBois: So, I have some questions about E-meters. I
assume we switched to E-Meters for a reason so what are the benefits of the
E-Meters?
Mr. Shikada: Let me make sure I cover some of those, let’s see. The
decision was really made in 2013 and let me certainly acknowledge, as was
pointed out in the audit, that there was a flawed process in how the decision
was made to proceed with that. In mismatch between the initial approval
and then what was purchased so the standardization and then implementing
it as a new standard really wasn’t – was not done correctly. With that said,
the rationale for going to the E-Meters related to one, the lighter weight of the meters themselves so they are actually easier to install or remove the E-
Meters. Part of for us would be worth going through is a bit of an
understanding of the meters themselves. The suggestion E-Meters sounds
very high tech…
Council Member DuBois: Is it like you can read the value remotely?
Mr. Shikada: Not in and of itself. The fundamentally – it’s actually a brand
name or a series of the types of meters that are labeled E-Meters. The
primary difference is it’s not mechanical in the way that it measures the
water going through. It’s ultrasonic so it does pings; effectively a little sonar
system in there that allows the pinging to detect the rate of water flowing
through the pipe. So that’s the primary difference, it’s the method by with
(crosstalk) (inaudible)…
Council Member DuBois: Does it save us money in terms of reading water
meters?
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 8 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
Mr. Shikada: It could in the long term. It sets it up for what would
subsequently require the transmitter in order to remote read, as well as then
to have the data collection. So, it’s really – fundamentally it’s simply the
method by which the water measurement is taken as the primary difference.
That said the – recognizing that we have had a history of injuries among the
meter technicians who do the installations and removals, that going to the
lighter weight, it is easier to handle a meter and that was a part of the
decision. I’m not seeing my notes in terms of other rationale so if Staff
wants to reinforce any other reasons for that. As well as, really, the expectation that because relative to the solid state, the – really experienced
that mechanical meters have in that they slow down over time and that
would not be an issue with the E-Meters. So that would allow for a more
consistent recording going into the future and then the last piece is, to your
point, that when we do implement smart meter technology overall, this
model of the meter could be retrofitted for the purpose of the automated
read.
Council Member DuBois: That’s kind of my main concern, I guess the Report
says that we’re going to put them on hold but if we’re going to move to
smart meter scenarios, is it really worth putting them on hold if standards
are really going to come out this year? Should we just continue to
acknowledge that there’s an issue there but continue to install E-Meters.
Mr. Shikada: The other option that we are looking at is simply not installing
anymore and so…
Council Member DuBois: But I’m saying that if you did want to go back and
add the transmitter, why install meters that can’t be upgraded?
Mr. Shikada: Right, so again we could just hold off on installing new meters.
We do have a regular replacement schedule for meters that may be 20-
years old as an example. So, in anticipation of the new standard coming out
relatively quickly, we would put a hold on the routine replacement until the
standard is complete. Assuming that’s coming together in a timeframe that
we believe makes sense and at the same time, we do place a very high
priority on consumer confidence in the meters that are installed. While we’re
in this period before there’s the independent methodology established and
that we can implement that either in-house or through third party testing
labs. For that reason, we believe that it would be prudent not to proceed
with installing anymore.
Council Member DuBois: So, Staff is really comfortable with that?
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 9 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
Mr. Shikada: Yes.
Council Member DuBois: It’s not a big deal to put these on hold?
Mr. Shikada: Correct, correct. I think that given the relatively short
timeframe in anticipation, that holding on installing new should be fine in
terms of any risk associated. If there are mechanical problems with other
meters, then since those would be a one off replacing those with mechanical
meters would be the approach in the short term.
Council Member DuBois: Thank you and then – so I guess you’re just really
asking us to accept this Motion not to – I guess there’s agreement on moving forward and we’re just accepting the Report tonight?
Ms. Richardson: That’s generally the approach, yes. I guess the one thing
that I would ask us to look at is whether those partially agrees based on the
response should be changed to agrees. The responses do read like they
agree and I’m not sure what isn’t…
Council Member DuBois: Well, before we go there…
Mr. Shikada: Just objecting to the equity term.
Council Member DuBois: Before we go there, it looked like you had an
update on E-Meter.
Mr. Shikada: Oh yes, just one other rationale for going to the E-Meters is
that the technology has a better sensitivity to extremely low flow. So to the
extent that our residents are implementing more and more water conservation, that it allows us to have a more accurate read out at that low
end.
Council Member DuBois: Ok, thank you.
Mr. Shikada: There is a picture in the presentation – let me see.
Chair Wolbach: Yeah, Liz.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Yeah on Slide 10. If I may, I’m kind of looking for some
show and tell here.
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 10 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
Ms. Richardson: (Crosstalk) Then the Executive Summary on…
Vice Chair Kniss: When we have meetings like this, is it possible to bring
these devices with you?
Mr. Shikada: Yes, we should have thought of that but did not, but we would
be certainly happy to do that if that’s desired at the full Council. Just to give
you a sense of scale, the displacement meter as it’s labeled here is the
mechanical meter. It’s about this big, we’re talking about either a 5/8 or 1
inch.
Vice Mayor Kniss: That’s the one that most residences have?
Mr. Shikada: Correct, it’s either 5/8 or 1 inch; let’s see, I remember the
numbers – I think we have about – is it about 15,000 of the 5/8 -inch and
about – is it 1,000 or less of the 1 inch? 1,000 of the 1 inch so relatively
speaking there are a lot more of the 5/8-inch meters than the one inch.
That’s actually the test bench so that’s the set up that exists on the
municipal services center on the yard. So next year, we will make sure they
put that on the tour so you can see where the meters are actually lined up
and they’re tested. They go through a low flow test, a moderate flow test,
and a high flow test and we compare the reading on the meter to the
measured quantity of water that goes through. Our standard procedure is to
test ten percent as they come in. At the time that the majority of the errors
happened, we actually did not have a functional test bench in place. There were some moves that were happening at the yard and as a result, it was
not operational. I believe we might have also not had water meter techs at
that time due to attrition or moving people to other positions. So, for a
number of reasons, this was not done correctly and so we’ve now put the
systems and people back in place although we still do have vacancies in the
water meter tech classifications, as well as a couple of the key management
positions that would be responsible for overall management of this as a
program.
Vice Mayor Kniss: So less specific and more general, how many people do
you get who call mentioning their water bill and how high it is and how
awful? Is – I hear that a lot as a Council Member and people say, you can’t
believe what my water bill was, it was unbelievable.
Mr. Shikada: I know that (crosstalk)…
Vice Mayor Kniss: I usually tell them to call you, Ed.
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 11 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
Mr. Shikada: Absolutely and they do. Now that said, I’d like to say that there
are at most a handful a year that actually have unusually high and by
unusually high I’ll say two or three ‘x’ of their normal monthly amount.
There are, I’m sure more frequent complaints raised about smaller increases
but we also have on an ongoing basis what’s called an implausible check. So
as the meter readers go out, they – whether it be through data entry, error
or simply for some reason unusually high reads. The system does flag a read
that just doesn’t seem in range and so those will result in follow up from
Staff to the customer.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Would there be any way to tell, I don’t know how smart
this E-Meter is if you are away – if you had gone somewhere and something
overflows. Your washer overflows, which it just recently did with a friend,
are there any indications that we get something is amiss in somebody’s
house or is that just you wait till you come home?
Mr. Shikada: Well, not the E-Meters do provide the ability to identify some
unusual flow that suggests that there is a leak. We haven’t implemented all
of the features including the transmittal or transmission of the information
so we’re not there yet but that is the path we’re on and where we would like
to get. If nothing else, this does point out with your example, the potential
that the technology and the automation have to improve not only the
accuracy but also the quality of the services that are provided to catch leaks as an example. We do have a prior referral on the topics of leaks that Staff
is working on and we hope to bring back to Council within the next month or
two. At the same time, our issue with E-Meters points out that how we
tackle and how we deal with the implementation of the technology is as
important as the technology itself. So, both in terms of the issue of
standards, how we do the procurement and the piece that wasn’t discussed
at all here is the communication to customers to ensure that – we learned
from issues that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) had when it rolled out smart
meters and that communication is an integral part of how we would deal
with the roll out.
Vice Mayor Kniss: It interesting that you have so few complaints so it must
be that we get the complaints and then no one actually does anything about
it.
Mr. Shikada: Well, I wouldn’t say that. There’s quite a bit of follow up.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I think probably they just look at their water – two or
three people did it in the last week. I don’t know whether we’ve done
something different but have said my gosh, my water bill was and it was;
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 12 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
they were astronomical numbers. Maybe people have relaxed and started
watering in the summer because there was more water this year and
suddenly they said we can water the yard, the lawn, the flowers, whatever it
might be. Did you see any of those uptakes or upticks this summer?
Mr. Shikada: Yes, we are actually – yes, we did and part of it is to your
example, irrigation systems – sprinkler systems that hadn’t been used either
both over the winter or through the entire drought and so as a result, being
turned back on and finding breaks. So those have definitely led to an uptick
this year. I suspect this issue will lead to an uptick as well as there’s more public awareness of this meter billing issue and so I, unfortunately, hate to
say it but you may get more calls and emails as will we. We’re absolutely
endeavored to deal with those directly and as quickly as possible. Part – I’m
sorry one last thing on the E-Meters that I do want to note that it is our plan
expecting that some customers will simply say they don’t want to have these
E-Meters installed, that we will remove those at the utility’s expense, not the
customer's expense on request.
Vice Mayor Kniss: It’s such a – it’s so fascinating because you deal with such
an absolutely essential item in our lives and in our budget and we have
incredibly good water; I mean no question about that. There is a cost to that
and I’m afraid we may have lost some of our drought awareness policies and
I frankly, am sorry Jerry Brown decided to get rid of those for the reasons that were stated. It’s too bad we didn’t keep those in place and continue
those good policies we had for four years, five years? For quite some time so
that’s just an editorial comment but I’ve often thought we were all on such a
good path where we were going to have water resistance and take out our
lawns and so forth and so on. In some places that actually happened but in
many places, it didn’t. That’s it, that’s my editorial comment.
Chair Wolbach: Lydia, do you have any questions or comments at this time?
Council Member Kou: Ed, when you said that the transmittal of the flow from
the E-Meters, does that – can that be arranged to go to the customer or is
that usually to utilities and then utilities has to communicate to the
customer?
Mr. Shikada: Let’s see, we did have a pilot program that was ongoing for
some period of time that set up notifications that would allow a residence I
believe to receive that directly. I think it’s a question about how we can
figure it when we go forward with the roll out of smart meter systems and I
suspect that it should be able to be configured so that the customers
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 13 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
themselves would receive that notice but we just haven’t gotten to that point
yet.
Council Member Kou: What are some of the reasons that they don’t like –
they don’t want to have E-Meters installed?
Mr. Shikada: Well, you know I think right now the issue is the testing and
the availability of independent third-party testing and the standards through
which those tests would be conducted. The – I’ll say an unfortunate fact is
that we do have some residences that are concerned about the technology
and having that including the transmission capability be adjacent to their home, concerns about RF radiation as the case may be. So being sensitive to
those, we do get requests or concerns that say just keep those smart meters
away from my home.
Council Member Kou: Will Utilities do testing of those to prove – to show –
have data to show that there isn’t electric-magnetic fields or any of those
sorts of stuff in order to help…
Mr. Shikada: I think we’ll provide as much information as we can when we’re
ready to go with the full roll out. I suspect that there will be some residents
who are not convinced in any case and I think we should be able to provide
allowance for that; at least in the short term to accommodate their
preferences.
Council Member Kou: Thank you.
Chair Wolbach: I have a couple questions, just first on those two
recommendations where the response from Staff was partially agreed; 1.4
and 2.1 on Pages 28 and 29 that are summarized in the audit. Just any
more clarity that City Auditor Staff can provide about that – about those two
–about 1.4 and 2.1? Where the – we’re hearing slightly different takes here
and I wanted to bring it back to the Auditor Staff having heard from the City
Manager Staff.
Ms. Richardson: Correct, so in 1.4 if you look at our recommendation and
you look at the second part up their response, the first part is really
commentary, the second part of what are they going to do and it’s really
directly addressing the recommendation. So, that’s why we – well, if you are
agreeing to look at that differential, why do you partially agree instead of
just agree so that was really our concern with that one.
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 14 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
Chair Wolbach: So, take let’s take that for a moment and turn back to City
Manager’s Staff and Utilities Staff and ask do you – also a question about
moving forward. Is there an interest in resolving the disagreement or further
communication before this comes to full Council?
Mr. Shikada: I think we could certainly have further discussion of it and not
to negotiate on the record here but my suggestion…
Chair Wolbach: Right, I don’t want to do that here but I want to ask – I like
that there is maybe room for further discussion. I’m wondering procedurally
if that can be done between this meeting and this coming to Council and whether we need to put that in a motion or whether Staff can do that? I’m
also looking at the City Attorney’s Staff for direction and guidance on the
procedure?
Terence Howzell, Principal Attorney: There – I think that could be done at a
later time but they were maybe – is there negotiating happening right now?
Ms. Richardson: No, no, no…
Mr. Shikada: Just a suggestion.
Ms. Richardson: We have actually done that on a previous audit and I
believe it was the Workers Compensation Audit, where there was a little bit
–Policy and Services actually asked us to go back and before it went to
Council they had an updated response to those questions.
Mr. Howzell: That’s my recollection as well, there was some harmonizing that done prior to it going to Council.
Chair Wolbach: So, when it comes times for motion, I think we may include
this suggestion that be attempted. Then…
Council Member DuBois: Could you repeat…
Chair Wolbach: Well, I haven’t made a Motion yet. My concern is that there
is, I’m about to turn to the second one just to see if it’s the same issue, on
recommendation 1.4 City Staff says that they partially agree in the report,
City Auditor looks at the response and says, my read of it is, you guys aren’t
just partially agreeing but you’re totally agreeing so what’s the issue? So, in
order to have greater clarity and have everybody on the same page when
this comes to full Council when it comes time for a motion, I’d like us to
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 15 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
provide direction that allows the Auditor’s Staff and City Manager’s Staff to
collaborate and try to find the resolution of that area of potential
disagreement. Let’s turn then to 2.1 and I want to again turn back to the
City Auditor and do you think this is another area where there maybe – is
there anything more we can say about this one? Is this another where you
feel that you are actually on the same page or is there a true disagreement
here?
Ms. Richardson: I think we are somewhat on the same page. I think maybe
the differences are informational and we’re thinking a little bit more like making Council more aware than just in an informational report. What we’re
looking at is ok, if you’re going to make a significant change to infrastructure
by going from displacement meters to some sort of an electronic meter, that
would be something that Council would want to – it’s a major infrastructure
change to us and that Council would want to be aware and have some
discussion. I think that they are saying that they do inform Council but they
are saying that it’s more informational so there may be a little bit of a
disagreement on how it’s done but I think the general concept of informing
Council is the same.
Chair Wolbach: Any other response to that, which just again, your take on
what we’re looking at here and how these are categorized as agree or
partially agree from the City Manager Staff.
Mr. Shikada: I would just echo what the City Auditor said in terms of the
distinction is really the recommendation states pretty explicitly to bring it
forward to Council for approval. From Staff’s standpoint the definition or sort
of the threshold at which it changes is significant or systemic. On a daily
basis, it can be a variety of interpretations so that’s where we would prefer
not to lock into the requirement for approval without a clear definition of
where that threshold for significances is.
Chair Wolbach: Are you worried about setting a precedent essentially?
Mr. Shikada: Or quite frankly an ongoing audit finding that doesn’t close,
which does happen; no offense.
Chair Wolbach: I understand the desire for clarity and being able to have
identifiable problems and action plans for resolving them. I think we would
all agree you don’t want something that can’t be resolved for which there’s
no clear path towards resolution. Moving on, I guess more commentary than
a question unless there’s any more that anyone on Staff – City Manager
Staff or the City Auditor’s Office about finding three. I’ll just say that this is
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 16 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
one that I found pretty concerning but I appreciate that it’s been discussed,
been identified, I appreciate that there’s no – there seems to be no
disagreement here about a path forward and that we’re looking to get this
resolved within the next seven months.
Ms. Richardson: I would say that I would agree that they are already
working towards that and have already started making some changes so I
think that one's on a path already to be completed as their schedule
indicates.
Chair Wolbach: In general, I had some questions or heard enough concerns raised about purchasing and procurement etc. in the City and so I think that
this is a step in the right direction. I do appreciate, again the work is done
from the Auditor’s team and the City Manager’s team to really address this
and resolve it expeditiously. With that actually, since I was suggesting a
tweak to the Motion, if it’s alright with my Colleagues I’d like to try my hand
at a Motion on this one which is…
Vice Mayor Kniss: Before you do that, can I just one general question?
Chair Wolbach: Please.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Do we – in situations where they have been overcharged,
do we give a credit or do we actually give a refund?
Mr. Shikada: It is typically a credit.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Ok, so it just goes onto the next bill…
Mr. Shikada: Correct.
Vice Mayor Kniss: …and they are charged less. I think that must be fair more
effective than…
Mr. Shikada: It’s certainly far more efficient.
Vice Mayor Kniss: …than sending money back.
Mr. Shikada: Believe it or not we have cut checks for less than a dollar and
it’s been odd.
Attachment C
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
Page 17 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript Excerpt 08/22/17
Vice Mayor Kniss: So, our practice is credit them for the next time. Thanks.
Chair Wolbach: Alright, so as for attempting a Motion, I’ll move the Staff
recommendation with a slight change and that would be that Policy and
Services Committee recommend that the City Council accept the utilities
accuracy of water meter billing audit and that between this meeting and this
coming to full City Council, that the City Auditor’s Office and the City
Manager’s Office attempt to resolve disagreements on recommendations 1.4
and 2.1, if possible.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Second.
MOTION: Chair Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
recommend the City Council accept the accuracy of Water Meter Billing Audit
and direct the City Auditor’s Office and City Manager’s Office to attempt to
resolve the disagreements on recommendations 1.4 and 2.1 before this goes
to the City Council.
Chair Wolbach: I think I’ve spoken to my Motion if anyone has questions feel
free to ask me to clarify but otherwise I’ll forgo further comments at this
time. Would you like to speak to your second?
Vice Mayor Kniss: I only think that this is a really good conversation and I’m
glad that we’ve had it. I’m glad that we did this audit and Ed, I’m pleased
that you’re in the role that you’re in; I feel comfortable about it. I just think
our water is so precious and we sometimes don’t pay enough attention to it and how it’s dispersed and tracked and so forth. I really appreciate your
presentation tonight and thank you and I’ve forgotten your first name.
Ms. Nguyen: Mimi.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Mimi, thanks, Mimi.
Chair Wolbach: Any other questions or comments on the Motion? Seeing
none. Alright, all in favor? Alright, that passes unanimously. Thank you.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8613)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/4/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approve Items related to Construction of the new Junior
Museum and Zoo
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [17PLN-
00147]: Council Approval of: (1) a Resolution Adopting the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), and Rinconada Long Range Plan; (2) a Record of Land Use Action
(RLUA) for the JMZ Architectural Review application; (3) a Park Improvement
Ordinance (PIO) for Improvements to the JMZ Within the Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan area; (4) Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation
Ordinance for the Capital Improvement Fund by increasing the Other
Revenue by $270,124 and increasing the JMZ Renovation Project (AC-18001)
by $270,124; and add a part-time unbenefited 0.48 FTE position limit dated
through September 30, 2020.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council take the following actions related to the construction of the
new Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ):
Related to the planning entitlement, staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the JMZ project and Rinconada Park Long
Range Plan (RPLRP); the Resolution also approves the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan (with
an illustrative site plan included as Exhibit 1);
2. Approve the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment B) referencing the
Resolution and approving the Architectural Review application for replacement of the
existing JMZ with a new JMZ and site improvements including reconfiguration of the Lucie
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Stern Community Center parking lot, vehicular driveways, enhancement of pedestrian and
bicycle circulation routes through the site; and
3. Adopt the Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) referencing the Resolution and approving
improvements to the JMZ, within the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan area (Attachment C).
Related to grants, staff recommends that Council:
4. Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the Capital
Improvement Fund by:
a. Increasing Other Revenue by $270,124;
b. Increasing the JMZ Renovation Project (AC-18001) in the amount of $270,124;
5. Approve the addition of a part-time unbenefited 0.48 FTE position limit dated through
September 30, 2020.
BACKGROUND
Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ)
The JMZ is a treasured local museum, zoo and education center situated in Rinconada Park that
serves Palo Alto families and children. The JMZ is a valued amenity of the user experience at
Rinconada Park, welcoming 184,000 visitors annually. Visitors to the JMZ often visit other parts
of the park before or after their visit to the JMZ. Overall, the JMZ is integral to Rinconada Park
and the park is integral to the JMZ.
The JMZ’s mission is “to engage a child’s curiosity in science and nature through hands-on
activities and interaction with live animals.” The JMZ provides a strong start for learning in
young children in many ways by leveraging the unique assets that the JMZ offers to nurture the
passion and skills for learning through play; promoting seamless linkages between formal and
informal learning; providing a safe place for children with special needs to experience the
museum and zoo; and engaging children from all socio-economic backgrounds so that everyone
can benefit from the new learning landscape. The JMZ works closely with researchers and
professionals to provide a rich environment that stimulates children’s natural curiosity and
creativity.
The current JMZ building, built in 1941 and zoo, built in 1969, are not adequately sized or
designed to accommodate the JMZ’s vibrant programs, current requirements to support living
and non-living collections, expanded educational programs, and current accessibility or seismic
code requirements. Major goals of the proposed rebuild project are to provide the JMZ with
adequate storage and support space to meet standards for zoo accreditation, museum
accreditation, and provide adequate storage and prep space for the on-site and off-site
educational programs. Another major goal is to improve circulation to allow universal access for
children with disabilities to all exhibits and areas of the facility, which requires considerably
more space than allowed for in the existing facility. The rebuild of JMZ will better serve its
current local visitors and schools while still maintaining an intimate experience for children to
City of Palo Alto Page 3
explore science and nature. Rinconada Park has been and will continue to be the best place to
grow the JMZ because the location leverages the park, community center, scout facilities,
libraries, and Art Center to integrate indoor and outdoor experiences, live animals, and
collections to provide a strong start for young children.
The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (Friends) engaged the architectural firm of
Cody Anderson & Wasney Architects to work with a broad array of stakeholders to complete a
facilities master plan in 2011 and 2012. They evaluated the program and operational needs, the
inadequacies of the existing facility, and options for renovation or new construction to provide
enhanced levels of service to the Palo Alto community. In 2014, the Friends completed the
master planning process that culminated in a recommendation to replace the existing facility
with a facility that is correctly sized for the JMZ’s programs and its current audience.
In 2013, the Friends generously committed to raising $25 million for the proposed JMZ
renovation project. On November 10, 2014, Council approved a Letter of Intent (LOI) for
construction and operation of the new JMZ building by the Friends, and the City and Friends
began negotiating potential terms and conditions for the construction and operation of the new
center. The Letter of Intent can be found at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44585.
On October 19, 2015 Council approved a change in direction recommended by Friends and staff
to focus first on a construction agreement to build the new JMZ, and to postpone discussions
regarding possible transition of operations to the Friends to a later date after the new facility is
built and has been operated by the City for a period of time. The City Council staff report can be
found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49387.
On November 21, 2016, in a study session with the City Council to discuss the plans for
construction of the new JMZ, staff presented a major change to stay within the $25 million
budget. The design of the new JMZ was revised from a two-story building to a single story
building, predominantly necessitated by the escalation of construction costs over the previous
three years. This change reduced the size of the future JMZ by 4,422 square feet. City staff,
Friends, and Cody Anderson & Wasney Architects (CAW) began working on a plan that would
allow a phased-in design and construction plan, where a small second story and some of the
eliminated zoo features could be added at a later date as funding becomes available. This two
phase plan would add an indoor classroom, an indoor insect and butterfly zoo experience, and
an adjacent exterior canopy walk and tree house above the zoo as Phase Two. The City Council
staff report detailing this change can be found at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54681.
In February 2017, the Friends achieved their $25 million dollar fundraising goal. The City
extends recognition and appreciation to the Friends, and to the Peery Family, who pledged $15
of the $25 million.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Rinconada Park Long Range Plan (See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 to Attachment A)
The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan is a comprehensive evaluation of Rinconada Park,
including its facilities and amenities, and is intended to guide future improvements and
renovations by analyzing current site conditions as well as community uses. The Long Range
Plan provides insight into how the park is currently being utilized and identifies areas in which
the park is under serving. The Long Range Plan will be used to guide future renovations and
development of the park, dividing the work into scheduled phases to be implemented as
funding becomes available over the next 25 years. The Long Range Plan, initiated to identify
and prioritize future renovations and upgrades, establishes a phasing plan that will guide the
use of future capital improvement funds for park renovations and will also identify new
improvements to the park to meet community demands. The Long Range Plan also focuses on
ways to better connect the adjacent community facilities surrounding the park on the site and
across Newell Road (the Palo Alto Art Center and Rinconada Library) to enhance the park as the
central feature and main link to these cultural and community assets, including the JMZ. The
Long Range Plan outlines a number of goals for the site surrounding the JMZ including retaining
parking stall count and clarifying circulation in the parking lot, creating a strong park arrival
experience from Middlefield Road and Lucie Stern Community Center, and integrating the park
visitor experience with the JMZ through art installations and educational features.
Development of the Long Range Plan began in March 2012 and over the next two years a full
park analysis was performed to identify the existing conditions. A community design process
was conducted at the same time over a series of three meetings to capture input and review
design options for enhancements to the park. Community outreach also included forming a
stakeholder group composed of representatives from the surrounding facilities and main park
user groups that provided input and participated in the planning process. The proposed Long
Range Plan recommendations were reviewed by the City’s Boards and Commissions, including
the Parks and Recreation Commission, Architectural Review Board and Planning and
Transportation Commission as well as by City staff. Other feedback was provided by Walter
Hays School, the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Palo Alto Arts
Commission. The Long Range Plan was presented at a community meeting in September 2013
and subsequently reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) in November 2013.
The proposed plan was supported by both the community and the PRC at the time of those
reviews.
The Long Range Plan approval process was placed on hold in order to coordinate efforts
between the Long Range Plan and JMZ and to prepare a single CEQA document for both. In late
2014, the City’s environmental consultant was asked to add the JMZ project to the scope of the
environmental review of the Long Range Plan.
Information regarding the Long Range Plan and history is viewable at the following link:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4032&TargetID=145 and the
link to the report is at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/60982.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The webpage above also provides links to the CEQA documents, plan options considered, and
reports and presentations prepared for prior public meetings. Meeting minutes reflecting the
Park and Recreation Commission (PRC) recommendation on August 22, 2017, are found here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61237
and the complete staff report is found here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61304.
On October 24, 2017, the PRC unanimously voted in favor of recommending that the City
Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and the Long Range Plan. The complete staff report can be found here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62155.
Community feedback on the main elements of the draft Long Range Plan included:
Improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation and connections to surrounding facilities
Consider additional drop-off areas around the park
Locate playgrounds together
Enhance shade seating, picnic and playground areas, pool deck and pool area
Preserve large turf areas for activities
Support shifting the tennis courts to the east to improve access
Renovate the pool building and consider a concession stand at its current location
Protect existing trees
Concrete Bowl should remain flexible for uses other than performances
Do not impede open space such as the Magic Forest
Consider passive recreation uses near the substation perimeter
Improve parking and pedestrian accessibility along Hopkins Street frontage
JMZ Rebuild and Impact on Rinconada Park
The JMZ rebuild will require some adjustments to the west end configuration of Rinconada Park
as described below:
Proposed Design - Inside the Park Boundary - Loose-in-the-Zoo (17,278 sq ft):
Unlike earlier JMZ designs, which showed an expansion of the JMZ and a support building into
parkland the current configuration does not expand into parkland. Only the exterior, open-air
zoo is located in the park, consistent with the existing zoo condition.
The new JMZ will have facilitated, hands-on animal encounters within a fully netted zoo with
loose animals. The zoo experience:
Has animals chosen for their appeal to children and a child’s ability to form a
bond/connection
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Features animals with distinctive qualities such as: active (e.g., meerkats); recognizable
(e.g., bunny); distinct personalities (e.g., Edward the tortoise); native/local (e.g.,
raccoon); and child-appeal (e.g., bats)
Frames animals in context of their natural environment
Offers facilitated animal encounters with a knowledgeable and child-friendly animal
care staff
Encourages physical exploration that capitalizes on a child’s natural desire to play
Offers parallel play experiences and nature-based play environments
Fosters empathy for animals and nature
Inspires conservation as a long-term goal
Offers interpretive signage that encourages sensory-rich observation, inspires curiosity
and question-asking, and fosters parent-child interaction and learning
Is universally designed and accessible to people with varying disabilities
Is sustainably designed using eco-friendly materials and building processes
In this plan, the animals will live within a lush landscape with habitats for the existing animals
and a few new ones, including a meerkat colony. The zoo will be covered with a large protective
net held above the landscape by “the big tree,” where children will climb among the roots, feel
leaf litter and duff. They will find animals living inside the root zone and beneath the tree.
A wall enclosure at the base of the loose-in-the-zoo space (8’0” tall typical, 10’0” tall in limited
locations) will meet zoo enclosure requirements as well as serve as an educational exhibit for
visitors entering the park on the outside of the zoo. For the park visitor, the zoo wall will blend
with the look of the park and will enrich their experience with recreation and education
interactives and a view into the zoo. Adjacent to the public area of the zoo will be a non-public
fenced area with exterior animal enclosures and zoo maintenance materials.
Proposed Design - Outside the Park Boundary
The proposed design creates an inviting park arrival area outside of the park boundary,
between the Girl Scout building and outdoor classroom (1,611 sq ft). The outdoor classroom
will hopefully be the location for the future classroom and butterfly building, which is currently
unfunded. This design allows the park experience to expand beyond its boundary with new
trees, benches, signage, public art, and science/nature themed exhibits. The proposed design
creates opportunities to activate and enrich both JMZ and park visits in the spaces between the
zoo and the park.
The promenade connecting Middlefield Road to the JMZ entrance plaza to Rinconada Park
becomes a journey of discovering natural phenomena and exploring science through child-
scaled experiences. A variety of installations will activate the JMZ entrance such as a bridge
over a bio-swale and boulders to hop through, a large sundial, a tunnel with a color and light
experience that responds to a child's movement, and a large scale kinetic sculpture created by
the public artist, Charles Sowers. A nature-based play area under the pecan tree will be created
with boulders and giant logs with views into the zoo beyond.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
As an outcome of study sessions with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and meetings with
City departments, the site plan was revised to create a promenade connecting Middlefield Road
to the JMZ entrance plaza to Rinconada Park. A pedestrian and bicycle path connects the Lucie
Stern Community Center, the Children’s Library, and Girl Scout building with Rinconada Park to
improve the overall site circulation. During meetings with City staff, goals were developed for
the parking lot, which include pedestrian and bicycle safety, clear organization, and
maintenance of the current parking count. The revised site plan reorients the parking lot to
align with the city grid along Middlefield Road and the grid of the proposed JMZ building. The
revised site plan results in a larger outdoor plaza space to enhance the presence of the building
in the surrounding site and create a safer buffer between children and vehicular traffic.
The revised floor plan and massing reflect a traditional courtyard building with end gabled
roofs, echoing the character of the Lucie Stern Community Center. However, the JMZ building
forms will utilize clean contemporary lines and materials reflecting a building of its time and
place in Palo Alto. In addition, the simple form of the building allows for playful interventions –
sculptural skylight forms, colorful entrance awnings, and playful window patterns.
There will be an improved drop-off zone and paved entrance plaza in front of the museum. An
existing large pecan tree will be protected and featured with a nature-based play area located
under its canopy.
Proposed Design - Museum and Education Building: (15,085 sq ft)
Located outside of the park, the single story structure includes an entrance lobby, exhibit
galleries, visitor amenities (restrooms, stroller parking, etc.), support spaces (wood shop and
general storage), educational classroom, and collections storage. The existing dawn redwood
tree just outside of building will be protected and enclosed within an educational courtyard
providing an additional outdoor exhibit space.
The JMZ plans are provided to Council members and found on the city’s website at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/jmz/building.asp. The design is recommended
by the Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board. Attachment I gives direction
as to how to review the Project plans that the ARB approved.
Interim Site
The scope of the project’s demolition and construction will require the JMZ staff, collections
and animals to move temporarily to the Cubberley Community Center. The JMZ plans to vacate
the existing JMZ in phases beginning in March 2018 to make way for construction of the new
facility. Staff has evaluated several options for temporary relocation of the JMZ during the two
year construction phase and determined relocation to the Cubberley Community Center
auditorium is the most viable option.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
In order to retain JMZ’s dedicated and expert staff to provide appropriate care for its animals,
and to retain its school partners and loyal families, the plan for temporary relocation seeks to
provide as stable of an environment as possible. The temporary JMZ will provide the same
education services it currently offers at its Rinconada Park site, including drop-in science play
experiences for children, science classes and summer camps, and will deploy instructors to
teach science classes in all elementary schools in Palo Alto, as well others in Santa Clara County
and San Mateo County, including East Palo Alto. The JMZ will not provide a public zoo at the
Cubberley site although the animals will be sheltered and cared for there. Staff anticipates
hosting “Meet the Animals” events in the temporary space, to maintain zoo outreach to visitors
during the construction period.
Staff is currently executing the contract for architectural services for the temporary relocation
and will return to Council in January 2018 for approval on that construction contract.
DISCUSSION
CEQA
The first Council action is to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Resolution (Attachment A) is the document
type for this action as well as the vehicle for adoption of the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan.
The MND includes analysis of the Long Range Plan on a programmatic level, and a full analysis
of the JMZ project with associated mitigation measures intended for that component of the
project. Additional CEQA related information is included in the Environmental Review section
of this report. The approvals are noted in the Resolution, Record of Land Use Action and Park
Improvement Ordinance.
Architectural Review Approval and Record of Land Use Action (RLUA)
The City Council is requested to approve the formal Architectural Review application for the
new JMZ, which was submitted on April 27, 2017. The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment
B) is the document type for this action. Prior to the formal application, study sessions for
preliminary review of earlier designs were held with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
Historic Resources Board (HRB). The HRB recommended approval of the formal application in a
public hearing on June 22, 2017 having found the revised project to be consistent with the
Secretary of Interior’s Standards and compatible with its context. The HRB also noted its
support for any nomination of the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House to the National Register
of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources (should the City pursue such
listing).
The ARB reviewed the revised project on August 3, 2017 and recommended Council approval of
the JMZ project on September 21, 2017 following the end of the CEQA public comment period.
The issues that were addressed during the formal ARB review process included roof massing,
exterior materials, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, site drainage and public art placement
relative to signage. The roofline and façade fronting Middlefield Road were modified
City of Palo Alto Page 9
significantly during the process to ensure compatibility with the neighboring homes and the
materials were modified to fit with the context of the Lucie Stern Community Center.
The RLUA for the MND and JMZ project was modified following the ARB public hearing on
September 21, 2017 to incorporate the ARB’s modification to enhance one of the findings to
recognize that removal of one Middlefield Road curb cut would improve school traffic,
and include a condition for ARB sub-committee review of the design of the building’s gable end
facing the parking lot, and modify an approval condition to more specifically address
management of storm water to Hopkins Avenue. The RLUA references the Resolution.
Rinconada Long Range Plan (See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 to Attachment A)
The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan will guide improvements and renovations to Rinconada
Park for the next 25 years. The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan is consistent with the Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan principles related to play, health,
sustainability, inclusivity, accessibility, flexibility, balance, and nature. The Long Range Plan
evaluates Rinconada Park as twelve separate, but connected elements and discusses the
recommendations for each element. The recommendation for each of these elements is
discussed in further detail in the Long Range Plan Report found on the City’s webpage, as noted
earlier in this report. The illustrative site plan of the park is provided as Exhibit 1 of Attachment
A. The elements include:
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
Gateways
Play Areas
Girl Scout House and Group Picnic Area
Main Lawn
Tennis Courts
Pool Area
Arboretum
Concrete Bowl
Magic Forest
Substation Perimeter
Hopkins Street Frontage
As planning and development of each of the recommendations advances, staff will return to
the community, commissions, boards and City Council for input on specific design and funding.
Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO)
Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or
development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for
park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt
a plan. The Park Improvement Ordinance is provided as Attachment C to this report.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
The Park and Recreation Commission (PRC) reviewed designs for the Junior Museum & Zoo
(JMZ) at five meetings, in February 2015, July 2015, April 26, 2016, June 27, 2017 and
September 26, 2017. City Staff and the JMZ design team heard comments from the PRC at
those meetings and presented significant revisions to program and design.
The PRC made the following comments:
Minimize the zoo expansion in parkland
Move the zoo support building out of the parkland
Preserve the heritage and specimen trees as well as the two large mature shade trees in
the parkland
Maintain parking stall count and clear vehicular circulation
The design team achieved all of the PRC recommendations by implementing the following:
The current plan develops 5,217 square feet of parkland for zoo use; a reduction of expansion
into the park of 50 percent, down from the original expansion proposal of 11,000 square
feet. The current plan removes the zoo support building from the park; only the exterior, open-
air zoo is located in the park - consistent with the existing zoo condition. The current plan
preserves all the heritage trees, working closely with Urban Forestry recommendations. The
current plan maintains the parking stall count and dramatically improves circulation.
On September 26, 2017, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) reviewed and
unanimously recommended Council approval of the JMZ PIO (Attachment C). The PRC staff
report for this Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) can be found at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61238.
A change to the PIO was noted in an ‘at places’ memo, which can be found here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61301.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
As mentioned in the background of this report, construction costs have escalated dramatically
over the past several years, which led the Friends to scale back the scope of the JMZ project.
Originally, the redesigned JMZ included several highly interactive features above and below
ground-level including an insectarium, butterfly walkthrough exhibit, bat cave, tree canopy
walkabout, touch tide pool, and additional rooms for rentals and classes. These features were
removed from the project to keep the construction cost at $25 million.
While the Friends are contributing $25 million to fund construction costs for the JMZ rebuild,
the City needs to identify funding for other construction-related costs, which will be required to
occur in tandem with the rebuild. These other necessary projects include a redesigned parking
lot with a raised pedestrian and bicycle pathway; the creation of an official park plaza entrance;
improvement of the areas near the park plaza including the landscaping around the Girl Scout
City of Palo Alto Page 11
House and re-siting of the nearby playground. The design of the parking lot has achieved no
loss of parking stalls, careful consideration of storm drainage, retention of heritage trees,
adequate bike parking, as well as increase in circulation while minimizing cut-through traffic
from Middlefield Road to Hopkins Street.
For Fiscal Year 2018, $706,000 has been allocated for the temporary relocation of the JMZ to
the Cubberley Community Center’s auditorium and the City’s portion of the project’s permit
fees through the JMZ Renovation CIP project (AC-18001). Staff is evaluating additional funding
sources, including the use of remaining unencumbered fund balance of $2,610,800 in the
existing Rinconada Park Improvements CIP project (PE-08001) to fund costs for performance
bonds; furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E); and community outreach, as well as partially
funding costs associated with reconstruction of the parking lot and the new JMZ exhibits.
In addition to the park improvements in the west end of Rinconada Park, there are other
related project costs, including the bulk of the new exhibit program, park signage, as well as
relocation costs associated with moving back in to the new JMZ facility. The current estimate
for these project costs is approximately $3,400,000, and is currently unfunded. Staff is exploring
potential funding sources for these costs, including grants and other City resources in context of
the City’s overall Capital Budget. This funding gap represents a significant challenge due to
rising construction costs in recent years. Specifically, staff notes that costs for the nine projects
included in the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan have increased resulting in the Capital
Improvement Fund Infrastructure Reserve showing a negative balance in the Five Year 2018-
2022 Capital Improvement Plan. Staff will present an update to the Council on the JMZ project
costs and the strategies for providing the necessary funding to complete the Infrastructure Plan
projects in early 2018. With limited resources available to adequately fund all the projects in
the Capital Improvement Fund, including the nine Infrastructure Plan projects, further
prioritization of all capital projects, including this JMZ project, will be necessary.
Operating Costs and Ticketing for the Rebuilt JMZ
The redesigned and expanded JMZ will be more costly to operate than the current JMZ mainly
due to the need for increased staffing as well as increased maintenance and utilities.
Additionally the JMZ will be accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the
American Alliance of Museums and must meet certain standards, such as increased animal
care, that have a budgetary impact. The increase in operating costs will be largely offset by an
increase in contributed income managed by the Friends, and a ticketed gate managed by the
City.
Staff and Friends believe that a ticketed gate is necessary in the new JMZ, breaking with a long
tradition of free admission, albeit with a current suggested donation of $5 per visitor. In the
past year, the JMZ had approximately 184,000 visits, and 80 percent of JMZ visitors identify as
repeat guests. Staff anticipates that annual memberships will be very popular, and will
recommend a basic membership be available for families for unlimited annual visits. The JMZ
City of Palo Alto Page 12
will also have programs that provide access to low income families such as special passes,
memberships, and transportation, developed in partnership with community
organizations. Friends of the JMZ will expand its fund development efforts in the form of
donations, sponsorships, underwriters and grants.
The goal of the new JMZ is to build a new operating model that will, over time, reduce the
general fund subsidy through the steady increase of contributed and earned revenue, and the
longer term goal of transitioning management of the JMZ to a non-profit model.
Similar local venues currently charge the following rates:
•Habitot, Berkeley - $10
•Happy Hollow, San Jose - $14.25
•Children’s Discovery Museum, San Jose - $15
•Curiodyssey, San Mateo (most similar to JMZ) - $8.50 – 12.50
When staff returns to Council in early 2018, the increase in operating costs and revenue will be
fully discussed and evaluated through a pro forma and report by a revenue analysis consultant.
IMLS Grant Acceptance
The JMZ was recently awarded an IMLS grant in the amount of $270,124 to ensure that all JMZ
exhibits are fully accessible to children of all abilities. Staff recommends that Council accept
this IMLS grant, as recommended in Action 4 and approve the addition of a part-time
unbenefited 0.48 FTE position limit dated through September 30, 2020 as recommended in
Action 5 above. Staff is still determining which classification would be most appropriate for the
role. For more information on this grant award, please review Attachment G IMLS
Grant. Additional grant applications have been submitted and staff expect to learn about these
awards in early 2018.
“Access from the Ground Up” is a three-year project to make the new JMZ facility and its
exhibits accessible to everyone. It will span a 36 month period, from December 2017 to
September 2020. Funded by an IMLS grant in the amount of $270,124, it will provide science
learning opportunities to children with physical and developmental disabilities. The JMZ will
build relationships with partner organizations that serve children with disabilities, provide
professional development for staff, and engage experts and families who have children with
disabilities in the development of exhibits and access resources such as noise-cancelling
headphones, wheelchair tables, braille label guides, and tactile maps. As a result, the JMZ will
be more accessible to visitors and more engaged with the disability community. The project will
serve as a regional and national model for inclusion for museums and zoos of all types and
sizes.
Receipt of grant funds and expenditures is expected to commence in Fiscal Year 2018 and be
completed by Fiscal Year 2021. The IMLS award is a matching grant, and the City will achieve its
City of Palo Alto Page 13
matching requirement with ongoing salaries as well as regular exhibition expenses. There is no
additional cost to the City.
Agreements
With groundbreaking scheduled to begin in June 2018, the City and Friends have created three
agreements needed for the construction of the new JMZ: Facility Agreement, Site Lease, and
Restrictive Use Agreement. These agreements will come to Council early in 2018 for approval,
along with the aforementioned budgetary items.
TIMELINE (See Attachment H, Project Schedule)
Remodeling of the Cubberley Auditorium will occur in Winter 2018, with a phased
temporary relocation of staff and animals occurring in March through May.
Ground breaking is planned for June 2018 and the grand opening of the new JMZ is
planned for May of 2020.
Rinconada Long Range Plan implementation schedule: because of the impact of the JMZ
Project on the Long Range Plan, the initial focus of the twenty-year Long Range Plan will
be on the improvements to Rinconada Park’s west end, closest to the JMZ.
Improvements include the parking lot, pedestrian and bicycle pathway, the park plaza
entry, the area around and near to the Girl Scout house, including the playground. The
park pathways and improvements near the swimming pool and beyond will wait until
the JMZ project is completed and more resources can be identified.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
JMZ Project
As noted in the draft RLUA, staff and the ARB found the JMZ project to be consistent with
applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. As per the newly adopted
Comprehensive Plan, specific policies relevant to this project are:
Policy C-1.4 Promote City parks, open spaces, recreational facilities, libraries, classes and
cultural activities for community members recognizing that these facilities and services
build and strengthen community. [NEW POLICY] [C11]
Policy C-1.16 Provide arts, science and recreational activities that foster healthy
children, youth and teen development. [NEW POLICY] [C30]
Policy C-1.20 Leverage available funding to support the development of, and improved
access to, programs that address all types of developmental disabilities, including
physical, sensory, cognitive or social/emotional needs. [NEW POLICY] [C42]
Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures.(Previous Policy L-12)
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Policy C-3.2 Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance.
Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure.
Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces. (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure
AES-1, LAND-1, LAND-2) (Previous Policy L-48) [L80]
Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote
personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of community
safety. (Previous Policy L-49) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1) [L87]
Policy L-8.5 Recognize public art and cultural facilities as a community benefit.
Encourage the development of new and the enhancement of existing public and private
art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible
with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. [Previous Policy L-72]
[L122]
Policy L-9.6 Create, preserve and enhance parks and publicly accessible, shared outdoor
gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of residential neighborhoods.
(Previous Policy L-15) (Comp Plan Draft EIR LAND-1) [L132]
Policy N-2.10 Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other
significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as
part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree
protection in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-17] [N45]
Staff and the ARB also found the JMZ project to be consistent with the Public Facility uses and
development standards, and with the other applicable Zoning Code regulations, including the
City’s parking regulations.
Design Approval
As noted in Municipal Code, 18.40.170 (b) and (c), approval of the design of the new JMZ is
deferred to and deemed appropriate for Council approval.
In 2017, Council added to Chapter 18.40 General Standards and Exceptions. (Please note
that this code change is not referenced in the chapter on ARB process (Chapter 18.77).
18.40.170 Deferral of Director's Action
o The director shall have the authority to forward projects to City Council for final
action in the circumstances listed below. No action by the Director shall be
required, and the appeal process and or request for hearing process shall not
apply to such referred actions.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
(a) In the case of projects having multiple entitlements, where one requires
City Council approval, all entitlements may be referred to City Council for final
action;
(b) Projects involving leases or agreements for the use of City-owned property;
and
(c) Projects, as deemed appropriate by the director.
(Ord. 5406 § 4, 2017)
Rinconada Park Long Range Plan
The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (adopted September 11,
2017) recognizes the need for an improved pool facility at Rinconada Park. In addition, several
policies support the Long Range Plan goals, including:
Policy 1.E: Apply universal design principles as the preferred guidance for design
solutions in parks, striving to exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements; and
Policy 2.A: Sustain the community’s investment in parks and recreation facilities; and
Policy 4.D: Promote, expand and protect habitat and natural areas in parks and open
space; and
Policy 5.B Support innovation in recreation programming and park features and
amenities.
The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan is found at the following link and is attached as Exhibit 2 of
Attachment A:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/60982
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated for public comment from
August 4, 2017 through September 5, 2017. The signed MND and Initial Study are provided as
one attachment (Attachment D) to this report; the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) is within the same attachment. The Initial Study is publicly
available at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58990.
The RLUA includes the mitigation measures related to nesting birds, archeological resource
protections, and construction noise (#3a – #3d). The MMRP is included as Exhibit A to the RLUA
(incorporated by reference).
On August 10, 2017, the City held a community meeting to receive comments from the public
on the CEQA Initial Study and MMRP. Two written comments on the project were provided to
the ARB for the September 21, 2107 hearing prior to its recommendation to Council on the
City of Palo Alto Page 16
project. The comments received were included as attachments to the ARB report (see
Attachment E Public Comments to ARB and Attachment F September 21, 2017 ARB Minutes).
They are also viewable as part of the staff report at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61805. One commenter was
supportive of the metal roof and the Long Range Plan. The other commenter provided input on
several aspects of the project related to the architectural look of the building, noting that the
architecture and metal roof are too rustic and industrial.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Adopting MND, MMRP, RPLRP
Exhibit 1 to Attachment 'A' - Rinconada Long Range Plan Diagram
Exhibit 2 to Attatchment 'A' - Rinconada Long Range Plan
Attachment B: ROLUA JMZ Architectural Review Approval
Attachment C Park Improvement Ordinance Rin Park JMZ
Exhibit A to Attachment 'C' - Diagram of Proposed Improvements
Attachment D: CEQA - IS/MND and MMRP for the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan and
the JMZ Project
Attachment E: Public comments to ARB
Attachment F: September 21 2017 ARB excerpt minutes
Attachment G IMLS JMZ Grant
Attachment H JMZ Project Schedule
Attachment I: Project Plans (Council Only) - How Public Can See Plans via Building Eye
NOT YET APPROVED
RESOLUTION NO. ____
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO PROJECT AND THE RINCONADA PARK LONG
RANGE PLAN, AND APPROVING THE RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN
RECITALS
A. The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan programmatic-level environmental review process
has been connected with the project-specific Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) “rebuild”
environmental review process since late 2014, to allow the full scope of comprehensive
environmental review;
B. 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 Rinconada Long Range
Plan and Junior Museum and Zoo 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”).
C. The Rinconada Long Range Plan and Junior Museum and Zoo Project (the “Project”)
analyzed under the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is a guidance and planning
document for park, museum and zoo improvements, expansion and enhancement of facilities
and services, and renovations to the Rinconada Park area to serve the community’s needs. A
more detailed description of the Project is set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
D. The draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public
comment from August 4, 2017 through September 5, 2017.
E. The City of Palo Alto considered the comments received during the public review period
and prepared a final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration including minor revisions.
F. 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.
G. In connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an initial
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.
H. 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”).
I. 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.
J. On September 21, 2017, the Architectural Review Board conducted a public hearing
allowing for public comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the JMZ project, and recommended
Council approval of the JMZ project based on findings and conditions set forth in the Record of
Land Use Action (RLUA);
K. On October 24, 2017, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) unanimously voted to
recommend that the City Council adopt the MND, MMRP and the Rinconada Park Long Range
Plan;
L. The PRC recognized that the JMZ rebuild will require some adjustments to the west end
configuration of Rinconada Park but that only the exterior, open-air zoo is located in the park,
consistent with the existing zoo condition, and recommended City Council adopt the Parks
Improvement Ordinance (PIO);
M. 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. The IS, MND and MMRP can be found as Attachment D to the staff report
related to this resolution.
N. The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan was initiated to identify and prioritize future
renovations and upgrades, and is a comprehensive evaluation of Rinconada Park, including its
facilities and amenities, which:
establishes a phasing plan that evaluates Rinconada Park as 12 separate but
connected elements and discusses the recommendations for each element,
analyzes current site conditions as well as community uses,
provides insight into how the park is currently being utilized,
identifies areas in which the park is under serving;
O. The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan:
will guide future capital improvement funds for renovations and development of
the park, dividing the work into scheduled phases to be implemented as funding
becomes available over the next 25 years;
identifies new improvements to the park to meet community demands,
focuses on ways to better connect the adjacent community facilities surrounding
the park on the site and across Newell Road (the Palo Alto Art Center and
Rinconada Library) to enhance the park as the central feature and main link to
these cultural and community assets, including the JMZ,
outlines a number of goals for the site surrounding the JMZ including retaining
parking stall count and clarifying circulation in the parking lot, creating a strong
park arrival experience from Middlefield Road and Lucie Stern Community
Center, and integrating the park visitor experience with the JMZ through art
installations and educational features, and
is consistent with the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation
Master Plan principles related to play, health, sustainability, inclusivity,
accessibility, flexibility, balance, and nature.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
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, Palo Alto, CA 94301, as the custodian of documents and records of
proceedings on which this decision is based.
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 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for viewing at City of
Palo Alto City Hall, 5th Floor – Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94301.
SECTION 3. The City Council approves the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
________________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Deputy City Attorney
RINCONADA PARK
DRAFT
LONG RANGE PLAN
July 2017
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN
CITY OF PALO ALTO
This project was a joint effort of the Community Services and Public Works Departments of the City of
Palo Alto. The core team included the following staff members:
Rob de Geus, Director of Community Services
Kristen O’Kane, Assistant Director of Community Services
Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works
Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks & Golf Division Manager
Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect
Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
The parks and Recreation Commission advised staff throughout the planning process:
Current Members:
Keith Reckdahl
Anne Warner Cribbs
Jeff Lamere
Jeff Greenfield
Ryan McCauley
Don McDougall
David Moss
Past Members:
Stacy Ashlund
Dierdre Crommie
Jennifer Hetterly
Abbie Knopper
Ed Lauing
Pat Markevitch
Jim Cowie
CONSULTANTS
Primary Consultant
Verde Landscape
2455 The Alameda # 200, Santa Clara, CA 95050
Report By
MIG, INC.
800 Hearst Ave, Berkeley, CA 94710
PALO ALTO COMMUNITY
Special thanks to the dedicated Palo Alto residents and community members who contributed their time,
energy and ideas to this effort, particularly the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group.
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
In 2012, the City of Palo Alto (the City) launched a long-range planning
process for Rinconada Park. The park is home to many of Palo Alto’s
valued recreational, cultural, and natural resources, including tennis
courts, the Junior Museum and Zoo, the City’s only public aquatic facility,
and a rich canopy of mature redwood and oak trees. The park is adjacent
to the Lucie Stern Community Center and fire and power stations.
Encompassing 11.8 acres of land, Rinconada Park is centrally located in
Palo Alto’s Community Center neighborhood and abuts Embarcadero
Road. The park is a popular destination for both Palo Alto residents and
community members from the surrounding region.
The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan will guide improvements and
renovations to Rinconada Park for the next 25 years. The development of
the Plan reflects the City’s commitment to evolving the parks system to
serve a larger and more diverse set of community needs and maintain
the high standard of living enjoyed by residents. The Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan is consistent with the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space
& Recreation Master Plan principles related to play, health, sustainability,
inclusivity, accessibility, flexibility, balance, and nature.
The planning process started in spring of 2012. The Project Team,
including the design consultant and City staff, worked closely with
community members and stakeholders to understand needs, and
establish priorities for Rinconada Park. The Project Team translated the
initial public input into three design alternatives, which were then
explored by community members and stakeholders. The preferred
design, presented in this document, represents a community supported
vision for one of Palo Alto’s most treasured parks.
RINCONADA PARK
LONG TERM PLAN
OBJECTIVES
Coordinate and update
park resources and
amenities to reflect current
and future needs of park
users.
Balance the needs of a
diversity of users.
Respond to park usage as it
relates to the surrounding
neighborhood and
community facilities.
Address safety concerns
and make building code
updates and infrastructural
improvements.
Establish priority
improvements and a
phased implementation
plan and budget.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
a
n
d
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 2
Chapter II of this Long Range Plan document includes the Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan design with descriptions of planned improvements and
a summary of the implementation approach. Chapter III describes the
process that shaped the Plan, including site analysis and community
engagement. The appendices include a complete cost analysis and
phasing.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 3
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
The technical analysis and public outreach indicated a need for improved
circulation and park gateways as well has enhanced play and social
spaces, natural areas, and recreational amenities in Rinconada Park. The
Long Range Plan includes improvements to circulation, parking, safety,
and accessibility; creating a sense of aesthetic consistency throughout
the park though clear wayfinding and program identification, site
furnishing upgrades, and pathway materials; and preservation and
integration of heritage trees and water-wise landscaping. (See Graphic
1.) The Plan divides the park into twelve elements per the overall
character or programed activity of each. These twelve park elements
include:
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
Gateways
Play Areas
Girl Scout House and Group Picnic Area
Main Lawn
Tennis Courts
Pool Area
Arboretum
Concrete Bowl
Magic Forest
Substation Perimeter
Hopkins Street Frontage
This chapter describes each element followed by a description of the
implementation phases.
PLAN ELEMENTS
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION
Rinconada Park’s internal path system will weave together the many uses
and integrate the park into Palo Alto’s citywide multimodal
transportation network. (See Graphic 2.) Insert Circulation – Pedestrian
Graphic The main pathway through Rinconada Park will connect the park
entryways at the east and west ends of the park, providing pedestrian
and bicycle access to the many amenities in and adjacent to the park.
Bike racks located at heavily used entryways and distributed throughout
the park will allow users to secure their bicycles while making use of the
entire park.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 4
The main pathway will be 15-feet wide and constructed of concrete. It
may be textured, colored, or patterned to enhance crossings, gathering
spaces, and entryways. Smaller pathways, constructed of decomposed
granite, will connect secondary park entrances and recreation and play
areas with the main path. Pathways in proximity to existing mature
native trees will be constructed of permeable paving to allow for
stormwater absorption into the soil.
Sidewalk, crosswalk, and entryway enhancements will improve the
visibility and accessibility of the park and better connect Rinconada Park
with surrounding neighborhoods.
GATEWAYS
West Entrance (Rinconada Parking Lot)
The west entrance to Rinconada Park will feature a new plaza that
showcases the existing mature trees. Other enhancements may include
an architectural structure with a welcome sign, wayfinding signage, and
pedestrian scale art work celebrating the Palo Alto Junior Museum and
Zoo. Colorful low plantings and shade trees will welcome visitors and
allow for visibility in and out of the park.
East Entrance (Newell)
The main east entrance is an important point of access to the park,
linking the Rinconada Library and Art Center. An improved crosswalk at
the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Newell Road, a drop-off zone, and a
meandering pathway set back from Newell Road will create an inviting
gateway that connects the park with the Rinconada Library and the Palo
Alto Art Center. To achieve the meandering path the existing row of
Redwood trees will be removed, due to high voltage electrical lines
above that require the continuous topping of the trees and subsequent
declining health. The redwood trees will be replaced with other types of
native trees more appropriate for the growing space. An enhanced
shuttle stop along this path will serve both Rinconada Park and the
Library and Art Center.
In congruence with the park’s west entrance, a welcome sign and
wayfinding signage will greet visitors at the entry. Additional lighting will
highlight the entrance while enhancing security. A three dumpster refuse
bin enclosure with access from Newell Road with solid walls and gates
will provide additional service to the park reducing trash pick-up in the
park.
WEST ENTRANCE
EAST ENTRANCE
SOUTH ENTRANCE
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 5
South Entrance (Embarcadero)
Special paving, low landscaped themed stone walls that curve into the
park and away from the curb edge, and art elements will announce the
park entrances into the Arboretum and improve circulation for the
pedestrian and bicyclists accessing the park from the sidewalk
PLAY AREAS
The Long Range Plan brings the tot lot and older child play equipment
together, creating one integrated play environment at the west end of
the park. The space will be accessible for children of all ages and abilities.
The consolidated play spaces will allow guardians to supervise children of
different ages. A low fence will provide secure enclosure and delineate
the children’s areas. Shade sails over the play equipment will protect
children from the direct sun. An adult exercise area features exterior
fitness equipment and open rubber surfacing for physical activity.
Placed between the playground and main lawn activity area, this exercise
space will provide opportunities for people of all generations and
abilities. Seating around the play equipment, the nearby Group picnic
area, and outdoor exercise equipment directly to the east will establish
this as a hub of multigenerational activity. A new restroom located at the
west end of the park will be open during park hours of operation and will
serve this play area and main group picnic area. The established large
trees in and around this space will be preserved.
GIRL SCOUT HOUSE AND GROUP PICNIC AREA
Girl Scout House
The Girl Scout House will be enhanced with ADA upgrades and additional
amenities. This element will be shared by the public and Girl Scouts, with
Girl Scouts having priority use.
Group Picnic Area
New and improved amenities include a fire pit, food preparation table,
benches, and picnic area.
MAIN LAWN
Rinconada Park’s existing large lawn area will remain open space and the
existing mature trees in the middle of the lawn area should not be
replaced when they naturally decline. Due to the limited amount of open
space for large group gathering or activities replacement trees for those
trees located in the main lawn are not recommended to be replaced in
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 6
their current locations, however, further tree planted should be
considered in the many planting areas found throughout the park. The
lawn area can be accessed from a secondary entry on Hopkins Avenue
via the main pathway. The north end of the lawn is boarded by a
secondary pathway and includes a large shaded picnic area. Walter Hays
Elementary School borders the lawn area and uses the pathway as a
running and walking loop. The improved path will include entry nodes
with educational elements, artwork, and demonstration gardens
adjacent to the pathway.
TENNIS COURTS (within the park)
The tennis courts are heavily used, valued by community members. The
Long Range Plan shifts the courts to the west to allow a pedestrian
access route along the east side of the courts. Additional seating and
viewing space will be added around the perimeter, which will help to
enhance the courts as community space where family, friends, and
passersby can watch tournaments or casual play. On the west side, a
covered pavilion will be open to the public and used by the Tennis Club
as desired for check-in and coordination. To the south of the courts, an
informal tennis plaza with shaded seating will provide space for
spectators. A permeable area designed to protect the roots of the large
heritage oak tree will replace the existing tot lot playground and provide
areas of shaded seating and gathering.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 7
POOL AREA
The pool is a popular and beloved community destination and is used for
recreation, fitness, and competitive swimming. Improvements will better
integrate the pool into the fabric of Rinconada Park and enhance the
pool as a central gathering place. Enhancements include the following:
Pool Deck Expansion
Enhancements include increasing the pool deck area on the west side of
the lap pool to provide a much needed larger deck space and to the east
side of the children’s pool providing a larger seating area for families to
gather. Increased the access to shade in the expanded deck areas will
also be incorporated.
Pool Building and Locker Room Renovations
The Long Term Plan recommends the renovation to the existing 4,700
square foot pool structure that includes the locker rooms, office, and
pool storage. The renovation will add a 2,300 square foot wing for a new
public restroom, activity room and a potential space for concessions. The
City may consider concessions operated by a private entity, managed
under the same guidelines as the café in the new Mitchell Park
Community Center and Library.
Exterior Pool Plaza Area
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 8
On the south side of the pool building, a plaza with thematic paving,
shaded seating and art work will provide an additional area for pool
related activities, including concessions. The perimeter fencing will be
replaced with a more transparent screen that will contribute to the
integration of the pool into the surrounding park and enhance the social
areas. A direct service corridor from Newell Road to the pool will allow
for improved serviceability.
Long Term Pool Expansion
Space has also been defined in the plan for the possible expansion of the
existing lap pool towards the west end of the pool area to accommodate
the demand for increased swimming programs and lanes.
ARBORETUM
The Long Range Plan preserves Rinconada Park’s established tree
canopy. The Arboretum is home to many of the park’s heritage trees and
celebrates these special natural features. The Arboretum is the face of
Rinconada Park to people traveling on Embarcadero.
Within the Arboretum, existing turf areas will be eliminated under the
existing oak trees and replaced with drought tolerant plantings to
enhance and accentuate the existing specimen trees. Improved lighting
will highlight entry elements as well as select trees. The spaces in the
Arboretum are designed for quiet activities.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 9
CONCRETE BOWL
The existing concrete bowl space will be enhanced to continue to
support community gatherings and performances. A small stage to
replace the existing and related infrastructure including electrical, data,
sound and lighting will be installed. The lawn seating area will be
maintained in its current configuration. A turf area along the mounded
berm will continue to provide overflow ‘lawn’ seating for additional
spectators. A planted screen will buffer the concrete bowl from Walter
Hays Elementary School. When the bowl is not in use for performances
and events, the City should consider temporary programming such as
portable skateboard park installations or outdoor classes.
MAGIC FOREST
The Magic Forest includes more than 60 mature redwood trees. This
unique park element will be preserved with limited improvements.
Access to the Magic Forest will be enhanced with a new sidewalk along
Hopkins Avenue, a street crossing, and secondary park entries with
signage. There will be a lighted access path to the existing ball wall and
into the park. The shuffleboard courts will be removed and individual
picnic tables will be placed throughout the Magic Forest. A more
transparent fence area will provide views to the pool.
POWER SUBSTATION PERIMETER
This area will include two bocce courts, picnic facilities, and pedestrian
scale art elements. The east end of the pool deck will provide access to
the small picnic and bocce area.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 10
HOPKINS STREET FRONTAGE
A new sidewalk in the location of the existing hedge along the tennis
courts will complete a contiguous walkway along the edge of the park on
Hopkins Avenue. New sidewalks and crosswalks will be aligned with
proposed curb cuts along Hopkins Avenue. The improvements will
provide ADA access to the tennis courts. A planted “green” screen added
to the Hopkins side of the tennis courts will provide an aesthetic street
frontage.
PARKWIDE PLANTINGS
The Long Range Plan generally recommends that turf be limited to areas
programmed for active recreation and be removed anywhere it is
underutilized and does not support programming. Where turf is
removed, the City should consider replacing it with drought tolerant
landscaping. Planting buffers and delawned areas should provide visual,
seasonal, and textural interest with consideration given to providing
pollinator gardens and habitats for birds, bees, and butterflies. The
park’s heritage trees should be preserved and a plan developed for
successional tree plantings to ensure a diverse urban forest.
IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of the Rinconada Long Range Plan will be
accomplished over the next 25 years through multiple phases of capital
improvement projects.
PHASING PLAN
Short term projects (to be completed by 2022)
Western edge improvements to the play area and parking lot
connection.
Rinconada parking lot and building frontage along the park’s
edge.
Paving improvements through the center of the park.
Improvements will align with the proposed LRP and develop
some of the plaza spaces adjacent to the aquatics and tennis
court areas. Paving will align with the existing improvements on
the western end of park.
Enhanced park entry on Newell Road with a trash bin area.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 11
Signage improvements as part of the City’s signage
improvement plan. Signage will also include wayfinding signage
in the park.
Arboretum Area with improved walkways and entries off of
Embarcadero.
Add restroom to west end of park.
Mid-term projects (to be completed between 2023 and 2030)
Expand and improve open lawn.
Remodel and expand pool building and restroom structure.
Hopkins Street improvements.
Concrete bowl improvements.
Magical Forest Improvements.
Long term implementation will include (to be completed after 2030)
Pool remodel and expansion.
Shifting of Tennis courts.
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 12
CHAPTER III: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
An analysis of existing conditions, technical sources, and community
input revealed a variety of assets, constraints, and opportunities for
Rinconada Park. The design team evaluated traffic and parking studies
and made site visits to the park to observe the existing conditions and
park users. Input was gathered from community members,
commissioners, committees, and stakeholders. The following section
summarizes the existing conditions, community input, and analysis.
CONTEXT
Established in 1922, Rinconada Park is Palo Alto’s second oldest park.
The most recent renovation was an irrigation upgrade in 1999. Since
1990, only the children’s play equipment has been upgraded and the
tennis courts resurfaced.
Now, in 2017, Palo Alto looks much different. The City has been at the
epicenter of the growth and prosperity experienced by the Silicon Valley
region in recent years. Along with many opportunities, the growth has
also brought increased housing demand, traffic congestion, and a
changing population. During this period, California also experienced
record setting drought and mandated water use restrictions.
The City of Palo Alto is dedicated to preserving a high quality of life for its
residents while also growing sustainably, addressing climate change,
supporting healthy ecosystems, and providing recreational and cultural
opportunities for a diverse community. Today, Rinconada Park is loved
and highly utilized by the community, but it needs updates and
improvements to support the changing community and environment and
to align with current park design standards and best practices.
EXISTING USER GROUPS
Rinconada Park is a hub of activity in Palo Alto and is used by a variety of
community members with a range of interests and needs. Palo Alto
residents and community members from neighboring cities visit
Rinconada Park for its unique amenities and recreational opportunities.
Community members picnic, play, exercise, and socialize. The park is
home to the Rinconada Masters Swim Team, Palo Alto Swim Club, and
the Palo Alto Tennis Club. The park is also used by the Girl Scouts and
Walter Hays Elementary School students.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 13
COMMUNITY INPUT
The Rinconada Long Range Plan was developed in collaboration with
community members and stakeholders. Engagement activities included
stakeholder meetings, community meetings, a community survey, and
City Commission meetings.
Stakeholder Advisory Committee members included representatives
from six neighborhood associations, Palo Alto Swim Club, Master Swim
Club, lap swimmers, Tennis Players Association, Girls Scout House, Lucie
Stern Community Center, Junior Museum & Zoo, Children’s Library,
Children’s Theater, Friends of the Art Center, Friends of the Palo Alto
Parks, Canopy, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Walter Hayes
Elementary School.
The design team translated initial community input and ideas into three
design alternatives. The design alternatives were presented to
community members and stakeholders who provided feedback on the
designs, identifying their preferred improvements. Community feedback
and insights are incorporated into the following Existing Conditions and
Site Analysis section.
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 14
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SITE ANALYSIS
Public input and an evaluation of existing conditions in Rinconada Park
shaped the Long Term Plan recommendations. The analysis surfaced
constraints as well as significant opportunities. Following is a discussion
of the challenges and opportunities related to each park element.
PARKWIDE
Plantings
Trees are one of the major assets of the park, particularly the Magic
Forest and the Arboretum trees along Embarcadero Road. Different
types of uses that occur under trees, and the materials that accompany
those uses should be carefully identified as longevity and health of the
trees should take priority. Tree groupings help define spaces in the park.
A reforestation and replacement plan should be developed and
implemented, as well as a possible tree identification or education
program.
Safety and Visibility
RINCONADA PARK
CONSTRAINTS AND
OPPORTUNITIES
Constraints
Interface with adjacent
uses
Existing site layout
Historical uses
Existing trees
Parking
Opportunities
Increasing connectivity
Installing educational and
interpretive elements
Expanding park programs
Preserving tree canopy
Incorporating artwork
Supporting city-wide
sustainability goals
E
x
p
a
n
d
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 15
Street crossings from park entrances should be improvement for safety
and ADA accessibility. Throughout the park, lighting is minimal and
certain areas feel more secluded and less visible. Park safety could be
improved through site lighting, emergency call stations, and defined fire
and emergency access routes. Site lines, the sense of safety in the park,
and police input should be considered.
Maintenance
The current maintenance and delivery vehicle routes conflict with users
and park features. There is damage to softscape edges and planting
areas from service vehicles needing to make tight turns. The asphalt is
damaged along the edges of pathways. concrete edge bands would help
protect asphalt from damage. Throughout the park turf areas could be
reduced to save water and maintenance.
Trash management should be improved. Dumpster enclosures and their
locations need to be reconsidered and updated. Service locations and
routes need to be separated from park use. Trash and recycling bins
should be placed throughout the park in high use locations such as picnic
areas. Composting options should be considered. Trash receptacles
should match the style of other site furnishings and be accessible.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION
Internal
Rinconada Park’s main pedestrian path and vehicular path are combined,
which causes conflicts and inefficiencies. The condition of the existing
pathways is poor. Some pathways are not dedicated or are poorly
defined. Pathways must avoid trees and pavement under mature trees
should be permeable. Dedicated vehicular routes, including adequate
vehicular load calculations, with wayfinding signage should be
considered.
External
The park’s relationship and connection to adjacent uses should be
improved. The location of entries and crosswalks should be reconsidered
and improved. Visual connections into the park from adjacent roadways
and neighborhoods are important, and should be considered when
locating or relocating program elements. Off-site directional signage to
the park should be provided.
GATEWAYS
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 16
West Entrance
The western entry and parking areas are disorganized and inefficient,
with poor connectivity to adjacent areas. There are no dedicated service
routes, signage, or wayfinding. There are more trash and recycling bins
than necessary and they are not placed strategically, which creates visual
clutter and degrades one the of the park’s main entryways. The site
furnishings in this area are antiquated and should be upgraded to create
a unifying theme.
PLAY AREAS
Western Playground
The western playground equipment, which serves older children (5-12
years old), should be replaced with more dynamic equipment, as
recommended by the Citywide Play Equipment Replacement Plan.
Despite the play area’s proximity to the Children’s Museum and Zoo, the
uses are disconnected. There are great opportunities for improving
circulation and integrating the uses into a youth-focused, dynamic play
environment.
Northern Playground Tot Lot
The northern playground tot lot area is located toward the center of the
park and isolated from the western playground area. The separation
creates a challenge for families with younger and older children. The tot
lot should be moved closer to the older children playground on the
southwest side of the park. The same observations related to the
condition of the structures and site furnishings of the western
playground apply to the tot lot. Additionally, the sand surfacing in the tot
lot limits accessibly. Alternative surfacing options should be explored to
improve accessibility and safety.
There is a large oak tree in this area that is an incredible asset and should
be protected. The playground and associated uses should be moved
from under the tree as recommended by the City Arborist. If the area
under the tree remains paved, new paving should be permeable or
include a raised platform, which could serve as a seating area.
Girl Scout House
The group picnic area, next to the Girl Scout House, is heavily used and in
need of renovation. The Girl Scout House is disconnected from the play
area. The play area and Girl Scout House should be more cohesive.
Privacy and separation from the neighbors is needed.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 17
MAIN LAWN
The western lawn area is located at the west end of the park between
the two playgrounds and abuts Walter Hays Elementary School. This area
is mostly un-programmed open space with perimeter pathways. The turf
edge bordering the school is aesthetically sterile and institutional and
underutilized. The lawn supports large events, but lacks amenities and
utilities. There are several large trees as well as others which were
recently planted. These trees should be reviewed as to their location in
the lawn and whether they classify as heritage trees. If specific trees
were to be removed it would offer the opportunity for a larger
unobstructed open space and enhanced site lines.
The Hopkins Avenue side of the western lawn includes numerous large
trees that should be protected. This area of turf and irrigated
landscaping could be reduced and replaced with a group picnic area and
drought tolerant, low maintenance plantings. Along Hopkins Avenue, the
park edges are not well defined and pathways are being impacted by
tree roots. There is a need for designated access and ADA improvements.
This edge of the park would also benefit from screening to buffer
adjacent neighbors from park elements such as trash.
TENNIS COURTS AND POOL AREA
The tennis courts and pool area is a heavily used active area of
Rinconada Park that shares parking and circulation. Circulation, parking,
and usage should all be improved around the tennis courts and pool.
Parking improvements are required along Hopkins Avenue to address
circulation and lack of accessibility. Connections to parking, including
sidewalks, signage, ramps, and curbs are limited.
There is an informal social path on the northeast side of the tennis courts
that cuts through the Magic Forest. This pathway should be widened to
allow for a variety of users or users should be directed to alternate
access routes. Currently there is conflict between maintenance,
deliveries, and pedestrian circulation, which should be addressed with
designated pathways and wayfinding. Service and utility use areas and
pathways should be separated from park use areas and pathways.
Tennis Courts
There are opportunities to improve the aesthetics and directional
wayfinding and program element identification. The hedge along
Hopkins Ave could be reduced or removed, which would provide a wider
and more accessible sidewalk along the existing parking. The parking and
tennis courts are at different elevations, which creates access challenges.
The tennis court perimeter is showing age and the fencing is too short.
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 18
The tennis users have requested a designated storage or small office
building.
Pool Area
The observations related to circulation and parking above also apply to
the pool. The pool area is not visually integrated into the park and feels
isolated. The pool building could use renovations to align with usage and
code requirements. The exterior of the building offers opportunities such
as murals, art, or integrated wayfinding, tying it into the park.
ARBORETUM
The Arboretum area is located at the southeast side of the park along
Embarcadero Road. The mature trees should be preserved and will
require protection from overwatering and root damage. Pathways
through this area should meander to avoid the trees. There is
opportunity to use this space as a passive recreation area and/or a
secluded area for weddings or other events with a small pavilion nestled
in the trees. The edge along Embarcadero Road lacks defined entrances
and site elements. Pedestrian and bicycling safety should be improved
along the park’s border with Embarcadero Road.
CONCRETE BOWL
The concrete bowl area is located towards the center of the park at the
northwest corner of the Arboretum. This area is underutilized due to lack
of features such as utilities and a well-defined stage. The adjoining
restroom building is outdated and is visually unidentifiable. This building
could be relocated to improve site lines as well as park uses.
MAGIC FOREST
The Magic Forest area is at the northeast edge of the park between the
Aquatic Center and Hopkins Avenue. The existing forest of redwood
trees is a significant park asset and should be preserved and
programmed for passive recreation and relaxation. There are over 60
mature redwoods with shallow rooting structure, which will limit the
improvements in this area. The existing shuffle board and horseshoe pits
are in bad condition and are rarely used. An established beehive exists in
the tree base near the existing shuffle board which should be protected,
per a professional bee keeper. This area is bordered by the electric
substation at the east with overhead power lines.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 19
RESTROOM
Currently there is one restroom facility located centrally in the park. The
Restroom structure dates to the 1950’s and is in need of renovations.
The current restroom configuration does not meet ADA standards. A
small informational booth where park rangers once operated is now
used as a storage closet. Due to the age of the building and required
renovations to bring it up to code, it’s recommended for removal. The
removal of the building will open sight lines from the Newell end of the
park to Lucie Stern that will create a better link between city facilities.
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Palo Alto Municipal code protects the citizens and their
environment. Municipal Code regulates certain park functions and
activities, including:
Hours of use
Approved activities and prohibited activities
Activities and events requiring permits – such as group picnics
and performances
Pet use requirements in park
Protection of flora and fauna
Amplified sound requirements
Markings and graffiti
Picnic area use restrictions
The improvements included in the Rinconada Long Range Plan are
consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the
Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe
and healthy community assets, and Policy C-22 that encourages new
community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to
the changing needs of the community. The Plan is also consistent with
the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Urban Forest
Master Plan, Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation
Master Plan.
The Rinconada Park Long Range planning process included a Historic
Resources Evaluation and an Initial Study of Environmental Impacts.
(Refer to the CEQA Initial Study).
RINCONADA LONG RANGE
APPENDIX
Existing Site Conditions Plan
Overall Site Analysis Plan
Circulation Diagram – Circulation And Connections
Circulation Diagram – Major Connectors
Circulation Diagram – Secondary Connectors
Circulation Diagram – Pedestrian Paths of Travel
Circulation Diagram – Bikes Paths of Travel
Circulation Diagram – Maintenance Vehicle Access
Park Concept Plan #1
Park Concept Plan #2
Park Concept Plan #3
Existing Tree Canopy Study
Entry Enhancements and Site Furnishing Samples
Covered Picnic Trellis and Tennis Building and Trash Enclosure Samples
APPROVAL NO. 2017-xx
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR
1451 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO (JMZ) [FILE NO.17PLN-00147],
AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR JMZ PROJECT AND RINCONADA LONG
RANGE PLAN
On _______, 2017, the City Council approved the Architectural Review
application for the replacement Junior Museum and Zoo, 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 April 27, 2017, the architect representing the Friends of the Junior
Museum and Zoo submitted an Architectural Review application for the new Junior Museum and
Zoo (JMZ) at 1451 Middlefield Road, zoned Public Facilities, and associated site improvements
(“Project”); the review of this application followed two preliminary review meetings with the
Architectural Review Board and one study session with the Historic Resources Board to discuss
earlier project designs;
B. On June 22, 2017, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) reviewed the Historic
Resource Evaluations and the project and recommended approval of the project,
C. On August 3, 2017, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project
and continued the hearing to allow for revisions and publication and public comments on the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND);
D. On August 4, 2017, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the City (1) published an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluating the
JMZ project and, programmatically, the Rinconada Long Range Master Plan, and (2) provided a
Notice of Intent for circulation of the document for public comments for a period ending
September 5, 2017;
E. On August 10, 2017, the City held a community outreach meeting regarding
the CEQA document and process, and no written comments on the CEQA document were
received; and
F. On September 21, 2017, following the end of the public comment period, the ARB
reviewed and recommended Council approval of the IS/MND (with respect to the JMZ project)
and the Project.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared and circulated for public comment from August 4, 2017 through
September 5, 2017, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared and these
are to be adopted by Council resolution.
SECTION 3. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD REVIEW. The Historic Resources Board
found that;
(1) the project is in substantial compliance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards,
(2) the project meets Architectural Review Finding 2b, in that the project preserves,
respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively the site and
historic character/resources, with the provision that the applicant work with an HRB
subcommittee to find a solution to the roofing issue the HRB raised prior to ARB review,
and
(3) the HRB is supportive of listing the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House as a historic
resource.
SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS. The approval findings for the
project are set forth below. The project is consistent with all relevant Architectural Review
findings in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.020(d) as follows:
1a. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, specifically:
i. Policy C-1.4 Promote City parks, open spaces, recreational facilities, libraries,
classes and cultural activities for community members recognizing that these
facilities and services build and strengthen community. [NEW POLICY] [C11]
ii. Policy C-1.16 Provide arts, science and recreational activities that foster healthy
children, youth and teen development. [NEW POLICY] [C30]
iii. Policy C-1.20 Leverage available funding to support the development of, and
improved access to, programs that address all types of developmental
disabilities, including physical, sensory, cognitive or social/emotional needs.
[NEW POLICY] [C42]
iv. Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures.(Previous Policy L-12)
v. Policy C-3.2 Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and
appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure.
vi. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible
with surrounding development and public spaces. [(Comp Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure AES-1, LAND-1, LAND-2) (Previous Policy L-48)] [L80]
vii. Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to
promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense
of community safety. ([Previous Policy L-49) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation
Measure AES-1)] [L87]
viii. Policy L-8.5 Recognize public art and cultural facilities as a community benefit.
Encourage the development of new and the enhancement of existing public and
private art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects
are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood.
[Previous Policy L-72] [L122]
ix. PUBLIC SPACES Policy L-9.4 Maintain and enhance existing public gathering
places and open spaces and integrate new public spaces at a variety of scales.
[(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan Draft EIR LAND-1)] [L130]
x. Policy L-9.6 Create, preserve and enhance parks and publicly accessible, shared
outdoor gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of residential
neighborhoods. [(Previous Policy L-15) (Comp Plan Draft EIR LAND-1)] [L132]
xi. Policy N-2.10 Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and
other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees
approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for
expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-17] [N45]
1b. The design is also consistent with the Public Facility uses and development
standards, and with the other applicable Zoning Code regulations (Parking ordinance, as
clarified in the August 3, 2017 ARB staff report and attachments thereto).
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,
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,
c. Is consistent with the context based design criteria of the applicable zone district,
d. Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses
and land use designations, and
e. Enhances living conditions in adjacent residential areas.
More specifically:
i. The design was revised during the process, which involved two preliminary
review sessions with the ARB and one study session with the HRB, and two
formal meetings with the ARB;
ii. The site improvements will provide a better internal sense of order at the site;
iii. The new gable-roofed JMZ building, at a height of 29 feet and set back 24 feet
from Middlefield Road, would be similar in height and setback to existing two-
story houses located across Middlefield Road near the JMZ. The netted zoo
enclosure, at 36 feet in height, would be taller than the existing building;
iv. There are no context based design criteria for the PF zone, but the building
facades feature exterior colors and textures to provide visual interest and gabled
roofs, materials and colors respond to the site context (Lucie Stern Center, Girl
Scout House and the residential neighborhood). The Middlefield Road façade
was reworked during the process to have greater modulation and improved
materials to fit the neighborhood. The lower masses along Middlefield and the
property line shared with Walter Hays respect the residential neighborhood
scale. Along with a roof line that pops up for clerestory windows and, with the
wall cladding, help to break the long façade, the building eave, skin and structure
extend beyond the exterior wall for a section as shade protection for the
storefront windows facing south east;
v. The project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and does not
cause significant impact to the historic resources including the Girl Scout House.
Existing protected trees and important trees will be retained;
vi. Two street trees would be removed (Little Leaf Linden along Middlefield Avenue
and a London Plane Tree along Hopkins) for driveways, but new street trees will
be added to the project in the locations of the old driveway aprons to mitigate
the removals (subject to additional study of adjusted driveways at Middlefield
and Hopkins, per approval condition, and coordination with Urban Forestry staff
regarding planned street tree plantings and removals);
vii. No heritage or protected trees will be removed, and tree removal and
replacement will comply with the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Tree
Preservation Ordinance. Transplanting of one coast redwood and one coast live
oak is proposed; and
viii. Approximately 41 public trees would be removed (and 57 trees would be
planted, as noted in Finding #5) as part of the JMZ project, including the above-
noted street trees (six are for the parking lot reconfiguration near the Girl scout
House, 12 in the Zoo area for zoo reconfiguration, 13 for the new JMZ building,
six, non-native trees in poor condition from the oak grove near Lucie Stern to
improve the growing conditions for the remaining native oaks, and one from the
edge of Rinconada Park for the new entry plaza).
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 area, in that:
a. The materials to be used include smooth, hand-troweled plaster; clear-stained
cedar, horizontal siding and ceilings, and use of wood slats horizontally and
vertically for fences and enclosures; netting; durable standing-seam metal
roofing and accent panels; low-E aluminum curtainwall and punched windows;
wood-topped concrete seat-walls; with use-appropriate whimsical signage,
public art and rainbow tunnel; and
b. Colors are warm, earth tones, plus off-white and red colors enhancing the
composition by their reference the Lucie Stern Center buildings and the bright
colors used for the whimsical components of the Project.
c. The architectural details of the building and site invoke whimsy and child-like
scale into the simple massing and contemporary materials.
d. Facing Middlefield Road, the wall cladding further breaks up the long façade and
provides warm natural material accents.
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.) in that:
a. The project responds to the new crosswalk planned on Middlefield Road at
Kellogg Avenue, and improved crosswalk on Newell Road at Hopkins Avenue,
allowing connection from Middlefield to Rinconada Park with ADA compliant
paths and featuring a raised pedestrian crossing through the parking lot
providing a direct connection between the Lucie Stern Community Center and
Rinconada Park; a new pedestrian path connecting the sidewalk on Middlefield
Road to the JMZ as a ‘promenade’ to the park entry plaza, including bicycle
parking facilities at key locations;
b. One of the existing curb cuts along Middlefield is being removed, which is a
benefit to all the pedestrian traffic going to Walter Hayes School; and
c. The proposed parking lot would provide efficient circulation with no dead-end
drive aisles, and meet the City’s standard width for two-way drive aisles with
safer, 90-degree parking spaces allowing sufficient room for vehicles to back out
of parking spaces. The vehicular circulation will be improved with the project,
including maneuverability of buses and large trucks.
5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its
surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes regional indigenous
drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat, and that can be
appropriately maintained in that:
a. New landscaping is proposed at the JMZ facility and parking lots, designed to
meet the 50% shade requirement of PAMC Section 18.54.040 and “no net loss of
canopy” goals; conditions of approval for use of Silva cells will ensure this goal
and code requirement will be achieved;
b. The project features 57 new trees including five native oaks, intended to offset
tree removals and many (but not all) of the plants to be used are ‘regionally
indigenous drought resistant’ species; and
c. Use of non-natives in key locations is appropriate for this use (educational) and
setting (important community center and children’s facility requiring drought
resistant, sustainable and appropriate plants).
6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related
to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site
planning, in that:
a. The project is designed to CALgreen guidelines for design and operational and
efficiency provisions to minimize wasteful energy consumption;
b. The building is oriented to optimize daylight to interiors, and features low-
emissivity glazing, energy efficient LED lighting; and
c. The project includes new bicycle parking spaces for greater sustainability in the
transportation sector.
SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.
Planning Conditions
1. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the
time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
2. 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, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
3. Mitigation Measures (#3a – #3d): The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
associated with the project (Exhibit A) is incorporated by reference and the mitigation
measures (below) shall be implemented as described in such document:
3a. BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the
project shall implement the following measures:
i. Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to identify
active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. All potential
nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree
removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding season (February 1 –
August 31). If more than 30 days pass between the completion of the
preconstruction survey and the initiation of construction activities, the
preconstruction survey shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day intervals
until construction activities are initiated.
ii. If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be postponed until all
the young have fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established around the nest site,
in consultation with the CDFW. Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests
shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree or shrub.
iii. Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge. No construction
activities, parking, staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall be allowed
within the exclusion zones until the young have fledged from the nest.
3b. MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during
construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-feet of the
find shall be halted, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be
notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate
recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate
mitigation. The recommended mitigation shall be implemented and could include
collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of
findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to
the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
3c. MM CR-1.2: If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the
proposed project, the City shall comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC)
Section 7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as
to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98.
i. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner
has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The
NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent
(MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours
to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects.
Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the
reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the
reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC.
ii. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a
recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and
the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails
to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her
authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated
with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property
in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance.
3d. MM NOI-1: With the implementation of the following measures, construction noise
would be reduced to a less than significant level:
i. Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and
6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with
no construction occurring on Sundays or holidays (consistent with Palo Alto
Municipal Code).
ii. Construction of the JMZ shall be undertaken with consideration for school
activities and hours:
iii. Schedule high noise generating construction activities (such as the use of the
concrete saws) that are located directly adjacent to school structures during
periods when school is not in session, such as summer, school breaks, weekends,
and after school dismissal. Coordination of construction activity times with
school officials may be necessary.
iv. Construct portions of the museum located directly adjacent to the school first,
where practical, in an effort to provide shielding to the school from construction
activities located further to the west and south.
v. Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers to shield on-site construction and
demolition noise from the school. To be most effective, the barrier should be
placed as close as possible to the noise source or the sensitive receptor.
Examples of barriers include portable acoustically lined enclosure/housing for
specific equipment (e.g., jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which generate
the loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences or
portable panel systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or acoustical blankets.
vi. Establish construction staging areas at locations that will create the greatest
distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive
receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
vii. Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used judiciously to be
as quiet as practical.
viii. Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources
where technology exists.
ix. Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines and equip all
internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.
x. Locate all stationary noise-generation equipment, such as air compressors and
portable power generators, as far away as possible from businesses or noise-
sensitive land uses.
xi. Notify all adjacent noise sensitive land uses of the construction schedule in
writing.
xii. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are
not audible at existing residences or the school bordering the project site.
xiii. Designate a disturbance coordinator, responsible for responding to
complaints about construction noise. The name and telephone number of the
disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and made
available to noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to the construction site
4. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the
approved plans entitled, "New Construction Junior Museum & Zoo, 1451 Middlefield
Road,” stamped as received by the City on September 6, 2017 on file with the Planning
Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these
conditions of approval.
5. LANDSCAPE PLAN REFINEMENTS:
The following additional modifications to the landscape plan and civil plans for further
refinements shall be addressed prior to City Council review:
a. For auxiliary pathway consider a material modification in the area between Lucie
Stern and Middlefield;
b. Employ rounded curb corners (small radius) at angled curb areas adjacent to
traffic to save the curbs from future chipping;
c. Update plan sheets as needed to reflect relocation of gates so they do not block
pedestrian and bike connectivity from parking lot to JMZ, and from Rinconada
Park to Middlefield;
d. Update plan sheets to reflect sheet A2.0 sidewalk width to ensure a minimum
sidewalk width of at least five feet between the bus drop-off and planter;
e. Consider a vegetative swale instead of an 18” berm and consider placing step
stones or access paths to minimize trampling of Carex grass;
f. Provide step stones or access path between Girl Scout House front yard and
parking lot, to minimize pedestrian damage to new plantings or alter plant
material;
g. Adjust plantings at the Lucie Stern loading area (Texas Redbuds will not have
enough clearance to avoid being damaged by delivery trucks) to more columnar
trees to reduce canopy interference with loading activities;
h. Adjust width of the raised crosswalk (10 feet) to allow a more gradual ramp (at
least five feet wide);
i. Add a street tree in the planter strip at Middlefield at the front of the JMZ
building;
j. Reconfigure driveway approaches slightly to be more aligned and aesthetically
pleasing (at Middlefield and at Hopkins).
k. The tunnel area will need to include signage to advise bicyclists to walk their
bikes through the tunnel (or otherwise direct bicyclists) to avoid conflict with
pedestrians.
6. BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the
Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments.
7. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second
page of the plans submitted for building permit.
8. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be
submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit
review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the
responsibility of the applicant to contact amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org to obtain
approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any
proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention.
9. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
return to the ARB sub-committee for approval of the following items, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment:
a. Resolution of the design for the gable end above the main entry to the JMZ, if
the public art piece is not placed on that gable end, or
b. If public art does get placed on the gable end, sub-committee review of
details for mounting of the public art on the gable end.
10. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to
determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a
Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by
Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations.
Contact Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection.
11. SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No additional freestanding signs are approved at this time.
The wall sign at the front of the JMZ is not approved at this time, and shall be subject to
separate architectural review and may be in a different location if public art is proposed on
that façade. The existing, previously approved freestanding ‘whimsical’ sign installed per
PCE Director’s amendment September 13, 2004), and located approximately 12 feet from
the back of sidewalk on Middlefield Road, may be reinstalled at a similar setback as
indicated on Sheet A1.1. All other signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of
Planning.
Fire
12. Fire
The building permit plans shall include installation of a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14
standpipe system, NFPA 24 underground fire service and NFPA 72 fire alarm system.
Public Art
13. Public Art. The project will incorporate public art. Artist Charles Sowers has been
selected as the project artist and approved by the Public Art Commission. The artist was
scheduled to being design development process in the summer of 2017, and anticipates
completing design development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Public Works – Engineering Conditions
14. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water
regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge
permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and
incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to
land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of
impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and
uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of
impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project
on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of
permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to
protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department.
The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water
pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as
bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that
require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm”
specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system.
The qualified third-party reviewer the applicant has retained shall submit certification
that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with
the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2
copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task
and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to
approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the
installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance
of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the
City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were
constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings.
15. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace
those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the
public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked,
displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter
strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the
inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with
the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a
note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. 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.
16. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new
street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public
Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street
tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the
building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has
determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation
requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street
tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the
applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from
Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953).
17. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan
prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations
and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades
must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splash blocks
should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales.
Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage
from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be
collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep
rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other
pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single
Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717
18. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and
fill volumes. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public
Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are
available at the Development Center and on our website.
19. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention
- It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available
here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732
20. SWPPP: The applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This
entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and
implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that
addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality
protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft
SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the
building permit.
21. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any
removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement
within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-
496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of
the trees per City requirements.
22. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is
proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach,
or utility laterals. 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. Please also call out City standard
details as applicable and include those details within the plan set.
23. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square
feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations
of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit
application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and
instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website.
24. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to
maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a
maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the
permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance
agreement shall be executed prior to grading and building permit issuance. The City
will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee.
25. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must 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 businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work
permit.
26. PAVEMENT: Hopkins Ave and Embarcadero Rd were resurfaced in 2011 and 2015
respectively. These streets are under a moratorium. Any cutting into the pavement will
trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan:
“Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Hopkins Ave
and Embarcadero Rd based the roadway surface condition after project completion and
limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street
along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as
hatched on the site plan.
27. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site.
Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The
proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and
use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the
plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district.
28. The applicant shall continue to work with Public Works and Utilities toward a long
term solution for relocation of utilities out of the corridor prior to construction of the
JMZ project.
29. Due to the lack of storm drain infrastructure on Hopkins and the historical storm
drainage issues on that street, please revise DMA VI to drain elsewhere.
30. Civil plans should clearly call out where details 1 and 2 as shown on sheet C2.3 apply.
31. Proposed new trash enclosure should drain to sanitary sewer.
32. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Provide an analysis that compares
the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City
of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot
below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street
right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please
provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan.
This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to
handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables
and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage
Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the
public storm drain system.
33. Building and Grading Permit plans should only include work proposed for this
project.
Urban Forestry
34. Silva cells shall be included in the design to ensure the project will meet the city’s
goal for no net loss of canopy and 50% shading of parking lot area. The planting
strategy submitted with the building permit describes the following:
a. Total number of replacement trees to be planted and shown on a table with
removals
b. Attributes (for each area or grove) that will be used for selecting species such
as native, large stature at maturity, drought-tolerant, and complementary to
established trees that are retained
c. Soil volume and distance to nearest impervious area/obstacle to growth
d. Projected canopy diameter of each planted tree in 15 years
35. TREE PROTECTION REPORT (TPR). Provide a construction level report for building
permit plan check.
36. If City Council formally designates as Landmark Trees, Pecan #330 and Dawn
Redwood #327, they shall be retained and protected during construction and shall be
subject to the same tree ordinance provisions as the oaks, with a mitigation measure
providing for their retention or replacement if lost.
37. Civil engineering and grading plans. Plans shall show finish grade (FG) and the lower
limit of excavation. Engineer shall receive from the project arborist for each tree root
zone to be preserved, a spot grade of the lowest excavation depth for new driving
surface, landscape area or other activity.
38. Ensure that the existing Utility Easement that bisects the site shall not in any event
allow for excavation via an open trench thru the root zone of (Designated Landmark)
Pecan Tree # 330.
39. Add Project Arborist contact information to the Project Directory. If CPA-LA, list
direct contact information for construction-phase contact ability.
Utilities Electrical
40. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department
service requirements noted during plan review.
41. 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.
42. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation
#18.
43. The new pad-mount transformer is shown on plan sheet E1.00 located in the
landscaped area just north of the electrical room. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16
(see detail comments below). The proposed transformer pad appears to meet the 3-
feet minimum clearance on the non-operable sides and 8’ feet clearance on the
operable side.
44. Plan sheet E1.00 shows the electrical room adjacent to the padmount transformer
and appears to provide the location for electrical panel/switchboard.
45. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads)
required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and
installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on building permit plans.
Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18.
46. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required
equipment according to the California Electric Code requirements and City standards.
47. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond
what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges.
The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well
as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20.
48. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or
reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be
coordinated with the Electric Utility.
Public Works Watershed Protection
49. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities
New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection,
except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a
dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with
grading or a berm system to prevent water run-on and runoff from the area. The trash
area must meet these requirements as well as the Zero Waste sizing requirements.
50. Include Construction best management practices (BMP) sheet in plans.
Prior to building permit approval:
51. Disconnect downspouts and allow to drain to landscaping (outward from
building as needed). (C 2.1 mentions connecting roof leader to storm drain).
52. New storm drain/drop inlets in parking lots and high visitor areas should include a
trash capture device. Inlets should also be labeled with a ‘flows to Bay’ message.
53. Permeable concrete
a. County-wide design specs should be followed (ensure pg. C 2.3 is appropriate specs.)
b. Installation specs per company should be followed
c. Clear, detailed maintenance agreement must be drafted and agreed upon by all City
staff in pertinent Departments (Public Works, Parks).
d. Set up meeting with parties before project is approved by City Council.
e. Funding for maintenance needs to be approved.
54. Ensure all interior and exterior drainage from zoo/animal area is piped to sanitary
sewer system.
55. Stormwater treatment measures
a. Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements
b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3
Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for
details
c. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil
amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost.
Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines:
http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines-
sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance.
56. Stormwater quality protection
a. At a minimum, follow the BMP sheet that must be submitted with plans.
b. Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and
having rainwater enter the containers. Have clear maintenance plan for trash and
recycling containers to not allow overflow.
57. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related
permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate
of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.
a. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge
water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or
designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either
or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground
water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable
waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to
the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code
(16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained
prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in
authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
b. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water
i. Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect
connection to the sanitary sewer system.
ii. And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices
iii. Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system
only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from
rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater
treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional
information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k)
c. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters,
copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall
not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for
which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates
and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement
roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided
that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the
purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to
structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition
of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
d. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks
i. Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if
equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed
during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock
operation.
ii. Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are
handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain
system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be
allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept
closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock
operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or
protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate
wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided
for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site.
e. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain
system.
f. PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers
No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain
system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger,
any substance that contains any of the following:
i. Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter;
ii. Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter;
iii. Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
iv. Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or
v. Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to
dilution with the cooling system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall
be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling
tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are
required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter.
g. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in
sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for
domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes
where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper
piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing.
h. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains
Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in
areas where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial
process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment cleaning
wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all
such materials and equipment
i. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(1) and 16.09.105 Segregated Plumbing and Sampling
Locations
a. The owner of every new commercial and industrial building or portion
thereof shall cause the building to be constructed so that industrial waste
is segregated, by means of separate plumbing, from domestic waste prior
to converging with other waste streams in the sanitary sewer system. For
the purposes of this section only, the term "new" shall also include
change to a use that requires plumbing for industrial waste
b. Establishments from which industrial wastes are discharged to the
sanitary sewer system shall provide and maintain one or more sampling
locations or metering devices or volume and flow measuring
methodologies or other sampling and measuring points approved by the
Superintendent which will allow the separate measuring and sampling of
industrial and domestic wastes. Unless otherwise approved by the
Superintendent, domestic and industrial waste shall be kept completely
separated upstream of such sampling locations and/or measuring points.
Establishments that are billed for sewer service on the basis of sewage
effluent constituents shall provide a suitable means for sampling and/or
measurement of flow to determine billing constituents in accordance
with the utilities rules and requirements. Sampling locations shall be so
located that they are safe and accessible to the Superintendent at any
reasonable time during which discharge is occurring.
j. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
k. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat
Exchangers
It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas,
fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system.
l. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling
Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to
Bay," or equivalent.
SECTION 6. Term of Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of
one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building 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.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney
NOT YET APPROVED
171024 ts ORD ‐ PIO for JMZ and Rinconada Park
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting
A Plan for Improvements to the Junior Museum & Zoo and Associated Facilities Located
Within Rinconada Park.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and section 22.08.005 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction
reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or respect to any land
head by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by
ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefore.
(b) Rinconada Park is dedicated to park purposes. See Municipal Code section
22.08.210 et seq.
(c) The City Intends to authorize construction of certain park improvements
within Rinconada Park, as shown in Exhibit “A” to this ordinance, including:
(1) Selective demolition of the zoo;
(2) Construction of new zoo habitats, exhibits, enclosures, and facilities;
(3) Construction of perimeter walls and fences;
(4) Installation of poles, cables and netting; and
(5) Construction of landscaping and irrigation.
(d) The Improvements at Rinconada Park will include the approximately 8,800
square foot area of the existing zoo plus adding an additional 5,217 square
foot area of the park to the northeast edge of the existing zoo.
(e) The project improvements will avoid protected trees and other sensitive
resources. In addition, existing park uses will be restored following the
completion of project construction.
(f) The project described above and more specifically described in the Plan
attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is consistent with park and conservation
purposes.
(g) The council desires to approve the project described above and as more
specifically described in the Plan.
NOT YET APPROVED
171024 ts ORD ‐ PIO for JMZ and Rinconada Park
SECTION 2. The Council herby approves and adopts the Plan as shown in
Exhibit “A” for the construction of a new zoo and related facilities at Rinconada Park.
SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed and adopted by resolution a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and a related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for this project prior to adoption of this ordinance on December 4, 2017. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the project would not have a sufficient
effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first day after the
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
______________________________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Community Services
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
Rinconada Park Long Range Plan
&
Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo
Initial Study
Architectural Review Application
#17PLN-00147
August 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ i Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Page
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................................ 3
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 4
2.1 PROJECT TITLE ............................................................................................. 4
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................... 4
2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT .......................................................................... 4
2.4 APPLICATION NUMBER .............................................................................. 4
2.5 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICT ............. 5
2.6 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 5
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 9
3.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 9
3.2 USES OF THE INITIAL STUDY ................................................................. 13
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ................ 18
4.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................ 18
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................. 22
4.3 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................. 24
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES........................................................................ 31
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 40
4.6 GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 51
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................. 54
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................... 59
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................... 64
4.10 LAND USE .................................................................................................... 71
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 74
4.12 NOISE ............................................................................................................ 75
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................. 86
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................... 88
4.15 RECREATION ............................................................................................... 90
4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ......................................................... 92
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................... 113
4.18 ENERGY CONSERVATION ...................................................................... 119
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 127
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS ............................................................... 130
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ ii Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Page
Figures
Figure 2.0-1: Regional Map ................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 2.0-2: Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2.0-3: Aerial Photograph and Proposed Project Site ............................................................... 8
Figure 3.0-1: Rinconada Park LRP Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................ 14
Figure 3.0-2: Palo Alto JMZ Conceptual Site Plan .......................................................................... 15
Figure 3.0-3: Palo Alto JMZ Elevations ........................................................................................... 16
Figure 3.0-4: Palo Alto JMZ Elevations ........................................................................................... 17
Figure 4.16-1: Study Intersections ...................................................................................................... 96
Figure 4.16-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................... 97
Figure 4.16-3: Existing Transit Facilities ........................................................................................... 98
Tables
Table 4.12-1: Summary of Long and Short-Term Noise Measurement Data ................................... 77
Table 4.16.1: Level of Service Definitions ..................................................................................... 100
Table 4.16-2: Existing and Background Conditions Levels of Service .......................................... 100
Table 4.16-3: Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation .................................................................... 102
Table 4.16-4: Existing and Estimated Weekday Trip Generation ................................................... 104
Table 4.16-5: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ................................................ 104
Table 4.16-6: Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service .......................................... 105
Table 4.16-7: Saturday Project Trip Generation Estimates ............................................................. 107
Table 4.16-8: Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................... 108
Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality Analysis
Appendix B: Arborist Reports
Appendix C-1: Archaeological Literature Review
Appendix C-2: Historic Resources Evaluation – Palo Alto JMZ
Appendix C-3: Historic Resources Evaluation – Rinconada Park
Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E: Noise Assessment
Appendix F: Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix G: Rinconada Park Long Range Plan
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 3 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The City of Palo Alto proposes two projects: 1) a long-range plan to guide the development of
Rinconada Park, and 2) the rebuilding of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ).
Rinconada Park is a regional destination for a variety of passive and active recreational activities and
is co-located near the JMZ and other City facilities. The purpose of the Rinconada Park Long Range
Plan (LRP) is to make park improvements based on current and future community needs. In this
respect, the LRP provides guidance on changes anticipated over the next 25 years.
The current JMZ building (built in 1941) and zoo area (built in 1969) are not adequately designed or
sized to accommodate the JMZ’s various educational programs, nor do they meet current State
building code requirements for accessibility and seismic safety. The goal of the proposed re-build is
to construct a new JMZ facility that would provide adequate space for its educational programs while
meeting all State building code requirements along with standards for zoo accreditation and museum
accreditation. In addition, the project aims to improve circulation within the JMZ to allow universal
access for children with disabilities to all exhibits and areas of the facility, which requires
considerably more space than allowed for in the existing facility. The proposed JMZ facility is
intended to better serve its current local visitors and schools while still maintaining an intimate
experience for children to explore science and nature.
This Initial Study (IS) of environmental impacts is being prepared to conform to the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the City of Palo Alto. This Initial
Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts which might reasonably be anticipated to result
from implementation of the proposed Rinconada Park LRP and Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo
(JMZ) project. Although the proposed LRP and JMZ are separate development projects, they are
located adjacent to one another within a larger City-owned parcel, and will have overlapping
timeframes for development. For these reasons, the LRP and JMZ projects are being evaluated as
one project under CEQA. The City of Palo Alto is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared
this Initial Study to address the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 4 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 PROJECT TITLE
Rinconada Park Long Range Plan and Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo.
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site consists of the 11.8 acre Rinconada Park, located at 777 Embarcadero Road, the Palo
Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ), located at 1451 Middlefield Road, and a paved parking lot
located adjacent to the JMZ. The site is located within an 18.3-acre City-owned parcel (APN 003-
46-006) with frontage on Hopkins Avenue, Newell Road, Melville Avenue, Embarcadero Road and
Middlefield Road in the City of Palo Alto. In addition to Rinconada Park and the JMZ, the parcel
includes Fire Station #3 located at 799 Embarcadero Road, the Girl Scout House (aka Lou Henry
Hoover House) located at 1120 Hopkins Avenue, the Children’s Library located at 1276 Harriet
Street, the Lucie Stern Community Center located at 1305 Middlefield Road, and an electric
substation located at 1350 Newell Road.
The parcel is bordered primarily by single-family residential uses. Walter Hays Elementary School is
located on the northern corner of Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road, adjacent to Rinconada
Park and the JMZ. The Palo Alto Art Center and Rinconada Library are located east of the parcel
across Newell Road. Regional and vicinity maps of the site are shown on Figures 2.0-1 and 2.0-2,
and an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding area is shown on Figure 2.0-3.
2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Department of Planning and Community Development
250 Hamilton Avenue
5th Floor- City Hall
Palo Alto, CA 94301
2.4 APPLICATION NUMBER
A Formal Architectural Review application was submitted for the JMZ redevelopment on April 27,
2017 (File Number 17PLN-00147). No application has been filed for the Rinconada Park Long
Range Plan.
Revised JMZ plans dated July 24, 2017 are on file and viewable via this webpage
https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning by searching the address “1451 Middlefield Road” and
clicking on the green dot to review the record details, opening the “more details” option, using the
“Records Info” drop down menu and selecting “Attachments” and opening the attachment named
“Revised Plans July 2017”.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 5 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
2.5 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICT
General Plan: Public Parks, Major Institutions/Special Facilities
Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF)
2.6 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is comprised of two areas within the 18.3-acre City-owned parcel: Rinconada Park
and the Palo Alto JMZ. Rinconada Park is a multipurpose park offering a variety of recreational
amenities, including: two children’s playgrounds, turf area for activities, nine tennis courts and
backboard, picnic area with barbecues, municipal swimming pool and children’s pool, restroom and
pool buildings, redwood grove, heritage oak tree stand, multipurpose concrete bowl, benches, and
jogging/walking paths.
The JMZ site includes the JMZ facility and a paved parking lot adjacent to the facility that extends
northward between the Girl Scout House and Lucie Stern Community Center. The JMZ is situated
adjacent to the southwest portion of Rinconada Park, and consists of a two-story, 9,000 square-foot
(sf) museum building and a 13,000 sf fenced, outdoor zoo area.
The remainder of the City-owned parcel, which includes Fire Station #3, the Girl Scout House (aka
Lou Henry Hoover House), the Children’s Library, the Lucie Stern Community Center, and an
electric substation, is not a part of the project site.
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.0-1
Fremont
Newark
Santa Clara
MountainView
Sunnyvale
Los Altos
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
San Carlos
Belmont
Foster City
Fremont
Newark
Santa Clara
MountainView
Sunnyvale
Los Altos
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
San Carlos
Belmont
Foster City
Redwood City
238
237
880
880
680
85
82
84
84
82
101
101
101
Project Site
San Francisco Bay
Pacific Ocean
Monterey Bay
San José
Fremont
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Mountain View
Morgan Hill
San José
Fremont
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Mountain ViewPalo AltoPalo Alto
Morgan Hill
Project SiteProject Site
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.0-2
Channing Avenue
Walter Hays Drive
Lois Lane
Iris Way
Newell Road
Newell Road
Greenwood Avenue
Harker Avenue
Parkinson Avenue
Guinda Street
Fulton Street
Middlefield Road
Middlefield Road
E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d
E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d
Cowper Street
Waverley Street
Webster Street
Webster Street
Fulton Street
Seale Avenue
Louis Road
Barbara Drive
Northampton Drive
Southampton Drive
Lowell Avenue
Tennyson Avenue
Byron Street
Hopkins Avenue
Melville Avenue
Melville Avenue
Channing Avenue
Walter Hays Drive
Lo
i
s
L
a
n
e
Iris Way
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
Greenwood Avenue
Harker Avenue
Parkinson Avenue
Gui
n
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Fult
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
tre
e
t
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
tree
t
Fult
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Seal
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lou
i
s
R
o
a
d
Bar
b
a
r
a
D
r
i
v
e
Nort
h
a
m
p
t
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
Sout
h
a
m
p
t
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
Low
e
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Tenn
y
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Byr
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Hopkins Avenue
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Project Site
0 100 500 750 1000 Feet
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2.0-3
Parkinson AvenueParkinson Avenue
Community LaneCommunity Lane
Harriet Street
Ha
r
r
i
e
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Cedar Street
Ce
d
a
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pine Street
Pi
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Newell Road
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
Coleridge Avenue
Cole
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Byron Street
By
r
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Guinda Street
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Middlefield Road
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Hopkins AvenueHopkins Avenue
E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Fulton Street
Fu
l
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Project Boundary
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, July 28, 2016.Photo Date: Apr. 2016
0 50 200 400 Feet
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential Residential
Residential
Rinconada Library
Palo Alto Art Center
Lucie Stern Community Center
Walter Hays Elementary School
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 9 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT
3.1.1 Project Description
The proposed project includes two components: 1) implementation of the Rinconada Park Long
Range Plan (LRP) and 2) redevelopment of the JMZ facility and reconfiguration of the adjacent
parking lot, including provision of landscaping, storm drainage system, and lighting.
The two project components are described in detail below.
3.1.1.1 Rinconada Park Long Range Plan
The LRP was developed by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department to guide the future
development and renovation of Rinconada Park. Implementation of the plan is anticipated to take up
to 25 years. The LRP includes the following components:
Entry Plazas, Internal Pathways, Access, and Alternative Transportation Improvements
Two main pedestrian entry plazas would be developed at the west and east entrances to the park. The
west entrance to Rinconada Park, north of the proposed JMZ building, would be improved with an
entry plaza that would showcase the large existing trees and provide elements such as an enhanced
entry noting the point of arrival, way-finding signage, and pedestrian scale art work.
A formalized entry would be located at the east edge of the park on Newell Road, north of Fire
Station #3, and would include improvements such as an enhanced entry, reduction of turf with accent
drought tolerant plantings, and way-finding signage.
The existing pathways in the park are asphalt and in need of renovation. Pathways within the park
would be expanded and enhanced. The project includes multimodal circulation improvements to
connect the site to the surrounding neighborhood. Perimeter sidewalks and on-street parking would
be expanded and enhanced along Hopkins Avenue and Embarcadero Road. Bike racks would be
provided throughout the park. An enhanced shuttle stop would replace the existing stop on Newell
Road to promote the use of alternate forms of transportation to the park. Fourteen (14) non-protected
trees are proposed to be removed as part of the pathway improvements to provide space for a larger
and more direct main circulation route through the park and to maintain the openness of the main
active turf area. Trees removed will be replaced with native trees located in the area between the
path and the school fence.
West Playground Area/Girl Scout Picnic Area/Large Turf Area
The two existing playgrounds in Rinconada Park are proposed to be combined into one playground
located in a defined children’s play area at the west end of the park in close proximity to the JMZ and
Walter Hays School access points. An expansion of the existing picnic area would be part of the new
playground configuration. Adult exercise equipment would be provided at the eastern edge of the
playground. The existing trees in this area would be protected and maintained. The area next to the
Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House would serve public use but cater to use by the Girl Scouts, with
a fire pit, food preparation table, benches and picnic tables in a small gathering area.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 10 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
The existing turf area in the central portion of the park, south and east of the picnic areas, is highly
used and would be maintained in its current condition to the extent possible. This area is currently
utilized for community gatherings such as outdoor performances, movies and concerts and is used by
the City’s community services department for youth activities and camps. The turf area will continue
to maintain the current schedule of use and programming. A new restroom is proposed to
accommodate this western area of the park.
Street and Access Improvements on Hopkins Avenue, Newell Road, and Embarcadero Road
New sidewalks and crosswalks aligning with adjacent sidewalk curb cuts are proposed along
Hopkins Avenue. Additionally, new head in parking stalls are proposed to be installed along
Hopkins Avenue, west of the tennis courts. The City is also exploring shifting the sidewalks along
Embarcadero Road northward to provide additional street parking and a turning lane.
The 12 topped redwood trees along Newell Road would be replaced with small scale trees that would
not interfere with the overhead power lines. In the area where the redwoods will be removed, new
plantings and a meandering pathway pulled away from Newell Road will provide a connection from
the park’s main east entry to the crosswalk at the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Newell Road. An
enhanced shuttle stop would also be located along this new pathway. Artwork panels are proposed to
replace the existing fencing currently screening the electric substation located at the northeast corner
of the park when replacement of the fence is required.
Tennis Courts
The existing tennis courts on Hopkins Avenue would be shifted to the west to allow for a pedestrian
access route along the east side of the courts. The proposed shifting of the courts would occur when
the tennis courts paving receive full renovation and replacement.
Magic Forest
The Magic Forest area consists of over 60 mature redwoods which will be retained. Minimal
improvements to this area would include a lighted access path to the existing ball wall and into the
park, a new sidewalk at the curb edge to provide pedestrian access along Hopkins Avenue, picnic
tables and benches, and a proposed children’s natural play area.
Pool Area Improvements
The existing pool deck areas would be expanded on the east and west sides for lounging, supervision,
and aquatic events. The area east of the pool and adjacent to the electric substation would include a
new picnic area, and seating. Other amenities such as a bocce ball court will also be considered
when the area is renovated. On the south side of the pool building, a plaza with thematic paving,
shaded seating areas, and artwork to support the pool area activities and concessions, would be
installed.
The LRP includes a full renovation of the existing 4,700 sf pool building, which includes locker
rooms, offices, and pool storage. In addition to the renovated building, a 2,300 sf wing would be
added to the west end to include a public restroom, activity room and possible concession area. The
restroom would replace the existing restroom building currently located in the same area.
Arboretum
The priority of this area in the LRP is to maintain the native and heritage oak trees for years to come.
The current pathways would be upgraded throughout this area with a permeable material and new
oak trees will be planted to preserve the oak stand.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 11 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Multi-Use Concrete Bowl
The existing concrete bowl space south of the pool area will maintain its current use as a small multi-
use space for outdoor activities and performances with the same seating capacity. Outdoor events are
currently programed for the bowl; therefore, this is not a new use on the site. The hours of operation
and number of events scheduled for the bowl would continue and be consistent with its current use.
The project proposes to install a new stage to reduce sun glare for spectators. The stage would be
oriented to the southwest, away from the nearest residential uses, approximately 20 feet from its
current location. Coordination with Walter Hays Elementary School to utilize the bowl for
educational gatherings is also proposed as part of the LRP.
3.1.1.3 Junior Museum and Zoo
As described in further detail below, the proposed JMZ redevelopment would occur in two phases.
The majority of the proposed improvements would occur during Phase I, construction of which is
anticipated to last 18 to 24 months. Improvements associated with Phase II may not be completed
for up to 10 years.
Phase I
JMZ Building and Outdoor Zoo
The project includes the demolition of the existing 9,000 sf, one- and partial two-story museum
building and construction of a new one-story 15,033 sf museum and educational building in the same
location as the existing building. The new building would have a gabled roof reaching a maximum
height of 27 feet. Amenities in the building would include educational classrooms and educational
courtyard, a teacher area, general storage area, a small exhibit maintenance shop, indoor exhibits, and
restroom facilities. The main JMZ entrance plaza would lead into the lobby and reception area of the
JMZ building. New walkways near the new JMZ building would connect with parking lot
improvements, Middlefield Road, and the Rinconada Park.
The project would also construct a new open-air netted enclosure and supporting outdoor animal
management area in the location of the existing 13,000 sf outdoor zoo area. The 17,415 sf, 36-foot
tall netted enclosure would be accessible from the JMZ building. The netted enclosure, referred to as
“Loose in the Zoo”, would feature animal exhibits with landscaped features. The netting would
allow for exhibition birds to fly about the enclosure.
Parking Lots Redesign
The existing parking lots located adjacent to the JMZ and between the Lucie Stern Community
Center and Girl Scout House would be reconfigured to improve traffic flow, maximize parking
spaces, improve landscaping and lighting, and increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Vehicular
access to the Girl Scout House’s existing garage would be maintained, and the bird bath dedicated to
a Boy Scout leader is anticipated to be relocated near the Boy Scout building in the Lucie Stern
Complex.
One of the existing driveway curb cuts on Middlefield Road to the parking lot would be eliminated
and replaced with a bike and pedestrian pathway connection to Rinconada Park, and a bus drop off
zone in front of the JMZ would be provided. The reconfigured parking lots would be connected for
automobile traffic and provide improved pedestrian pathways to the many surrounding facilities
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 12 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
while incorporating a relocated vehicular driveway entrance on Middlefield Road and a new entrance
onto Hopkins Avenue. The components include:
Dedicated bike and pedestrian entrance at intersection of Kellogg Avenue and Middlefield
Road (separated from vehicular entrance), raised pathway through the parking lot and direct
connection to pathways in the park;
Safe pedestrian pathway through parking lot leading to JMZ entry plaza defined by colored
concrete;
New, relocated single vehicular entrance mid-block on Middlefield Road and new, relocated
vehicular entrance on Hopkins Avenue;
Fire truck and bus access through the parking lot with dedicated driveway onto Hopkins
Avenue (no standard vehicular use);
Two-way circulation through the parking lot with dedicated drop-off and loading zone near
JMZ entrance and park arrival plaza;
Efficient stormwater treatment system: pervious paving, shallow treatment area, and
connection to storm drainage line in utility corridor;
50 percent shading of the paved area (as required per the Parking Facility Design Standards,
Chapter 18.54 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) would be met by existing and new trees; and
Increase in bicycle parking (including racks at the entrance to JMZ and the park) and increase
in long-term bicycle storage for staff.
The current demonstration garden on the west side of the Girl Scout House would be relocated within
the park near Walter Hays Elementary School as part of the parking lot renovations.
A total of 42 trees are proposed to be removed for the JMZ project. None of the trees proposed for
removal are protected trees. Two protected trees (a coast live oak and a coast redwood) are proposed
to be relocated within the project boundary. A total of 57 new trees will be planted to replace trees
removed.
Phase II
Outdoor Zoo Building
The JMZ project includes a proposed future two-story 3,600 sf building adjacent to the zoo area. The
building, which would have a gabled roof reaching a maximum height of 25 feet, would consist of a
classroom on the first floor and a butterfly/insect exhibit on the second floor. The massing and
material of the future Outdoor Zoo Building would be similar to the proposed JMZ building.
With construction of both Phase I and Phase II of the JMZ redevelopment, the project would result in
a net increase of 9,633 sf of floor area and 4,415 sf of outdoor zoo area compared to the existing JMZ
facility. The overall lot coverage of the JMZ facility would increase by 12,748 sf.
3.1.1.4 Temporary Relocation Plan
During demolition, building construction and modifications on the JMZ site, JMZ services would
continue without interruption at a temporary location at the Cubberley Community Center, located at
4000 Middlefield Road in Palo Alto. The Cubberley Community Center is housed on the campus of
the former Ellwood P. Cubberley High School, which opened in the fall of 1956 and closed in 1979.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 13 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
It has been home to organizations that provide many services to the community in areas education,
health, childcare, arts, dance and music instruction including Foothill College, and was home to
animal rescue operations for many years.
The old high school classrooms meet the JMZ needs for education staging and classrooms. The
Auditorium is suited to a temporary Junior Museum, indoor animal housing, education and program
areas, collections management, and offices. A fenced temporary exterior animal holding area would
be constructed to contain a few of the animals and would meet regulatory requirements and animal
husbandry needs. These JMZ animals would not be on view for the public.
No construction involving substantial ground disturbing activities would be required as part of the
temporary relocation of JMZ services. The five parking zones at the campus would provide parking
for staff and visitors to the temporary museum.
3.1.2 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan designates Rinconada Park as Public Parks and the
JMZ property as Major Institutions/Special Facilities. Both properties are located within the Public
Facilities (PF) zoning district. The project does not propose a Comprehensive Plan amendment or
rezoning.
3.1.3 Access, Circulation, and Parking
Access to Rinconada Park is provided by Embarcadero Road, Newell Road, and Hopkins Avenue.
Access to the JMZ and surface parking lot is provided by Middlefield Road. The JMZ is also
accessible by bicycle and pedestrian pathways connecting it to Rinconada Park.
3.2 USES OF THE INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study (IS) provides decision-makers in the City of Palo Alto (the CEQA Lead Agency),
responsible agencies, and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in
considering the project. This IS may also be relied upon for other agency approvals necessary to
implement the project.
RINCONADA PARK LRP CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.0-1
Source: Verde Design, July. 16, 2013.
0 50 100 150 Feet
PALO ALTO JMZ CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.0-2
Source: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, April 27, 2017.
EENTRY
LOBBY
R
D
HERPRACK(DRY)
HERPRACK (DRY)HERPRACK(WET)
HERP
UNIT
MEDIUMHERP UNITHERPRACK(DRY)
HERP UNIT
ANIMALSUPPLY
'DIRTY'
'CLEAN'
D/W
MW ABOVE
JAN.
SHOP
STORAGE
HERP ZONE
PROGRAM ANIMAL ROOM
TRASH ENCLOSURE
GIRL'S
RESTROOM
BOY'S
RESTROOM
QUARANTINE
EST
188 SF
700 SF
76 SF
160 SF
L
ANIMAL ENCLOSURES
0TRENCH DRAIN
TRENCH DR
ANIMAL
CARE
10 0
77 SFDRY
STORAGE
8 10
ZOO WORK
SPACE
267 SF
200 SF
W/
x
5 x 8
5 x 8
TRENCH DN
xx 10
DRY
STORAG
OUTDOOR CLASSROOM
+0
-24"
+0
+18
-24"
+0"
DN
32
FH
((N) FH
FIRE
RISER
UTILITY COORIDOR
RECONFIGURED
PARKING LOT
DROP-OFF
HOPKINS AVENUE
GROUP PICNICAREA
OPEN GREENSPACE
UTILITY COORIDOR
SHADED GROUP
PICNIC AREA
GIRL SCOUT
FIRE PIT
BIKE PARKING
EXTE
R
I
O
R
NE
T
T
E
D
ENC
L
O
S
U
R
E
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
(E) TRASH ENCLOSURE
(E) BRICK PATH
LP
LP
(E) BRICK PATH
(E) LOADING
ZONE
(E) BOBCAT EXHIBIT
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY A
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY B
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY A
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY B
RAISED PEDESTRIANCROSSWALK
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
BBIIOOSSWWAALLEE
BIKE PARKING
DRIVEWAY FOR BUS AND
FIRETRUCK ONLY
BIKE PARKING
PECAN TREE
PLAZA
DN
SCHOOL
PARKING LOT
LUCIE STERN
COMMUNITY
CENTER
GIRLSCOUT
BUILDING
CHILDREN
PLAY AREA
MID
D
L
EFIE
L
D R
O
A
D
K E LL O G G A V E N U E
SHARED TOT
PLAY
OLDER CHILDREN
PLAY
OUTDOOR ANIMALMANAGEMENT AREA
PARK ARRIVALPLAZA
JURASSIC GARDEN
COURTYARD PROPOSED
MUSEUM &
EDUCATION
BUILDING
OUTDOOR
CLASSROOM
RINCONADA
PARK
ADULT
EXERCISE
WALTER HAYS
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
SECONDARY
ENTRY
EXTERIOR NETTEDENCLOSURE
PROPOSED
LOOSE IN THE
ZOO
EXTERIOR NETTEDENCLOSURE
MAIN ENTRANCE
SE
R
V
I
C
E
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
+0
SLOP
E
D
O
W
N
+0"
-18"
-12"
BRID
G
E
TUN
N
E
L
BRID
G
E
PRO
M
E
N
A
D
E
ENT
R
Y
PLA
Z
A
20'-0"
39
30
29
19
25
40
21
26
2320
25
2928
19
17
22
32
32
31
27
37
28
32
17
27
1
17
1
34
33
1
1
32 31
35
36
35
36 31
41
24
41 37
12
32 17
32
31
32
12
14
13
16
37
1515
2
35
13
1332
2
32
4
5 5
6
22
34
32
35
3
332
8
8
11
7 10
3
31
31
31
16
25
42
9
38
RINCONADA PARK
BOUNDARY
PROPERTY LINE
STREET SETBACK
UTILITY CORRIDOR
FIRE ACCESS LANE
(20' WIDE MIN.)
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY B
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY A
NEW TREE: REFER
TO LANDSCAPE
DRAWINGS
LLEGEND:
EXISTING PARKING COUNT: 95 STALLS (7 ACCESSIBLE)
PROPOSED PARKING COUNT: 93 STALLS (8 ACCESSIBLE)
GENERAL NOTES:
KEYNOTES:
PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1
PALO ALTO JMZ ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.0-3
Source: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, April 27, 2017.
18’-0”
27’-0”
36’-0”
10’-0”
0’-0”
18’-0”
10’-0”
0’-0”
-4’-0”
18’-0”
27’-0”
10’-0”
0’-0”-4’-0”
18’-0”
27’-0”
36’-0”
10’-0”
0’-0”
-4’-0”
PALO ALTO JMZ ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.0-4
Source: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, April 27, 2017.
18’-0”
10’-0”
0’-0”
-4’-0”
18’-0”
27’-0”
10’-0”
0’-0”
-4’-0”
18’-0”
27’-0”
0’-0”
-4’-0”
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 18 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION
OF IMPACTS
This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project area, as well as
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as
recommended in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, identifies
environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented.
The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The
sources cited are identified at the end of this section. Mitigation measures are identified for all
significant project impacts. Mitigation Measures are measures that will minimize, avoid, or
eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guideline 15370).
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 Aesthetics Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
1-3
b. Significantly alter public viewsheds or view
corridors or scenic resources (such as trees,
rocks, outcroppings or historic buildings)
along a scenic highway?
1-3
c. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which will adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1-2
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?
1-2
4.1.2 Existing Setting
Rinconada Park is an 11.8-acre park that contains mature trees and landscaping. There is a six-
court tennis facility on the northern portion of the site bordering Hopkins Avenue. The interior
of the park consists of various recreational amenities, including two children’s playgrounds, turf
area for activities, picnic areas, backboard, picnic area with barbecues, a municipal swimming
pool and children’s pool, shuffle board and horse shoe pit, redwood grove, multipurpose concrete
bowl for outdoor events, benches, and jogging/walking paths. Palo Alto Fire Station 3 is located
at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and Newell Road, at the site’s southeastern corner.
Walter Hays Elementary School is located directly south of the Park at the intersection of
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 19 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road, adjacent to the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo
(JMZ).
The JMZ is housed in a one- and partial two-story wood frame building located at 1451
Middlefield Road. The JMZ includes a fenced-in outdoor area containing various animal
exhibits. The building and the zoo grounds border the southwestern boundary of Rinconada Park
and are located adjacent to a complex of one-and two-story buildings consisting of the Lucie
Stern Community Center, the Children’s Library, and the Girl Scout House.
The surrounding area consists mainly of one- to two-story single family residences across the
roadways bordering the site which include Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, Newell Road, and
Hopkins Avenue. The immediate area also contains community facilities including the Girl Scout
House (also known as Lou Henry Hoover House), the Children’s Library and Theater, and Lucie
Stern Community Center located northwest of the site. Other public uses in the vicinity include the
Rinconada Main Library northeast of the Park across Newell Road, the Art Center located east of the
Park across Newell Road, three additional tennis courts across Hopkins Avenue, and community
gardens.
4.1.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
The improvements proposed by the LRP would enhance the visual character and quality of
the site through increased landscaping throughout the park, in addition to infrastructure
improvements including repaving of sidewalks and pathways. A total of twenty six (26) trees
are proposed to be removed from Rinconada Park as part of proposed park improvements
identified in the LRP. Twelve (12) of the trees proposed to be removed are Coast Redwood
trees growing along Newell Avenue that are protected trees under the Municipal Code.
Currently the redwoods are growing under high voltage power lines and are continuously
topped to maintain clearance. Native trees of more appropriate size under the power lines are
proposed to replace the redwood trees at a 4:1 ratio, and per the city of Palo Alto technical
manual on tree replacement requirements. The remaining fourteen (14) non-protected trees
identified by the LRP for removal are adjacent to the main pathway and open turf area and
have all been planted recently. Removal of these trees will allow for a wider, more
prominent pathway that connects the park to the surrounding facilities and provide a larger
open active turf area, which is currently limited in Rinconada Park. New native trees will
replace these non-native trees at a 2:1 ratio between the pathway and the school.
The proposed JMZ buildings would be larger in size and scale than the existing JMZ
building. The new JMZ building would be approximately 27 feet in height, while the netted
enclosure would be approximately 36 feet in height. The Outdoor Zoo Building proposed
during Phase II would be approximately 25 feet in height. The heights of the proposed
buildings would be similar to existing houses located across Middlefield Road in proximity
to the JMZ, many of which are two stories in height. The netted enclosure for the zoo would
appear to be “open-roofed”. The proposed JMZ buildings would be constructed with gabled
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 20 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
roofs, and the southern façade would be set back approximately 24 feet from Middlefield
Road. Additionally, the building would be built with variations in color and exterior texture
on the facades to provide visual interest. Ornamental landscaping is proposed on the exterior
of the facility and in the parking lots to be reconfigured, in addition to indoor exhibit designs.
While 42 trees are proposed to be removed in the JMZ project area, approximately 57 trees
would be added, for a net increase of 15 trees. No heritage or protected trees will be
removed, and tree removal and replacement will comply with the requirements of the City of
Palo Alto Tree Preservation Ordinance, as further discussed in section 4.4.3(e).
The project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural
Review process, which ensures compliance with City standards to promote visual
environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety. Architectural review approval
findings require improvements and structures to be compatible with the architecture and
massing of surrounding uses. Additionally, the project would be consistent with City of Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan policies, including Policy P-48: “Promote high quality, creative
design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public
spaces.” For these reasons and those described above, construction of the project would not
substantially degrade the character or quality of the site or the surrounding area. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
b. Would the project significantly alter public viewsheds or view corridors or scenic resources
(such as trees, rocks, outcroppings or historic buildings) along a scenic highway?
The project site is not located along, or visible from, a state scenic highway. The project,
therefore, would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
Embarcadero Road is identified as a “scenic route” and “major view corridor” in the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan. The JMZ project is not visible from this view corridor, but the
Rinconada Park has frontage on the corridor. Due to the flat nature of the site and the
presence of mature trees, views of the project site are limited to the immediate area.
Implementation of the LRP and construction of the proposed JMZ would not modify
identified scenic resources or views of scenic resources in Palo Alto. For these reasons, the
project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor.
[Less than Significant Impact]
c. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
As part of the LRP implementation, new security lighting to illuminate pathways may be
installed throughout different portions of Rinconada Park. The proposed JMZ building
would include minimal outdoor lighting (i.e. security lighting) and indoor lighting that would
generate similar amounts of light to the existing JMZ. Lighting would be controlled to
minimize spillover light beyond the property lines, and would be required to meet the City’s
standards (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.23.030), which restrict light levels to
minimize visual impacts of lighting on nearby residential sites. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 21 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
d. Would the 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?
The LRP does not propose any structures that would create substantial new shadows
compared to existing conditions.
The proposed JMZ buildings would have a maximum height of 27 feet. Based on the
project’s location in the northern hemisphere, shadows created by the building would extend
west, north, and east, depending on the time of day. The area to the west of the proposed
JMZ building would consist of a paved entrance area and parking lot, while the area to the
east would continue to consist of buildings and a parking lot associated with the existing
Walter Hays Elementary School. Neither of these areas would be considered public open
space.
The area to the north of the proposed JMZ building would consist of the 36-foot tall netted
enclosed area referred to as “Loose in the Zoo”. Shadows from the JMZ building would not
extend beyond this area. The netting proposed for the “Loose in the Zoo” area would allow
light to filter through and would not create shadows. The proposed JMZ development,
therefore, would not substantially shadow open space, including nearby portions of
Rinconada Park. [Less Than Significant Impact]
4.1.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse visual or aesthetic
impacts. [Less than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 22 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
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?
1-4
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1-4
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526)?
2,3
d. Result in a loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use? 1-3
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1-4
4.2.2 Existing Setting
The project site is not designated as farmland or forest land. According to the Santa Clara County
Important Farmland 2012 map, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land, meaning
that the land contains a building density of at least six units per 10-acre parcel or is used for industrial
or commercial purposes, golf courses, landfills, airports, or other utilities.
4.2.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. - b. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? Would the project conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The project site is not designated, used, or zoned for agricultural purposes. The project site is
not part of a Williamson Act contract. For these reasons, the proposed project would not
result in impacts to agricultural or forest resources. [No Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 23 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
c. - d. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))? Would the project result in a loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The project site is not zoned or used for agriculture. The surrounding area is not used or
zoned for timberland or forest land. The project would not impact timberland or forest land.
[No Impact]
e. Would the 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 or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012 map, the project site and
surrounding area are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. The development of the
project site would not result in conversion of any forest or farmlands. [No Impact]
4.2.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an impact to agricultural or forestry
resources in the area. [No Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 24 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.3 AIR QUALITY
This section is based in part on an air quality assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in
April 2015. The report analyzed the impacts of a larger JMZ facility based on previous site plans
than the proposed site plans analyzed in this Initial Study. Therefore, air quality impacts described
below represent a conservative analysis. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix A.
4.3.1 Air Quality Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan (such as the
2017 Clean Air Plan or the 2001 Ozone
Attainment Plan)?
1-3, 5
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
1-3, 5
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is classified as non-
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard including
releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
1-3, 5-6
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? 1-3, 5-6
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? 1-3, 5-6
4.3.2 Existing Setting
Air quality and the amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere are determined by the amount of a
pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major
determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and for photochemical
pollutants, sunshine.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
have established ambient air quality standards for what are commonly referred to as “criteria
pollutants,” because they set the criteria for attainment of good air quality. Criteria pollutants include
carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM).
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 25 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.3.2.1 Regional Air Quality
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air
pollution within the air basin.
The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act require that the CARB, based on air
quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality
standard are not met as “nonattainment areas.” Because of the differences between the national and
state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state
legislation. The Bay Area is designated as an “attainment area” for carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The region is classified as a “nonattainment area” for both the federal
and state ozone standards, although a request for reclassification to “attainment” of the federal
standard is currently being considered by the U.S. EPA. The area does not meet the state standards
for particulate matter; however, it does meet the federal standards.
Clean Air Plan
Regional air quality management districts such as BAAQMD must prepare air quality plans
specifying how state air quality standards would be met. BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is
the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP focuses on two closely-related
BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. To protect public health, the
plan describes how the BAAQMD will continue its progress toward attaining all State and federal air
quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay
Area communities.
The 2017 CAP includes a wide range of control measures designed to decrease emissions of the air
pollutants that are most harmful to Bay Area residents, such as particulate matter, ozone, and toxic
air contaminants; to reduce emissions of methane and other “super-GHGs” that are potent climate
pollutants in the near-term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel
combustion.
BAAQMD Guidelines
As discussed in the CEQA Guidelines, the determination of whether a project may have a significant
effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based
to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Palo Alto and other jurisdictions in
the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin often utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air
emissions and/or health effects developed by the BAAQMD based upon the scientific and other
factual data prepared by BAAQMD in developing those thresholds.
The BAAQMD Guidelines have largely survived a legal challenge brought by the California
Building Industry Association. While the litigation is not yet concluded, and while there is a limited
portion of the Guidelines being set aside following the most recent appellate decision (California
Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Quality Management District (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1067),
that limited portion does not impact the City’s use of the Guidelines for the purpose of the current
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 26 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
project. The court only set aside a portion of the Guidelines which suggest that CEQA mandates
evaluation of impacts to future new occupants of a project.
4.3.2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or
mortality (usually because they cause cancer or serious illness) and include, but are not limited to,
criteria air pollutants. 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
highway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the
regional, state, and federal level. The identification, regulation, and monitoring of TACs is relatively
new compared to that for criteria air pollutants that have established ambient air quality standards.
TACs are regulated or evaluated on the basis of risk to human health rather than comparison to an
ambient air quality standard or emission-based threshold.
Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel exhaust, in the form of diesel particulate matter (DPM), is the predominant TAC in urban air
with the potential to cause cancer. It is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk
from TACs (based on the statewide average). According to the 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. California has adopted a comprehensive diesel risk reduction program. The U.S. EPA
and the CARB have adopted low-sulfur diesel fuel standards in 2006 that reduce diesel particulate
matter substantially. The CARB recently adopted new regulations requiring the retrofit and/or
replacement of construction equipment on-highway diesel trucks and diesel buses to lower fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions and reduce statewide cancer risk from diesel exhaust.
4.3.2.3 Sensitive Receptors
There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the
following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the elderly
over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are
classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive
population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities,
elementary schools, and parks. For cancer risk assessments, children are the most sensitive
receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing TACs. Residential locations are
assumed to include infants and small children.
The sensitive receptors nearest to the project site are students of Walter Hays Elementary School
which is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the JMZ and the southern boundary of Rinconada Park.
The closest residences are approximately 115 feet south of the project site across Middlefield Road.
Additional residences are located at farther distances south and north of the project area.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 27 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.3.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan
(such as the 2010 Clean Air Plan or the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan)?
Because the project proposes to make improvements to existing land uses and, therefore,
would not support substantial additional jobs or cause an increase in the population, the
project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plan.
Additionally, the would not result in a substantial increase in vehicle trip generation. [Less
Than Significant Impact]
b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
Implementation of the LRP would not result in a substantial increase in project operations
compared to existing conditions.
The proposed project would increase the footprint of the JMZ facility by roughly 12,748 sf
(including Phase II Outdoor Zoo Building). A net increase in developed space typically
results in an increase in traffic and an associated increase in local and regional pollutant
emissions. BAAQMD screening levels were developed to assist lead agencies in identifying
projects that would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air pollution
and air quality impacts. According to BAAQMD thresholds, a project that generates more
than 54 pounds per day (or 10 tons per year) of ROG (reactive organic gases), NOx, or PM2.5;
or 82 pounds per day (or 15 tons per year) of PM10 would be considered to have a significant
impact on regional air quality.
Although no screening threshold exists that specifically applies to museums or zoos, the
screening threshold for libraries would be the most applicable to the proposed
project. Libraries are a land use where patrons arrive throughout the day, stay for a period of
time and utilize the facilities for education and recreation, then depart. The BAAQMD
screening threshold for libraries is 78,000 sf. The proposed 12,748 sf expansion of the JMZ
would fall well below this screening threshold. Additionally, as described in Section 4.16
Transportation, the proposed project would result in minimal net new vehicle trip generation.
Since the project size is well below these BAAQMD screening levels and projected net trip
generation is relatively low and would not impact the LOS of nearby intersections, it can be
assumed that the project would result in a less than significant operational impact from
criteria pollutant emissions and from construction air quality impacts. The proposed project
would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to any existing or
projected air quality violations. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 28 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors?
The long-term operation of the proposed projects would not substantially increase the number
of vehicle trips in the area or increase regional emissions, and therefore would not result in a
cumulatively considerable increase in any pollutant. [Less Than Significant Impact]
d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Predicted Cancer Risk and Hazards
The maximum modeled diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5 concentrations would
occur at a receptor at Walter Hays Elementary School adjacent to the project site. Increased
cancer risks for a school child were calculated using the maximum modeled DPM
concentrations and BAAQMD-recommended risk assessment methods for a child exposure
(two to 16 years of age). For residential exposures, infant (third trimester through two years
of age), child, and adult exposures were included.1 The cancer risk calculations were based
on applying the BAAQMD-recommended age sensitivity factors to the DPM exposures.
Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer
causing TACs. BAAQMD-recommended exposure parameters were used for the cancer risk
calculations.2 Infant and child exposures were assumed to occur during the entire
construction period.
Results of this assessment indicate that for project construction the incremental school child
cancer risk would be 1.1 in one million, the maximum residential child increased cancer risk
would be 2.3 in one million, and the incremental residential adult cancer risk would be 0.1 in
one million. The maximum increased cancer risks for a school child and residential
exposures would be lower than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million or
greater.
The maximum modeled annual PM2.5 concentration would be 0.09 μg/m3, occurring at the
same location where the maximum DPM concentration would occur. This PM2.5
concentration is lower than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 μg/m3 used to judge
the significance of health impacts from PM2.5.
Potential non-cancer health effects due to chronic exposure to DPM were also evaluated.
Non-cancer health hazards from TAC exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index (HI),
which is the ratio of the TAC concentration to a reference exposure level (REL). California’s
Office of Environmental Health and Hazards (OEHHA) has defined acceptable concentration
levels for contaminants that pose non-cancer health hazards. TAC concentrations below the
1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and
Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May.
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening
Analysis Guidelines. January.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 29 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
REL are not expected to cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals. The
chronic inhalation REL for DPM is five μg/m3. The maximum modeled annual DPM
concentration was 0.08 μg/m3, which is much lower than the REL. The maximum computed
hazard index based on this DPM concentration is 0.016 which is much lower than the
BAAQMD significance criterion of a hazard index greater than 1.0.
Construction Dust
Nearby residential uses and students of the Walter Hays elementary school may be exposed
to short-term construction emissions during construction. Construction activities, particularly
during demolition, site preparation, and grading would temporarily generate fugitive dust in
the form of respirable particulate matter (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 employed to reduce these emissions. The project would be required to
implement BAAQMD measures recommended for all projects as City of Palo Alto conditions
of approval, further reducing any short-term construction impacts. These measures are as
follows;
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day if water is available due to
drought and water shortage conditions.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
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.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
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.
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.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly turned 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.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of
Palo Alto’s Department of Public Works regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number
shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic associated with the LRP
would generate diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. However, construction of the LRP is
anticipated to be substantially less intensive than construction of the zoo and museum. As
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 30 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
discussed above, and based on dispersion modeling using BAAQMD-recommended
methodology, construction of the JMZ would have a less than significant impact with regards
to community risk. Therefore, based on the relatively limited magnitude of LRP
construction, it is anticipated that excess cancer risk and non-cancer impacts would not
exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds during construction of the LRP. Implementation
of best management practices below, would further reduce impacts from fugitive dust
associated with LRP construction.
Based on the relatively small size of the project and the implementation of BAAQMD dust
control measures as standard conditions of approval, as described below the project would
result in a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors from pollutant concentrations.
[Less Than Significant Impact]
e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
The project does not include any odor-causing operations, and any odors emitted during
construction would be temporary and localized. [No Impact]
4.3.4 Conclusion
The projects would result in less than significant air quality impacts. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 31 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The discussion in this section is based in part on arborist reports prepared by Hort Science in June
2015 and updated in June of 2017. The reports are included in this Initial Study as Appendix B.
4.4.1 Biological Resources Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
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
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1-3, 9
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?
1-3, 9
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?
1-3
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,
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
1-3
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, 7-8
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
1-3, 9
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 32 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.4.2 Existing Setting
The proposed project is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP and the construction of a new
JMZ facility. The project is within the existing Rinconada Park and JMZ facility boundaries. There
are no waterways, wetlands, or other sensitive habitats on or adjacent to the project site.
The Park contains various tree and animal species that are commonly found in parks throughout the
San Francisco south bay area. The JMZ contains native and non-native animal species that are under
the care and supervision of zoo staff.
4.4.2.1 Regulatory Background
Federal and California Endangered Species Acts
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and
endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) prohibits the take
of any fish or wildlife species that is federally listed as threatened or endangered without prior
approval. “Take” is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat
modification or degradation that directly results in death or injury of a listed wildlife species.
Special status species in California include plants or animals that are listed as threatened or
endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), species identified by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as California Species of Special Concern, as
well as plants identified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)3 as rare, threatened, or
endangered. The CDFW has jurisdiction over state-listed species and regulate activities that may
result in take of individuals.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 USC Section 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits
killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and
eggs. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of
fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment, a violation of the MBTA.
California Fish and Wildlife Code
The California Fish and Wildlife Code includes regulations governing the use of, or impacts on,
many of the state’s fish, wildlife, and sensitive habitats. Certain sections of the Fish and Wildlife
Code describe regulations that pertain to certain wildlife species. Fish and Wildlife Code Section
3503, 2513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections) protect native birds, including their nests
and eggs, from all forms of take. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in
3 The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a non-profit organization that maintains lists and a database of rare
and endangered plant species in California. Plants in the CNPS “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of
California” are considered “Special Plants” by the CDFW Natural Diversity Database Program.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 33 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance
that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW
Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan
There are two adopted Habitat Conservation Plans in Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara Valley
Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (SCVHP), which encompasses a study area of
519,506 acres (or approximately 62 percent of Santa Clara County) and the Stanford University
Habitat Conservation Plan. The project sites are outside of the covered areas of both Habitat
Conservation Plans.
4.4.2.3 Tree Resources
A tree survey was completed by Hort Science in June 2015 for both Rinconada Park and the
JMZ. The tree surveys, including a detailed description of the size, health, and preservation
suitability of each tree surveyed is included as Appendix B of this Initial Study.
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 5 (Natural Environment) of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (1998) includes policies,
programs and implementing actions to ensure the preservation of biological resources, including
trees. The following policies and programs would apply to the proposed project:
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Relevant Policies
Policy Description
Policy N-14 Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest.
Policy N-15 Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects to
provide street trees and related irrigation systems.
Policy N-17 Preserve and protect heritage trees.
Program N-16 Require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development.
Program N-17 Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, irrigation, and replacement of
trees.
Program N-19 Achieve a 50 percent tree canopy for streets, parks, and parking.
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code
The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code regulates specific types of trees on public and private property
for the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and
permitted by the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department or Public Works
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 34 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Department. Three categories within the status of regulated trees include protected trees (PAMC
Chapter 8.10), public trees (PAMC Section 8.04.020), and designated trees (PAMC Chapter 18.76,
when so provisioned to be saved and protected by a discretionary approval).
Section Chapter 8.10 of Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, “Tree Preservation and
Management Regulations,” (referred to as the “Tree Preservation Ordinance”), protects categories of
trees on public or private property from removal or disfigurement. These categories of regulated
trees include:
Protected Trees. Includes all coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak (Quercus
lobata) trees 11.5 inches or greater in diameter, coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) trees
18 inches or greater in diameter (PAMC Section 8.10.020), and heritage trees designated by
the City Council according to any of the following factors: it is an outstanding specimen of a
desirable species; it is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto; or it possesses distinctive
form, size, age, location, and/or historical significance (PAMC Sections 8.10.020(j) and
8.10.090).
Street Trees. Also protected under Chapter 8.04 of Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
“Street Trees, Shrubs and Plants” are City-owned street trees (all trees growing within the
street right-of-way, outside of private property). A permit is required for work that would in
any way damage, destroy, injure, or mutilate a street tree. The excavation of any ditch or
tunnel or placement of concrete or other pavement within ten feet from the center of any
street tree trunk also requires a permit. Street trees require special protection by a fenced
enclosure, according to the City’s Standard Tree Protection Instructions, before demolition,
grading or construction.
Designated Trees. Designated trees are established by the City when a project is subject to
discretionary design review process by the Architecture Review Board that under PAMC
Section 18.76.020(d)(11) includes as part of the findings of review, “whether natural features
are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project.” Outstanding tree specimens or
groups of trees that function as a screening buffer or have other value may contribute to an
existing site, neighborhood or community, and may have a rating of “High” suitability for
preservation.
Palo Alto Tree Preservation Guidelines
For all development projects within the City of Palo Alto, discretionary or ministerial, a Tree
Disclosure Statement (TDS) is part of the submittal checklist to establish and verify trees that exist
on the site, trees that overhang the site but originate on an adjacent property, and trees that are
growing in a City easement, parkway, or publicly-owned land. The TDS stipulates that a Tree
Survey is required (for multiple trees), when a Tree Preservation Report is required (when
development will occur within the dripline of a Regulated Tree), and who may prepare these
documents. The City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (Tree Technical Manual) describes
acceptable procedures and standards to preserve Regulated Trees, including:
The protection of trees during construction;
If allowed to be removed, the acceptable replacement strategy;
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 35 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Maintenance of protected trees (such as pruning guidelines);
Format and procedures for tree reports; and
Criteria for determining whether a tree is a hazard.
4.4.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the 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
(CDFW) and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
The project site is currently developed and consists of disturbed urban habitat. Given the
site’s urban setting, isolation from larger areas of natural lands, and high level of human
disturbance, the value to wildlife is limited. Therefore, redevelopment of the site would not
result in a significant impact to wildlife habitat. The proposed project would not affect
federally protected wetlands, riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural community. The
project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted state or federal conservation
plan.
No special status species are expected to occur on the project site, given the lack of suitable
habitat and highly developed nature of the site. Due to the presence of large trees, urban-
adapted bird species could occur on the project site as occasional transients. Because the
project site represents only a very small proportion of the suitable habitat available for bird
species regionally, the proposed project would not have a measurable effect on regional
populations of any species.
Nesting Birds
The mature trees on the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds,
including tree nesting raptors, such as small hawks. Construction-related disturbances have
the potential to “take” nests, eggs, or individuals, and otherwise lead to the abandonment of
nests, which would be considered a violation of the MBTA and the California Fish and Game
Code. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or destruction of nests would be a
significant impact.
Impact BIO-1: Construction of the proposed project could result in disturbance to
active migratory bird nests. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: The proposed project shall implement the following measures to
reduce construction-related impacts to nesting migratory birds and their nests to a less than
significant level, as construction activities proceed:
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 36 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
MM BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game
Code, the project shall implement the following measures:
Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified
ornithologist to identify active nests that may be disturbed during
project implementation. All potential nesting areas (trees, tall
shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree
removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding
season (February 1 – August 31). If more than 30 days pass
between the completion of the preconstruction survey and the
initiation of construction activities, the preconstruction survey
shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day intervals until
construction activities are initiated.
If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be
postponed until all the young have fledged. An exclusion zone
shall be established around the nest site, in consultation with the
CDFW. Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests
shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree or shrub.
Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge.
No construction activities, parking, staging, material storage, or
other disturbance shall be allowed within the exclusion zones
until the young have fledged from the nest.
b. Would the 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
The proposed project site is an existing park and JMZ facility. There are no riparian habitats
or sensitive natural communities within Rinconada Park or within the JMZ facility property.
[No Impact]
c. Would the 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?
The proposed project site is an existing park and JMZ facility and does not support any
wetlands. [No Impact]
d. Would the 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, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The proposed project site is an existing park and JMZ facility and does not support
migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites. [No Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 37 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
e. Would the 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)?
The proposed project will retain the majority of the trees on the project site, including all of
the identified heritage trees within the project boundaries. There are two heritage trees on the
project site, both of which would be unaffected by project implementation. A total of 12
protected trees are proposed to be removed from Rinconada Park and two (2) protected trees
are proposed to be transplanted as part of the JMZ redevelopment associated with the
reconfigured parking lot. All tree removals would follow the public tree removal process,
including adequate neighborhood notification. Below, the trees proposed for removal are
broken down per both projects and divided into Protected Tree, Street Trees and Public Trees
categories. Arborist reports for the project with the specific tree information can be found in
Appendix B. Construction of the proposed project would require new sidewalks, which may
require the additional removal and replacements as determined by the Public Works
Department. The project would be required to replace street trees in such a way as to avoid
existing underground utilities and infrastructure, and also to follow the Palo Alto Tree
Preservation Guidelines.
Protected Trees to be Removed:
LRP: Twelve (12) protected Sequoia sempervirens, Coast Redwood trees are proposed to be
removed as part of the LRP Improvements. The redwoods currently exist under high power
electrical lines and are being continuously topped at approximately 20 feet in height. New
native trees of appropriate size for the high voltage line will be planted in the locations of the
redwoods at a 4:1 ratio.
JMZ: No protected trees are proposed to be removed as part of the Junior Museum and Zoo
Project. Two protected trees, one Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak and one Sequoia
sempervirens, Coast Redwood are proposed to be transplanted within the boundries of the
project site as part of the proposed parking lot reconfiguration.
Street Trees to be Removed:
LRP: No street trees are proposed to be removed as part of the LRP.
JMZ: Two (2) street trees are proposed to be removed as part of the Junior Museum and Zoo
project. One (1) Tilian cordata, Little Leaf Linden along Middlefield Avenue will be
removed for the new driveway apron for the reconfigured Rinconada parking lot. One (1)
Plantanus, London Plane Tree along Hopkins Avenue will be removed for the new fire access
lane into the reconfigured parking lot to service the surrounding facilities. New street trees
will be added to the project in the locations of the old driveway aprons to replace the
removed street trees.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 38 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Public Trees to be Removed:
LRP: Fourteen (14) public trees are proposed to be removed as part of the LRP. All the trees
occur along with main park walkway and will be removed to realign the walk. All trees
removed will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio of native trees, and would be located in more suitable
planting areas outside the larger open turf space or small paving cut-outs as do the majority
of the trees being proposed for removal.
JMZ: Forty two (42) public trees are proposed to be removed as part of the JMZ project none
of the trees are native or protected. Six (6) of the trees proposed for removal are being done
so for the parking lot reconfiguration in the area adjacent to the Girl scout House. Fifteen
(15) trees that currently exist in the Zoo area will be removed as part of the zoo
reconfiguration. Thirteen (13) trees will be removed as part of the new JMZ building. One
(1) tree will be removed along Middlefield for the new driveway apron/approach. Six (6)
trees in poor condition will be removed from the natural oak grove stand adjacent to Lucie
Stern to improve the growing conditions for the native oak trees and one (1) tree will be
removed from Rinconada Park for the new entry plaza into the park and connection to the
main park pathway.
New trees and landscaping would be installed in compliance with the requirements of the
City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, and, therefore, the removal of these trees
would not be considered a significant impact. Although not considered a significant impact
under CEQA, the following Conditions of Approval, as required by City ordinances, would
be included in the project to protect trees to remain on site, and to replace removed trees.
Tree Protection Measures:
CONDITION BIO-2.1:
A Tree Preservation Report (TPR) shall be prepared for trees to be preserved and
protected, consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. An updated
tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist shall be
submitted for review and acceptance by the City Urban Forester. The TPR shall
incorporate the following measures, safeguards, and information:
The TPR shall be based on the latest plans and amended as needed to address activity
or improvements within the dripline area, including but not limited to incidental work
(utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, patio material, leveling, etc.) that
may affect the health of the trees. The project shall be modified to address TPR
concerns and recommendations identified to minimize below ground or above ground
impacts.
The TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the Tree Preservation
Ordinance, PAMC Section 8.10.030 and the City’s Tree Technical Manual, Sections
3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urban_canopy.asp.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 39 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
To avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the health of the trees, the TPR
shall review the applicant's landscape plan to ensure that patio flat work, irrigation,
planting or potted plants are consistent with the Tree Technical Manual. The
approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and
monthly reporting to the City Urban Forester.
CONDITION BIO-2.2:
Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of one or more public street trees.
Publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-way along Middlefield Road and
Embarcadero Road. Provide mitigation in the event of a public tree removal. The new
frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design and materials to include the
following elements:
Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree Management Program. Provide
adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources.
Create conflict-free planting sites by locating tree sites and underground utility
services at least 10-feet apart (electric, gas, sewer, water, fiber optic, telecom, etc.).
Utilize City-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such as
permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, and
generous planter soil volume (800 to 1,200 cubic feet) to sustain a medium to large
tree. [Less than Significant Impact]
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
The proposed project site is located outside of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan and the
Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan. [No Impact]
4.4.4 Conclusion
The project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources. [Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Included in the Project]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 40 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based in part on an archaeological literature search by Holman &
Associates, Inc. in June 2015, and on historic resource evaluations prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc.
in July 2016 and June 2017. The archaeological literature search and historic resources evaluations
are included in this Initial Study as Appendices C-1, C-2, and C-3 respectively.
4.5.1 Cultural Resources Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
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?
1-3, 11-
12
b.Eliminate important examples of major
periods of California history or prehistory?
1-3, 10-
12
c.Cause damage to an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
d.Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
1-3
e.Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site, or unique
geologic feature?
1-3, 10
f.Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
1-3, 10-
12
g.Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either:
1.A site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms
of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing
on the California Register of Historical
Resources, or on a local register or
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
2.A resource determined by a lead agency
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
according to the historical register
criteria in Public Resources Code
section 5024.1(c), and considering the
significance of the resource to a
California Native tribe.
1-3, 10
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 41 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.5.2 Eligibility Criteria for Historic Resources
4.5.2.1 National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is a comprehensive inventory of known
historic resources throughout the United States. The National Register is administered by the
National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess
historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological or cultural significance at the national, state or
local level. A historic resource listed in, or formally determined to be eligible for listing in, the
National Register is, by definition, included in the California Register (Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1(d)(1)).4
National Register Bulletin Number 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,
describes the Criteria for Evaluation as being composed of two factors. First, the property must be
“associated with an important historic context.” The National Register identifies four possible
context types, of which at least one must be applicable at the national, state, or local level. As listed
under Section 8, “Statement of Significance,” of the National Register of Historic Places Registration
Form, these are:
A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history.
B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction
or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.
D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
Second, for a property to qualify under the National Register’s Criteria for Evaluation, it must also
retain “historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance.” While a property’s
significance relates to its role within a specific historic context, its integrity refers to “a property’s
physical features and how they relate to its significance.” To determine if a property retains the
physical characteristics corresponding to its historic context, the National Register has identified
seven aspects of integrity: 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling,
and 7) association.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation
The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for establishing standards for all programs under the
Department of the Interior’s authority, and for advising federal agencies on the preservation of
historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
The Standards for Rehabilitation (codified in 36 CFR 67 for use in the Federal Historic Preservation
Tax Incentives program) address the most prevalent treatment. “Rehabilitation” is defined as “the
process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible
4 See Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(d)(1)
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 42 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are
significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.”
The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property's significance through
the preservation of historic materials and features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all
materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and interior of the
buildings. They also encompass related landscape features and the building's site and environment,
as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. To be certified for federal tax purposes, a
rehabilitation project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the historic character
of the structure(s), and where applicable, the district in which it is located.
As stated in the definition, the treatment “rehabilitation” assumes that at least some repair or
alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary
use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes
that are important in defining the building's historic character. Similarly, exterior additions that
duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the extent that they compromise the
historic character of the structure, will fail to meet the Standards.
The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy,
and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and
environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The Standards are to be
applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic
and technical feasibility.
4.5.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources and CEQA
Specific guidelines for identifying historic resources during the project review process under CEQA
are set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a).
These provisions of CEQA create three categories of historical resources: mandatory historical
resources; presumptive historical resources; and resources that may be found historical at the
discretion of the lead agency.
Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the listed criteria
of significance and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as
historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its
historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it
maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.
The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical
resources and hence in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity
of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed
during the resource's period of significance.” The process of determining integrity is similar for both
the California and National Registers, and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity
that are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 43 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.5.2.3 Palo Alto Historic Inventory
The City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of individual designers and
architectural eras as well as buildings associated with local, state, or national historic events. The
inventory identifies buildings on the California and/or National Registers, whether a building is in a
recognized historic district, and lists categories related to architectural style and stylistic
development. Development incentives, such as reduced parking requirements and bonus floor area,
are allowed for in the Palo Alto Municipal Code in exchange for historic rehabilitation of Category 1
and 2 buildings.5
The specific categories in the Historic Inventory include:
Category 1: An “Exceptional” Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These
buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific
architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States.
These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall
appearance of the building is in its original character.
Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious
works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate
stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some
exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.
Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an
architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials,
proportion, or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent
changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of
architectural details, or wooden façades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.
In accordance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code), the Historic Resources Board (HRB) is responsible for making recommendations
to the City Council on proposed additions to the Historic Inventory and on reclassifications of
existing Historic Inventory buildings.6
For properties that are considered eligible for listing in the City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory and
to be designated as either a “Historic District,” or “Historic Structure/Site,” the property must meet
the following criteria:
1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in
the city, state, or nation;
2. The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life
important to the city, state, or nation;
5 The City’s incentive program for preservation and rehabilitation of historic buildings is provided for in the PAMC
(Title 16 and Title 18), and in Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policy and programs.
5 City of Palo Alto. Historic Preservation. Accessed: July 26, 2017. Available at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/preservation.asp.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 44 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now
rare;
4. The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now
rare;
5. The architect or building is important;
6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural
design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.
All properties listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory are subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act. In general, Category 1 and 2 resources are defined as “significant” buildings, subject to
local regulations, while Category 3 or 4 resources are defined as “contributing” buildings. Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 16.49, Section 16.49.060 requires Historic Resources Board review and
Council action on applications for demolition of significant buildings in the downtown area. The
existing JMZ building is not listed as a significant building nor as a contributing building, and is not
located in the downtown.
4.5.3 Existing Setting
Cultural resources are evidence of past human occupation and activity and include both historical and
archaeological resources. These resources may be located above ground, underground or underwater
and have significance in history, prehistory, architecture or culture of the nation, State of California,
or local or tribal communities. Paleontological resources are fossils, the remains or traces of
prehistoric life preserved in the geological record. They range from the well-known and well
publicized fossils (such as mammoth and dinosaur bones) to scientifically important fossils (such as
paleobotanical remains, trace fossils, and microfossils). Potentially sensitive areas with fossil
bearing sediments near the ground surface in areas of Santa Clara County are generally in or adjacent
to foothill areas rather than the younger Holocene age deposits on the valley floor.
4.5.3.1 Prehistoric Resources
The site is located in downtown Palo Alto, and is fully developed and previously disturbed. The site
is located in an area of “moderate sensitivity” for archaeological resources, based on the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report (2014), although areas of “extreme
sensitivity” are located nearby in the downtown area.
An Archaeological Literature Review that was conducted by Holman & Associates at the Northwest
Information Center of the California Historical Resource Information system (NWIC) did not
identify prehistoric resources on or adjacent to the project site.
4.5.3.2 Tribal Cultural Resources
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was signed into law in 2014, creating a new category of environmental
resources (tribal cultural resources), which must be considered under CEQA. A tribal cultural
resource is defined under Public Resources Code Section 21074 as a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. AB 52
also requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated
with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified of projects proposed within that
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 45 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
area. Where a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, consultation is
required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural
resource or when it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
4.5.3.3 Historic Resources
History of Development on the City-Owned Parcel
Rinconada Park has developed into its current form over a period of 95 years, with improvements
that reflect a variety of civic and park design influences.
Prior to development of the park, the location that is now Rinconada Park was used as the City’s first
waterworks and power plant. An electricity-generating unit in the water plant was installed in 1914.
The cooling pool of the power plant was converted into a public swimming pool around 1918, and
drew crowds of both local residents and out-of-town tourists.
The park was officially named Rinconada Park in 1924, after the City sponsored a public contest for
its official name. Development plans were created in 1924 for the entire park. Because bond
measures to finance the development of the park were defeated, however, the full 1924 development
plan appears to have gone unfinished. Despite delays and cuts to the extensive development plan,
four tennis courts, a baseball diamond, and a children’s playground were constructed.
The Girl Scout House was completed in 1925, following designs by prolific Palo Alto architect Birge
Clark. Funding for the Girl Scout House was provided in 1922 by Lou Henry Hoover, wife of
President Herbert Hoover, and two other board members of the Palo Alto Girl Scout chapter. Hoover
established the first West Coast troop in Palo Alto and served as president of Girl Scouts of the USA
from 1922 to 1925 and again from 1935 to 1937. The building is the oldest active scout meeting
house in the country.
In the early 1930s, Lucie Stern, widow of Louis Stern who was a nephew of Levi Strauss, and her
daughter Ruth gifted the city with money to build the Lucie Stern Community Center. The theater
was the first part of the Lucie Stern Community Center to be completed in 1934. Construction of the
Lucie Stern Community Center was completed in 1940, and included the main theater, Boy Scout
headquarters, Children’s Theater, and the Children’s library. The library is the oldest freestanding
children’s library in the county, and was designed by Birge and David Clark in the Spanish Colonial
Revival style to match the Lucie Stern Community Center.
The JMZ building was constructed in 1941, and has since been used solely used as a museum and
zoo facility. The institution of the Palo Alto JMZ was founded in 1934 and belongs to a nation-wide
pattern of children’s museums established in the early 20th century. The paved parking lot and
adjacent landscaping between the JMZ and Lucie Stern Community Center was installed in the
1940s. The existing JMZ building has undergone significant alterations since its construction,
including a remodel and expansion in 1969.
Throughout the 1940s, various park improvements were made, including the addition of park
benches around the swimming pools and an addition to the Girl Scout House. The Fire Station,
located at the corner of Embarcadero and Newell Road was constructed in 1948. Additional park
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 46 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
improvements were made through the 1950s, namely an activities house to store recreational sports
gear. In 1957, plans for a modernized park were produced by the landscape architecture firm Eckbo,
Royston, and Williams of San Francisco. Later in 1964, the park was expanded to include a half-
block piece of land the City owned across Hopkins Avenue. In 1970, three more tennis courts were
constructed across Hopkins Avenue at Newell Road, and the Magic Forest was officially dedicated as
such in 1971. The walkways were renovated in 1973 and the pools were renovated in 1978.
Renovations to existing park facilities including the adult swimming pool and tennis courts were
renovated in 1986 and 1989, respectively. During the 1990s, more facilities underwent additions
including the children’s theater and children’s pool. The children’s library was renovated and
expanded in 2005, with work completed in 2007.
Historic Resources on the City-Owned Parcel
The entire City-owned parcel is designated in City of Palo Alto records as a Category 1 property
because of the Lucie Stern Community Center. The Category 1 designation does not apply to any
other building or facility within the parcel. The Lucie Stern Community Center is considered a
historic resource under National Register Criterion A/California Register Criterion 1 for its role in
providing community gathering spaces and amenities, National Register Criterion B/California
Register Criterion 2 for its association with benefactors Lucie and Ruth Stern, and National Register
Criterion C/California Register Criterion 3 for its Spanish Colonial Revival style buildings and
integrated landscape design.
A historic evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc. in July 2016 evaluated the JMZ building
for its historic significance based on national and state criteria. The report concluded that due to
significant modifications made to the building, it is not eligible for listing on the National Register or
California Register under any criteria.
A subsequent historic evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc. in June 2017 evaluated the
remaining development on the City-owned parcel. The Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House site was
found to be significant under Criterion A/1 for its early role in scouting and Criterion B/2 for its
association with Lou Henry Hoover. No additional historic resources were identified on the City-
owned parcel.
4.5.4 Impacts Evaluation
a., b., f. Would the project 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? Directly or
indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution?
Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory?
The proposed project includes two components: 1) implementation of the Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan (LRP) and 2) redevelopment of the JMZ facility and reconfiguration of the
adjacent parking lot.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 47 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
As described above, Rinconada Park and its existing features are not considered a historic
resource. Implementation of the LRP, therefore, would not result in impacts to historic
resources.
The Girl Scout House and Lucie Stern Community Center, which are located north and
northwest of the JMZ facility, respectively, are both considered historic resources. The
existing JMZ building, however, was determined not to be a historic resource. The JMZ
building and site are sufficiently separated from the Girl Scout House across a paved and
planted “park arrival plaza” that the new construction will not directly affect the character of
the historic building. Demolition of the existing JMZ building and construction of a new
JMZ facility, therefore, would not result in impacts to historic resources.
The project includes reconfiguration of the parking lot that is located adjacent to the Girl
Scout House and Lucie Stern Community Center. The redesigned parking lot would not
affect the Lucie Stern Community Center site; the pavement would occupy a smaller
footprint compared to the current paving at the south side of the complex, adding more lawn
and plantings to the building’s setting. While the driveway approach would be removed from
Middlefield Road to the south, a pedestrian circulation approach would replace the driveway.
Thus, the view on approach to the south courtyard would remain. The historic building
complex and landscaped courtyards and lawn to the west would not be affected.
The parking lot would be enlarged at the northeast, coming closer to the primary façade of
the Girl Scout House. The space of the “front yard” of the Girl Scout House would change,
as the paving would extended across the full length of the building’s façade and the area
would be paved with an organic concrete pathway, new oak trees, bark mulch ground cover,
and native grass plantings. While the proposed project includes alteration of some
contributing landscape/hardscape features at the “front yard,” these features will be altered
but not eliminated. Additionally, the bird bath would be moved to a location near the Boy
Scout Building at the Lucie Stern Community Center, which is an appropriate treatment for
this feature. While the proposed project includes removal of some landscape features,
particularly the demonstration garden in the front yard area of the Girl Scout House, the
significance of the historic building (National Register Criteria A and B/California Register
Criteria 1and 2) would continue to be represented through the building. The building’s T-
shaped form, board and batten siding, multi-lite wood sash windows, solid and board-and-
batten wood doors, stone chimney, and cross-gable roof would not be altered and would
continue to be the primary conveyance of the building’s significance. Overall, the project
does not significantly impact the historic character of the Girl Scout House and the building
continues to convey its historic significance, which justifies its eligibility for listing in the
National and California Registers. Thus, the reconfiguration of the parking lot would not
result in impacts to historic resources. [Less than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 48 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
c., d. Would the project cause damage to an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?
Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Although existing development has altered the project site, there is always the potential to
discover unknown cultural resources during site excavation. In the event any archaeological
or human remains are discovered on the site, impacts would be potentially significant.
Impact CR-1: Construction activities could result in significant impacts to buried
cultural resources. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce
this impact to a less than significant level.
MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during
construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-
feet of the find shall be halted, the Director of Planning and Community
Environment shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine
the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the
significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The
recommended mitigation shall be implemented and could include
collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials.
A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring
shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment.
MM CR-1.2: If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the proposed
project, the City shall comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC)
Section 7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County Coroner
and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made
the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC
Section 5097.98.
If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the
coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the
Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the
remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner
the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human
remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the
human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the
NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial
with the CHRIS-NWIC.
If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to
make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of
the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 49 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the
landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall
inter the human remains and items associated with Native American
human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not
subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. [Less than
Significant Impact with Mitigation]
e. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or
unique geologic feature?
The proposed project is located in an urban area on alluvial soil materials. There are no
known paleontological resources in the vicinity of the proposed project site. [No Impact]
g. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either:
1) A site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native
American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing of the California Register of Historical
Resources, or on a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k), or
2) a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1 (c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe?
In May 2016, the City of Palo received a single request from the Torres Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians to be contacted in accordance with AB 52. Through subsequent
correspondence with Tribal Representatives, however, it was concluded that the Tribe had
contacted the City of Palo Alto in error and did not wish to be contacted regarding future
projects within the City’s jurisdiction. The Tribe is not traditionally or culturally affiliated
with the geographic area within the City of Palo Alto; rather, the area they are affiliated with
lies over 400 miles southeast of the project site. Because no other tribes have requested to be
contacted, no notices in accordance with AB 52 were sent.
The project site is located in a fully developed area and no tribal cultural resources have been
listed or determined eligible for listing in the California Register or a local register of
historical resources. As described previously, An Archaeological Literature Review that was
conducted by Holman & Associates at the Northwest Information Center of the California
Historical Resource Information system (NWIC) did not identify prehistoric resources on or
adjacent to the project site. The project would improve existing development on the site and
would not substantially change the character of the site or its surroundings compared to
existing conditions. To date, no California Native American tribes that are or have been
traditionally culturally affiliated with the project vicinity have requested notification from the
City of Palo Alto regarding projects in the area and their effects on a tribal cultural resource.
The project, therefore, is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse effect on a tribal
cultural resource. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 50 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.5.5 Conclusion
With implementation of the mitigation measures included in the project, the proposed project would
result in a less than significant impact on cultural and historic resources. [Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 51 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.6 GEOLOGY
This discussion is based in part on a Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Silicon Valley Soil
Engineering in January 2015. A copy of this survey is attached to this Initial Study as Appendix D.
4.6.1 Geology and Soils Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
described 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.)
1-3
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1-3
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? 1-3
iv. Landslides? 1-3
v. Expansive soils? 1-3
b. Expose people or property to major geologic
hazards that cannot be mitigated through the
use of standard engineering design and
seismic safety techniques?
1-3
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that will become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
1-3
d. Cause substantial soil erosion or siltation? 1-3
e. 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?
1-3
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 52 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.6.2 Existing Setting
4.6.1.1 Background and Topography
The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, an alluvial basin, bound by the Santa Cruz
Mountains to the west, the Hamilton/Diablo Range to the east, and the San Francisco Bay to the
north. The Santa Clara Valley was formed when sediments derived from the Santa Cruz Mountains
and the Hamilton/Diablo Range were exposed by continued tectonic uplift and regression of the
inland sea that had previously inundated this area. Bedrock in this area is made up of the Franciscan
Complex, a diverse group of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks of Upper Jurassic to
cretaceous age (70 to 140 million years old). Overlaying the bedrock in the vicinity are alluvial fan
and fluvial sediments of Quaternary age.
4.6.1.2 Expansive Soils
Based on lab testing results, near-surface soils on the site have a high potential for expansion.
4.6.1.3 Faults and Seismicity
The project area is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area, which is classified
as Zone 4, the most seismically active zone in the United States. The San Andreas, Hayward, and
Calaveras faults are significant regional active faults that could produce earthquakes affecting the
proposed project during its anticipated life span. No known faults cross the project site, and the site
is not within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone. The San Andreas fault is approximately 6.8
miles southwest of the site, the Hayward fault is approximately 12.3 miles northeast of the site, and
the Calaveras fault is approximately 16.9 miles east of the site. With the relative proximity of these
faults, the site is likely to be subject to ground shaking during moderate to large earthquakes
produced along these active fault zones.
4.6.1.4 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loose,
water-saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state after ground shaking. There are many
variables that contribute to liquefaction, including the age of the soil, soil type, soil cohesion, soil
density, and ground water level. No liquefiable soils were detected in soil borings taken on the site,
and the potential for liquefaction is minimal.
4.6.3 Impacts Evaluation
a., b., c. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) rupture of a known earthquake fault,
ii) strong seismic ground shaking, iii) seismic-related ground failure, iv) landslides or v)
expansive soils? Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be
mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? Be
located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 53 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
The project site is located within the seismically-active San Francisco Bay region, but are not
located within a mapped fault zone. There are no known earthquake faults crossing the sites;
therefore, the likelihood of primary ground rupture is low. [Less Than Significant Impact]
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has reported that the Working Group on
California Earthquake Probabilities (2007) has estimated that there is a 63 percent probability
that one or more major earthquakes would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between
before 2038. An earthquake occurring on any of the fault lines in the region may induce
seismic ground shaking at the project site.
The proposed JMZ building would be designed and constructed in accordance with state and
City of Palo Alto building codes and standards, as well as the recommendations of the
geotechnical investigation prepared for the site, to reduce damage from seismic activity.
These conditions would require a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the
Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any grading and building permits. [Less
Than Significant Impact]
d. Would the project cause substantial soil erosion or siltation?
The project site is generally flat and not adjacent to any steep slopes. Park redevelopment
and construction of the JMZ facility would not result in soil erosion, the loss of topsoil, or in
substantial siltation.
Construction of the proposed JMZ building would require excavation for building
foundations. The project would be required to comply with the City of Palo Alto’s
conditions of approval to reduce erosion during demolition, grading, and excavation.
The soils on site have a relatively low potential for expansion, and construction of the new
JMZ facility in conformance with the California Building Code and City of Palo Alto
requirements would avoid risks associated with soil conditions. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
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?
The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems. [No Impact]
4.6.4 Conclusion
The project would not result in significant geology and soil impacts. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 54 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
1-3
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
1-3
4.7.2 Existing Setting
4.7.2.1 Background Information
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which are discussed in Section 4.3, and have
local or regional impacts, emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) have a broader, global impact.
Global warming associated with the “greenhouse effect” is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in
the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere over time. The
principal GHGs contributing to global warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. Emissions of GHGs
contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with
the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors.
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 could be adversely affected by the global warming
trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise could increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion,
and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also
occur.
The 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.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 55 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.7.2.2 Regulatory Information
California Assembly Bill 32
The Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill (AB) 32) was passed in California in September
2006 to address the State’s contribution to global climate change. Assembly Bill 32 requires that
GHG emissions in California be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The California Air Resources
Board (CARB) approved the state’s first Climate Change Scoping Plan in 2008. It proposed a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s dependence on oil, diversify energy
sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan
must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on
track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal.
In May 2014, CARB adopted an updated Scoping Plan document. The 2014 Update defines CARB’s
climate change priorities for the next five years and lays the groundwork to start the transition to the
post-2020 goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012 (see below). The 2014 Update
highlights California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 greenhouse gas emission
reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan and evaluates how to align the State’s longer-term
greenhouse gas reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, such as for water, waste,
natural resources, agriculture, clean energy, and transportation and land use.
Executive Orders
In addition to AB 32, Executive Order S-3-05 (EO S-3-05) established a reduction target of 80
percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and Executive Order B-16-2012 established benchmarks for
increased use of zero emission vehicles and zero emission vehicle infrastructure by 2020 and 2025.
On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued Executive Order B-30-15, setting a new
interim statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction target. The purpose of establishing the interim
target is to ensure California meets its previously established target of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as set forth in Executive Order S-3-05 in 2005.
Under Executive Order B-30-15, the interim target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40
percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
California Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection
Act, was signed into law in September 2008. It builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop
regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020
and 2035 in comparison to 2005 emissions. The per capita reduction targets for passenger vehicles in
the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by
2035.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area in July 2013 as part of SB 375 implementation. The strategies in
the plan are intended to promote compact, mixed-use development close to public transit, jobs,
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 56 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities, particularly within Priority Development
Areas (PDAs) identified by local jurisdictions.
Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP) focuses on two closely-related BAAQMD goals:
protecting public health and protecting the climate. Consistent with the GHG reduction targets
adopted by the state of California, the 2017 CAP lays the groundwork for the BAAQMD’s long-term
effort to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2017 CAP includes a wide range of control measures designed to
decrease emissions of methane and other “super-GHGs” that are potent climate pollutants in the
near-term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.
BAAQMD Guidelines
As discussed in the CEQA Guidelines, the determination of whether a project may have a significant
effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based
to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Palo Alto and other jurisdictions in
the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin often utilize the thresholds and methodology for greenhouse
gas emissions developed by the BAAQMD.
City of Palo Alto Plans and Programs
At the local level, the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a number of goals and policies to reduce
its impact on global climate change through promoting energy efficiency and/or conservation,
alternative modes of transportation, water efficiency, and specific building standards. In addition, the
City adopted a Climate Protection Plan in December 2007 and a Green Building Ordinance on June
2, 2008. The Green Building Program applies to residential and non-residential private development
projects (PAMC 16.14).
4.7.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment?
The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction and
normal park and JMZ operations. BAAQMD does not provide GHG screening thresholds for
museums or zoos. A similar land use, based on visitation rates and duration of patron visits
are libraries. Based on the established screening thresholds for libraries, the project would be
under the BAAQMD thresholds for GHG emissions, and additionally would comply with the
City’s green building requirements.
The BAAQMD guidelines and the City of Palo Alto do not suggest a threshold of
significance for short-term construction-related GHG emissions. Based on the size of the
project and the amount of construction-related activities necessary to complete the project,
and implementation of Basic Construction Measures discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality, the
project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution of greenhouse gas
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 57 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
emissions to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, and, therefore, would result in a less than
significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions. [Less Than Significant Impact]
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As discussed in Section 4.7.2.2, Regulatory Information, the State of California has adopted a
Climate Change Scoping Plan. Greenhouse gas emissions are also addressed in the adopted
2017 CAP and Plan Bay Area. The CARB-approved Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines
a comprehensive set of actions intended to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in
California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy
sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. The Scoping Plan includes
recommended actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While the Scoping Plan
focuses on measures and regulations at a statewide level, local governments play a key role in
implementing many of the strategies contained in the Scoping Plan, such as energy efficient
building codes, local renewable energy generation, and recycling programs.
The project includes green building measures as required by the City of Palo Alto’s green
building program. These measures include, but are not limited to:
Non-residential Development:
Must comply with the California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory + Tier 2
requirements,
Must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Building Code
(CBC);
Must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the
City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months;
Must comply with potable water reduction Tier 2;
Must be designed and installed to reduce irrigation water;
Must install recycled water infrastructure and meters;
Must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2; and
Must comply with the City’s Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance.
For these reasons, the project would be consistent with recommended actions in the Scoping
Plan and 2010 CAP measures, and would not conflict with implementation of recommended
actions in these plans intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 (and
ultimately 2050).
Given that demolition and construction materials would be salvaged or recycled in
conformance with City of Palo Alto requirements, and the project would meet Title 24
standards to reduce energy usage, construction and operation of the project would not
contribute substantially to local or regional GHG emissions that have a cumulative significant
effect on the global environment. [Less than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 58 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.7.4 Conclusion
The proposed project would not generate substantial new greenhouse gas emissions considered to
have a significant impact on global climate change. Voluntary implementation of BAAQMD’s
recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Guidelines and compliance with green building
requirements would further reduce impacts to greenhouse gas emissions to a less than significant
level. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 59 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1-3
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
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
1-3
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?
1-3
e. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
1,2,18
f. Result in a safety hazard from a public
airport for people residing or working within
the project area?
1
g. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, will the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
1
h. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 60 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.8.2 Background
Hazardous materials encompass a wide range of substances, some of which are naturally-occurring
and some of which are man-made. Examples include motor oil and fuel, metals (e.g., lead, mercury,
arsenic), asbestos, pesticides, herbicides, and chemical compounds used in manufacturing and other
activities. A substance may be considered hazardous if, due to its chemical and/or physical
properties, it poses a substantial hazard when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed
of, or released into the atmosphere in the event of an accident. Determining if such substances are
present on or near project sites is important because exposure to hazardous materials above
regulatory thresholds can result in adverse health effects on humans, as well as harm to plant and
wildlife ecology.
Hazardous waste generators and hazardous materials users in the City are required to comply with
regulations enforced by several federal, state, and county agencies. The regulations are designed to
reduce the risk associated with human exposure to hazardous materials and minimize adverse
environmental effects. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations require
protective measures during construction activities where workers may be exposed to asbestos, lead,
and/or other hazardous materials.
4.8.3 Setting
4.8.3.1 Regulatory Setting
Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List)
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the state,
local agencies, and developers to find information about the location of hazardous materials release
sites. Government Code section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to
develop an updated Cortese List at least annually. The Cortese List includes lists maintained by the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
The DTSC, SWRCB, and CIWMB do not list the site as containing hazardous materials. Within a
1,000 foot radius of the project site, there are three sites identified by the SWRCB as having leaking
underground storage tanks. All three sites have received case closure status from the SWRCB and
are considered fully remediated.7
4.8.3.2 Existing Setting
There are no known hazardous material concerns on the project site. Land uses in the project area
consist mainly of single family residences and public facilities (Girl Scout house, Lucie Stern
Community Center, Children’s Library and Theater, Walter Hays Elementary School, Fire Station,
Main Library, Art Center). There are no industrial uses near the project site that pose a hazardous
materials concern.
7 Cal State Water Resources Control Board, August 17, 2015. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 61 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.8.4 Impacts Evaluation
a., b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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?
The proposed JMZ would have similar operations as the existing JMZ, including the minor
use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials such as janitorial, landscaping, and
maintenance chemicals. Future JMZ maintenance staff would be required to comply with
federal, state, and local requirements for managing hazardous materials. These materials
would be used in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws, as required by the City of
Palo Alto.
Project construction would require the temporary use of heavy equipment, including
excavation equipment. Construction would also require the use of hazardous materials
including petroleum products, lubricants, cleaners, paints, and solvents. These materials
would be used in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws, as required by the City of
Palo Alto. If used as directed, these materials would not pose a hazard to the environment or
workers or persons in the vicinity. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Asbestos-containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint
Demolition of the existing JMZ could expose asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or
lead-based paint. These materials, if present could pose a risk to construction workers and
adjacent uses during building demolition within the JMZ. To reduce the potential for
construction workers and adjacent uses to encounter hazardous materials contamination from
ACMs and lead-based paint, the following measures are included in the project as conditions
of approval to reduce hazardous materials impacts related to ACMs and lead-based paint.
CONDITION HAZ-1.1:
In conformance with local, state, and federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a
lead-based paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the
presence of ACMs and/or lead-based paint on the JMZ. The surveys shall be completed
prior to demolition work beginning on these structures.
If found, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and
dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials, in accordance with the
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines, prior
to building demolition that may disturb the materials. All construction activities shall be
undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure
to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 62 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be
removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR
1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any
debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that
meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. [Less Than Significant Impact]
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Walter Hays Elementary School is located adjacent to the project site. The proposed project
would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste
during operation. The project does not propose construction of a school. [No Impact]
d. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing
hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users to 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?
The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5, and none of these sites are adjacent to the site (refer to Appendix D).8 The
proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from
contamination in excess of soil and groundwater cleanup goals. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
f., g. Would the project result in a safety hazard from a public airport for people residing or
working within the project area? 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?
The project sites are located approximately 2.1 miles west of the Palo Alto Airport, and are
not within the Palo Alto Airport’s Comprehensive Land Use Planning area. Implementation
of the projects would, therefore, not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area. [No Impact]
h., e. Would the project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The development of the proposed project would not impair or interfere with implementation
of the City’s emergency response plans or any statewide emergency response or evacuation
plans. The sites are located in a developed area of Palo Alto, and therefore not subject to
hazards from wildland fires.9 [No Impact]
8 State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Accessed July 8, 2016.
9 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara County.
October 8, 2008. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php. Accessed July 8, 2016.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 63 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.8.5 Conclusion
The project do not propose new hazardous materials uses and are not located on a site contaminated
with hazardous materials. Implementation of the required City of Palo Alto conditions of approval
would reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant hazards and hazardous materials impact.
[Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 64 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9.1 Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 1-3
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge, such that there will 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 will drop to
a level which will not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
1-3
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 through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which will result in substantial erosion or
siltation on-or off-site?
1-3
d. Result in stream bank instability? 1
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?
1-3
f. Create or contribute runoff water which will
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
1-3
g. Provide substantial additional sources of
pollutants associated with urban runoff or
otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
1-3
h. Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
1,16
i. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which will impede or redirect
flood flows?
1,16
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 65 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
j. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding by placing housing or other
development within a 100-year flood hazard
area or a levee or dam failure inundation
area?
1,2
k. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,19
4.9.2 Existing Setting
4.9.2.1 Regulatory Background
Federal Emergency Management Agency
In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising
cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused
by floods. The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance available for communities that agree to
adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the NFIP and creates Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that designate 100-year floodplain zones and delineate other flood
hazard areas. A 100-year floodplain zone is the area that has a one in one hundred (one percent)
chance of being flooded in any one year based on historical data. Portions of the City are identified
as special flood hazard areas with a one percent annual chance and two percent annual chance of
flooding (also known as the 100-year and 500-year flood zones) as determined by the FEMA NFIP.
As noted previously, the developable portion of the site is located in the 100-year flood zone.
Water Quality (Nonpoint Source Pollution Program)
The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the
primary laws related to water quality. Regulations set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill the
requirements of this legislation. EPA’s regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into
the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented
at the regional level by the water quality control boards, which for the Palo Alto area is the San
Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)/C.3 Requirement
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
(Permit Number CAS612008) (MRP). In an effort to standardize stormwater management
requirements throughout the region, this permit replaces the formerly separate countywide municipal
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 66 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
stormwater permits with a regional permit for 77 Bay Area municipalities, including the City of
Mountain View. Under provisions of the NPDES Municipal Permit, redevelopment projects that
create or replace more than 10,000 sf of impervious surfaces are required to design and construct
stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff.
4.9.2.2 Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by
pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as
non-point source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other
exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil
and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy
metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic
habitats to which they drain.
Stormwater runoff water quality is regulated by the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from surface water
discharge. Locally, the NPDES program is administered by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB worked with cities and counties throughout the region to
prepare and adopt a Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit (Regional Permit). This Regional Permit
identifies minimum standards and provisions that the City of Palo Alto, as a permittee, must require
of new development and redevelopment projects within the City limits. Compliance with the
NPDES Regional Permit is mandated by state and federal statutes.
The project site is the existing Rinconada Park with JMZ, which is located in a developed suburban
area. Stormwater runoff from the project site currently drains into the Palo Alto storm drain system,
which eventually empties into the San Francisco Bay10.
4.9.2.3 Flooding
The project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain or a groundwater recharge area.11
4.9.2.4 Dam Failure
The Association of Bay Area Governments compiled the dam failure inundation hazard maps
submitted to the State Office of Emergency Services by dam owners throughout the Bay Area.
The project site is located in the Searsville inundation area.12
10 City of Palo Alto, Storm Drain Master Plan. Accessed: July 8, 2016. Available at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org.
11 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Community-Panel Number 06085C0010H, May, 18 2009.
12 San Mateo County, Dam Failure Inundation Areas. Accessed on August 11, 2015. Available at:
http://planning.smcgov.orgf.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 67 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.9.2.5 Seiches, Tsunamis, and Mudflows
A seiche is an oscillation of the surface of a lake or landlocked sea varying in period from a few
minutes to several hours. There are no landlocked bodies of water near the project site that, in the
event of a seiche, will affect the site.
A tsunami or tidal wave is a series of water waves caused by the displacement of a large volume
of water in a large body of water, such as an ocean or a large lake. Due to the immense volumes
of water and energy involved, tsunamis can devastate coastal regions. There are no large bodies
of water near the project site and the site does not lie within a tsunami inundation area.13
A mudflow is the rapid movement of a large mass of mud formed from loose soil and water. The
project area is relatively flat and there are no mountains near the site that in the event of a mudflow,
will affect the site.
4.9.3 Impacts Evaluation
a., g. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Provide substantial additional sources of pollutants associated with urban runoff or
otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
The City’s standard conditions of approval include a requirement that a project develop and
implement best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion during construction and
permanent features to treat stormwater runoff, such as swales. Such BMPs include, but are
not limited to the following measures:
Implement site-specific erosion and sediment control methods during demolition and
construction periods.
Cover soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute non-visible pollution prior to
rainfall events.
Cover stockpiles and disturbed surfaces with secure plastic sheeting or tarp.
Clean sediments from streets, driveways, and paved areas using dry sweeping methods.
Dispose of all wastes properly and keep site clear of trash and litter. Clean up leaks,
drips, and other spills immediately.
Implementation of Construction BMPs and compliance with the City’s standard conditions of
approval and compliance with provisions of the NPDES permit would ensure that adverse
effects on water quality associated with stormwater runoff during construction and operation
of the project area avoided and/or reduced to a less than significant level. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
13 California Emergency Management Agency, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning San Francisco
Bay Area, < http://www.conservation.ca.gov> June 15, 2009.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 68 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge, such that there will 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 will
drop to a level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
The project is the implementation of the Rinconada Park LRP and the construction of a new
JMZ facility in the same location as the existing JMZ facility. The amount of pervious
surfaces on the project site after buildout of the project would be similar to existing
conditions.
Implementation of both the LRP and proposed JMZ would not result in the depletion of
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
c., d. Would the project substantially increase the rate, volumes, or flow duration of stormwater
runoff or alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Result in stream bank instability?
San Francisquito Creek is approximately 0.9 miles northeast of the project site; however, the
project area is not in the floodplain of the creek and does not propose any alterations or
impacts to the creek. The projects would not cause stream bank instability in or near San
Francisquito Creek. [No Impact]
e. Would the 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?
The proposed project would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area and does not include any alterations to a waterway. Implementation of Construction
BMPs and erosion control measures would reduce surface runoff impacts during construction
and project operation to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact]
f. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
The proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surface or increase
stormwater runoff such that it would have the potential to exceed the capacity of existing
stormwater drainage systems. The project would be required to comply with Section
16.11.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which mandates permanent stormwater pollution
prevention measures for new development projects. Applicable measures to the proposed
project include:
Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration,
minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates other appropriate
sustainable landscaping practices and programs such as bay-friendly landscaping;
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 69 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Efficient irrigation systems;
Conservation of natural areas, including existing trees, other vegetation, and soils;
Minimization of impervious surfaces;
Minimization of stormwater runoff by implementation of one or more of the
following site design measures:
o Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.
o Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.
o Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.
o Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated
areas.
o Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.
Compliance with Section 16.11.030 of the Municipal Code would ensure that any runoff
generated from project implementation would not be a substantial source of pollution. [Less
Than Significant Impact]
h. - k. Would the 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? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which will impede or
redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Be subject
to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the project area is not located in a special flood hazard area
subject to inundation by the one percent chance flood. The one percent annual flood (100-
year flood), is the flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any
given year.14 [No Impact]
Reservoirs whose failure would affect the City of Palo Alto include Felt Lake, Searsville
Lake, Lagunita Reservoir, and Foothills Park. Based on the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
and the Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services, the project site is not within a dam failure
inundation area.15 [No Impact]
There are no landlocked bodies of water nor large bodies of water near the project site that, in
the event of a seiche or tsunami, would affect the site. The project area is relatively flat and
there are no mountains near the site that in the event of a mudflow, will affect the site. [No
Impact]
14 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 060850010H. Map.
Effective Date: May 18, 2009.
15 City of Palo Alto, Office of Emergency Services. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Report.
August 2014.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 70 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.9.4 Conclusion
With implementation of the best management practices and conformance with the City of Palo Alto
Municipal Code, the project would result in a less than significant impact to hydrology and
stormwater quality. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 71 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.10 LAND USE
4.10.1 Land Use Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Physically divide an established
community? 1,2
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
1-3
i. Substantially adversely change the
type or intensity of existing or
planned land use patterns in the
area?
1,2
ii. Be incompatible with adjacent land
uses or with the general character
of the surrounding area, including
density and building height?
1,2
iii. Conflict with established
residential, recreational,
educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
1,2
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1-3,9
4.10.2 Existing Setting
The project site is located centrally in the City of Palo Alto in an area developed with residential and
public facility uses. The site consists of the Rinconada Park and JMZ properties. The 11.8-acre
Rinconada Park is designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as Public Park and currently
contains various recreational amenities, including two children’s playgrounds, turf area for
activities, picnic areas, nine tennis courts, backboard, picnic area with barbecues, municipal
swimming pool and children’s pool, shuffle board and horse shoe pit, redwood grove,
multipurpose concrete bowl, benches, and jogging/walking paths. The Public Park land use
designation is defined as open lands whose primary purpose is active recreation and whose
character is essentially urban. These areas have been planted with non-indigenous landscaping and
are regularly maintained by City Park’s staff.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 72 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
JMZ is designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as a Major Institutions/Special Facilities and is
currently used for community education and recreational activities. This land use designation is
defined as institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are
either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations. Examples are hospitals and City
facilities.
The entire project site is located within the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. The PF public
facilities district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and
community service or recreational facilities.
Rinconada Park is bounded by Hopkins Avenue to the north, Newell Road to the east, Embarcadero
Road to the southeast. The JMZ is located adjacent to the southwest corner of Rinconada Park and is
bounded by Middlefield Road to the southwest. Walter Hays Elementary School is located on the
eastern boundary of the JMZ and the southern boundary of Rinconada Park. Palo Alto Fire Station 3
is located adjacent to Rinconada Park at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and Newell Road.
Surrounding land uses consist primarily of single family residences and public use facilities. An
aerial photograph of the project site and the surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 3.1-3.
4.10.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?
The proposed project is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP and the construction of
the JMZ at the site of the existing JMZ. The project would not change the existing uses of
Rinconada Park or JMZ and would, therefore, not physically divide an established
community. [No Impact]
b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
The proposed uses and intensity of the project is consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation for the sites, and it would replace, modify, and
expand existing sites’ uses with similar uses. [No Impact]
bi). Would the project substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned
land use patterns in the area?
Implementation of the Rinconada Park LRP would guide future development and renovation
of Rinconada Park. Proposed renovations and improvements would maintain the type and
intensity of existing uses in the park.
The proposed JMZ building would be slightly larger than the existing facility; however, it
would maintain the uses of the existing facility.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 73 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
For these reasons, the proposed projects would not substantially adversely change the type or
intensity of existing or planned land use in the area. [Less Than Significant Impact]
bii – iii.) Would the project be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of
the surrounding area, including density and building height? Would the project conflict with
established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area?
The proposed JMZ facility would be consist of a one-story JMZ building (Phase I) reaching a
maximum height of 27 feet, and a two-story Outdoor Zoo Building (Phase II) reaching a
maximum height of 25 feet. The highest point of the combined museum and zoo facility
would be 36 feet at the netted enclosure. The project is subject to design review and approval
by the City through the Architectural Review process, which ensures compliance with City
standards to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety.
The proposed project would maintain the existing land uses and would be compliant with the
activities and building densities of each respective General Plan designations and zoning
district. For these reasons, implementation of the project would not result in incompatible
land uses or conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or
scientific uses of the surrounding area. [Less Than Significant Impact]
c. Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
The project site is outside of the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, Stanford
Conservation Plan, or any other adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan. [No Impact]
4.10.4 Conclusion
The proposed projects would not result in a significant land use impact. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 74 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
4.11.1 Existing Setting
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation
(DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1).
This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has
not classified the City for other resources. There are no known locally or regionally valuable
mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
4.11.2 Mineral Resources Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that will be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
1-3
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?
1-3
4.11.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. – b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that will be of
value to the region and the residents of the state or 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?
The project is in eastern Palo Alto, and is not located in an area containing known mineral
resources. There are no known mineral recovery sites in the vicinity of the project site. [No
Impact]
4.11.4 Conclusion
The project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. [No Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 75 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.12 NOISE
The following discussion is based upon the noise assessment prepared for the proposed project by
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., noise consultants, in June 2015. The report analyzed the impacts of a
larger JMZ facility based on previous site plans than the proposed site plans analyzed in this Initial
Study. Therefore, noise impacts described below represent a conservative analysis. This report is
included in this Initial Study as Appendix E.
4.12.1 Noise Environmental Checklist
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Exposure of persons to, or generation of,
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
1-3,21
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
1-3,21
c. A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
1,2
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
or public use airport, will the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
1,2
e. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, will the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1
4.12.2 Background
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Acceptable levels of noise are relative to the designated
land use. In any one location, the noise level will vary over time, from the lowest background or
ambient noise level to temporary increases caused by traffic or other sources. State and federal
standards have been established as guidelines for determining the compatibility of a particular use
with its noise environment.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 76 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A-
weighted sound level or dBA.16 This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which
the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time,
different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Typical noise descriptors
include maximum noise level (Lmax), the energy-equivalent noise level (Leq), and the day-night
average noise level (Ldn). The Ldn noise descriptor is commonly used in establishing noise exposure
guidelines for specific land uses. For the energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor called Leq the
most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary
duration.
Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any
instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a
conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in
which no particular source is identifiable.
Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening hours, 24-hour descriptors have been
developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Day/Night
Average Sound Level, Ldn (sometimes also referred to as DNL), is the average A-weighted noise
level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of 10 dB to noise levels measured in the
nighttime between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a
24-hour A-weighted noise level from midnight to midnight after the addition of five dBA to sound
levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after the addition of 10 dBA to sound
levels occurring in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
4.12.3 Existing Setting
An ambient noise monitoring survey was conducted by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. on March 17,
2015 and included three long-term (120-hour) and three short-term (10-minute) measurements.
Measurement locations are shown in Figure 4.12-1. A summary of the long-term and short-term
measurement results are shown in Table 4.12-1.
Long-term measurement LT-1 was located across from 1290 Cedar Street roughly 55 feet north of
the center of Hopkins Avenue. The predominant noise source at this location was traffic on Hopkins
Avenue. Daytime hourly average noise levels typically ranged from about 52 to 56 dBA Leq, with
nighttime noise levels as low as 37 dBA Leq. The day/night average noise level at this location ranged
from 55 to 56 dBA Ldn.
Measurement LT-2 was situated in front of 1108 Fulton Street, roughly 60 feet southeast of the
center of Embarcadero Road. The predominant noise source at this location was traffic along
Embarcadero Road, although the loudspeaker at the adjacent school was occasionally audible during
the attended portion of this measurement. Daytime hourly average noise levels typically ranged from
about 61 to 64 dBA Leq, with nighttime noise levels as low as 50 dBA Leq. The day/night average
noise level at this location ranged from 63 to 66 dBA Ldn.
16 The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network.
All sound levels in this discussion are A-weighted, unless otherwise stated.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 77 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Long-term noise measurement LT-3 was situated across from 685 Kellogg Avenue, roughly 50 feet
southwest of the center of Middlefield Road. The predominant noise source at this location was
traffic along Middlefield Road. Daytime hourly average noise levels typically ranged from about 60
to 64 dBA Leq, with nighttime noise levels as low as 42 dBA Leq. The day/night average noise level at
this location ranged from 61 to 63 dBA Ldn.
Short-term noise measurement ST-1 was located across from 12808 Pine Street, roughly 30 feet
north of the center of Hopkins Avenue. Traffic along Hopkins Avenue was the predominant noise
source at this location. The 10-minute average noise level, measured from 11:30 AM to 11:40 AM on
Thursday, March 17th, 2015 was 52 dBA Ldn.
Noise measurement ST-2 was situated in front of 1249 Harriet Street, roughly 20 feet from the center
of the roadway and across the street from the library. The primary noise source at this location was
local traffic, which generated a 10-minute average noise level of 55 dBA Leq from 11:20 AM to
11:30 AM on Thursday, March 17, 2015.
Measurement ST-3 was located across from 1722 Newell Road, near Embarcadero Road. The
primary noise source at this location was traffic on Embarcadero Road, with some jet noise occurring
during the measurement interval. The 10-minute average noise level, measured from 11:50 AM to
12:00 PM on Thursday, March 17, 2015 was 61 dBA Leq.
Table 4.12-1: Summary of Long and Short-Term Noise Measurement Data
Noise Measurement Location Daytime
Measure Leq
Ldn* Primary Noise
Sources
LT-1: Front of 1290 Cedar St
(3/12/15 to 3/15/15)
52-56 55-56 Traffic on Hopkins
Avenue
LT-2: Front of 1108 Fulton St
(3/12/15 to 3/15/15)
61-64 63-66 Traffic on
Embarcadero Road
LT-3: Front of 685 Kellog Ave
(3/12/15 to 3/15/15)
60-64 61-63 Traffic on Middlefield
Road
ST-1: Front of 1280 Pine St
(3/17/15, 11:30 AM – 11:40
AM)
52 57 Traffic on Hopkins
Avenue
ST-2: Front of 1249 Harriett St
(3/17/15, 11:20 AM – 11:30
AM)
55 55 Local Traffic
ST-3: Front of 1722 Newell Rd
(3/16/15, 11:50 AM – 12 PM)
61 64 Traffic on
Embarcadero Rd
* Ldn for short-term noise measurements calculated by comparing short-term data to data collected during a corresponding
time period at long-term measurement site.
NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS FIGURE 4.12-1
Parkinson AvenueParkinson Avenue
Community LaneCommunity Lane
Harriet Street
Ha
r
r
i
e
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Cedar Street
Ce
d
a
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pine Street
Pi
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Newell Road
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
Coleridge Avenue
Cole
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Byron Street
By
r
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Guinda Street
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Middlefield Road
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Hopkins AvenueHopkins Avenue
E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Fulton Street
Fu
l
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
LT-3ST-2
LT-3ST-3
LT-3ST-2
LT-3LT-1 LT-3ST-1
LT-3LT-3
Photo Date: Apr. 2016
Short-Term Noise Measurement Location
Project Boundary
Long-Term Noise Measurement Location
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, July 28, 2016.
0 50 200 400 Feet
LT-#
ST-#
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 79 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.12.4 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the project result in the exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction of the LRP would occur over a period of 25 years. Construction of the
proposed JMZ would include the demolition of the existing museum and zoo to construct a
new, larger museum and zoo facility over a period of 18 to 24 months.
The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or
impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) are used in areas adjacent to developed
properties. A significant impact would be identified if the construction of the project would
expose persons to groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec peak particle velocity
(PPV) because of the potential to result in cosmetic damage to buildings of normal
conventional construction.
Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and
equipment used. The closest residences are located approximately 80 feet north of the tennis
courts and approximately 120 feet from the proposed JMZ building. Construction of the JMZ
would be as close as 25 feet from Walter Hays Elementary School structures.
During construction of the JMZ, vibration levels at the nearest Walter Hays Elementary
School structures could reach 0.21 in/sec PPV during the use of heavy equipment (vibratory
rollers, clam shovel drops), but would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for
architectural damage. At a distance of 80 feet, approximately at the location of residences
across Middlefield Road, vibration levels would be expected to be less than 0.06 in/sec PPV,
which is well below the significance threshold. Vibration levels would be less as activities
move further from the school. Vibration generated by construction activities near the
common property lines would at times be perceptible, however, would not be expected to
result in architectural damage to these buildings. [Less than Significant Impact]
b. Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Project Exposure to Noise
The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan designates Rinconada Park as Public Park and
the JMZ as Major Institution/Special Facilities. Current uses of Rinconada Park include
outdoor sports and recreation areas (pool area, tennis courts, bocce court), neighborhood
parks and playgrounds (park, picnic areas, children play areas, fire pit, paths), and an outdoor
multi-use performance area and stage (concrete bowl). The JMZ includes museum and
outdoor recreational uses (i.e., the zoo).
Based on standards established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, a significant noise and
land use compatibility impact would be identified if exterior noise levels at new project
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 80 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
development areas would exceed 65 dBA Ldn at outdoor sports and recreation, neighborhood
parks and playgrounds; 60 dBA Ldn at schools, museums, libraries, hospitals, personal care,
meeting halls, and churches; or 75 dBA Ldn at auditoriums, concert halls, and amphitheaters.
Based on a review of the traffic volumes prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, Inc., traffic noise levels at the project site are anticipated to increase by one dBA
Ldn above existing levels under cumulative plus project conditions.17 With this one dB
increase, cumulative traffic noise levels are calculated to exceed 60 dBA Ldn within 180 feet
of the center of Embarcadero Road and within 80 feet of the center of Middlefield Road.
Cumulative traffic noise levels are calculated to exceed 65 dBA Ldn within 80 feet of the
center of Embarcadero Road.
Portions of the proposed JMZ would be located within 80 feet of the center of Middlefield
Road and would therefore be exposed to exterior noise levels that exceed the exterior noise
and land use compatibility guideline for museum uses. Noise levels at the exterior façade of
the museum facing Middlefield Road, at a distance of 60 feet from the center of the roadway,
would reach 66 dBA Ldn. It should be noted that the existing JMZ building is currently
exposed to these noise levels. There are no unshielded outdoor use areas associated with the
museum in this area.
A typical museum structure would provide 25 to 30 dBA of noise reduction from exterior
noise sources with windows in the closed position. Interior noise levels would, therefore, be
below 45 dBA Ldn throughout the museum and would be considered compatible with the
proposed use.
A small portion of Rinconada Park located within 80 feet of the center of Embarcadero Road
would exceed the 65 dBA Ldn guideline for parks under cumulative conditions. The project
would not introduce new recreational land uses in this area. All other uses on the site would
have noise levels that are considered compatible with their land use. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
Project Generated Noise
Existing operational noise sources at the site include vehicular traffic noise and recreational
activity noise. Future usage is anticipated to be similar to the existing usage. A significant
impact would occur if project operations or traffic would increase noise levels at noise
sensitive receptors by three dBA Ldn or greater where exterior noise levels would exceed the
normally acceptable noise level standard or by five dBA Ldn or greater where exterior noise
levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the
project.
17 It should be noted that the projected noise levels of future traffic conditions were based on a report prepared by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. in May 2015. Since completion of the noise report, an updated traffic
report was prepared to reflect changes in the site plans of the JMZ (July 2017). Such changes do not affect the
results of the original noise report, thus results and conclusions made in the noise report are still applicable to the
updated project.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 81 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Project Traffic Noise
The traffic report analyzed traffic volumes at seven intersections in the vicinity of the project.
The report found that traffic noise levels are anticipated to increase by less than one dBA at
all study intersections with project implementation.
Project Operational Noise
Improvements to the JMZ, outdoor playground areas, concrete multi-use bowl, and sports
and recreation areas on the site are not anticipated to change the noise generation of these
facilities because the general layout and programming would not change. The relocation of
the tot-lot adjacent to the children’s play area to the west would not result in detectable
changes to noise levels at the nearest residences, which are located across Hopkins Avenue
and more than 100 feet north of the playground areas.
The addition of picnic tables and group picnic areas would not generate substantial noise at
residences north of the site across Hopkins Avenue. The shifting of the tennis courts to the
west would bring the courts slightly closer to some residences and slightly further from
others. During extensive measurements of noise levels generated by tennis that were
conducted for a facility in Palo Alto, tennis generates an hourly-average noise level of about
48 dBA Leq at a distance of 40 feet from the end of the court. Noise levels during volleying
are lower. Based on the data collected at sites LT-1 and ST-1 during the noise monitoring
survey, the primary noise source at these residences is currently traffic on Hopkins Avenue,
which generated noise levels in the range of 55 to 57 dBA Ldn at the residences. The closest
residences are located about 140 feet from the center of the nearest tennis court. At this
distance, tennis would generate noise levels of about 37 dBA Leq. Maximum noise levels
generated by tennis would continue to be audible during lulls in traffic, but would not
generally be measurable above the existing ambient noise environment. Programming for the
concrete bowl is regulated to 10:00 PM, which eliminates any increase in nighttime hourly
average noise levels and thus, will not result in a noise impact.
Noise levels generated by proposed uses are not anticipated to change substantially from
existing noise levels and will comply with the City’s Municipal Code. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Construction is limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00
AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with no construction permitted on Sundays or holidays.
Project-generated construction noise is required to meet the following standards established
in the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10): 1) no individual piece of equipment
shall produce a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the piece of
equipment or, when applicable, outside the equipment housing structure; and 2) the noise
level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 110 dBA.
Temporary noise increases from construction activities would be considered significant if
hourly average noise levels received at noise sensitive residential land uses would be 60 dBA
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 82 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Leq and at least five dBA Leq above the ambient noise environment when the duration of the
noise-generating activities last for more than one year.
Construction equipment noise varies greatly depending on the construction activity
performed, type and specific model of equipment, and the condition of equipment used.
Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of
construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, the distance
between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors, any shielding provided by
intervening barriers or structures, and existing ambient noise levels. Each construction
activity would include a different mix of equipment operating. Construction noise levels
would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and location where the equipment
is operating.
LRP
Construction of the LRP would occur over a 25-year period. However, construction activity
would be very limited with the main noise generating components coming from the
expansion of the existing pool building by 2,200 sf, shifting the tennis courts over by
removing roughly 6,000 sf on one side and adding 6,000 sf to the other side, and repaving
internal pathways and plazas. The only construction near existing residences would be at the
tennis courts.
Residences are located as close as 80 and 300 feet to the north of the proposed tennis court
and pool building improvements, respectively. At a distance of 80 feet, tennis court
construction activities are calculated to generate noise levels in the range of about 65 to 80
dBA Leq. Pool building construction activities are calculated to generate noise levels in the
range of about 52 to 68 dBA Leq at the nearest residences.
Construction noise associated with the LRP improvements could exceed 60 dBA Leq and at
least 5 dBA Leq above the ambient noise environment at adjacent residences. However, the
overall construction period would be less than 12 months at any one location and predicted
construction noise levels are not anticipated to exceed the Municipal Code limits of 110 dBA
at the property line of the park.
JMZ
Construction of the proposed JMZ project would include the demolition of the existing zoo to
construct a new, larger zoo facility over a period of 18 to 24 months. Construction phasing
would include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, trenching, exterior
building construction, interior building construction, and paving. Walter Hays Elementary
School is located directly adjacent to the JMZ with structures as close as 25 feet, and the
closest residences are roughly 120 feet from proposed construction activities.
Construction activities are anticipated to generate hourly average noise levels of 74 to 86
dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet during busy construction periods. Maximum instantaneous
noise levels would be roughly 78 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels would
typically drop off at a rate of approximately six decibels per doubling of distance from the
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 83 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
construction noise source. At the school, noise levels would be about six dBA higher when
activities are located adjacent to the school, resulting in hourly average noise levels of about
80 to 92 dBA Lmax and maximum instantaneous noise levels of about 84 to 96 dBA Lmax.
At the closest residences, located 120 feet from construction activities, construction noise
levels would be about eight dB lower, generating hourly average noise levels of about 66 to
78 dBA Leq and the maximum instantaneous noise levels of roughly 70 to 82 dBA Lmax. At
the school, which is located directly adjacent to construction activities, interior noise levels
could be as high as 65 to 72 dBA Leq with windows open (assumes a 15 dB noise reduction)
and 55 to 62 dBA Leq with windows closed (assumes a 25 dB noise reduction). These noise
levels are likely to be disruptive to the learning environment. As construction moves away
from noise sensitive receptors or into shielded locations, noise levels would be reduced.
Construction noise is not anticipated to exceed the Municipal Code limits of 110 dBA at the
property lines of the JMZ. However, construction noise could exceed 60 dBA Leq and at least
five dBA Leq above the ambient noise environment at adjacent residences and the school for a
period of greater than 12 months.
Impact NOI-1: Construction activities associated with the JMZ could result in
significant noise impacts. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures:
MM NOI-1: With the implementation of the following measures, this impact
would be reduced to a less than significant level:
Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of
8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM
and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with no construction occurring on
Sundays or holidays (consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code).
Construction of the JMZ shall be undertaken with consideration
for school activities and hours:
Schedule high noise generating construction activities
(such as the use of the concrete saws) that are located
directly adjacent to school structures during periods when
school is not in session, such as summer, school breaks,
weekends, and after school dismissal. Coordination of
construction activity times with school officials may be
necessary.
Construct portions of the museum located directly
adjacent to the school first, where practical, in an effort to
provide shielding to the school from construction
activities located further to the west and south.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 84 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers to shield on-
site construction and demolition noise from the school.
To be most effective, the barrier should be placed as close
as possible to the noise source or the sensitive receptor.
Examples of barriers include portable acoustically lined
enclosure/housing for specific equipment (e.g.,
jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which generate the
loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid
plywood fences or portable panel systems, minimum 8
feet in height), and/or acoustical blankets.
Establish construction staging areas at locations that will create
the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources
and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all
project construction.
Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used
judiciously to be as quiet as practical.
Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary
noise sources where technology exists.
Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines and
equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with
mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the
equipment.
Locate all stationary noise-generation equipment, such as air
compressors and portable power generators, as far away as
possible from businesses or noise-sensitive land uses.
Notify all adjacent noise sensitive land uses of the construction
schedule in writing.
Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where
they are not audible at existing residences or the school bordering
the project site.
Designate a disturbance coordinator, responsible for responding to
complaints about construction noise. The name and telephone
number of the disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the
construction site and made available to noise-sensitive land uses
adjacent to the construction site. [Less Than Significant Impact
With Mitigation]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 85 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
e-f. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not yet been
adopted, within two miles of a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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?
Palo Alto Airport is located roughly 1.8 miles northeast of the project area. There are no
private airstrips in the site vicinity. Although aircraft-related noise is occasionally audible at
the project site, the project site does not lie within the land use plan area, or within the 65
dBA CNEL noise contour of the airports. Noise levels resulting from aircraft would be
compatible with the proposed project.
The project site is located in a developed area of Palo Alto, and there are no reasonably
foreseeable projects in the site vicinity which, when considered together, are anticipated to
compound or increase the noise impacts resulting from the project. A review of the data
contained in the traffic report indicates that cumulative traffic noise levels without the project
would be increased by zero to one dB above existing levels by the year 2035. Cumulative
plus project traffic noise levels are not calculated to be substantially increased over
cumulative no project conditions (increase would be less than one dBA). Construction noise
impacts or operational noise impacts resulting from the project would not combine with noise
from other projects in the vicinity, or increased noise levels resulting from the general growth
of the area, to increase the severity of project noise impacts as discussed above. [No Impact]
4.12.5 Conclusion
With compliance with the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and implementation of mitigation
measure MM NOI-1, noise impacts would be less than significant. [Less than Significant Impact
with Mitigation]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 86 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.13.1 Population and Housing Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
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)?
1,2
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1,2
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1,2
d. Create a substantial imbalance between
employed residents and jobs? 1,2
4.13.2 Existing Setting
According to the California Department of Finance, the 2015 population of Palo Alto was 66,932
residents18. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the population of Palo
Alto will increase to 73,700 residents by 2025 in 30,370 households19.
4.13.3 Impacts Evaluation
a.,d. Would the 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)? Create a substantial imbalance between
employed residents and jobs?
The proposed project is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP and the demolition and
construction of a new JMZ facility in the existing facility’s area. The project does not
propose residential uses. The projects would have staffing needs similar to that of existing
uses (i.e. park grounds staff, JMZ maintenance and zoo staff, etc.). The project, therefore,
would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the area or create a substantial
imbalance between employed residents and jobs. [No Impact]
18 California Department of Finance, E-1 Data Population Estimates for the City, County, and the State January 1,
2014 and 2015. July 18, 2016.
19 Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Plan Projections 2013, 2013.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 87 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
b., c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project would occur within the existing Rinconada Park and JMZ site, which
do not contain housing or other residential uses. The project would, therefore, not result in
the displacement of a substantial number of residences and would not result in the need to
construct replacement housing. [No Impact]
4.13.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not induce unplanned growth or result in significant
adverse impacts to the existing housing supply. [No Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 88 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14.1 Public Services Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional school facilities in
order to maintain acceptable performance
standards?
1,2
b. Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional fire protection
facilities in order to maintain acceptable
performance standards?
1,2
c. Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional police protection
facilities in order to maintain acceptable
performance standards?
1,2
d. Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional parks and
recreation facilities in order to maintain
acceptable performance standards?
1,2
e. Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional library facilities in
order to maintain acceptable performance
standards?
1,2
4.14.2 Existing Setting
4.14.2.1 Fire Services
The City of Palo Alto Fire Department is located at City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. The nearest
fire station to the project site is Fire Station #3, located adjacent to the park’s southeastern border.
4.14.2.2 Police Services
The Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) provides law enforcement services within the City limits.
The PAPD headquarters is located adjacent to City Hall at 275 Forest Avenue, roughly one mile west
of the site.
4.14.2.3 Public Schools
All public schools in Palo Alto are operated by the Palo Alto Unified School District. The nearest
public school is Walter Hays Elementary School, adjacent to the site’s southern border. The nearest
middle school is Jordan Middle School (0.5 miles southeast), and the nearest high school is Castilleja
High School (0.7 miles southwest).
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 89 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.14.2.4 Parks
The City of Palo Alto has 29 neighborhood and district parks that total approximately 190 acres,
including the 11.8-acre Rinconada Park. The project site is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s
LRP, within the existing 11.8-acre park.
4.14.3 Impacts Evaluation
a.-e. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of construction of new school, fire protection, police protection, parks and
recreation, or library facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards?
The proposed project is located in an urban area that is currently served by the City Police
and Fire Departments. The projects would not cause an increase in population that would
demand additional services. Given that the projects would include renovations to an existing
park and the construction of a new JMZ facility to replace the existing facility, the projects
would not generate new or increased demands upon City services. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
4.14.4 Conclusion
The proposed projects would result in a less than significant impact to public services. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 90 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.15 RECREATION
4.15.1 Recreation Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
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 will occur or be accelerated?
1,3
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
4.15.2 Existing Setting
The City of Palo Alto has 29 neighborhood and district parks that total approximately 190 acres.
These parks vary in size and features, but recreational facilities generally include playground and
grass areas. The City also owns and manages several open space preserves, including Foothills Park,
Baylands Preserve, and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Other parkland managed by the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District is also located within the city limits.
The project site is Rinconada Park, an existing City park that was established in 1922.
4.15.3 Impacts Evaluation
a., b. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or
be accelerated? 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?
The proposed project would renovate the existing Rinconada Park over the course of 25
years, and construct a new JMZ facility in place of the existing one. The planned future
development of the park could increase the use of the park because of new and improved
facilities; however, this increase would not accelerate physical deterioration of the park.
[Less Than Significant Impact]
The project itself includes recreational facilities, the effects of which are identified in this
Initial Study. Mitigation measures are included in the project and impacts are therefore, less
than significant. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 91 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.15.4 Conclusion
The projects would not adversely impact recreation facilities within the City of Palo Alto. [Less
Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 92 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
The discussion in this section is based in part on a transportation impact analysis prepared by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. in July 2017. This report is included in this Initial Study
as Appendix F.
4.16.1 Transportation Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
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?
1,2,24
b. Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F
or contribute traffic in excess of 1 percent of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1,2,24
c. Impede the development or function of
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1,2,24
d. Increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle
facilities that cannot be met by current or
planned services?
1,2,24
e. Impede the operation of a transit system as a
result of congestion or otherwise decrease the
performance of safety of such facilities?
1,2,24
f. Create demand for transit services that cannot
be met by current or planned services? 1,2,24
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?
1,2,24
h. Create an operational safety hazard? 1,2,24
i. Result in inadequate emergency access? 1-3,24
j. 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?
1-3
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 93 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.16.2 Existing Setting
4.16.2.1 Roadway Network
Regional Access
Regional access to the project site is provided via US 101 and SR 82 (El Camino Real). These
facilities are described below:
US 101 is a primarily north-south freeway extending north through San Francisco and south through
San Jose and Gilroy. In the vicinity of the project area, US 101 provides four travel lanes (with one
HOV lane) in each direction. Access to the site from US 101 is provided via Embarcadero Road.
SR 82 (El Camino Real) is a six-lane, north-south arterial street that extends south towards
Mountain View and Santa Clara and north towards Redwood City, Millbrae, and San Bruno. El
Camino Real provides access to local and regional commercial areas. Access to the site, from El
Camino Real is provided via its intersections at Page Mill Road and Embarcadero Road.
Local Access
Local access to the site is provided via Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road, Embarcadero Road,
Middlefield Road, University Avenue, Alma Street, Louis Road, Newell Road, and Hopkins Avenue.
These roadways are described below.
Oregon Expressway is a four-lane, east-west expressway that extends from US 101 to El Camino
Real. Oregon Expressway becomes Page Mill Road west of El Camino Real. Page Mill Road is a four-
lane, east-west divided arterial road that extends west to Los Altos Hills. Page Mill Road/Oregon
Expressway is part of the County expressway system and provides access to local residential areas as
well as freeway access.
Embarcadero Road is a four-lane east-west arterial street that extends from the vicinity of the Palo
Alto Municipal Airport to El Camino Real. Embarcadero Road becomes Galvez Road west of El
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
k. 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 spill back queues on ramps.
1,2,24
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 94 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Camino Real. Embarcadero Road provides access to local residential areas as well as access to US
101 from the project site.
Middlefield Road is an east-west arterial that runs parallel to US 101. It begins at the intersection of
Central Expressway in Mountain View and traverses west through Redwood City. Within the vicinity
of the project site, Middlefield Road is two to four lanes wide, with sidewalks on both sides of the
street. On-street parking on Middlefield Road varies within the study area, with parking permitted on
both sides of the street near the project site.
University Avenue is a two- to four-lane, east-west, road that extends from Bayfront Expressway to
El Camino Real, where it becomes Palm Drive. Bicycle lanes and on-street parking are present for
most of the section between US 101 and Middlefield Road. University Avenue is the main street
through downtown Palo Alto.
Alma Street is primarily a four-lane, north-south, roadway that extends from San Antonio Road to
Lytton Avenue. It continues north of Lytton Avenue as a two-lane roadway and terminates at its
intersection with Oak Grove Avenue. Alma Street is located west of the project site and provides
access to residential and commercial uses.
Louis Road is a two-lane local collector in the vicinity of the project. It extends from Embarcadero
Road southeast to Charleston Road, where it changes designation to Montrose Avenue. Louis Road
has bicycle lanes and on-street parking for its full length.
Newell Road is a two-lane local collector adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site. It
extends from Woodland Avenue south to California Avenue. Newell Road features bicycle lanes and
limited on-street parking for its full length
Hopkins Avenue is a short local street adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site. It
includes a significant amount of on-street parking. Hopkins Avenue also provides access to the
parking lot that serves the Lucie Stern Community Center and the JMZ.
4.16.2.2 Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Facilities
Transit
Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the VTA and the City of Palo Alto. The
transit service is described below and shown on Figure 3. There are local bus and/or free shuttle stops
on Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, and Newell Road within walking distance of the project
site.
Route 35 provides service between the Downtown Mountain View Transit Center and Stanford
Shopping Center via Middlefield Road, with 20-minute commute hour headways. The nearest stops
to the project are located on Middlefield Road at the intersection with Embarcadero Road.
The City of Palo Alto operates two free shuttle routes to serve commuters and visitors within the
study area. All shuttles are wheelchair accessible and are equipped with bicycle racks on the exterior
of the vehicle that can accommodate up to two conventional bikes.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 95 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
The Crosstown Shuttle (Line C) operates with 40- to 60-minute headways from 7:40 AM to 5:26 PM
Monday through Friday. The Crosstown Shuttle provides service between Downtown Palo Alto and
numerous libraries, schools, recreation centers, and commercial districts. Line C also provides direct
service to Caltrain. In the vicinity of the project site, the Crosstown shuttles operates on Newell
Road. The nearest stops to the project site are adjacent to Rinconada Park, on Newell Road at the
intersection with Hopkins Avenue.
The Embarcadero Shuttle operates with approximately 15-minute headways from 6:51 AM to 9:49
AM and 3:10 PM to 6:48 PM Monday through Friday. The Embarcadero Shuttle provides service
between Downtown Palo Alto and numerous libraries, schools, recreation centers, and commercial
districts. Line E also provides direct service to Caltrain. In the vicinity of the project area, the
Embarcadero shuttle operates on Embarcadero Road. The nearest stops to the JMZ are located on
Embarcadero Road at the intersection with Middlefield Road, less than 500 feet from the project
area. The nearest stops to Rinconada Park are located on Embarcadero Road at the intersection with
Newell Road, at the southeast corner of the park.
Pedestrian
Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist of sidewalks and crosswalks. Sidewalks are found
along all previously described local roadways in the study area. Crosswalks are located across all of
the legs of the study intersections. Pedestrian signal heads are present at all signalized intersections in
and around the study area.
Bicycle
According to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) Bikeways Map, there are
numerous bike lanes in the vicinity of the project site. The following roadways have either bike lanes
or shared lane bicycle markings:
Newell Road, between Woodland Avenue and California Avenue
Channing Avenue, between Addison Avenue and California Avenue
Addison Avenue, between Alma Street and Channing Avenue
Coleridge Avenue, between Middlefield Road and Bryant Street
California Avenue, between Alma Street and Louis Road
Louis Road, between Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road
Bryant Street (Bike Boulevard), between Palo Alto Avenue and East Meadow Drive
While there are numerous bicycle facilities in the vicinity of Rinconada Park, neither Middlefield
Road nor Embarcadero Road have bike lanes, making these roadways a less than ideal route option
for bicyclists traveling around the perimeter of Rinconada Park.
STUDY INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 4.16-1
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consults, Inc.
EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITATES FIGURE 4.16-2
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consults, Inc.
EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITATES FIGURE 4.16-3
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consults, Inc.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 99 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.16.2.3 Existing Intersection Operations
Methodology
The potential transportation impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and
methodologies set forth by the City of Palo Alto. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) administers the County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The following
intersections in the project area were evaluated:
1. Middlefield Road and University Avenue
2. Middlefield Road and Melville Avenue
3. Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road
4. Newell Road and Embarcadero Road
5. Newell Road and Hopkins Avenue (unsignalized)
6. Louis Road and Embarcadero Road
7. Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway (CMP)*
* Denotes a VTA CMP Intersection
Traffic conditions at the intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of
traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is
typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic
conditions occur on an average weekday.
All study intersections are located in the City of Palo Alto and are therefore subject to the City of
Palo Alto level of service standards. The City of Palo Alto evaluates level of service at signalized
intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology
using TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of
average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Since TRAFFIX also is the CMP-
designated intersection level of service methodology, the City employs the CMP default values for
the analysis parameters. The City of Palo Alto level of service standard for signalized non-CMP
intersections is LOS D or better. For CMP intersections, the City’s level of service standard is LOS E
or better.
The methodology used to determine the level of service for unsignalized intersections is based on the
2000 HCM. This method is applicable for both two-way and all-way stop-controlled intersections.
For the analysis of stop-controlled intersections, the 2000 HCM methodology evaluates intersection
operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles on the stop-controlled
approaches. For the purpose of reporting level of service for one- and two-way stop-controlled
intersections, the delay and corresponding level of service for the stop-controlled minor street
approach with the highest delay is reported. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, the reported
average delay and corresponding level of service is the average for all approaches at the intersection.
The City uses a minimum acceptable level of service standard of LOS D for unsignalized
intersections, in accordance with its adopted threshold of significance in its Guidelines for
Preparation of Transportation Impact Reports. Table 4.16-1 shows the intersection level of service
definitions.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 100 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Table 4.16.1: Level of Service Definitions
Level of
Service Description Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec)
A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less
B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 15.0
F Extreme traffic delays Greater than 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2.
Existing LOS of Study Intersections
Table 4.16-2 below, shows the LOS of study intersections under existing conditions. Background
traffic conditions are defined as traffic conditions in the area when the project construction is near
completion. The background scenario predicts the traffic conditions which would occur as approved
but not yet constructed development gets constructed and occupied.
The results of the existing intersection operations analysis show that six of the seven study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under existing conditions.
Table 4.16-2: Existing and Background Conditions Levels of Service
Existing Background
Intersection Peak
Hour
Average
Delay LOS
Average
Delay LOS
1. Middlefield Rd & University Ave AM 28.8 C 29.9 C
PM 29.4 C 30.1 C
2. Middlefield Rd & Melville Ave AM 15.4 B 15.3 B
PM 8.4 A 8 A
3. Middlefield Rd & Embarcadero Rd AM 49.9 D 52.3 D
PM 54.6 D 60.4 E
4. Newell Rd & Embarcadero Rd AM 15.4 B 15.5 B
PM 20.2 C 20.5 C
5. Newell Rd & Hopkins Ave (unsignalized) AM 10.7 B 10.9 B
PM 10.6 B 10.7 B
6. Louis Rd & Embarcadero Rd AM 25 C 25.4 C
PM 25.1 C 25.5 C
7. Middlefield Rd & Page Mill Rd/Oregon
Expwy* AM 39.5 D 40.6 D
PM 58.1 E 59.8 E
Notes:
* Denotes a VTA CMP Intersection
Bold denotes an unacceptable level of service under City of Palo Alto LOS standards.
4.16.2.4 Observed Existing Traffic Conditions
Traffic conditions in the field were observed to identify existing operational deficiencies and to
confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 101 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of services, and (2)
to identify any locations where the level of service calculation does not accurately reflect level of
service in the field.
Overall, the study intersections operate adequately during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic,
and the level of service analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. While
no significant traffic-related problems were observed during field observations, some operational
issues do occur as described below.
Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway
During the AM peak hour, most movements operate adequately. However, the northbound left turns
on Middlefield Road and eastbound left turns on Oregon Expressway do not always clear the
intersection in one signal cycle.
During the PM peak hour, southbound traffic on Middlefield Road is heavy and occasionally queues
back to California Avenue. All other movements operate adequately.
Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road
During the AM peak hour, all approaches of this intersection carry heavy traffic volumes. As a result,
none of the approaches clear the intersection in one signal cycle.
During the PM peak hour, traffic on Middlefield Road is heavy in both directions. The southbound
vehicle queues on Middlefield Road at Embarcadero Road occasionally back up just past Melville
Avenue (about 0.25 miles northwest of the intersection of Middlefield and Embarcadero Road)
affecting traffic operations at that intersection as well. As a result of the long queue, if often takes
two signal cycles for all of the queued vehicles on southbound Middlefield Road to clear the
intersection.
Middlefield Road and University Avenue
During the PM peak hour, the intersection generally operates adequately. However, the westbound
vehicle queues on University Avenue were observed to extend all the way to US 101.
4.16.2.5 Existing Freeway Operations
According to CMP guidelines, an analysis of freeway segment levels of service is only required if a
project is estimated to add trips to a freeway segment equal to or greater than one percent of the
capacity of that segment. Since the number of project trips added to the freeways in the area is
estimated to be well below the one percent threshold, a detailed analysis of freeway segment levels of
service was not performed. A simple freeway segment capacity evaluation to substantiate this
determination is presented in Table 4.16-3, below.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 102 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Table 4.16-3: Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation
Freeway Segment Direction # of Mixed
Flow Lanes
Capacity1
(vph)
Peak
Hour
1% of
Capacity
Project
Trips
US 101 San Antonio Rd. to
Oregon Expwy.
NB 3 6900 AM 69 1
PM 1
US 101 Oregon Expwy. to
Embarcadero Rd.
NB 3 6900 AM 69 1
PM 1
US 101 Embarcadero Rd. to
University Ave.
NB 3 6900 AM 69 0
PM 1
US 101 University Ave. to
Willow Rd.
NB 3 6900 AM 69 0
PM 2
US 101 Willow Rd. to
University Ave.
SB 3 6900 AM 69 1
PM 1
US 101 University Ave. to
Embarcadero Rd.
SB 3 6900 AM 69 1
PM 1
US 101 Embarcadero Rd. to
Oregon Expwy.
SB 3 6900 AM 69 0
PM 2
US 101 Oregon Expwy. to
San Antonio Rd.
SB 3 6900 AM 69 0
PM 2
Notes: 1 Capacity was based on the ideal capacity cited in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
4.16.2.6 Background Intersection Operations
Background peak-hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing peak hour volumes the
projected growth in traffic due to approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments. The
projected annual growth in traffic due to most of the approved development in the City of Palo Alto
was obtained from the Santa Clara County VTA Travel Demand Model (2035) and was applied over
three years. In addition, a list of more recently approved developments was obtained from the City of
Palo Alto. That list includes recent developments that have been approved within approximately the
last year and, therefore, were not included in the VTA model growth estimates. Trips associated with
the more recently approved developments were estimated and were also added to existing peak hour
volumes in order to develop background peak hour traffic volumes.
The results of the intersection LOS analysis under background conditions are summarized in Table
4.16-2. The results show that all but one of the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels
of service. The intersection of Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road would operate at an
unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour under background conditions.
4.16.3 Impacts Evaluation
a.. Would the project cause an intersection to drop below its level of service standard, or if it is
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 103 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
already operating at a substandard level of service, deteriorate by more than a specified
amount?
4.16.3.1 Project-Generated Traffic
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would
appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip
assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the
site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is
made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip
assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets. These procedures are described below.
Trip Generation
Existing trip generation for Rinconada Park and JMZ were derived based on counts conducted on
March 31 and April 1, 2015. Based on the counts, Rinconada Park is generating 29 trips during the
AM peak hour and 65 trips during the PM peak hour. The JMZ is generating five trips during the AM
peak hour and 21 trips during the PM peak hour. The existing trip generation is shown in Table 4.16-
3.
The proposed LRP for Rinconada Park involves expanding the existing pool deck area and adding a
2,200 sf building on the west end of the pool for a new public restroom, food concession and
supplies, as well as increasing the seating capacity of the existing outdoor multi-use concrete bowl
and stage. Several other improvements to park facilities are planned, including the addition of group
picnic areas, playgrounds, exercise areas, shaded areas, picnic tables, and bike racks, as well as
renovations to the existing tennis courts on Hopkins Avenue. Numerous pedestrian access
improvements, including crosswalk and ADA improvements are also planned as part of the LRP.
The proposed expansion of the JMZ would increase the total lot coverage of the facility from 21,500
sf to 34,248 sf. New trips generated by the museum and zoo expansion were estimated based on the
proportional increase in square footage. The expansion project would generate three trips during the
AM peak hour and 12 trips during the PM peak hour.20
New trips generated by the proposed improvements to the Rinconada Park were estimated based on
population forecasts provided by the City of Palo Alto. Population in the City of Palo Alto is
projected to increase by approximately 10 percent by the year 2030. Based on the projected growth in
population, improvements to Rinconada Park would produce three new trips during the AM peak
hour and seven trips during the PM peak hour.
When the two components of the project are combined, the JMZ and Rinconada Park LRP would
generate six new trips during the AM peak hour and 19 new trips during the PM peak hour. Applying
the inbound/outbound splits (based on existing counts), the project would produce four inbound trips
20 Please note that the trip generation estimates in the TIA are based on a previous site plan which resulted in an
increase in lot coverage of 11,950 sf for the JMZ facility compared to existing conditions. The current site plan
results in a lot coverage increase of 12,478 sf. While the proposed lot coverage increase is slightly larger than what
is described in the TIA, the 528 sf difference is not large enough to affect the trip generation estimates.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 104 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
and two outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and nine inbound trips and 10 outbound trips
during the PM peak hour compared to the existing museum, zoo and park. The project trip generation
estimates are presented in Table 4.16-4, below.
Trip Distribution
The trip distribution pattern for Rinconada Park was developed based on existing traffic patterns and
the locations of complementary land uses, most notably the surrounding neighborhoods. The trip
distribution pattern for the JMZ was developed based on JMZ visitor survey data provided by the
City of Palo Alto.
The peak hour trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system in
accordance with the trip distribution pattern.
4.16.3.2 Existing Plus Project Conditions
The results of the intersection LOS analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in
Table 4.16-5, below. The results show that all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable
levels of service under existing plus project conditions. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Table 4.16-5: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Existing +
Project
Study
Number Intersection Peak
Hour
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
1 Middlfield Rd. & University Ave. AM 28.8 C 28.8 C
PM 29.4 C 29.4 C
2 Middlefield Rd. & Melville Ave. AM 15.4 B 15.4 B
Table 4.16-4: Existing and Estimated Weekday Trip Generation
Land Use
Existing Trip Generation Project Trip Generation Estimates
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
Trips In Out Total
Trips In Out Total
Trips In Out Total
Trips
Rinconada Park
(and associated
uses)1
17 12 29 39 26 65 2 1 3 4 3 7
Palo Alto JMZ 2 4 1 5 9 12 21 2 1 3 5 7 12
Totals: 21 13 34 48 38 86 4 2 6 9 10 19
Notes:
Existing site trip generation based on counts conducted on March 31 and April 1, 2015 (highest counts were used). The AM peak hour is
7:45-8:45AM and the PM peak hour is 4-5 PM, based on the count data.
1New trips associated with the improvements to Rinconada Park were calculated based on applying a growth factor of 10% to the existing
trips. This increase in trips is consistent with the projected population increase of 10% that is being used for the current Comprehensive Plan
update
2New trips associated with the improvements to the Junior Museum and Zoo were calculated based on the total increase in lot coverage square
footage of 11,950.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 105 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Table 4.16-5: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Existing +
Project
Study
Number Intersection Peak
Hour
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
PM 8.4 A 8.4 A
3 Middlefield Rd. & Embarcadero Rd.1 AM 49.9 D 49.2 D
PM 54.6 D 53.6 D
4 Newell Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 15.4 B 15.4 B
PM 20.2 C 20.3 C
5 Newell Rd. & Hopkins Ave. (unsignalized) AM 10.7 B 10.8 B
PM 10.6 B 10.6 B
6 Louis Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 25.0 C 25.0 C
PM 25.1 C 25.2 C
7 Middlefield Rd. & Page Mill Rd./Oregon Expwy* AM 39.5 D 39.5 D
PM 58.1 E 58.1 E
Notes:
* Denotes a VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection
Bold denotes an unacceptable level of service under City of Palo Alto LOS standards.
1 The average vehicle delay at this intersection will improve with the project due to the planned addition of a westbound right-turn lane on Embarcadero
Road.
4.16.3.3 Background Plus Project Conditions
The net project trips were added to background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project
traffic volumes. The results of the intersection level of service analysis under background plus
project conditions are summarized in Table 4.16-6, below. Using City of Palo Alto standards, the
results show that none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project.
While the intersection of Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road would continue to operate at an
unacceptable LOS E during PM peak hour under background plus project conditions, none of the
study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Table 4.16-6: Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
Background Background + Project
Study
Number Intersection Peak
Hour
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Incr. In
Crit.
Delay
(sec)
Incr. In
Crit.
V/C
1 Middlefield Rd. &
University Ave.
AM 29.9 C 29.9 C 0.0 0.001
PM 30.1 C 30.1 C 0.0 0.001
2 Middlefield Rd. &
Melville Ave.
AM 15.3 B 15.3 B 0.0 0.001
PM 8.0 A 8.0 A 0.0 0.001
3 Middlefield Rd. &
Embarcadero Rd.1
AM 52.3 D 51.1 D -0.1 -0.050
PM 60.4 E 59.2 E 0.3 0.002
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 106 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Table 4.16-6: Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
Background Background + Project
Study
Number Intersection Peak
Hour
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Incr. In
Crit.
Delay
(sec)
Incr. In
Crit.
V/C
4 Newell Rd. &
Embarcadero Rd.
AM 15.5 B 15.5 B 0.0 0.001
PM 20.5 C 20.5 C 0.0 0.000
5
Newell Rd. &
Hopkins Ave.
(unsignalized)
AM 10.9 B 10.9 B 0.0 0.001
PM 10.7 B 10.8 B 0.1 0.003
6 Louis Rd. &
Embarcadero Rd.
AM 25.4 C 25.4 C 0.0 0.001
PM 25.5 C 25.6 C 0.1 0.002
7
Middlefield Rd. &
Page Mill
Rd./Oregon Expwy*
AM 40.6 D 40.6 D 0.0 0.000
PM 59.8 E 59.8 E 0.0 0.000
Notes:
* Denotes a VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection
1 The average vehicle delay at this intersection will improve with the project due to the planned addition of a westbound right-
turn lane on Embarcadero Rd.
4.16.3.4 Saturday Conditions
At the request of City of Palo Alto staff, a discussion of Saturday peak traffic conditions at and
around the JMZ and Rinconada Park is provided for informational purposes. The evaluation of
Saturday conditions includes a description of existing traffic conditions along Embarcadero Road and
Middlefield Road, a discussion of general parking conditions at the JMZ during a typical Saturday
afternoon, and Saturday peak hour trip generation estimates due to the expansion of the JMZ and
planned Rinconada Park improvements.
Existing Saturday Traffic Conditions
Existing Saturday traffic conditions along Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road were observed
in the field on a typical Saturday between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM, which is considered the peak hour
for park and JMZ uses.
Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road Intersection Operations
Vehicles traveling northbound or southbound were able to clear the intersection in one signal cycle.
Westbound vehicles on Embarcadero Road consistently queued back to Fulton Street, with some
vehicles unable to clear the intersection in one signal cycle.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 107 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Eastbound vehicles on Embarcadero Road queued past the eastbound left-turn pocket taper. As a
result, the queue often blocked one or two vehicles from entering the left-turn pocket. All vehicles
traveling eastbound on Embarcadero Road cleared the intersection in one cycle.
Existing bicycle traffic along Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road was relatively low.
Saturday Project Trip Generation Estimates
Based on visitor data in February and March 2016, weekend visitation at the JMZ is approximately
2.3 times greater than a typical weekday visitation. To provide the most conservative trip estimate,
Saturday peak trip generation due to the JMZ expansion was calculated by applying this factor to the
weekday PM peak hour trips, which are three times higher than the weekday AM peak hour trips.
Similar to the increase visitation at the JMZ facility on Saturdays, Rinconada Park was assumed to
experience a similar increase in weekend visitors, thus the same factor of 2.3 was applied to
determine Saturday peak trip generation at Rinconada Park.
Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that the JMZ and Rinconada Park LRP would generate 44
new trips during the Saturday peak period of traffic. Implementation of the proposed projects would
result in an additional 21 inbound trips and 23 outbound trips during the Saturday peak period of
traffic compared to the existing park and JMZ. The trip generation estimates are provided in Table
4.16-7, below.
Table 4.16-7: Saturday Project Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use
Saturday Peak Hour
In Out Total New Trips
Rinconada Park (and
associated uses)
9 7 16
JMZ 12 16 28
Totals: 21 23 44
4.16.3.5 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Cumulative Traffic Volumes
Cumulative conditions represent traffic conditions that are expected to occur in the future year 2035.
The cumulative no project peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from the Santa Clara County
VTA Travel Demand Model.
Cumulative traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to cumulative no project peak
hour traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Cumulative plus project
conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions in order to identify whether
the project’s contribution to any potential cumulative impacts would be significant.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 108 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the intersection level of service under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions
are summarized in Table 4.16-8, below. The result shows that, measured against the City of Palo Alto
standards, none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project. However,
the intersections of Middlefield Road/Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway
would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour under cumulative
conditions both with and without the project.
As shown in the above analysis, the project would not 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]
Table 4.16-8: Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
Cumulative Cumulative + Project
Study
Number Intersection Peak
Hour
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Incr. In
Crit.
Delay
(sec)
Incr. In
Crit.
V/C
1 Middlefield Rd. &
University Ave.
AM 28.6 C 28.6 C 0.0 0.001
PM 46.1 D 46.2 D 0.2 0.001
2 Middlefield Rd. &
Melville Ave.
AM 16.6 B 16.6 B 0.0 0.001
PM 9.4 A 9.4 A 0.0 0.001
3 Middlefield Rd. &
Embarcadero Rd.1
AM 51.3 D 50.2 D -0.3 -0.043
PM 203.1 F 192.4 F 0.9 0.002
4 Newell Rd. &
Embarcadero Rd.
AM 15.5 B 15.6 B 0.0 0.001
PM 24.2 C 24.2 C 0.1 0.002
5
Newell Rd. &
Hopkins Ave.
(unsignalized)
AM 11.9 B 11.9 B 0.0 0.002
PM 11.6 B 11.7 B 0.1 0.002
6 Louis Rd. &
Embarcadero Rd.
AM 28.1 C 28.2 C 0.0 0.001
PM 28.3 C 28.4 C 0.1 0.002
7
Middlefield Rd. &
Page Mill
Rd./Oregon Expwy*
AM 50.6 D 50.6 D 0.1 0.001
PM 87.4 F 87.5 F 0.1 0.000
Notes:
* Denotes a VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection
BOLD indicates a deficient level of service.
1 The average vehicle delay at this intersection will improve with the project due to the planned addition of a westbound right-
turn lane on Embarcadero Rd.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 109 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
b. Would the project cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in
excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F?
The proposed project would not result in impacts to freeway segments as shown in Table 4.16-3.
[No Impact]
c., d. Would the project impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle
facilities? Would the project increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that
cannot be met by current or planned services?
The Rinconada Park LRP proposes numerous improvements to pedestrian facilities, including
updated sidewalks, new and improved crosswalks, and expanded bus access and shuttle stops. The
project will improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. A new crosswalk is already planned to be
added on Middlefield Road at Kellogg Avenue, and an improved crosswalk is proposed on Newell
Road at Hopkins Avenue. Other pedestrian improvements include updating and retrofitting park
paths and sidewalks to be ADA compliant, and improved crosswalks across Hopkins Avenue.
Bicycle racks would be provided at key locations. These improvements would help to accommodate
all existing and future park visitors who walk, bike or take transit.
Crosswalks would be provided on-site between the JMZ entry plaza and the reconfigured parking lot.
A raised pedestrian crossing also would be provided through the parking lot providing a direct
connection between the Lucie Stern Community Center and Rinconada Park. A new pedestrian path
would connect the sidewalk on Middlefield Road to the entry plaza. The project also includes a new
pedestrian path that would bisect the JMZ and Walter Hays Elementary School, providing a direct
connection between Middlefield Road and Rinconada Park. Additional paths would provide
pedestrian connections between the JMZ and Hopkins Avenue and Rinconada Park.
There are no bicycle facilities along Embarcadero Road or Middlefield Road. The City of Palo
Alto’s Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (adopted July 2012) includes proposed bicycle
facilities in the study area. Planned future bicycle facilities within a one mile radius of Rinconada
Park include the following:
Rinconada Park- Class I pathway between the intersection of Middlefield Road and
Embarcadero Road through Rinconada Park, connecting to Newell Road in the vicinity of
Newell Road and Hopkins Avenue.
Middlefield Road – Class II bike lanes between Loma Verde Avenue and Moreno Avenue,
and Sharrows between Moreno Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue
Greer Road – Bike Boulevard between Louis Road and Edgewood Drive
Ross Road – Bike Boulevard between Louis Road and Oregon Expressway
Webster Street – Bike Boulevard between California Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue
Amarillo Avenue & Moreno Avenue – Bike Boulevard between W. Bayshore Road and
Middlefield Road
Seale Avenue – Bike Boulevard between Embarcadero Road and Alma Street
Kingsley Avenue – Bike Boulevard between Guinda Street and Embarcadero Road
Guinda Street – Bike Boulevard between Melville Avenue and Homer Avenue
Boyce Avenue & Chaucer Street – Bike Boulevard between Guinda Street and Palo Alto
Avenue
Center Drive – Sharrows between Channing Avenue and University Avenue
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 110 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with planned bicycle facility
improvements, as described in the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan or other programs
regarding public bicycle or pedestrian facilities. [Less Than Significant Impact]
e., f. Would the project impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion or
otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities? Would the project create
demand for transit services that cannot be met by current or planned services?
As described previously, the project would not result in the generation of substantial new vehicle
trips, nor would it result in impacts to nearby intersections. The project, therefore, would not result
in congestion that would impede the operation of a transit system, nor would it decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities.
The project site is well-served by existing transit facilities in the project area. No improvements
beyond those already planned as part of the LRP would be necessary to serve the demand created by
the project. [Less Than Significant Impact]
g., h. Would the project create the potential demand for through traffic to use local residential
streets? Would the project cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic
Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
Vehicles coming to and from the site would primarily utilize major thoroughfares such as
Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road, and are not expected to spillover onto nearby residential
streets. Based on the minimal amount of trip generation resulting from the project, as well as the
anticipated distribution of those trips, the proposed project would not increase the TIRE index by 0.1
or more. [No Impact]
i., j. Would the project create an operational safety hazard? Would the project result in
inadequate emergency access?
Site Access and Circulation
The project proposes reconfiguration of the parking lot that currently serves the JMZ and Lucie Stern
Community Center. The existing parking lot configuration, which includes mostly one-way drive
aisles and diagonal parking, will be reconfigured to include two-way drive aisles and 90-degree
parking. The existing driveway on Middlefield Road located adjacent to Walter Hays Elementary
School will be closed to make room for the new JMZ Education Wing and entry plaza. Additionally,
the driveway at the Kellogg Avenue intersection will be removed and replaced with a new bicycle
and pedestrian entry pathway, providing an entrance for cyclists and pedestrians separate from
motorized vehicles.
A new 24-foot wide driveway for motorized vehicles will be located approximately 50 feet north of
the closed driveway adjacent to Walter Hays Elementary School. A striped pedestrian crosswalk will
be included at this driveway. The existing driveway on Hopkins Avenue will remain in place and a
second driveway will be added on Hopkins Avenue approximately 40 feet east of the existing
driveway. The eastern driveway will be gated and will provide emergency vehicle access (EVA) and
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 111 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
bus access only. Both driveways will be 20 feet wide, measured at the throat. Striped pedestrian
crosswalks will be added at both driveways.
The reconfigured JMZ parking lot will be an improved design over the existing lot, though the new
layout will result in one less parking space. The redesign includes removing the raised curb that
currently serves as a barrier between the northern and southern portions of the parking lot, and
realigning all the drive aisles in a north-south orientation. The realignment will significantly improve
vehicle ingress and egress at the Hopkins Avenue driveway location. An on-site passenger drop-off
area would be located adjacent to the new entry plaza. The drop-off lane is shown to be
approximately 90 feet in length, which will provide enough queuing space for four average length
passenger vehicles. Overall on-site circulation will be efficient with no dead-end drive aisles within
the parking lot.
School Bus Parking and On-Site Circulation
Due to the JMZ expansion project, City staff anticipates an increase in field trip buses at the JMZ
during the weekday midday period. An on-site passenger drop-off area would be located adjacent to
the new entry plaza. The drop-off lane would be approximately 90 feet in length, which will provide
enough space for two school buses parked end to end. Thus, field trip buses will have an adequate
area to park for loading and unloading of passengers and are not expected to have a negative effect
on parking conditions or circulation within the JMZ parking lot. School buses will enter the parking
lot via the Middlefield Road driveway, utilize the on-site drop-off lane, and ultimately exit the
parking lot via the gated Hopkins Avenue driveway. Use of the gated exit will require coordination
with JMZ staff.
The project does not include any other roadway improvements, modifications, or changes, and would
not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible land uses.
Parking
Weekday AM and PM peak hour observations of existing parking conditions at the JMZ and along
the roadways surrounding Rinconada Park show that the existing parking supply is adequate to
accommodate weekday JMZ and park visitors. The weekday parking surveys included observations
of the JMZ parking lot and street parking along Hopkins Avenue, Embarcadero Road, and
Middlefield Road. The total available parking in the area, including the JMZ lot and all the streets
surrounding the park that provide parking, was never more than approximately 50 percent occupied
during both the weekday AM and PM peak hour observation periods.
The project proposes several improvements to parking facilities that serve the site. First, the parking
lot on Middlefield Road will be reconfigured to eliminate one driveway, simplify circulation, and
provide accessible parking stalls that meet current standards. As a result of the reconfiguration, two
standard parking stalls will be eliminated and one accessible parking stall will be added. The 90-
degree parking on Hopkins Avenue also will be expanded to add 10 new parking stalls, increasing
the total there to 39 standard stalls and three ADA stalls. In addition, the City is exploring shifting
the sidewalk along Embarcadero Road into the park between Middlefield Road and the fire station.
This would create a new parking lane with 17 stalls. Based on existing weekday field observations, it
can be concluded that the proposed parking facilities, in combination with existing parking facilities,
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 112 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
would be sufficient to accommodate any additional weekday parking demand generated by the
project.
Saturday Parking
The existing parking lot on Middlefield Road serves Rinconada Park patrons, and visitors of the JMZ
and Lucie Stern Community Center. Based on the traffic report observations, the parking lot
provides adequate parking to accommodate weekend visitors of the park, JMZ, and community
center. Between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM, there were consistently three to eight vacant parking spaces
in the JMZ parking lot. The Walter Hays Elementary School parking lot was also being utilized
during this time period, with approximately four to 14 vehicles opting to park there. Street parking
along Middlefield Road adjacent to the JMZ and Rinconada Park was approximately 50 percent
occupied during the Saturday observation period. Based on existing Saturday field observations, it
can be concluded that the proposed parking facilities, in combination with existing parking facilities,
would be sufficient to accommodate any additional Saturday parking demand generated by the
project.
Emergency Access
As described previously, the existing driveway on Hopkins Avenue will remain in place and a second
driveway will be added on Hopkins Avenue approximately 40 feet east of the existing driveway. The
eastern driveway will be gated and will provide emergency vehicle access (EVA) and bus access
only. The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
k. Would the 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?
Palo Alto Airport is located approximately 2.3 miles east of the project site. The project would not
result in a change in air traffic patterns or obstruct airport operations. [No Impact]
m. Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length
and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to,
spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block
through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact
other intersections, and spill back queues on ramps.
Based on the limited number of new vehicle trips generated by the project (six AM peak hour trips
and 19 PM peak hour trips), and the distribution of those trips (refer to Figure 7 in Appendix F), the
project would not result in significant queuing impacts. [Less Than Significant Impact]
4.16.4 Conclusion
The project would not result in a significant impact to transportation or traffic. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 113 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.17.1 Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Need new or expanded entitlements to water
supply? 1-3
b. Result in adverse physical impacts from new
or expanded utility facilities due to increase
use as a result of the project?
1-3
c. Result in a substantial physical deterioration
of a utility facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
1-3
d. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
1-3
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
1-3
f. Result in a substantial physical deterioration
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
1-3
g. Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
1-3
h. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1-3, 25
i. Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? 1-3
j. 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?
1-3
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 114 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.17.2 Existing Setting
The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is the only municipal utility in California that operates city-
owned utility services that include electric, fiber optic, natural gas, water, and sewer services. The
project site is currently developed and electricity, gas, water, sanitary sewer, and solid waste
collection services are provided to the site.
4.17.2.1 Water Services
The City’s drinking water is provided by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) and is purchased
from the San Francisco Public Utility Commission, which obtains most of its water from the Hetch
Hetchy system. The City also owns five groundwater wells, three of which are currently operational.
The wells are available in case the Hetch Hetchy system cannot meet the City’s needs in times of
drought or emergency. Water lines are available in the area to serve the project site.
The City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance incorporates a set of standards that are applied to
any new or renovated landscape for commercial, industrial, multi-family common area, or City
Facility projects with 1,000 sf or more of landscaped area. The ordinance requires projects to meet
the requirements of the City’s water efficiency standards before a building or grading permit is
issued.
4.17.2.2 Wastewater Services
The CPAU is responsible for the existing wastewater collection system. There are existing sanitary
sewer lines in the area that serve the project site.
The City of Palo Alto operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater
treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, and Stanford University. The RWQCP is on the shore of San Francisco Bay in Palo Alto
adjacent to the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve. The RWQCP discharges treated wastewater effluent to
a man-made channel, which empties into the southern reach of San Francisco Bay. In 2013, the plant
treated an average of 18 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater during the dry season, well
below its permitted dry-weather capacity of 39 MGD.21
4.17.2.3 Storm Drainage
The City’s Department of Public Works is responsible for approval, construction and maintenance of
the storm drain system in Palo Alto. The system consists of approximately 126 miles of pipe, 5,684
nodes (manholes, inlets and outfalls) and nine pump stations. Local storm drains are designed to
convey the runoff from a 10-year storm.22
21 Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan. 2015 Pollution Prevention Plan. Available at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1527&TargetID=65. Accessed July 29, 2015.
22 City of Palo Alto. Storm Drain System Facts and Figures.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2806. Accessed July 30, 2015.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 115 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Stormwater runoff from the existing site flows into catch basins throughout the park and drains into
storm lines in the surrounding roadways. The site is within the San Francisquito Creek storm drain
watershed of Palo Alto, which flows to San Francisco Bay.23
4.17.2.4 Solid Waste
Solid waste collection and disposal services are provided under exclusive franchises overseen by the
City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. The majority of the City’s solid waste is taken to the
Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMaRT® Station) where recyclables and yard
trimmings are recovered, processed, and marketed. The remaining solid waste is sent to the Kirby
Canyon Landfill, or several secondary landfills. The City has an agreement with Waste
Management, Inc. to dispose of waste at Kirby Canyon until 2031. In 2013, residents of Palo Alto
generated an average of 3.9 pounds of solid waste per person per day, with a diversion rate of 78
percent.24
The City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance (Chapter 5.24 of the PAMC) requires the
diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills. Under this ordinance, project-related
construction and demolition waste shall be diverted to an approved recycling/transformation facility
or by salvage. The City passed the Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance in
2004, and updated the ordinance in 2009.25 The ordinance requirements are currently enforced
through the City’s Green Building Program and require projects to salvage, and/or divert at least 75
percent of project debris from landfills.
4.17.2.5 Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity
The electricity supply in California involves a complex grid of power plants and transmission lines.
In 2016, California produced approximately 93 percent of the electricity it consumed and the rest was
imported. California’s non CO2-emitting electric generation (from nuclear, large hydroelectric,
solar, wind, and other renewable sources) accounted for 50 percent of total in-state generation for
2016, compared to 40 percent in 2015.26 Electricity supplied from out-of-state, coal-fired power
plants has continued to decrease since 2006, following the enactment of a state law requiring
California utilities to limit new long-term financial investments to power plants that meet California
emissions standards.27
23 City of Palo Alto. Watersheds Map. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2816. Accessed
July 14, 2016.
24 City of Palo Alto. Zero Waste Program, Progress Report.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/about/progress.asp. Accessed July 14, 2016.
25 City of Palo Alto. Construction and Demolition Debris.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/whatgoeswhere/debris.asp. Accessed July 14, 2016.
26 CEC. “Total System Electric Generation”. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html.
27 EIA. “California State Profile and Energy Estimates Profile Analysis”. Accessed July 13, 2017.
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA#40.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 116 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
California’s total system electric generation was 290,567 gigawatt-hours (GWh), which was down
1.6 percent from 2015’s total generation of 295,405 GWh. California's in-state electric generation
was up by approximately one percent at 198,227 GWh compared to 196,195 GWh in 2015, and
energy imports were down by 6,869 GWh to 92,341 GWh.28 In 2016, total in-state solar generation
increased 31.5 percent from 2015 levels and wind generation increased 10.8 percent.
Growth in annual electricity consumption from traditional power plants declined reflecting increased
energy efficiency and higher self-generation from solar photovoltaic power systems. Per capita
drops in electrical consumption are predicted through 2027 as a result of energy efficiency gains and
increased self-generation (particularly for photovoltaic systems).29 Due to population increases,
however, it is estimated that future demand in California for electricity will grow at approximately
one percent each year through 2027, and that 319,256 GWh of electricity would be utilized in the
state in 2027.30
Electricity usage for differing land uses varies substantially by the type of uses in a building, the type
of construction materials used, and the efficiency of the electricity-consuming devices. Electricity in
Santa Clara County in 2015 was consumed primarily by the commercial sector (77 percent), with the
residential sector consuming 23 percent. In 2015, a total of approximately 16,812 GWh of electricity
was consumed in Santa Clara County.31
Natural Gas
In 2016, approximately three percent of California’s natural gas supply came from in-state
production, while 97 percent was imported from other western states and Canada.32 California’s
natural gas is supplied by interstate pipelines, including the Mojave Pipeline, Transwestern Pipeline,
Questar Southern Trails Pipeline, Tuscarora Pipeline, and the Baja Norte/North Baja Pipeline.33 As a
result of improved access to supply basins, as well as pipeline expansion and new projects, these
pipelines currently have excess capacity.
In 2016, approximately 32 percent of the natural gas delivered for consumption in California was for
electricity generation, 37 percent for industrial uses, 19 percent for residential uses, 11 percent for
commercial uses, and less than one percent for vehicle fuel. As with electricity usage, natural gas
usage depends on the type of uses in a building, the type of construction materials used, and the
efficiency of gas-consuming devices. In 2016, California consumed approximately 2.03 billion
28 CEC. “Total System Electric Generation”. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
29 CEC. California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2017-2027. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-IEPR-
05/TN214635_20161205T142341_California_Energy_Demand_Updated_Forecast.pdf.
30 Ibid.
31 CEC. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County”. Accessed July
13, 2016. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.
32 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2016 California Gas Report. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-BSTD-
06/TN212364_20160720T111050_2016_California_Gas_Report.pdf.
33 Ibid.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 117 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
MBtu of natural gas (or 2.03 quadrillion Btu); a decrease from 2015 when 2.12 billion MBtu were
consumed.34 In Santa Clara County, a total of 41.1 MBtu of natural gas were consumed in 2015.35
Natural gas demand in California is anticipated to continue to decrease approximately one percent
per year through 2035. This decline is due to on-site residential, commercial, and industrial
electricity generation; aggressive energy efficiency programs; and a decrease in demand for electrical
power generation as a result of the implementation of state-mandated RPS targets (as the state moves
to power generation resources that result in less GHG emissions than natural gas).36
The CPAU is responsible for electricity and natural gas service in the City of Palo Alto. Electric
lines and gas lines are present in the project area that currently serve the site.
4.17.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the project need new or expanded entitlements to water supply?
The proposed project would not require new or expanded entitlements to water supply, since
the increase in water use and wastewater generation would be minimal, if at all. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
b., c., Would the project result in adverse physical impacts from new or expanded utility facilities
due to increase use as a result of the project? Result in a substantial physical deterioration
of a utility facility due to increased use?
The proposed project would be similar in size to the existing JMZ facility and would have
similar operations. The proposed project would not require new or expanded utility facilities
for project construction or operation, and therefore, would not result in adverse impacts
resulting from new or expanded utility facilities. Since the proposed project would be similar
to the existing JMZ facility, the project would not result in a substantial physical
deterioration of a utility facility due to increase use by the project. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
d. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
The proposed project is the renovation of an existing park and redevelopment of the existing
JMZ. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase the generation of wastewater on
the project site, and would not exceed existing wastewater treatment requirements. [Less
Than Significant Impact]
34 EIA. “Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in California”. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_lsum_dcu_SCA_a.htm.
35 CEC. “Natural Gas Consumption by County”. Santa Clara County 2015 Data. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.
36 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2016 California Gas Report. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-BSTD-
06/TN212364_20160720T111050_2016_California_Gas_Report.pdf.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 118 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
e. Would the 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?
The RWQCP would have sufficient capacity to serve the project, since the increase in
wastewater generation would be minimal, if at all. [Less Than Significant Impact]
f. Would the 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?
The stormwater drainage facilities that serve the existing Rinconada Park and JMZ facility
would be adequate in serving the future LRP developments and the proposed JMZ facility.
No other storm drains would be required for project implementation. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
g., h. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Solid waste generated by the proposed project would continue to be hauled to the City’s
designated recycling facility in Sunnyvale. Unrecoverable refuse would be transported to
Kirby Canyon Landfill in San José for disposal. The proposed project would not generate
additional solid waste beyond the capacity of the existing disposal facilities and would
comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
i. Would the 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?
The proposed project is the renovation of an existing park and redevelopment of the existing
JMZ. The project would maintain similar operations as the existing park and JMZ facility,
and would therefore not result in substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service
demand. [Less Than Significant Impact]
4.17.4 Conclusion
The project would not result in any utility or service facility exceeding its current capacity or require
the construction of new infrastructure or service facilities. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 119 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.18 ENERGY CONSERVATION
4.18.1 Energy Conservation Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a) Have an energy impact? Energy impacts may
include:
i. Impacts resulting from amount and
fuel type used for each stage of the
project
1-3
ii. Impacts on local and regional energy
supplies and on requirements for
additional capacity
1-3
iii. Impacts on peak and base period
demands for electricity and other
forms of energy
1-3
iv. Impacts to energy resources 1-3
v. Impacts resulting from the project’s
projected transportation energy use
requirements
1-3
4.18.2 Existing Setting
4.18.2.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
At the federal level, energy standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) apply to numerous consumer and commercial products (e.g., the EnergyStar™ program). The
EPA also sets fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and other modes of transportation.
State
Renewable Energy Standards
In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, with the goal of
increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent of retail
sales by 2010. In 2006, California's 20 percent by 2010 RPS goal was codified under Senate Bill
(SB) 107. Under the provisions of SB 107, investor‐owned utilities were required to generate 20
percent of their retail electricity using qualified renewable energy technologies by the end of 2010.
In 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 was signed into law and required that retail sellers of electricity
serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 120 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
(PG&E’s) is the electricity provider to the project site. PG&E’s 2016 electricity mix was 33 percent
renewable; thus, they have already met the requirements of Executive Order S-14-08.37
In October 2015, Governor Brown signed SB 350 to codify California’s climate and clean energy
goals. A key provision of SB 350 for retail sellers and publicly owned utilities, requires them to
procure 50 percent of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030.
Building Codes
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title
24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a
legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately
every three years, and the 2016 Title 24 updates went into effect on January 1, 2017.38 Compliance
with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county
governments.39
In January 2010, the state adopted the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen),
which established mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. CALGreen was
also updated and went in to effect on January 1, 2017. The code covers five categories: planning and
design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource
efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.
4.18.2.2 Existing Conditions
Energy consumption is analyzed in Initial Studies because of the environmental impacts associated
with its production and usage. Such impacts include the depletion of nonrenewable resources (e.g.,
oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) and emissions of pollutants during both the production and consumption
phases of energy use.
Energy usage is typically quantified using British thermal units (Btu).40 As points of reference, the
approximate amount of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, a cubic foot of natural gas, and a
kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity are 123,000 Btu, 1,000 Btu, and 3,400 Btu respectively. Utility
providers measure gas usage in therms. One therm is approximately equal to 100,000 Btu.
Electrical energy is expressed in units of kilowatts (kW) and kilowatt hour (kWh). One kW, a
measurement of power (energy used over time), equals one thousand joules41 per second. A kWh is
37 PG&E. “Exploring Clean Energy Solutions”. Accessed July 13, 2017. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-
pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy-solutions.page.
38 California Building Standards Commission. “Welcome to the California Building Standards Commission”. Accessed July 13,
2017. http://www.bsc.ca.gov.
39 California Energy Commission (CEC). “2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards”. Accessed July 13, 2017.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/index.html.
40 A Btu is the amount of energy that is required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree
Fahrenheit.
41 As defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, the joule is a unit of energy or work. One joule
equals the work done when one unit of force (a Newton) moves through a distance of one meter in the direction of
the force.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 121 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
a measurement of energy. If run for one hour, a 1,000 watt (one kW) hair dryer would use one kWh
of electrical energy. Other measurements of electrical energy include the megawatt (1,000 kW) and
the gigawatt (1,000,000 kW).
Total energy usage in California was approximately 7,300 trillion Btu in the year 2015 (the most
recent year for which this specific data was available).42 The breakdown by sector was
approximately 18 percent for residential uses, 19 percent for commercial uses, 24 percent for
industrial uses, and 39 percent for transportation.43
Existing energy use associated with operation of the structures and uses at the project site primarily
consists of fuel for vehicle trips to and from the site, electricity for lighting and cooling, and natural
gas for operations within the existing buildings.
Gasoline for Motor Vehicles
California crude oil production levels have been declining over the last 30 years; however, the state
still accounts for six percent of the United States’ crude oil production and petroleum refining
capacity.44 In 2016, 143.4 billion gallons of gasoline were consumed in the United States (setting an
annual gasoline consumption record) and 15.5 billion gallons were consumed in California.45,46 The
United States has seen low gasoline prices and high demand in the last few years, though forecast
growth in demand is expected to slow as retail prices begin to increase.47
The average fuel economy for light-duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United
States has steadily increased from about 13.1 miles-per-gallon (mpg) in the mid-1970s to 22.0 mpg in
2015.48 Federal fuel economy standards have changed substantially since the Energy Independence
and Security Act was passed in 2007. That standard, which originally mandated a national fuel
economy standard of 35 mpg by the year 2020, applies to cars and light trucks of Model Years 2011
42 United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). California Energy Consumption Estimates 2015.
Accessed July 13, 2017. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.
43 EIA. “California Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector, 2015”. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://www.eia.gov/beta/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/sum_btu_1.html&sid=CA.
44 EIA. “California State Profile and Energy Estimates Profile Analysis”. Accessed July 13, 2017.
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA#40.
45 EIA. Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed July 14, 2017.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10.
46 California State Board of Equalization. Taxable Gasoline, Diesel Fuel, Jet Fuel Ten Year Reports. Accessed July
14, 2017. http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/reports/MVF_10_Year_Report.pdf.
47 EIA. “Short-Term Energy Outlook, U.S. Liquid Fuels”. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm.
48 EPA. Table 4-23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_2
3.html.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 122 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
through 2020. 49,50 In 2012, the federal government raised the fuel economy standard to 54.5 mpg for
cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025.51
4.18.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. i-v) Would the project have an energy impact? Impacts include the amount and fuel type
used for each stage of the project, impacts on local and regional energy supplies and on
requirements for additional capacity, impacts on peak and base period demands for
electricity and other forms of energy, impacts to energy resources, and impacts resulting
from the project’s projected transportation energy use requirements.
Construction
Construction activities related to the JMZ would take approximately 18-24 months and would
consist of demolition of the existing building and landscaping, site preparation, grading,
construction of the new facility, and installation of landscaping. Implementation of the LRP
would occur over 25 years, and construction would occur intermittently depending on the
project component under construction.
Energy would be consumed during both the construction and operational phases of the
proposed project. The construction phase would require energy for the manufacture and
transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g., demolition and grading), and
the actual construction of the building. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and
gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks.
The overall construction schedule and process for the JMZ is already designed to be efficient
in order to avoid excess monetary costs. That is, equipment and fuel are not typically used
wastefully on the site because of the added expense associated with renting the equipment,
maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for efficiency gains during
construction are limited. The proposed project does, however, include several measures that
will improve the efficiency of the construction process. Implementation of the BAAQMD
BMPs, as described in Section 4.3 Air Quality would restrict excessive equipment use by
reducing idling times to five minutes or less and would require the applicant to post signs on
the project site reminding workers to shut off idle equipment.
There will be adverse effects caused by construction because the use of fuels and building
materials are fundamental to construction of new buildings; however, with implementation of
BMPs, the short-term energy impacts of construction, including impacts to energy resources,
would be less than significant. [Less than Significant Impact]
49 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed December 7, 2016.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.
50 Public Law 110–140—December 19, 2007. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Page 1449. Accessed
December 7, 2016. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/pdf/PLAW-110publ140.pdf.
51 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel
Efficiency Standards. Accessed July 14, 2017. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/obama-administration-
finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standards.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 123 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Operation
The proposed project would be constructed to conform to CALGreen guidelines, which
include design and operational and efficiency provisions to minimize wasteful energy
consumption. Though the proposed project does not include on-site renewable energy
resources, the proposed JMZ building would include orientation of the buildings and
windows to optimize daylight to interiors, low-emissivity glazing, and use of energy-efficient
LED lighting. The project would also comply with existing Title 24 state energy standards.
Thus, the project would not waste energy as part of normal operations and any impact would
be less than significant.
Additionally, the proposed project would provide at least 25 short term bicycle parking
spaces and 10 long term spaces which would incentivize the use of an alternative
transportation method. Since the proposed JMZ facility would be similar in size to the
existing facility and would offer a comparable experience (i.e. zoo tours, classroom visits
etc.) as the existing facility, the proposed project would result in only a minor increase in
vehicle trips, and the transportation impacts would be similar to existing conditions. For
these reasons, it is not anticipated that fuel or energy would be used in a wasteful manner,
and potential impacts related to operational energy use and transportation energy use would
be less than significant. [Less Than Significant Impact]
The size and operations of the proposed JMZ facility would be similar to that of the existing
JMZ facility. Since the design of the proposed facility would include CALGreen measures
that would help reduce the amount of energy the building would consume during routine
operation. The proposed facility would have comparable if not reduced peak and base
demands on energy as the existing JMZ and would not, therefore, result in significant energy
impacts related to peak and base demands, supply, capacity, or resources. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
4.18.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to energy
resources. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 124 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
4.19.1 Mandatory Findings Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
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?
1-25
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)?
1-25
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
1-25
4.19.2 Impacts Evaluation
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?
The project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air
quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, public
services, recreation, transportation, and utilities or service systems.
With the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the proposed project and
described in the biological resources, cultural resources, and noise and vibration section of
this Initial Study, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental
impacts. [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 125 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
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)?
As identified elsewhere in this Initial Study, the potential environmental impacts from the
proposed project are primarily limited to the construction period. The construction projects
associated with the LRP are expected to occur over a 25 year period, and the demolition and
construction of the JMZ would take approximately 18 to 24 months. Given the size and
duration of the projects, the projects would not significantly contribute to cumulative air
quality impacts.
As described in Section 4.16, project implementation would not degrade future level of
service of intersections in the project area. [Less than Significant Impact]
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Under this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor
must be treated as significant if it would cause substantial adverse effects to humans, either
directly or indirectly. This factor relates to adverse changes to the environment of human
beings generally, and not to effects on particular individuals.
While changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be
represented by all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those that could directly affect human
beings include air quality and noise. Due to the short construction schedule, limited areal
extent of the project, and mitigation measures included in the project, impacts to human
beings resulting from construction-related air and noise impacts would be less than
significant. No other direct or indirect adverse effects of the project on human beings have
been identified. [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 126 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Checklist Sources:
1. CEQA Guidelines - Environmental Thresholds (Professional judgment and expertise and review
of project plans).
2. Palo Alto, City of. Comprehensive Plan. 1998-2010.
3. Palo Alto, City of. Municipal Code.
4. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2012.
Map. August 2014.
5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012.
6. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Construction TAC Assessment.
April 27, 2015.
7. Hort Science. Arborist Report, Junior Museum & Zoo, Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, CA. June
2017.
8. Hort Science. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed, Long-Range Plan Rinconada Park, Palo
Alto, CA. June 2017.
9. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. (Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP)).
10. Holman & Associates. Results of an Archaeological literature search for Rinconada Park and
Junior Museum & Zoo Project at 777 Embarcadero, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County (APN: 003-
46-006). February 17, 2015.
11. Page & Turnbull. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo 1451 Middlefield Road Historic Resource
Evaluation. July 20, 2016.
12. Page & Turnbull. Rinconada Park Historic Resource Evaluation. June 8, 2017.
13. Silicon Valley Soil Engineering. Geotechnical investigation. January 2015.
14. State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Accessed July 8, 2016.
15. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Final Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
Palo Alto Airport. November 19, 2008.
16. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No.
060850010H. Map. Effective Date: May 18, 2009.
17. San Mateo, County of. Planning and Building. Dam Failure Inundation Areas. Available at:
<http://planning.smcgov.org/documents/san-mateo-county-hazards-dam-failure-inundation-
areas> August 2014.
18. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara
County. October 8, 2008.
19. California Emergency Management Agency, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning
San Francisco Bay Area, < http://www.conservation.ca.gov> June 15, 2009.
20. Palo Alto, City of. Storm Drain System Facts and Figures.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2806.
21. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Park Long Range Plan,
Environmental Noise Assessment, Palo Alto, California. June 3, 2015.
22. Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Police. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/
23. Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Fire Department. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/fir/.
24. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo and Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. July 27, 2017.
25. Palo Alto, City of. Zero Waste Program, Progress Report.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/about/progress.asp.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 127 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012.
California Building Standards Commission. 2013 California Green Buildings Standards Code
(CALGreen). California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. Available at:
http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/Free_Resources/2013California/13Green/13Green_main.html
Effective Date: January 1, 2014.
California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2012. Map.
August 2014.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara
County. October 8, 2008. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php.
Accessed July 28, 2015.
California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Santa Clara
County. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed
June 21, 2015.
California State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Accessed July 29, 2015.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara
County. October 8, 2008. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php.
Accessed July 28, 2015.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/. Accessed July 30, 2015.
County of Santa Clara, City of San José, City of Morgan Hill, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley
Water District, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Plan. August 2012. Available at: <http://www.scv-habitatplan.org/www/default.aspx.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No.
060850010H. Map. Effective Date: May 18, 2009.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo and Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. July 27, 2017.
Holman & Associates. Results of an Archaeological literature search for Rinconada Park and Junior
Museum & Zoo Project at 777 Embarcadero, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County (APN: 003-46-006).
February 17, 2015.
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Construction TAC Assessment.
April 27, 2015.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 128 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Hort Science. Arborist Report, Junior Museum & Zoo, Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, CA. June 2017.
Hort Science. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed, Long-Range Plan Rinconada Park, Palo
Alto, CA. June 2017.
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Park Long Range Plan,
Environmental Noise Assessment, Palo Alto, California. June 3, 2015.
One Bay Area. “Plan Bay Area.” 2012. Available at: http://onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan-
bay-area.html#.USz_lKK-qzk . Accessed July 30, 2015.
Page & Turnbull. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo 1451 Middlefield Road Historic Resource
Evaluation. July 20, 2016.
Page & Turnbull. Rinconada Park Historic Resource Evaluation. June 28, 2017.
Palo Alto, City of. City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, City of Palo Alto. June 2001.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6436
Palo Alto, City of. Comprehensive Plan. 1998-2010.
Palo Alto, City of. Historic Preservation website.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/preservation.asp Accessed July 30, 2015.
Palo Alto, City of. Municipal Code.
Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Police. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/
Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Fire Department. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/fir/.
Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Green Building Program.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. Accessed July 28, 2015.
Palo Alto, City of. Rinconada Long Range Plan Report. July 2017
Palo Alto, City of. Storm Drain System Facts and Figures.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2806. Accessed July 30, 2015.
Palo Alto, City of. Office of Emergency Services. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment Report. August 2014.
Palo Alto, City of. Zero Waste Program, Progress Report.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/about/progress.asp. Accessed July 29, 2015.
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan. 2015 Pollution Prevention Plan. Available at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1527&TargetID=65. Accessed July
29, 2015.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 129 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
PAST Consultants, LLC. “Re: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Review (SISR) for 411 Lytton
Ave., Palo Alto, CA, APN. 120-014-076.” March 13, 2015.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Shoreline Areas Potentially
Exposed to Sea Level Rise: South Bay. 2008, updated 2012. Map. Available at:
http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/pdf/bayplan/Plan_Map_7.pdf. Accessed July 28, 2015.
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Final Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
Palo Alto Airport. November 19, 2008. Available at:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Commissions/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx.
Silicon Valley Soil Engineering. Geotechnical investigation. January 2015.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 130 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS
LEAD AGENCY
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners
Jodi Starbird, Principal Project Manager
Mike Lisenbee, Project Manager
Caroline Weston, Assistant Project Manager
Zach Dill, Graphic Artist
MMRP Page 1 of 6
Exhibit 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Project Name Junior Museum and Zoo Project Application
Number 17PLN-
00147
Applicant
Agreement
Signed by applicant before final approval action Date
Approved by Signed by Director after MND approval action by Council Date
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
Impact BIO-1:
Construction of the
proposed project
could result in
disturbance to
active migratory
bird nests.
MM BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the
California Fish and Game Code, the project shall
implement the following measures:
Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a
qualified ornithologist to identify active nests that
may be disturbed during project implementation. All
potential nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be
surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree removal
or pruning, if the activity will occur within the
breeding season (February 1 – August 31). If more
than 30 days pass between the completion of the
preconstruction survey and the initiation of
construction activities, the preconstruction survey
shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day
intervals until construction activities are initiated.
If an active nest is observed, tree removal and
pruning shall be postponed until all the young have
fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established
around the nest site, in consultation with the CDFW.
Project
applicant,
contractors,
and qualified
ornithologist
Within 30
days of the
start of
construction
activities and
prior to
issuance of a
Grading
Permit or
Demolition
Permit
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment,
and CDFW (if a
nest is found)
MMRP Page 2 of 6
Impact CR-1:
Construction
activities could
result in significant
impacts to buried
cultural resources.
Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests
shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree
or shrub.
Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the
young fledge. No construction activities, parking,
staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall
be allowed within the exclusion zones until the
young have fledged from the nest.
MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural
materials are encountered during construction grading
or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-feet
of the find shall be halted, the Director of Planning and
Community Environment shall be notified, and a
qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make
appropriate recommendations regarding the significance
of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The
recommended mitigation shall be implemented and
could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any
significant cultural materials. A report of findings
documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall
be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment.
Project
applicant,
contractors
During
grading and
excavation
activities
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
MMRP Page 3 of 6
MM CR-1.2: If human remains are unearthed during
implementation of the proposed project, the City shall
comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section
7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County
Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the
County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to
origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98.
If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall
then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely
Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the
remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend
to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any
associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the
human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the
reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist
shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC.
If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD
identified fails to make a recommendation, or the
landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and
the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section
5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable
to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized
representative shall inter the human remains and items
Project
applicant,
contractors
During
grading and
excavation
activities
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment,
Santa Clara
County
Coroner, and
NAHC
MMRP Page 4 of 6
Impact NOI-1:
Construction
activities
associated with the
JMZ could result in
significant noise
impacts.
associated with Native American human remains with
appropriate dignity on the property in a location not
subject to further and future subsurface disturbance.
MM NOI-1: With the implementation of the following
measures, construction noise would be reduced to a less
than significant level:
Construction activities shall be limited to between
the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through
Friday, and 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with
no construction occurring on Sundays or holidays
(consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code).
Construction of the JMZ shall be undertaken with
consideration for school activities and hours:
o Schedule high noise generating construction
activities (such as the use of the concrete
saws) that are located directly adjacent to
school structures during periods when school
is not in session, such as summer, school
breaks, weekends, and after school dismissal.
Coordination of construction activity times
with school officials may be necessary.
o Construct portions of the museum located
directly adjacent to the school first, where
practical, in an effort to provide shielding to
the school from construction activities
located further to the west and south.
Project
applicant,
contractors
During all
phases of
construction
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
MMRP Page 5 of 6
o Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers
to shield on-site construction and demolition
noise from the school. To be most effective,
the barrier should be placed as close as
possible to the noise source or the sensitive
receptor. Examples of barriers include
portable acoustically lined enclosure/housing
for specific equipment (e.g., jackhammer and
pneumatic-air tools, which generate the
loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g.,
solid plywood fences or portable panel
systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or
acoustical blankets.
Establish construction staging areas at locations that
will create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise sources and noise-
sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all
project construction.
Construction equipment shall be well maintained and
used judiciously to be as quiet as practical.
Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other
stationary noise sources where technology exists.
Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines and equip all internal combustion engine-
driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.
Locate all stationary noise-generation equipment,
such as air compressors and portable power
MMRP Page 6 of 6
generators, as far away as possible from businesses
or noise-sensitive land uses.
Notify all adjacent noise sensitive land uses of the
construction schedule in writing.
Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a
point where they are not audible at existing
residences or the school bordering the project site.
Designate a disturbance coordinator, responsible for
responding to complaints about construction noise.
The name and telephone number of the disturbance
coordinator shall be posted at the construction site
and made available to noise-sensitive land uses
adjacent to the construction site.
1
French, Amy
From:Jean Pressey <jean.pressey@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, August 12, 2017 9:37 PM
To:French, Amy
Subject:JMZ Building Project
Dear Ms. French,
I attended the meeting on April 10 at the Junior Museum where the new plans were discussed.
I want to enthusiastically endorse the decision to use a metal roof on the new building. It is both cheaper and
longer-lasting than other alternatives. I live in a condo at 449 Homer and we installed a metal roof two years ago and are very happy with it. There are a number of houses in the Downtown North area that have metal roofs, and other people simply are not aware of them. So I think the words might inspire negative reactions
divorced from reality.
I also want to commend your staff for the new Rinconada Park plan. I attended one of the early planning meetings (and was somehow dropped from communication) and I know that there were a lot of wild ideas suggested. That the final design maintains the Rinconada Park that we have loved for so long is very positive.
Jean Pressey
449 Homer Ave. Palo Alto
1
French, Amy
From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:30 PM
To:French, Amy; Aikin, John; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Junior Museum re-send with better formatting
Attachments:P1170916.jpg; P1170918.jpg; IMG_0984.jpg; IMG_0992.jpg; IMG_0991.jpg
To Ms. French, Mr. Aikin, and the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board,
Please accept my apology for this re‐send of an email conveyed to you earlier today.
The below version should have better formatting for your screen.
One sentence was added here, suggesting that perhaps the long massive roof facing Middlefield might be broken
up, architecturally.
The rest is the same. Thank you.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Thank you for your time to read concerns sent to you in August about the proposed design for the Junior Museum.
Below are additional comments on how the proposed design appears to not comply with the required findings for
Architectural Review:
In section 2
a. “The design is to create an internal sense of order and a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the
general community”
Comment: The tall airy windows and internal spaces of the proposed design are great. However, the overall
design is utilitarian and barn‐like in
appearance, employing metal roofing and walls which appear uncomfortably cold, harsh and inappropriately
rustic for the center of town.
This does not promote a comfortable environment, nor a sense of order.
b. “The design is to preserve, respect and integrate natural features that contribute positively to the site and the
historic character including historic
Resources of the area”
Comment: Although some trees are included in the landscape plan, more incorporation of trees and natural
landscaping might enhance this
nature museum’s setting in this tree‐lined neighborhood.
Historically: the proposed building does not blend in with the adjacent elegant, historic Mediterranean style
Community Center or the nearby
established neighborhood.
Part of Palo Alto’s Spanish history (El Palo Alto, El Camino Real) and charm revolve, at least in part, around its
traditional Spanish style
architecture. While a different style of building for a nature museum may be appropriate, the Junior
Museum is part of the Community
Center, and should at least reflect the elegance and permanence of nearby classically styled buildings.
2
d. “ Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and … designations”
Comment: the massive, industrial character of the proposed building is not harmonious with the character of
the adjacent Community Center,
which is an architectural jewel of the city, nor is the proposed building compatible with the elegant, small‐
scale style of the neighborhood.
e. “Enhances living conditions….in adjacent residential areas”
Comment: the proposed design is industrial looking, and does not blend in with the adjacent residential area
in terms of style or character.
Perhaps breaking up the massive design of the long roof facing Middlefield would add more interest to the
building, and scale it down.
In Section 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 area”
Comment: the proposed design does not appear to utilize high‐quality materials or rich architectural
detailing. More use of natural, quality
materials would be better.
The use of metal appears harsh and cold. Painting metal in colors may not soften it or make it any more elegant.
In Section 6: … “sustainability”
Comment: although this section refers to energy efficiency, in regard to architectural style, the idea of
“sustainability” could apply to the concept
of timelessness. The city of Palo Alto should not spend valuable resources erecting a trendy industrial
structure, but instead should wisely invest
in a more timeless, elegant architecture befitting the historic Community Center and charming neighborhood
surrounding it.
Having recently been in Oregon, attached for you are some photos taken at the High Desert Museum near Bend, which
includes many live animal exhibits as well as cultural and historic exhibits.
When asked how this spectacular museum could look so new when it is actually decades old, the museum associate
immediately responded to me: “because the design is timeless.”
Thank you,
Kim Atkinson
1753 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto 94301
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Member Robert Gooyer, Peter Baltay
Absent: Board Member Wynne Furth
Action Item
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [17PLN-00147]:
Consideration of an Application for Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Junior
Museum and Zoo Building and Construction of a New 15,033 Square Foot, One-Story Museum
and Education Building, Outdoor Zoo With Netted Enclosure, and Reconfiguration of and
Improvements to the Existing Parking Lots. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been
Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: PF (Public
Facilities). For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Chair Lew: Item number three which is a public hearing for a quasi-judicial matter, 1451 Middlefield
Road. Consideration of an application for architectural review to allow the demolition of the Junior
Museum and Zoo Building and construction of a new 15,033-square foot, one-story Museum and
education building, outdoor zoo with netted enclosure, and reconfiguration of and improvements to the
existing parking lots. The environmental assessment is an initial study has been prepared in accordance
with the CEQA and the zone district is public facilities. We have our – Amy French, our City Planning
Official here.
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good morning.
Chair Lew: Do we need a minute to set up the presentation?
Ms. French: I believe that’s happening as we speak. We have a presentation from the applicant. Again,
good morning. We’ve got our PowerPoint set up now, and I wanted to call your attention to an email that
came on Tuesday that’s a little confusing, but they’re referring to another issue on the Palo Alto Online,
there is – I don’t know where these numbers are coming from. I just wanted to give an overview on that;
there’s no loss of 85 parking spaces on this site; that is incorrect. There’s no proposal to do anything at
the school site, etc. So – I should mention we will have our transportation engineering staff member in
for this project, if there are further questions about that. Just the traffic, note the peak periods are
morning and evening peak commute periods. They are not affected by this project because this project
is, the attendance at the zoo is not during those times. Just to cut to the chase, this is our second
hearing for this project as a formal application. We’ve had several over the years for preliminary review
and they’ve refined it to a point where we’re pleased to make the recommendation for approval. This will
be going to Council hopefully in November and we’re asking that you recommend the project today. We
have some follow-up opportunities for tweaks to the landscape plan that we’ve noted in the conditions of
approval. As always, the ARB can have an ARB subcommittee to look at any resulting drawings. I’ll just
go ahead and turn this over to the applicant to make the presentation now. Thanks.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
EXCERPT MINUTES: September 21, 2017
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Mr. Brent McClure: Thanks, Amy.
Chair Lew: Quick – Brent, you have 10-minutes.
Mr. McClure: Sure. We put together a short PowerPoint. I want to kind of touch on – we focused this
basically on, I think some of the major comments that we heard the last time that we were before you.
Number one big comment, the architecture of its place and how do we move away from this agricultural
aesthetic on some of the ways the finishes were being presented. The second item was modulation,
again on Middlefield. The third bridges, we talked about that briefly and then lastly was one of the
maintenance questions that relate to metal siding and we’re going to close with some of the wind façade
pieces. Talking about the architecture of its place, this is what we showed you last time. As you recall we
had the metal standing seam roof that wrapped and became wall siding as this sort of continuous
extruded form out at the front of the main museum building with some additional metal siding in over
here. We had a different colored metal roof that kind of came around and we had lots of wood siding. It
was the other material that wrapped the entire finish. The comments that we heard where can we
consider breaking the eave as a possibility? Can we look at a different type of material (inaudible)
position but not really loose the concept of the building and think carefully also about the wood siding as
well. We went back to our diagram that we showed you early in a study session at the beginning of the
year and kind of started to think about how does this translate with that extruded piece? Instead of just
extruding the whole form out, we thought what if the roof extrudes out and the building mass kind of sits
somewhat separately. This is a diagram of what we’ve come back with and that is a different way of
looking at some of the materials. We interjected cement plaster as a way to further break up some of the
mass and bring a little more playfulness and not just sort of have this monochromatic large amount of
wood siding and then also kind of break of the metal. We’re proposing to still have standing seam roof
which is this kind of charchoaly greyish material in through here but then as you get down below, we
pulled back – the wood now becomes an accent. The wood is an accent sort of back in only the recessed
areas of the building and then we have an off-white color cement plaster that becomes more of the
dominant color and material on the building. We’ve inserted some more playful windows to sort of break
up this elevation and to still kind of have a modern aesthetic to try to attempt to echo parts of Lucie
Stern in mass and form and have a bit of an eave. Have an eave projects out so it no longer reads as the
– we believe is the building, that it had read as a sort of once before or with what we had presented
before you. Here’s a sectional elevation looking at that larger volume and that nice entrance point where
the wood and then looking into the dawn redwood courtyard and that elevation on that side. The second
point to touch on briefly is the Middlefield elevation. We had presented – this was the last elevation we
had shown you. We had kind of broken the elevational façade into different sections but the roof was
kind of running long and sleek and the feedback we got from serval of the Board Members was let’s try
to break this up a little bit more. Can we use something to modulate that and be more sensitive to – we
were attempting to do that with I think sort of how this break is here with windows and wall. When we
went back and looked at was – we did a few things, one was we took where that break happened and
we shifted it closer to our entrance portal. So, if you go back to this, there’s – the piece that’s over here
kind of slides over a bit and we have some pop-up clearstory windows that come over into this zone here
that then align with this wood accent wall material here. Then by interjecting different – the cement
plaster against the wood and some additional window placement back over into here, we think that this
starts to achieve that. You start to read this elevation into a series of smaller sections as opposed to one
long sleek run. The last couple comments would be on the bridges. We’ve gone back to the clients and
they are looking to get some grant funding and so we are putting bridges at least back into the project at
this moment funding permitting. Then here are the images that we showed you last time. Further
development of the Dawn Redwood courtyard, that we’re also looking at grant funding. They are looking
at actually having a dinosaur sculpture out amongst the dawn redwood tree. Then the last couple
comments on maintenance questions, the metal roof – we pulled back the metal material significantly
from what we had before. It – we didn’t touch on this last time but it will have an intrical color Kynar 500
finish that will be pre-applied so there are no plans to paint any metal roofing. We’re going with this
medium – there’s a finished board going around but sort of this medium tone kind of charcoal grey. The
idea is that it’s – it will be compatible with – if there’s a potential for future photovoltaics. It will kind of
City of Palo Alto Page 3
fall away in the sky to some degree and just be there as opposed to this really kind of reddish color that
we were talking about before. We’ve removed it completely from any wall services. As far as the wood
siding, it’s a cedar that we would then apply a clear finish too and that was another one of the comments
that we had before that we’d noted. This is just a picture of the finished board that should be passed
around in front of you. Then lastly the wind façade, we’re really excited to be working with the Arts
Commission. They have selected an artist to provide a public art piece; (inaudible) Charles Sowers. He’s
got some really exciting science-based exhibits and art installations at the Exploratorium and he’s a local
artist; we’ve met with him. We really excited about how to beautifully articulate wind onto the site so we
are still looking at this front face elevation into here, signage off to the side like we touched on before.
So, that concludes the high points and we’ll turn it over to questions and comment.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Brent. I don’t have any speaker cards for this item so we can move onto
Board Member comments and questions; any questions? Kyu.
Vice Chair Kim: That’s great to hear that the artist is on board. I’m just wondering if that whole front
gable façade becomes the art piece, has there been any thought given to where the Museum’s signage
will go then?
Ms. French: I’m just going to jump in, Amy French, because we’re not interested in having this signage
go with the art and so I’ll just say that and let the applicant talk about where signage might go.
Ms. Sarah Vaccaro: Hi, Sarah Vaccaro here with CAW Architects. We’re partnering with Charles Sowers,
the public artist. He – we’ve given him a handful of locations to look at for his art installation, one is on
this main façade of the entry portico. We’ve given him a lot of our inspirational images about wind and
other science nature-based exhibitory. He is developing his ideas right now, it’s just the beginning of this
process so we don’t know exactly how his art piece will manifest but we’re working closely with him to
integrate it in this front entrance plaza. Once we have a little more direction then we can further design
how that signage will be integrated.
Vice Chair Kim: So, correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like the art piece is still in flux, which is fine
but I think as I’ve been reviewing the project through the process, I’ve always assumed that the front
was going to have this piece there so it sounds like it may not end up being there. Is that correct?
Ms. Vaccaro: If he does something differently, we will work to put something that’s close to this – the
look that we’ve been presenting.
Vice Chair Kim: Ok.
Ms. Vaccaro: It’s integrated -- rolled into the design.
Mr. McClure: We’ve been strongly urging and moving in this direction as (inaudible).
Vice Chair Kim: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Just so it’s clear, the sign that’s shown in the drawings – I mean there’s – is not part of the
ARB…
Ms. French: That is correct.
Chair Lew: … and it’s typically a staff review level.
Ms. French: It’s a concept at this point. It’s not -- they’ll have to come back with a sign application for
that wall signage. The existing sign is moved - the sculptural one out front is ok - but this other one
needs review.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Chair Lew: Any other questions? Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Thank you very much for coming back and I’m right on the edge when I think we
can push this along. I agree with the applicant's outline of five different issues that we’re looking at so I’d
like to address each one of them starting with the Middlefield Road elevation. I think that’s a big
improvement and I think that fits in well now with the residential neighborhood. Of course, it’s great if
you can get those bridged back, and I appreciate the effort that you are making and let’s see where that
gets us. As far as it being architecture of its place, it’s really close. To me, it still has a vague
reminiscence of some agricultural/industrial building but certainly, it’s moved in the right direction
sufficiently. I’m right on the edge of being able to say I think it’s ok; same thing on the materials, the
metal siding and the wood slats and stuff. Obviously, it’s great that you removed the vertical standing
steam finish on the side of the building. You do have a lot of those cedar slats and stuff and when I look
at the sample board you sent here, I can’t think of the last time we got a clear finish to stay on wood for
more than a year, and I’ve been doing this 30 years now. There’re a lot of people doing a lot of
maintenance on wood buildings I’ve built. I just don’t see the City out there every year brushing those
slats. Again, it’s at the level where we’ve made that point clear over and over again. The look is great but
I think overall, you’ve – you can – the findings can be made to support the changes to materials and I
think the logic for what you’ve done is right. I pick up on Kyu’s questions about that gable and façade,
several times through this review process he’s been thinking that’s sort of an artistic element and I think
it should be. When I see on this elevation here, I don’t think it’s quite there yet. It looks just too much –
first (inaudible) to face of a Target store or something and I think it needs more revision. I would like to
see that come back to a subcommittee perhaps and I would like to see that really be a place where we
incorporate some sort of public art or sort of an interesting whimsical design on what you call the gable
and the windscreen. That said, I’m eager to hear what my colleagues have to say, thank you.
Chair Lew: Robert.
Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. Yeah, I agree, I think it’s come a long way. The Middlefield elevation
I think is a big improvement. I also agree that this is still a little weak but then if the public artist is going
to be a part of that, that would make a big difference, and probably coming back to the subcommittee
would be a good idea on that. The one piece that is the off-white color of the stucco, I think is a bit
bland. It – I’d like to see something maybe a little richer in color rather than the off-white. It almost
seems like it’s gone from one extreme to the other to compensate for it. I would prefer to see – it’s not
like there aren’t residences or whatever the area that isn't a richer color than off-white. I agree the wood
is going to be a maintenance nightmare probably. I mean unless it’s done properly or even different
types of finishes on it or something because I agree that a clear finish is really tough to keep it looking
good for more than a year or so. Other than that, I -- like I said yeah, I’m probably close enough that we
could approve it or I can approve it at this point with a few minor modifications.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Robert. Kyu.
Board Member Makinen: Thanks for hanging in there and going through the process. I think it’s come
along way and I think even at the previous hearing I was pretty much on board. I felt that I could make
the findings even then so I appreciate you taking the extra step and bringing it back one more time. Just
very minor comments, some of them echoing previous comments that were made but I also agree that
the – I’m probably the least experienced person of architecture profession on this Board and you know
having said that, I agree that the clear finish is just terribly difficult. I think some kind of a semi-solid or
maybe even if you go with a solid stain on that. I don’t think you’re going to have a lot of people
observing it up close to make sure that they see the wood grain and whatnot; that’s one thing. I also
agree that the Middlefield elevation is – I feel it’s actually greatly improved. I think your attempt at
breaking that up is successful. I like the way that you’ve approached that. I like the clearstory windows
that have been added. I am somewhat questioning if that makes the building feel a little bit too high in
that central portion. I don’t know if there is a way of bringing the clearstory down so that maybe it
doesn’t start at the ridge but it’s not a deal breaker to me and I think overall, it’s looking great. I think
that’s it, I can make the findings. Again, I applaud your efforts and sticking through the process and
City of Palo Alto Page 5
coming with a solution that, to me doesn’t feel compromised. I think you’ve really done a great job of
instilling your own design efforts and also working with the City and I’d be happy to recommend approval
of the project, thank you.
Chair Lew: I can support the project as well. I do want to thank the members of the public who
submitted comments by email. We’ve had several over the past two months and I thank Staff for
responding to our questions. I think I had a question previously about parking and I think that’s been
answered. I think we just – I just want to acknowledge that there is – like the existing traffic, which is
highlighted in the initial study is that the traffic is bad on El Camino – is acceptable at level D but it’s
headed down toward – the accumulative impacts are going to push it down lower so I think it should just
be on the City’s radar that we’re going to have an issue at Embarcadero and Middlefield in the feature.
Then my only nitpicky thing is the landscape so you have kind of the zigzag wood fence along the park
edge. Yeah, their’ sort of – yeah, so I just wanted to – if maybe that could come back to Staff for review.
It’s really how does the existing – are you – is the existing irrigation for the lawn being retained and if it’s
– I don’t know even know what it is if it’s rotors or whatnot but you’re going to get spray on the wood.
Generally, you get this whitewashed effect on the wood and you’re not showing any new landscaping
there so I presume it’s – there’s some – I just presume its trees and lawn there but I just want to make
sure that we just address that when you – in the future. I think typically irrigation plans come before
building permit, right?
Ms. French: Just a note on that, the Rinconada Park long-range plan doesn’t have specificity at this point,
it’s looked at programmatically. Peter Jenson is our in-house landscape architect. I will be meeting with
him following this meeting and make sure that he is aware of this concern of wrecking the fence
basically, with irrigation, and we want to not have that happen to a brand-new fence. So, we’ll make sure
we touch base.
Chair Lew: Yeah, presumably you have to change the irrigation because you’re changing the boundary
between the Junior Museum and the park. It’s going to -- so…
Ms. French: We’ll make sure that’s on the to-do list.
Chair Lew: Then it’s not – at the moment there’s no – that area is not part of the landscape plans of the
Junior Museum, right? That’s still part of the…
Ms. French: That’s correct, that’s why I was kind of taking over this comment because it will be – not in
the purview of our architect here. I should say, Elizabeth Ames is here as well with the Rinconada long-
range project, so thanks.
Chair Lew: Then for staff on the findings, I just had one comment. A little tiny comment is on finding –
this is number – finding number three which is page 63 of the packet and this is just about pedestrian
and bicycle safety. That I would just – I think I would recommend adding that one of the curb cuts along
-- one of the existing curb cuts along Middlefield is being removed so that’s actually a benefit to all the
pedestrian traffic going to Walter Hayes.
Ms. French: Thank you, will do.
Chair Lew: I am willing to entertain motions now. Kyu.
MOTION
Vice Chair Kim: I’ll move that we recommend approval of the project and trust that the City project and
any other minor material things will be taken care of the planning level. So, I don’t even think there’s a
need for anything to come back at subcommittee level.
Board Member Gooyer: How about the whole idea of the art piece that – or artwork?
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Vice Chair Kim: I’m not too concerned.
Chair Lew: I didn’t…
Vice Chair Kim: Is that something that has to be approved at the ARB level of some sort?
Chair Lew: Can I – I didn’t comment on the art piece. I do want to caution that sometimes the mounting
of the art piece on the building can be an issue. We’ve had one of the – we had a low-income housing
project and the art piece was nice but the bracket that attached it onto the building weren’t really well
thought out. So, I mean something like that could come back to the Board for review if the Board is
interested.
Board Member Gooyer: I’d like to see that come back to subcommittee.
Vice Chair Kim: So, I will accept the…
Chair Lew: You have to present it as a…
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT
Board Member Gooyer: I propose that the art piece or however that’s worked out – especially because
we are talking about that it may affect the front entrance or the appearance of the front entry obviously,
considerably. I’d like it to come back to the subcommittee.
Ms. Gerhardt: We have a motion but no second at this point.
Board Member Baltay: I’ll second the motion.
Ms. Gerhardt: Then do we want to offer a friendly amendment?
Board Member Gooyer: Oh, ok, alright. Fine, then I’ll make that…
Ms. Gerhardt: Microphone.
Board Member Gooyer: …I’ll make that my friendly amendment.
Vice Chair Kim: I’ll accept the friendly amendment.
Board Member Baltay: I’ll accept the second to the friendly amendment.
Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you.
Ms. French: Can I ask a clarifying question? This amendment is to review the attachment of the art to the
façade, if it’s proposed to be on that façade? If it’s not proposed to go there as artwork, you would like to
see what is going to be showing on that façade – on that gable end?
Board Member Gooyer: I think so, yeah.
Chair Lew: This would also go – this is going to go to the Public Art Commission as well?
Ms. French: Yes, they’re looking at the content of the art, as well as the installation. I think it’s more if
the artwork doesn’t go up on that gable end, what is the gable end going to look like?
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Board Member Gooyer: Ok but the artwork – I mean I sit on an Art Committee for another City and we
look at the art piece and don’t always go into depth as to how it relates to the building adjacent to it or
behind it or whatever the case is and I think we should.
Ms. French: That – I tried to clarify just – I think the ARB subcommittee – if the art is going on that gable
end - you’re very interested in what that’s going to look like if it’s not an art piece. I think that’s what I
am picking up on, is that…
Board Member Baltay: That’s correct.
Ms. French: …and if it is an art piece, just to see what it looks like in the end.
Board Member Baltay: And how it’s mounted.
Ms. French: Mounting of it.
Chair Lew: Just to clarify the motion, it is a recommendation to Council because this is going to the
Council. It’s not a Director’s decision, and so all in favor? Opposed? None. So that’s 4-0 with Board
Member Furth absent.
MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER FURTH ABSENT
Chair Lew: Congratulations, we can’t wait to see this one under construction. It’s going to be very
exciting.
1
Attachment G
IMLS Grant Information for Access from the Ground Up
Access from the Ground Up is a three-year project to make the new JMZ facility and its exhibits
accessible to everyone. Funded by an IMLS grant in the amount of $270,124, it will provide
science learning opportunities to children with physical and developmental disabilities. The JMZ
will build relationships with partner organizations that serve children with disabilities, provide
professional development for staff, and engage experts and families who have children with
disabilities in the development of exhibits and Access Resources. As a result, the JMZ will be
more accessible to visitors and more engaged with the disability community. The project will
serve as a regional and national model for inclusion for museums and zoos of all types and
sizes. Receipt of grant funds and expenditures is expected to commence in Fiscal Year 2018 and
be completed by Fiscal Year 2021.
Nearly one in five Americans, including children, live with some type of disability. The JMZ is
passionately committed to the inclusion of people of all abilities and ages, particularly as they
embark on building a new facility and visitor experiences scheduled to open by summer 2020.
The JMZ requested IMLS support for Access From the Ground Up, a three-year project to make
the new facility and exhibits accessible to everyone and provide science learning opportunities
to children with disabilities. Leveraging deep institutional commitment and their accessibility
work to date, the JMZ will become more accessible to visitors and more engaged with the
disability community.
This project will address the challenge of a lack of quality science learning experiences for the
growing number of children with a variety of disabilities. Although ADA requirements and best
practices set accessibility standards, most museums and zoos minimally accommodate for
people with disabilities. The 2010 report, Inclusion, Disabilities and Informal Science Learning by
the Center for the Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), has greatly informed
this project’s development. Although the report “located a number of projects, initiatives, and
organizations that have sought greater inclusion of people with disabilities in [informal science
education]. These efforts are still the exception and not the rule.” Through partnerships,
professional development and engagement of the disability community, this project will create
an accessible and inclusive visitor experience from the ground up.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is the primary source of federal support for
the nation’s 132,000 libraries and 35,000 museums. Their mission is to inspire libraries and
museums to advance innovation, lifelong learning, and cultural and civic engagement. Their
grant making, policy development, and research help libraries and museums deliver valuable
services that make it possible for communities and individuals to thrive.
This grant program is highly competitive. A total of 132 projects were selected from 558
applications. One panelist that recommended our project for funding noted in their review,
“This is an overall great project and should position the museum and zoo well on a national as
well as local stage. I was impressed that there was already so much involvement with the
community that deals with disability, and it showed that the grant writers had a realistic
2
understanding of the issues that they needed to deal with, including multiple disabilities,
caregivers’ needs, etc. and that they are truly passionate about this focus for the museum and
zoo. An institution like Palo Alto can really make a difference for so many people, and I couldn’t
be more impressed with their decision to move forward so strongly in this direction.”
This IMLS grant will be used to support the JMZ’s Access From the Ground Up project. This
three-year project, spanning October 2017 to September 2020, will improve accessibility and
inclusivity of JMZ’s twenty-seven permanent exhibits as well as allow the JMZ to grow existing
and develop new partnerships with groups who serve children with disabilities and provide
funding for professional development and training for JMZ staff and volunteers to allow them
to better serve visitors with disabilities.
As a result of the Access From the Ground Up project, the JMZ will achieve its goals to build
more and deeper relationships with families who have children with physical and
developmental disabilities and the providers who serve them. Through professional
development and training this project will better prepare staff and volunteers to serve visitors
with disabilities. By collaborating with people who have disabilities throughout the exhibit
development process, the JMZ will build a Museum and Zoo from the ground-up that will be a
model for inclusion and access—exemplifying the inclusion of people with disabilities
throughout the design process and the innovation that people who experience the world
differently can bring to that process.
The Access From the Ground Up project will span a 36 month period, from October 2017 to
September 2020.
Additional Information
A: Award Notification
B: Spending Plan per Fiscal Year
C: Grant Application
1 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
1. Project Justification
What do you propose to do?
Nearly one in five Americans—including children—live with some type of disability. The Palo Alto Junior Museum
and Zoo (JMZ) is passionately committed to the inclusion of people of all abilities and ages—particularly as we
embark on building a new facility and visitor experiences scheduled to open in November 2019. The JMZ is
requesting IMLS support in the amount of $270,124 for Access From the Ground Up, a three-year project to make the
new facility and exhibits accessible to everyone and provide science learning opportunities for children with
disabilities. Leveraging deep institutional commitment and our accessibility work to date, the JMZ will become more
accessible to visitors and more deeply engaged with the disability community. The project will be a national model
for inclusion for museums of all types and sizes.
The Access From the Ground Up project goals are to 1.) Deepen the impact of the JMZ by building relationships with
families who have children with physical and developmental disabilities and the providers who serve them;
2.) Develop science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) exhibits and Access Resources in collaboration
with provider organizations and people with disabilities; and 3.) Embed access and inclusion into all aspects of our
business practices through professional development.
Specific measurable objectives for the Access From the Ground Up project are in three areas:
1. Partnerships – This grant will enable the JMZ to grow existing and develop new partnerships with groups who
serve children with disabilities. Partnerships will support the engagement of a long-term Accessibility Advisory
Committee (AAC). The disability community is well-established in the San Francisco Bay Area and leveraging the
involvement of key organizations within it will serve as an important strategy in the fulfillment of project goals (see
list of partners and support letters in Supporting Document 1). Ten members of the AAC will meet at least three
times each year to provide project consultation. Advisors will be community leaders, advocates for access and
inclusion, and experts from local provider organizations. They will provide expertise, assist with recruitment for
evaluating new exhibits and Access Resources, and help with marketing JMZ offerings to their communities.
The primary partner for this project will be the Inclusion Collaborative of the Santa Clara County Office of
Education. Their mission to ensure that children with disabilities and special needs have equal access to full participation in inclusive
learning environments makes them an ideal partner. As a clearinghouse organization, they support local schools and
teachers, families and provider organizations. They are well-suited to participate on the AAC and to assist with
marketing and recruitment of families and provider organizations. In addition to their contributions to the AAC,
they will provide formal professional development trainings for JMZ staff and select volunteers.
Through Access From the Ground Up the JMZ will at least double our number of access partnerships. Currently, we
partner with eight organizations. They have assisted us by advising on the new facility, providing volunteers with
disabilities, and marketing Super Family Sundays. These events allow free and exclusive access to the JMZ for
families who have children with disabilities. This project will allow the JMZ to deepen and increase the number of
inclusion and access organizations with which they partner. It will also invite more direct participation from
organizational leadership, including serving on the AAC.
2. Professional Development and Training – This project will provide seven intensive training opportunities
about contemporary access issues so that we can better serve both children and adult visitors with disabilities. Four
key staff will attend The Kennedy Center Leadership Exchange in Arts and Disability Conference (LEAD).
Approximately, 95% of JMZ’s year-round staff (30) and summer camp staff (20) have participated in basic inclusion
trainings over the past two years. JMZ Educators have received two additional trainings facilitated by Special
Education teachers. In spite of this, there is a need for more in-depth training for specific staff.
Our partner, the Inclusion Collaborative, will provide access training for 50 staff and 8 volunteers. In Year 1, they
will facilitate three 1.5-hour trainings on Universal Design Learning for JMZ educators, exhibits staff, and front line
staff. In Year 2 and 3, they will provide four hands-on trainings for these staff. Topics may include, “Behavior is a
2 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
Communication,” “Supporting Kids with Autism,” “Adaptations in Action,” or “Sensory Supports.” Ongoing
training supports JMZ’s commitment to an institutional culture of inclusion, as is outlined in our Strategic Plan.
3. Accessible and Inclusive Exhibits and Visitor Experiences – The JMZ will prototype, build, and remediate
twenty-seven new permanent exhibits, a respite space (Calming Nook), and Access Resources for the new Museum
and Zoo. These initiatives will enable us to strengthen opportunities for science learning by focusing on both
physical and social access. The 2010 report, Inclusion, Disabilities and Informal Science Learning by the Center for the
Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), has greatly informed the development of this project. The
CAISE report states that inclusion in informal science education (ISE) must go “further than ensuring that people
with disabilities can enter the buildings or use the exhibits, programs, and technologies that deliver such
experiences. It also requires that people with disabilities be able to learn from such experiences and participate as a
part of, and not separate from, the larger social group and community.” (CAISE, 2010) This project will allow JMZ
staff to solicit input from a broad range of stakeholders in the disability community as staff develop, prototype and
fabricate innovative access-focused exhibits and Access Resources for the new building.
Specifically, we will accomplish the following objectives in regards to an accessible and inclusive visitor experience:
A. Create sensory-rich interpretive experiences in the Zoo for people with disabilities. Children’s zoos, focused
on human engagement with animals, are fertile ground for developing sensory-rich interpretive experiences. Seven
hands-on exhibits, one for each new feature animal, will be developed and prototyped with people who have
disabilities. These sensory-rich interactives will include tactile, sound, and smell experiences. For example, at the
meerkat habitat, visitors will explore different meerkat calls. The exhibit will interpret the sounds, their meanings,
and the social nature of meerkats.
B. Enhance accessibility for the popular and inclusive Ball Machine exhibition. In a 2015 accessibility review, this
exhibit was commended for its universal design and for supporting visitors of all developmental abilities. Its
collaborative interactives and accessible design offer both physical and social access—children of all abilities learn to
negotiate, work together, share, and play together at this exhibit. This makes it an excellent candidate for expansion
and enhancement of its physical access and sensory elements. For example, there are no sound features or front-
approach wheelchair access points. During this project, people with disabilities will evaluate the existing Ball
Machine interactives to provide ideas and inspiration for new sensory-rich elements. They will also test them.
C. Develop and prototype STEM-focused exhibits for the Experiment exhibition in collaboration with people
who have disabilities. Currently in the initial planning phase, the Experiment exhibition will contain fifteen
interactive, inquiry-based STEM exhibits that promote open-ended experimentation with an emphasis on sensory-
rich, multi-modal experiences. This project will innovate on the sensory elements of science learning interactives.
People with disabilities are essential to that process. Invariably, they experience the world differently. By seeking
their input, we will undoubtedly uncover sensory and innovative approaches that we would not have otherwise.
The Experiment exhibition will demonstrate to parents that: building a lifelong interest in STEM begins with a child’s innate
curiosity and an exploration that engages all of their senses. STEM exhibits will be chosen and developed for their open-
ended exploration and sensory-rich opportunities. For example, a sand pendulum exhibit will pair music with the
real time formation of sand patterns. This pairing will enhance the experience for children who are blind or visually
impaired. At an exhibit about electricity, children will experiment with circuits that power outputs with different
sensory pay-offs. A sculptural sound exhibit will employ vibrations that can be felt, thus increasing access for
visitors who are deaf or hearing impaired. The success of some exhibits will rely on physical access. For example, an
exhibit with balls floating on air will require design improvements for wheelchair access or a special housing to
reduce sound from the air blower for visitors with sensory sensitivities. The design contributions of people with
disabilities will ensure accessible and sensory-rich STEM exhibit experiences for all visitors.
D. Provide Access Resources to improve the visitor experience for people with disabilities. Targeted resources,
3 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
such as a Calming Nook room, a social story for visitors with autism, or zoo sensory touch boxes, will be developed
and tested with guests who have specific disabilities. We will also contract with Lighthouse for the Blind and
Visually Impaired, which has a track record of working with museums such as the Exploratorium and San Francisco
MOMA. They will develop tactile wayfinding maps, and a braille and large print labels guide (see Supporting
Document 1 for details). These resources will enhance a visitor’s experience and send a message of welcome.
In order to accomplish these ambitious project goals and objectives, the JMZ will hire a part-time Access Project
Coordinator to manage the project activities. This person will work 18 hours per week for 2.7 years. From
experience implementing previous access initiatives, a dedicated staff person will be required to keep the project on
schedule. To sustain access and inclusion beyond the project, the Access Project Coordinator will train three staff
members to be Access Leaders. The Exhibits Director, Education Director, and Customer Service Lead will assume
different responsibilities (see key staff for details). Each will dedicate 5% of her time to this role. Often museums
concerned with access issues have one passionate champion in their organization. When that person leaves access
may no longer be a priority. Assigning the championship of access to specific staff positions ensures sustained and
long-term institutional importance.
What need, problem, or challenge will your project address, and how was it identified?
People with disabilities are the country’s largest minority group, and this includes children with both physical and
cognitive disabilities. The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s recent estimates show that about one in
six children, aged 3 through 17, have one or more developmental disabilities. Reflecting these national trends, in
2015-16, there were 125,486 students, K-12, enrolled in special education in the San Francisco Bay Area. While
learning disabilities and speech or language impairments are the most common disabilities in special education,
enrollment for children with autism is one of the most significant student growth areas. This project will address the
lack of quality science learning experiences for the growing number of children with disabilities. Although ADA
requirements and best practices set accessibility standards, most museums and zoos minimally accommodate for
people with disabilities. They particularly fail to consider children with developmental disabilities like autism.
Although the CAISE report (2010) “located a number of projects, initiatives, and organizations that have sought
greater inclusion of people with disabilities in ISE. These efforts are still the exception and not the rule.”
While many organizations see inclusion as an “extra” or “add-on,” at the JMZ it is integrated in our Strategic Plan
and institutional culture. The JMZ has been working on inclusion as a priority for six years and has grown its
commitment over time. In 2010, we conducted a focus group-style “Community Conversation” with people who
are parents of, or serve, children with disabilities (see Supporting Document 2). In response, staff researched
accessibility best practices, engaged volunteers with disabilities, added an accessibility webpage, and began our
popular Super Family Sunday events. To date, over 1,500 parents and children have participated in 19 such events.
The reviewer of the JMZ 2015 ILMS/AAM Museum Assessment Program (MAP) Organizational Report said of
the program, “The staff and Friends should be commended for this initiative. It goes beyond the basic ADA
requirements and is instituting a culture that serves all of its visitors no matter what their abilities.” Super Family
Sundays are integral to the project’s success. They will grow our family network, offer opportunities for formative
and summative evaluation, and build staff commitment through first-hand experience with children with disabilities.
A $25,000 grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation kick-started the JMZ Accessibility and Inclusion
Initiative. Five access trainings were conducted for staff in 2015. Subsequently, staff identified the need for more in-
depth training for JMZ educators, exhibits and front-line staff. Also in 2015, JMZ engaged universal design and
ADA museum and zoo consultants in master planning for the new building and Zoo. They also conducted
accessibility reviews of the current facility and exhibits. The consultants recommended the need for universal
design, the development of an ADA checklist and policies, improvements to signage (such as font size, illustrations,
braille), and a multi-sensory exhibits approach. In late 2015, we conducted two “Community Conversations” (see
Supporting Document 2). Participants identified the lack of access in local museums, as well as specific needs which
significantly informed this project. Recommendations include physical and social access to exhibits, improved
access for children who are blind or visually impaired, a quiet place for visitors with autism, staff training, and
4 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
continued engagement in the design process. Since then, we have developed Access Resources, which have
reinforced the need for additional resources in the new facility. As an outcome of this work in June 2015, the JMZ
Accessibility and Inclusion Plan was developed for the new JMZ (see Supporting Document 3).
Who or what will benefit from your project?
Specifically, this project will serve these two audiences, where evaluation efforts will be focused:
1) Families of children with cognitive and physical disabilities (often children have multiple challenges)
2) JMZ staff and volunteers who serve visitors with and without disabilities
Creating an accessible experience for people with disabilities ultimately means the new JMZ will be a better
experience for all visitors. While this project focuses on access for children with disabilities, there are spillover
benefits for visitors of all ages, including elders with physical or cognitive challenges. We also acknowledge that if
we do not design experiences that accommodate children with special needs, not only do we lose the opportunity to
engage that child we also lose the visit of the entire family. Additional people who will benefit from this project are
the members and staff of our partner organizations and our professional colleagues in museums and zoos.
How will your project advance your institution’s strategic plan?
The Access From the Ground Up project originates directly from the JMZ’s Accessibility and Inclusion Plan. Because
of its importance, it has been integrated into the Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022 (to be approved in January 2017). The
plan outlines actionable and measurable outcomes including the formation of the AAC, ongoing staff training, and
prototyping of exhibits and Access Resources in collaboration with people who have disabilities (see Strategic Plan
Summary and Supporting Document 3 for details).
How will your project address the goals of the Museums for America program and the Learning Experiences project category?
This project directly addresses the Museum For America program and Learning Experiences project goals. It
strengthens the JMZ’s institutional capacity to provide meaningful learning experiences for visitors of all abilities by
1) deepening existing partnerships with groups supporting children with disabilities; 2) conducting ongoing training of
staff and volunteers on the needs of children and adults with disabilities; and 3) providing multi-sensory, accessible
exhibit components, interpretive tools, and respite areas for the public.
The Access From the Ground Up project specifically addresses IMLS’s 2017 priorities of collaboration with, and
learning from, other community-based organizations through JMZ partnerships with organizations that support
children with disabilities. The JMZ will provide service for diverse and underserved audiences in the community,
including those with disabilities. Formative and summative evaluation is a priority for IMLS and for the JMZ.
Dissemination of the evaluations will influence professional practices in the museum and zoo field. By investing in
professional development of staff and volunteers at all levels, this project builds on existing capacity and allows
JMZ team members to better serve visitors of all abilities and attract new families to the facility well into the future.
2. Project Work Plan
What specific activities, including evaluation and performance measurements, will you carry out?
When and in what sequence will your activities occur?
The timeline for the Access From the Ground Up project covers a 36-month period, from October 2017 to September
2020. To fulfill our goals to make our new facility and exhibits accessible to everyone and provide STEM learning
opportunities for children with disabilities, we will undertake the following activities:
Oct. – Nov. 2017 - An Access Project Coordinator will be hired to oversee the project activities (see Resumes for
job description). They will begin by engaging existing and new partners and by recruiting new families via our
partners and Super Family Sunday network (350+ families). Prior to prototyping, feedback on initial exhibit
concepts will be gathered during three focus groups (30 participants) facilitated by the Access Project Coordinator.
Surveys conducted at Super Family Sunday events will serve as feedback on exhibit concepts. The JMZ will consult
with the AAC and other experts on architectural and master planning prior to start of this project.
5 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
Dec. 2017 – May 2018 - The Exhibits team will work with these stakeholders to test concept and technical
prototypes of Zoo sensory interpretive exhibits, the Ball Machine, and Experiment exhibit interactives in the
Prototyping Lab at the temporary JMZ. During building construction, the JMZ will operate off-site for drop-in
visitors at a local community center. Prototyping sessions will occur during five Super Family Sunday events, during
three AAC meetings, and during three additional prototyping sessions—reaching at least 400 stakeholders in all.
The Access Project Coordinator will recruit participants, facilitate the prototyping sessions, and create reports.
June 2018 – Jan. 2019 – Testing of more finished, technical prototypes will continue until Nov. 2018. As exhibit
design fabrication drawings are completed, the Access Project Coordinator will support access elements by
providing expertise and sourcing specific exhibit parts and vendors. Four staff (Education Director, JMZ Director,
Exhibits Director, Access Project Coordinator) will attend The Kennedy Center LEAD Conference in Aug. 2018.
Feb. 2019 – Nov. 2019 - As exhibits are built and installed, fabricators need additional details and parts sourcing.
The Access Project Coordinator will ensure that access elements are not compromised during this phase. In July
2019, the off-site temporary JMZ will close. Exhibit installation will begin in the new facility. The website will be
redesigned by Oct. 2019. The Access Project Coordinator will provide content for accessibility webpages and
expertise on ADA compliance and best practices. In Feb. 2019, the Access Project Coordinator will begin
developing and testing Access Resources, developing accessibility policies and an ADA checklist to prepare for the
opening in Nov. 2019. Marketing through the JMZ’s network of partners and families will begin in Aug. 2019.
Dec. 2019 – Sept. 2020 - Development of Access Resources and marketing will continue after the new JMZ opens.
Summative evaluation will begin in Dec. and last through May 2020 and will inform the subsequent remediation to
Access Resources and exhibit elements to be completed by the end of the project. The Access Project Coordinator,
whose position will conclude in May 2020, will train three succeeding Access Leaders beginning in Jan. 2020.
Dissemination of key findings from Summative Evaluation will begin in May 2020.
Throughout the course of the project, nine AAC meetings will be convened, fourteen Super Family Sundays will be
held, three LEAD conferences will be attended, and seven staff trainings will occur. The Access Project
Coordinator will manage interim IMLS reports, and dissemination of the project’s findings will occur periodically.
What are the risks to the project and are they accounted for in the work plan?
Prototyping of exhibits and Access Resources are activities associated with unknown outcomes, and this can be
challenging. Formative evaluation informs the exhibit designs, therefore budgeting for exhibit access features is
difficult. However, these unknown design outcomes are what drive the kind of innovation we seek. Being a small
and nimble staff, we are willing to try new approaches and respond to feedback from stakeholders. The reviewer
who conducted the JMZ 2014 MAP Community Engagement Report wrote, “Embrace ‘test and try’ as an integral
part of the organizational culture. It was great to experience such open-minded thinking between the Friends Board,
the City, and the staff. You have tested and tried so many things with limited resources and it is very much what
makes the museum special and flexible to adapt to change. Adopt this as part of your values and organizational
culture and you will transition to your new museum with the spirit of what has made you successful intact.”
Who will plan, implement, and manage your project?
Key JMZ staff who will be involved in this project include the following:
Project Director: Tina Keegan, Exhibits Director, JMZ has been designing exhibits for 18 years at science and
children’s museums with previous experience designing and prototyping exhibits with people with disabilities.
Since 2010 she has led the JMZ Accessibility Initiative. In 2015, she participated in the California Association
for Museums’ Accessibility Collaborative. As Project Director, she will provide direction and oversight. She will
manage the Exhibits team, exhibit development process, and supervise the Access Project Coordinator. As an
Access Leader, she will be responsible for exhibits, Access Resources, AAC, and Super Family Sundays.
Access Project Coordinator – To be hired. This part-time position will manage the project activities, budget, and
schedule with oversight from the Project Director. This position will be responsible for the development and
6 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
implementation of Access Resources and policies. The Coordinator will provide guidance and counsel on ADA
and best practices for accessibility throughout the project.
John Aikin, Executive Director, JMZ, brings 31 years of experience in museums and zoos. His backgrounds are
in biological science, exhibit design, and institutional management. At the San Francisco Zoo, he managed
projects that cost from a few thousand to tens of millions of dollars. He has extensive experience in the
administration of grants and will ensure that the project is completed on time and within budget.
Alexandra Hamilton, Education Director, JMZ, has over 29 years of experience in education and public
museum programs. Committed to advancing JMZ’s education programs, she will oversee the trainings and
ensure that JMZ educators integrate their learning into their practice, and participate in exhibition development.
As an Access Leader, she will be responsible for AAC, ongoing training, and accessible educational programs.
Ines Thiessen, Customer Service Lead, JMZ, has been the office manager and led JMZ customer service for 18
years. As an Access Leader she will be responsible for customer service regarding accessibility requests,
grievances, ADA weekly checklist, and use of Access Resources.
Wendy Meluch, Principal, Visitor Studies Services, will be the project’s summative evaluation consultant. Since
1997, Meluch has performed evaluations for many museums, including the Exploratorium and San Francisco
Zoo. She facilitated the three community conversations at the JMZ that informed these project activities.
What financial, personnel, and other resources will you need to carry out the activities?
This project funds the Access Project Coordinator position, accessible exhibit elements and Access Resources,
professional development, and support for hourly staff to attend trainings. The participation of partners, AAC
members, and families who have children with disabilities is also a critical resource. Past experiences with these
stakeholders indicate they are eager to be involved and are dedicated to the project’s success.
How will you track your progress toward achieving your intended results?
The Access Project Coordinator, in collaboration with the Exhibits team, will track progress by managing the
schedule and budget, and by creating reports with action items from AAC meetings, formative evaluations, exhibit
meetings and prototyping sessions. The Exhibits Director and Executive Director will oversee the project ensuring
it achieves its goals. Summative evaluation (detailed below and in Supporting Document 4) will measure whether
the project has achieved its goals, and remediation will make improvements based on evaluation findings.
How and with whom will you share your project’s results?
Access from the Ground Up will be a model project for small- to mid-sized cultural institutions (see letter from Elaine
Heumann Gurian in Supporting Document 5). The CAISE report (2010) outlines “the lack of systemic and
accepted professional standards for approaching the inclusion of all individuals—especially those with disabilities—
presents the greatest challenge for making inclusion a routine and commonplace practice in the field” of informal
science education. Through this project work, JMZ staff will provide resources for other museum and zoo
professionals by hosting networking events (such as the Bay Area Arts Access Collective), presenting at professional
conferences (such as ASTC, ACM, AZA, and LEAD), posting the project on ExhibitFiles, and writing articles
about the project. Evaluation results will be shared by posting it on the JMZ website and informalscience.org.
3. Project Results
The first relevant Performance Goal for the project is Learning: develop and provide inclusive and accessible learning
opportunities. The relevant Performance Measure Statements for families who have children with disabilities include:
1) My understanding has increased as a result of this program/training; 2) My interest in this subject has increased as a result of this
program/training.
The second relevant Performance Goal for the project is Train and develop museum and library professionals. The relevant
Performance Measure Statements for staff trained in the project include: 1) My understanding has increased as a result of
this program/training; 2) My interest in this subject has increased as a result of this program/training; and 3) I am confident I can
apply what I learned in this program/training.
These performance goals will be incorporated into a summative evaluation study by Visitor Studies Services. A
7 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
multi-modal research design will collect qualitative and quantitative data from various audience members and other
stakeholders to address our research questions (see Supporting Document 4 for details). Online surveys will assess
the effectiveness of partnerships and outreach. In-depth interviews with staff and volunteers will examine the
impact of professional development and staff training. Targeted observations, exit interviews, and surveys will
gather data and input from visiting families with and without special needs to provide insights on the effect of
Access Resources and accessible and inclusive STEM exhibits for people with disabilities.
Describe your project’s intended results that will address the need, problem, or challenge you have identified.
Through the Access From the Ground Up project, the JMZ will build deeper relationships with families who have
children with disabilities and the organizations that serve them. As a result we will provide crucial access to STEM
learning experiences for children with disabilities. By involving people who have disabilities throughout the
development process, the JMZ will build a Museum and Zoo from the ground-up that will be a model for inclusion
and access to other museums and zoos. This is essential to affecting change in our field. Professional development
and in-depth training will better prepare staff and volunteers to serve families who have children with disabilities,
thus addressing a problem identified by staff and parents. Access and inclusion will be integrated into all aspects of
JMZ business practices and address the challenge of ensuring a sustainable future of access at the JMZ.
How will the knowledge, skills, behaviors, and/or attitudes of the intended audience change as a result of your project?
Families of children with cognitive and physical disabilities will have increased access to science learning
experiences, thereby increasing their knowledge about STEM subjects and creating a positive feeling and long-term
capabilities for science learning. For JMZ staff and volunteers, their knowledge and skills to serve families who have
children with disabilities will greatly improve. Their behaviors and attitudes towards people with disabilities will
change with increased empathy and desire to support these families. As a result, our practices will be transformed so
that inclusion of people with disabilities becomes an engrained value of the new JMZ and is always considered in
decisions affecting policies, planning and business practices.
What tangible products will result from your project?
The following products will result from the Access from the Ground Up project:
1.Deeper Relationships and Partnerships: The JMZ will have a robust network of families and organizations, to
aid in marketing, to advise on future projects and to participate in STEM programming.
2.Accessible Exhibits and Visitor Experience Access Resources: This project will result in a Museum and Zoo
built from the ground up with accessible and inclusive experiences. This includes twenty-seven new permanent
Museum and Zoo exhibits that will be universally designed with accessible elements, a respite space (Calming
Nook) for visitors with sensory issues, and Access Resources to support visitors with disabilities.
3.Embedded Access in Business Practices and Trained Staff: Through professional development and staff
and volunteer training, this project will transform JMZ practices so that inclusion of people with disabilities is
always considered. Tangible products will include access policies, an ADA weekly checklist, a redesigned
accessible website, and a practice in place for ongoing staff training and professional development.
4.Summative Evaluation Report: The Summative evaluation report will document findings, inform remediation
and future strategies, and be disseminated to the informal science learning field.
How will you sustain the benefit(s) of your project?
The JMZ Strategic Plan directs the project objectives be sustained over the long-term. The AAC will continue as the
JMZ develops targeted accessible exhibits and projects in the future. The Access Project Coordinator will work with
three designated staff in different departments to assume the responsibilities of Access Leaders. The Exhibits
Director, Education Director, and Customer Service Lead will have different access roles and will support each
other as work continues. This approach will build a solid foundation for the future of accessibility at the JMZ.
Creating an accessible and inclusive experience for people with disabilities ultimately means the new JMZ will be a
better experience for all visitors. As a Museum and Zoo built from the ground up for accessibility, it will be a role
model for other institutions—exemplifying the inclusion of people with disabilities throughout the design process
and the innovation that people who experience the world differently can bring to that process.
Fiscal Year Spending Plan for the IMLS Grant Funds for Access From the Ground Up project
Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo
IMLS Activity FY 2017‐18 FY 2018‐19 FY 2019‐20 FY 2020‐21 TOTAL
Access Project Coordinator 24,721$ 32,962$ 35,022$ 8,240$ 100,945$
LEAD conference ‐$ $ 6,252 3,126$ 3,126$ 12,504$
Stipends for Focus Groups 1,500$ $‐ ‐$ ‐$ 1,500$
Accessibility Prototypes 2,000$ $ 5,813 ‐$ ‐$ 7,813$
Exhibit Fabrication ‐$ $‐ 86,625$ ‐$ 86,625$
Staff Training ‐ Hourly staff pay 1,743$ $ 1,743 2,730$ ‐$ 6,216$
Staff Training ‐ Contractor 1,000$ $ 1,000 1,500$ ‐$ 3,500$
Access Resources ‐ Lighthouse Contract ‐$ $‐ 9,422$ ‐$ 9,422$
Access Resources‐ In‐house ‐$ $‐ 1,500$ ‐$ 1,500$
Marketing ‐$ $‐ 2,000$ ‐$ 2,000$
Summative Evaluation ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 38,100$ 38,100$
SUBTOTAL 30,964$ 47,770$ 141,925$ 49,466$ 270,124$
Official Award Notification for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements
Recipient Project Director :
250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301-2531
Recipient Authorizing Official :
John Aikin
City of Palo AltoOrg. Unit: Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo
Tina Keegan
Recipient Name :
Recipient Unique Entity Identifier : 050520782
TIN No : 946000389
Recipient Information
Basic Award Information
Museums for America
CFDA Name : CFDA Number: 45.301
Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) :
MA-10-17-0327-17
Federal Award Date : August 10, 2017
October 01, 2017Period of Performance Start Date :
September 30, 2020
Amount of Federal Funds Obligated by this Action :08/10/2017 $270,124.00 Original Award
$ 270,124.00
Total Amount of Federal
Funds Obligated :
Total Approved Cost
Sharing or Matching :$ 332,101.00
Indirect Cost Rate :
Period of Performance End Date :
0.00
Federal Award Performance Goals :
Reporting Schedule :Interim Financial Dec 30 2018Interim Narrative Dec 30 2018Interim Financial Dec 30 2019Interim Narrative Dec 30 2019Final Financial Dec 29 2020Final Narrative Dec 29 2020
Page 1
Grantee is to report on performance as presented in their final approved grant application.
Recipient Address :
Official Award Notification for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements
1. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) provides this grant support pursuant to 20 USC §9101 et seq.
2. The award is made in support of the purposes set forth in the original application or, if noted in the specialterms and conditions of the award, in a revised plan of work that has been approved by IMLS program staff.
3. The administration of this grant and the expenditure of grant funds are subject to any special terms andconditions of this award, which may be attached as additional pages of the award notification, and the General Terms and Conditions for IMLS Discretionary Awards. The latter document incorporates by reference the uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for Federal awards promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget.
4. The first request for payment will indicate the grantee’s acceptance of the award.
Signature
Name and Title
Christopher J. Reich
Chief Administrator, Office of Museum Services
59170301P0.2017.MP170.65010.410
IMLS Contacts
Questions related to the programmatic aspects of the grant should be addressed to :
Program Staff Contact : Program Staff Contact Phone : Program Staff Contact EMail :
Steve Shwartzman 202-653-4641 sshwartzman@imls.gov
Questions related to the financial aspects of the grant should be sent to the financial specialist for your award,
whose name and contact information may be found at : http://www.imls.gov/recipients/administration.aspx
Accounting Code
IMLS Authorized Official
Page 2
Basic Award Information
Activity Name Duration (Days)Start Date Finish Date
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov
2017 2018
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov
ARB FORMAL REVIEW PROCESS:105 4/27/17 9/21/17 105
Formal ARB Review #1 70 4/27/17 8/3/17
70
Formal ARB Submittal #1 0 4/27/17 4/27/17 4/27/17
DRC Review Meeting 0 5/17/17 5/17/17 5/17/17
City Review Process #1 70 4/28/17 8/3/17 70 8/3/17
Formal ARB Meeting #1 0 8/3/17 8/3/17 8/3/17
Formal ARB Review #2 17 8/30/17 9/21/17
17
Formal ARB Submittal #2 (TBD)0 8/30/17 8/30/17 8/30/17
City Review Process #2 (TBD)16 8/30/17 9/20/17 16 9/20/17
Formal ARB Meeting #2 (TBD)0 9/21/17 9/21/17 9/21/17
HRB REVIEW PROCESS:0 6/22/17 6/22/17 0
HRB Meeting #1 0 6/22/17 6/22/17 6/22/17
PRC REVIEW PROCESS:25 8/22/17 9/26/17 25
PRC Update (by John Aikin)0 8/22/17 8/22/17 8/22/17
PRC Approval of PIO 0 9/26/17 9/26/17 9/26/17
CEQA PROCESS:91 5/16/17 9/19/17 91
Completion of Historical Evaluation 10 5/16/17 5/29/17 10 5/29/17
Publish Final Initial Study 0 7/14/17 7/14/17 7/14/17
Public Comment Period 20 8/9/17 9/5/17 20 9/5/17
Community Meeting 0 8/10/17 8/10/17 8/10/17
Public Comment Period Closes 0 9/5/17 9/5/17 9/5/17
Planning Director Review: MND 10 9/6/17 9/19/17 10 9/19/17
PLANNING DIRECTOR & CITY COUNCIL REVIEW 47 9/22/17 11/27/17 47
Planning Director Approval (ARB & MND)10 9/22/17 10/5/17 10 10/5/17
City Council Presentation and Approval (TBD)40 10/3/17 11/27/17 40 11/27/17
DESIGN, DOCUMENTATION AND PERMIT PHASE 228 8/3/17 6/18/18 228
Friends Give Notice to Proceed 10 8/3/17 8/16/17 10 8/16/17
Design Development 57 8/17/17 11/3/17 57 11/3/17
Cost Estimate Phase 15 11/6/17 11/24/17 15 11/24/17
Value Engineering & Budget Alignment Process 15 11/20/17 12/8/17 15 12/8/17
Construction Documentation 80 12/11/17 3/30/18 80 3/30/18
Building Department Application and Submittal 0 2/26/18 2/26/18 2/26/18
Building Department Review (Duration to be Confirmed)40 2/27/18 4/23/18 40 4/23/18
Building Department Re-Submittal 40 4/24/18 6/18/18 40 6/18/18
Building Permit 0 6/18/18 6/18/18 6/18/18
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION PHASE 506 6/18/18 5/26/20
Start of Construction 0 6/18/18 6/18/18 6/18/18
Construction Phase (Approximately 16 Months)380 6/19/18 12/2/19 380
JMZ Staff Move-in & Commissioning (Approximately 6
Months)
126 12/3/19 5/26/20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO PROJECT SCHEDULE OCTOBER 12, 2017
Activity Name Duration (Days)Start Date Finish Date
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
2018 2019 2020
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
ARB FORMAL REVIEW PROCESS:105 4/27/17 9/21/17
Formal ARB Review #1 70 4/27/17 8/3/17
Formal ARB Submittal #1 0 4/27/17 4/27/17
DRC Review Meeting 0 5/17/17 5/17/17
City Review Process #1 70 4/28/17 8/3/17
Formal ARB Meeting #1 0 8/3/17 8/3/17
Formal ARB Review #2 17 8/30/17 9/21/17
Formal ARB Submittal #2 (TBD)0 8/30/17 8/30/17
City Review Process #2 (TBD)16 8/30/17 9/20/17
Formal ARB Meeting #2 (TBD)0 9/21/17 9/21/17
HRB REVIEW PROCESS:0 6/22/17 6/22/17
HRB Meeting #1 0 6/22/17 6/22/17
PRC REVIEW PROCESS:25 8/22/17 9/26/17
PRC Update (by John Aikin)0 8/22/17 8/22/17
PRC Approval of PIO 0 9/26/17 9/26/17
CEQA PROCESS:91 5/16/17 9/19/17
Completion of Historical Evaluation 10 5/16/17 5/29/17
Publish Final Initial Study 0 7/14/17 7/14/17
Public Comment Period 20 8/9/17 9/5/17
Community Meeting 0 8/10/17 8/10/17
Public Comment Period Closes 0 9/5/17 9/5/17
Planning Director Review: MND 10 9/6/17 9/19/17
PLANNING DIRECTOR & CITY COUNCIL REVIEW 47 9/22/17 11/27/17
Planning Director Approval (ARB & MND)10 9/22/17 10/5/17
City Council Presentation and Approval (TBD)40 10/3/17 11/27/17
DESIGN, DOCUMENTATION AND PERMIT PHASE 228 8/3/17 6/18/18
Friends Give Notice to Proceed 10 8/3/17 8/16/17
Design Development 57 8/17/17 11/3/17
Cost Estimate Phase 15 11/6/17 11/24/17
Value Engineering & Budget Alignment Process 15 11/20/17 12/8/17
Construction Documentation 80 12/11/17 3/30/18
Building Department Application and Submittal 0 2/26/18 2/26/18
Building Department Review (Duration to be Confirmed)40 2/27/18 4/23/18
Building Department Re-Submittal 40 4/24/18 6/18/18
Building Permit 0 6/18/18 6/18/18
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION PHASE 506 6/18/18 5/26/20 506
Start of Construction 0 6/18/18 6/18/18
Construction Phase (Approximately 16 Months)380 6/19/18 12/2/19 12/2/19
JMZ Staff Move-in & Commissioning (Approximately 6
Months)
126 12/3/19 5/26/20 126 5/26/20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO PROJECT SCHEDULE OCTOBER 12, 2017
Attachment I
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Council Members. These plans are available to the
public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th
floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
2. Search for “1451 Middlefield Road” and open record 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”
5. Open the attachment named “November Plan Set for Council”.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8474)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/4/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Stanford GUP 2018: DEIR Comment Letter
Title: Review and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding City Comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford General Use Permit
(GUP) Application to Santa Clara County
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council review the draft comment letter in Attachment A and provide
input regarding City comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report analyzing Stanford
University’s 2018 General Use Permit by Santa Clara County.
Background
In November 2016, Stanford submitted an application to Santa Clara County (County)
requesting an update of its General Use Permit (GUP), as well as minor revisions to the Stanford
Community Plan and changes to some of the on-campus zoning regulations. The Stanford GUP
application sets forth a conceptual development plan in County jurisdiction through a 2035
planning horizon. The project requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
and the City submitted a letter in response to the Notice of Preparation earlier this year.
(Attachment B) Santa Clara County as the lead agency released a Draft EIR
(www.scc.org/sites/dpd/Programs/Stanford/Pages/GUP2018_aspx) for a 60-day public review
period on October 6, 2017. The comment period was scheduled to end December 4, 2017,
although the City requested an extension to submit a final comment letter in order to provide
adequate time, not only for the City but community members.
A cross-departmental group of City staff, together with City consultants retained to conduct a
technical review of the Draft EIR, contributed to the preparation of the draft comment letter in
Attachment A. The letter includes a cover letter highlighting some major issues with the GUP
application and the EIR, as well as technical comments developed by City consultants. The
City of Palo Alto Page 2
technical comments are arranged by topic and include a separate technical review of the
transportation analysis. In addition to raising technical comments, which the City expects the
County to respond to and address in the Final EIR, the letter identifies broader community
concerns with respect to a number of issues. Staff expects these concerns to be addressed by
the County either through negotiation among the various parties involved and/or through
conditions of approval.
The County has hosted several meetings to receive community input on the project and DEIR.
The County has made presentations to the City’s Planning and Transportation Commission
(PTC) and City Council. The PTC last discussed and commented on the DEIR on November 8th.
Most of those comments have been incorporated in some form in the attached letter. One
comment that has not been incorporated in the letter thus far relates to an observation that
Stanford appears to be purchasing residential property in the College Terrace neighborhood. A
follow-up comment expressed concern regarding the loss of property tax not only to the school
district, but also to the City when Stanford-owned properties are used to house faculty or
students, which under certain circumstances, can be exempt from paying property tax. Council
can advise staff if the Council desires this discussion point to be included in the comment letter.
Timeline
The City Council is being requested to review the attached letter and provide direction to staff
for transmittal of a final letter to Santa Clara County. The County expects to release a Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for review by the City and public in the spring of 2018.
They expect that the Board of Supervisors will be reviewing the FEIR and the project application
during the summer of 2018.
Environmental Review
Submittal of comments on a Draft EIR is not a project under CEQA,
Under Section 15381 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21069 of the CEQA Statute, the City of
Palo Alto is a ”responsible agency”, which is a public agency, other than the lead agency (Santa
Clara County), responsible for carrying out or approving components of the project. Items
requiring City approval include any physical improvements within the City limits - including
mitigation measures – as well as any agreements or contracts between the City and the
University and/or County related to implementation of the Stanford 2018 GUP.
Attachments:
A: Stanford 2018 GUP Draft EIR Comments (DOCX)
B: Stanford GUP NOP Comment Letter March 2017 (PDF)
Page 1 of 3
November 20, 2017 DRAFT for City Council Review
CITY LETTERHEAD
DATE
Kirk Girard, Director
Department of Planning and Development
Santa Clara County
c/o David Rader & Kavitha Kumar
Santa Clara County Planning Office
70 W. Hedding Street
7th Floor, East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
RE: Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Girard & Staff,
The City of Palo Alto appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing Stanford University’s proposal to add 2.275M
square feet of academic and academic support (non‐residential) space and 3,150 dwelling
units or beds, and 40,000 square feet of additional building space to their campus between
2018 and 2035. We also want to thank you and other County representatives for attending
meetings of our City Council our Planning & Transportation Commission over the last
couple of months and for convening related community meetings in Palo Alto.
The City of Palo Alto has both technical comments on the Draft EIR and concerns
about the University’s proposal. Both are outlined in the attached list of comments, and we
would appreciate a detailed and substantive response to all of these points. A number of the
City’s comments for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) have not been satisfactorily addressed in
the Draft EIR and remain at issue, and some of the City’s concerns will require the County to
modify or attach meaningful conditions of approval to the ultimate approval action.
The issues of primary concern to the City are briefly highlighted below:
A. Fire Services. As of the date of this letter, Stanford University is not under a going
forward contract with the City of Palo Alto for fire protection and suppression, or
emergency medical services (EMS). Stanford cancelled their contract with the City
as of October 2015 and both parties have been extending the prior contract for
short periods of time (6 to 12 months) while attempting to negotiate a
successor agreement.
Page 2 of 3
November 20, 2017 DRAFT for City Council Review
Stanford has not identified a viable or sustainable fire protection and suppression
and EMS model or provider other than the City of Palo Alto. The University does
not have access to the State of California Master Mutual Aid Agreement for fire
protection and suppression – access is only available via public fire departments
who are participants in the agreement – and would have access to EMS ambulance
transportation services only through Santa Clara County Ambulance unless a new
contract can be executed in short order (which the City is interested in doing).
B. Open Space Protections. While we understand the University is not currently
proposing development outside the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB), we are
concerned that current open space protections (in the form of the requirement for
a super‐majority vote to amend the AGB) will expire in 2025 and are not proposed
for extension or replacement. This is not acceptable to the City of Palo Alto and
undermines both the validity of the Draft EIR and the community’s trust that
the University and the County will be appropriately protective of our collective
open space resources. Please extend existing open space protections or be
explicit where growth and development outside the AGB may be proposed so
that it can be appropriately analyzed in the EIR.
C. Housing. The region’s housing crisis (and affordability crisis) will be exacerbated by
any project that proposes to add more jobs and more housing demand than
housing. We urge the County and University to reconsider parameters of the
current proposal and either reduce housing demand or increase affordable housing
proposed within and proximate to the campus.
Also we call upon the County to commit to a partnership with the City regarding
our Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNAs) for the 2023‐2030 Housing
Element cycle. The County and the City were successful in seeking an adjustment
whereby the City’s allocation was decreased and the County’s allocation was
increased by 645 units in the 2007‐2014 cycle based on a recognition that the
University was constructing housing within the City’s Sphere of Influence. We ask
for a commitment to this kind of adjustment again, and ‐‐ if an adjustment is not
acceptable to the regional council of governments – we would ask for a
commitment that the County would seek to form a “subregional entity” with Palo
Alto and one or more other cities for purposes of redistributing the RHNA.
D. Upstream Detention & Flooding. The Biological Resources section (but not the
Hydrology section) of the Draft EIR identifies capacity and flood issues in San
Francisquito Creek (page 5.3‐46) and references one or more on‐ and off‐site
detention basins being considered by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Page 3 of 3
November 20, 2017 DRAFT for City Council Review
Authority. The City requests a full review of existing flood issues in both
watersheds in which the project is located, as well as documentation of the
change(s) in impervious surfaces and runoff volumes. This review/documentation
should lead to an assessment of potential off‐site flooding impacts for the baseline,
project and cumulative scenarios taking into consideration the likely effects of
climate change.
E. Traffic. Stanford’s “no net new trips” goal is in fact a goal not to increase commute
trips in the peak direction by automobiles during one hour per day at defined
cordon locations around the campus. Once again, the University is also suggesting
it may “meet” this goal by using credits from trip reductions achieved outside the
cordon.
The City does not believe this approach is sustainable for the next 20 years and
urges the County to require explicit and effective mitigation such that the
University is required to make contributions to capital improvements at City
intersections and grade separations, and to specify in advance the specific trip‐
reduction measures and transit capacity enhancements they will implement as
mitigation between 2018 and 2035. Without additional detail regarding impacts
from all auto trips at the cordon (i.e. not just peak direction trips, and not assuming
trip credits), and without specific mitigation measures, the City cannot determine
whether the University is effectively addressing its contribution to cumulative
traffic volumes and congestion in our City.
We would be happy to meet with you, Supervisory Simitian, and representatives of
the University if such a meeting would help resolve any of these issues and concerns. If there
are any questions regarding the specific EIR comments attached, please contact our Planning
Director, Hillary Gitelman at Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
Mayor Greg Scharff
Cc Palo Alto City Council City
Manager James Keene
City Attorney Molly Stump
Planning & Transportation Commission Members
Hillary Gitelman/Meg Monroe/File
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 1
Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit
Draft EIR Comments
Introduction to Environmental Analysis and EIR Assumptions
1. 2018 Baseline Assumptions. The additional development comprising the 2018 Baseline
scenario as described on DEIR pages 5‐6 to 5‐7 is not clearly identified or quantified, and it
is not clear whether the 2018 Baseline includes development under construction in
adjacent jurisdictions. The DEIR indicates that the 2018 Baseline Includes all remaining
academic and support development and housing authorized under 2000 General Use
Permit (GUP) that will be built and occupied at time the County considers approval of
2018 GUP. However, this remaining development is not quantified, and there appears to
be conflicting information where quantification is provided. Table 5.15‐12 (page 5.15‐65)
identify 769,354 square feet of academic space and 416 beds under the 2000 GUP that
will be constructed by Fall 2018. As part of the 2018 Baseline description in each DEIR
topical section, the DEIR states that “nearly all remaining academic and academic support
development and remaining housing authorized under the 2000 General Use Permit will
be built and occupied at the time of approval of the proposed 2018 General Use Permit,”
except for the planned Escondido Village (EV) Graduate Residences, which are currently
under construction, but not expected to be occupied until 2020. But the DEIR also
indicates on page 3‐19 that Stanford may not have received project‐specific approval for
construction of all development authorized under the 2000 GUP when the County
considers the proposed 2018 GUP. As a result, it is not clear what development is included
in the 2018 Baseline and whether all pending and proposed Stanford development is
adequately addressed in the DEIR.
The City asks that the Final EIR provide a table and map that clearly identifies the size,
location and construction timing/status of projects that are assumed for the Baseline 2018
scenario. The EIR should also identify any other projects in adjacent jurisdictions that are
included in the 2018 Baseline and include only those that are under construction or that
have received a building permit.
2. Cumulative Impacts. The Final EIR should identify cumulative projects and whether the
cumulative scenario is based on specific projects or growth projections pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15130(b). The basis for the cumulative scenario as described on page 5‐
8 is not clearly defined, and the reader is unable to discern whether all cumulative
development has been addressed in the cumulative analyses. The Transportation and
Traffic section has the best summary of the scenarios evaluated in the DEIR (page 5.15‐61)
and indicates that the cumulative scenario includes completion of development
authorized under the 2000 General Use Permit, including the EV Graduate Residences,
background growth and reasonably foreseeable projects. Yet neither background growth
nor reasonably foreseeable projects are clearly identified.
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 2
The City requests that the DEIR provide a clear identification of cumulative projects and/or
growth in section 5.0 and that the cumulative scenario include and clearly identify:
a. Projected growth in Palo Alto and surrounding communities, including growth
considered in Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan update EIR; and
b. All off‐campus approved or planned cumulative development on other Stanford
University owned lands, including off‐site housing, non‐residential uses in East
Bayshore area, Stanford Research Park, University Medical Center, transit center
site, projects outside the Academic Growth Boundary, and Stanford Golf Course.
Project Description
3. Potential Future Changes in Land Uses or Distribution. The DEIR indicates that additional
housing beyond the proposed limit of 3,150 units and/or changes in distribution of
academic, academic support, and housing may be requested by Stanford as a condition of
the permit, subject to additional environmental review and County approval (pages 1‐4
and 3‐20). As indicated in the City’s letter on the Notice of Preparation (NOP), the City is
concerned that the land use intensity identified by development district not change or
increase unless clear performance standards are identified and included as mitigation
measures or conditions of approval of the project. The Final EIR should identify such
performance standards. Since for example, the Historic Preservation Alternative
emphasizes that new development will be pushed to the peripheral areas around the
central campus with potential resulting impacts upon views and tree loss, the flexibility to
transfer uses within development areas under the 2018 GUP raises similar concerns. The
City requests that the Final EIR provide an assessment of the range and magnitude of
potential future changes in the distribution of land uses and potential related impacts,
especially related to visual considerations, tree removal, parking and traffic.
4. Location of Future Development. Future development locations in the DRAPER district
along El Camino Real between the Arboretum and the new graduate housing are not
defined. Without better definition, some environmental impacts of the proposed 200,000
square feet of academic and academic support development on adjacent Palo Alto
neighborhoods cannot be assessed, such as impacts on views and the visual character of
the area, loss of useable open space, tree removal, traffic and circulation associated with
parking changes.
Visual and Scenic Resources
5. Impacts to Visual Character of Palo Alto. As indicated in Palo Alto’s comments on the NOP,
the City is concerned regarding the lack of information on the location/scale of proposed
development and impacts to the visual character of areas adjacent to the City. While the
DEIR generally references Stanford design guidelines and policies, there is no inclusion or
summary of these standards.
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 3
a. The City asks that Final EIR identify a process for City review/consultation on
projects adjacent to the City, including provision of project photo simulations, and
to identify specific performance standards to ensure that the visual character of
the City is not adversely affected, such as: 1) standards for screening development
and/or maintaining vegetated buffer along roads; and 2) specific reference to
County or Stanford Design Guidelines that would address building siting, height,
scale, architectural features, landscaping, screening, etc.
b. To maintain the aesthetic character along El Camino Real, the City requests that
the County include a mitigation that prohibits re‐distribution of housing or
academic square footage to the Arboretum Development District or lands
designated “Campus Open Space”.
6. Views Along El Camino Real. Of particular concern are impacts to views of the campus
along El Camino Real (State Route 82), which provides a view of open space and is a
significant value to Palo Alto as a vegetated buffer between the City and the higher density
development of the central campus. The proposed development of 200,000 square feet of
academic and/or academic support space in the DRAPER development area is not
specified, and current required setbacks do not provide adequate buffers. Alteration
and/or removal of this open space would substantially alter the visual character of the
surrounding area and should be considered a significant impact. Mitigation should be
provided to insure the preservation and continuation of this open view through the 2018
GUP.
7. Lighting Impacts. The City requests that Mitigation Measure 5.1‐4 be modified to include
specific performance standards to ensure that future Stanford development results in no
offsite illumination into adjacent neighborhoods within Palo Alto.
Air Quality
8. Construction Emissions. The DEIR indicates that Stanford agrees to use final California Air
Resources board Tier 4 standards for all construction equipment, chainsaws and pavers
throughout the life of the 2018 GUP. The City asks whether it is feasible/reasonable to
assume that the campus construction contractors will be able to acquire all Tier 4 Final
equipment (except for chainsaws and pavers), and if not the emissions modeling and
analysis should be revised. Given the amount of development anticipated, construction
activities could be ongoing throughout the period from 2018 to 2035.
Cultural Resources
9. Review of Landscape Elements as Potential Historic Resources. Full historic protection of
the Oval, Palm Drive and the Main Gate were not addressed in the DEIR. The EIR should
evaluate these areas to determine whether they are historic resources and/or should be
considered as part of the Main Quadrangle historic block. If found to be a historical
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 4
resource pursuant to CEQA, the area(s) should be included in Mitigation Measure 5.4.1(a‐
e).
Hydrology and Water Quality
10. Groundwater Impacts and Recharge. The section lacks documentation/references for
assumptions and conclusions. Impact 5.9‐4 does not quantify the amount of increased
groundwater use that is anticipated for the 2018 GUP as requested in the City’s NOP letter
or assess impacts on the groundwater basin and vicinity wells as established in the DEIR’s
Hydrology Significance Criterion “b”. While the impact indicates that project operation
could substantially deplete groundwater supplies, there is no supporting analysis, and the
mitigation measure presented addresses monitoring of recharge, not impacts to
groundwater supplies. Because Palo Alto operates municipal water supply wells in the
vicinity, the FEIR needs to provide a full analysis with technical documentation in order to
make a significance conclusion, including addressing the following.
a. Identify whether the project area is within the Santa Clara Valley groundwater
basin or different sub‐basin.
b. Identify other vicinity groundwater wells. Figure 2 of the City of Palo Alto 2015
Urban Water Management Plan indicates the area adjacent to campus contains
groundwater wells.
c. Provide annual monitoring of groundwater levels to determine an annual average
over a sufficient time to include both wet and dry years.
d. Identify the potential amount of increased groundwater use. It is stated that
irrigation needs would not change substantially (page 5.9‐26) without reference to
an actual estimate, and in contradiction with the increase in non‐potable water
use estimated in Appendix Water Supply Assessment (WSA). The WSA (as
summarized in Section 5.16.5) makes an assumption about groundwater demand
that is not supported by the record provided in the baseline setting, in which
groundwater use is shown to have increased substantially in the last extended
drought, consisting of up to 88% of irrigation water demands in FY14‐15. Section
5.16.5 (pgs. 5.16‐16 and 5.16‐17) assumes no change in groundwater supply, and
does not apportion the water demand in drought scenarios between surface water
and ground water. This lack of information prevents a meaningful analysis of how
much groundwater use could increase, and whether it would exceed significance
thresholds.
e. Section 5.16.5 asserts with no supporting evidence that Stanford’s wells can
withdraw up to 1,700 AFY (1.52 mgd) without adversely affecting groundwater
conditions. Given the wells have a combined capacity of pumping capacity of
approximately 4,450 AFY, additional analysis is required to support the impact
conclusions. The analysis and determination of 1,700 AFY as the sustainable yield
needs to be disclosed and available for public review.
f. Most importantly, the EIR should evaluate impacts to adjacent and nearby wells or
groundwater basin due to increased Stanford pumping. The multiple dry year
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 5
scenario under full buildout needs to be addressed with respect to groundwater,
and whether there could be impacts to adjacent wells or the groundwater basin.
g. It is unclear under what circumstances groundwater could be used to meet
potable demands.
h. Assumption that groundwater recharge can only occur in the unconfined zone is
not adequately explained or justified.
11. Storm Water and Flooding. Some of the storm water from the project area is conveyed
through pipes managed by the City of Palo Alto that discharge into creeks managed by
SCVWD. The Draft EIR does not include an analysis that clearly indicates the estimated
runoff flows with and without the project and cumulatively, so it is not possible to
determine the significance of the impact on these collection facilities. This is of particular
concern since the City of Palo Alto’s storm drain system, downstream from Stanford, has
limited capacity at various locations that can result in localized flooding. Secondly, flows
from Matadero Creek discharge into a flood basin located East of Highway 101. This area
is protected by a levee that will need to be improved in the future to mitigate for Sea Level
Rise. Increasing flows into the flood basin would impact the future levee design. The Final
EIR must provide existing and proposed runoff calculations from the project area for both
the 10‐year and 100‐year storm event.
12. Adequacy of Detention Facilities. The DEIR did not respond adequately to the City of Palo
Alto’s request in the NOP to provide information on the current storm water volumes into
the existing detention facilities generated within the Academic Growth Boundary. Further,
how would the added flow from the 2018 GUP development affect the current detention
capacity in the case of a 10-year and 100‐year storm event? Without this information
it is difficult to determine the adequacy of the capacity of current detention basins and
future needs. The Impact 5.9‐6 analysis asserts “the existing detention facilities are
estimated to have the capacity for accommodating an additional approximate 57.0 acres
(2.48 million square feet) of impervious surfaces in the San Francisquito watershed, and
an additional approximate 194.8 acres (8.52 million square feet) of impervious surfaces
in the Matadero watershed.” However, there is no reference to a specific study, such
as the “annual reporting,” that clearly documents and quantifies changes in detention
capacity as a result of identified flows from constructed projects. This information needs
to be provided in the Final EIR to substantiate the DEIR’s conclusions on capacity and
determination that no significant impact would occur. It is unclear to what degree
activities under the 2000 GUP (including Escondido Village Graduate Residences) or other
development added to establish the 2018 Baseline scenario has already used the
additional available capacity. The Final EIR must provide documentation of the change in
impervious surfaces and runoff volumes for existing development including Escondido
Village and any construction completed as part of the
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 6
2000 General Use Permit, the 2018 GUP Project and cumulative scenarios to adequately
assess the impact of increased runoff and the adequacy of detention facilities and
conclusion of a less‐than‐significant impact.
13. Flood Impacts. The City of Palo Alto’s NOP comments include a request for records of past
runoff volumes for the 10‐ and 100‐year storm flow into Matadero and San Francisquito
Creeks. This information was not provided and is essential to determining the significance
of additional storm water flows with the project. The DEIR Hydrology and Water Quality
section does not identify existing flood problems, but relies on existing detention facilities
to control flows. As indicated above in Comment #12, there is no cited drainage study that
documents existing remaining detention capacity or quantifies additional runoff volumes
added for baseline, project and cumulative conditions to substantiate the conclusion that
no offsite flooding impacts will occur. The Biological Resources section does in fact identify
capacity and flood issues in San Francisquito Creek (page 5.3‐46) with one or more on‐ and
off‐site detention basins being considered by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Authority. The Final EIR must provide a review of existing flood issues in both watersheds
in which the project is located, and in conjunction with the above comment, clearly
document potential off‐site flooding impacts for the baseline, project and cumulative
scenarios.
Noise
14. Sensitive Receptors. The DEIR reports that residences, schools, hospitals, and nursing
homes are considered to be the most sensitive to noise (page 5.11‐8), and sensitive
receptors are described on page 5.11‐25. The DEIR references Figure 5.2‐1 in the Air
Quality section that shows sensitive receptors, however, specific residential receptors are
not identified. This figure should be revised to clearly identify residential neighborhoods,
which are not shown, since there is potential for construction to occur around campus
edges, and the nearest sensitive receptors in Palo Alto are within 80 feet of project
boundaries.
15. Construction Noise Mitigation. DEIR page 5.11‐25 states Mitigation Measure 5.11‐1, which
implements a performance standard, will reduce construction‐noise impacts, where it is
technically and economically feasible to do so, but also suggests that variances may be
permitted. The mitigation measure should specify:
How “technically or economically infeasible” will be determined;
Who has the authority to grant a variance and the process by which a variance
request would be made and reviewed; and
That City of Palo Alto should have the ability to review and comment on
requests for such variances for projects within 150 feet of their boundaries.
Population and Housing
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 7
16. Existing and Projected Housing. The Final EIR should clearly identify/quantify existing on‐
campus student and faculty/staff housing and 2000 GUP units expected to be constructed
and added to the 2018 Baseline in addition to Escondido Village Residences, expected to
be completed after 2018, and additional units in the proposed 2018 GUP. A full accounting
is needed in order to confirm that Stanford has met its housing linkage/ratio (605 new
beds per 500,000 SF of new academic and academic support) with the project and not just
for the increment of growth permitted under the project. As noted earlier, we also
question whether this ratio should be increased given the region’s housing crisis. Please
clarify whether the total campus units include units constructed outside of the academic
boundaries that are referenced on page 5.12‐3.
17. Population Estimates and Growth. Palo Alto has concerns regarding the
population/household size estimates used in the DEIR and impact conclusions.
a. The DEIR concludes that population induced by the project is consistent with
Stanford’s historic annual growth rate, which is not identified in the DEIR. The Final EIR
should identify the historic annual growth rate and the rate with the proposed project,
including the basis for the “Compound Annual Growth Rate” (CAGR) used in the DEIR
to estimate Stanford growth for each population. Also, why is the University’s historic
annual growth rate the appropriate standards of review? Shouldn’t the growth rate be
calculated from the 2000 General Use Permit approval?
b. It does not appear that the population projections included in the City’s current
Comprehensive Plan update have been used.1 The population numbers included in the
Comprehensive Plan Update EIR should be used for considering impacts of population
growth in Palo Alto. The total population resulting from indirect household growth
(graduate students/faculty and their families) in Palo Alto should be identified and
compared to the City’s projected population growth as part of the impact discussion.
18. Off‐Campus Household Formation and Housing Demand. The DEIR (page 5.12‐17)
estimates the indirect off‐site campus housing demand based on off‐campus household
formation derived from Stanford Commute Survey that is not listed in the DEIR
References. The City believes that the County should use another source of data or an
updated objective and statistically valid survey tool to validate findings of the University’s
commute survey. The FEIR should clearly identify how the estimated 2,425 off‐campus
households was derived. Furthermore, the FEIR should also explain the assumption of a
net decrease in 102 off‐campus faculty households since the project’s faculty housing unit
count (550) is less than the increase in faculty (789).
19. Secondary Impacts of Growth. While, the DEIR estimates the number of new households
that would reside off campus, the Final EIR should also clearly identify the secondary
population growth that would occur in the City of Palo Alto as a result (total number of
people per household), as well as the amount of increased population in the City between
1 The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan was circulated on August
30, 2017 and was certified by the City Council with their action on the Comprehensive Plan Update on November
13, 2017.
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 8
2015 and the 2018 baseline. The Final EIR should clearly address the impacts of secondary
population growth on housing demand, public service demand, and public school
capacities. This growth is important to quantify for a variety of reasons and undercuts
reliance on a ‘no net trips’ policy focused only on the peak travel direction in the peak
commute hour.
20. Affordable Housing Demand. In its letter of comment on the NOP, the City requested an
assessment of housing demand, including existing and future demand by employees and
students qualifying for below market rate housing. However, the DEIR does not address
the project’s demand for affordable units off campus in Palo Alto. It is expected that a
significant number of graduate students, postdoctoral researchers and staff would need
affordable housing. Taking the Palo Alto number alone, 367 or 5.6% of the City’s projected
household growth between 2015 and 2040 would be from lower paid Stanford graduate,
post‐doctoral, faculty and staff. The City would need to provide an additional 2.3% of its
housing stock in 2040 for low and moderate income units. This would be in addition to the
low‐ and moderate‐income housing need generated by the rest of the City’s population.
This additional Below Market Rate demand generated by Stanford should be assessed in
the Final EIR with regards to effects on the City’s housing supply and the City’s ability to
meet is Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
21. Off‐campus Affordable Housing Fees. Under the 2000 General Use Permit, Stanford is
required to provide one on‐campus affordable housing unit or make an in‐lieu payment to
Santa Clara County for each 11,763 square feet of constructed academic development.
a. The Final EIR should identify how many affordable units have been constructed on
campus and how many have been constructed as a result of payment of in‐lieu
fees with the 2018 GUP in order to document whether Stanford is meeting its
affordable housing requirement. Please indicate projects, number of units and
location of affordable housing that have been constructed under this requirement
and the number of affordable units that have been constructed in Palo Alto under
this program.
b. The DEIR states that Stanford will continue contributions to the County‐
administered off‐campus affordable housing program. However, without the
analysis to identify affordable housing needs as requested in Comment #23, the
extent to which these fees actually meet affordable housing needs is not known
and the finding of a less‐than‐significant impact is not substantiated.
c. The basis for DEIR statement that 900 new graduate student units would equate to
approximately 450 affordable housing units that will be credited toward the
County’s RHNA (page DEIR page 5.12‐20) should be explained and substantiated.
Public Services
22. Fire Protection and Emergency Services.
a. The impact analysis does not identify a specific need for new or physically altered
public fire protection/Emergency Services facilities related to Project growth.
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 9
However, no substantial evidence is provided to support this conclusion. The Final
EIR should assess the effect of on‐ and off‐campus growth on response times and
other performance criteria identified in the EIR and provide a clear discussion of
project impacts – will new or relocated facilities be required at build‐out of the
project? The effects of the project on fire and emergency services related wildland
fires also should be addressed.
b. According to the DEIR, replacement and improved fire stations would allow the
Palo Alto Fire Department to adequately serve growth and buildout in the City.
This is based on Stanford’s continued annual fair share payment to the City of Palo
for fire protection services. Stanford and the City are currently in negotiations for a
multi‐year contract with automatic renewal for fire and EMS services, but
agreement has not yet been reached, and thus, the issue of long‐term fire
protection service in not adequately assessed in the EIR. The Final EIR should
evaluate development alternatives for Stanford if agreement on a fire contract
cannot be reached.
c. The Palo Alto Fire Department requests that the following corrections and
clarifications be provided in the Final EIR.
Page 5.13‐1, Add: The PAFD provides fire protection and suppression, and
emergency medical service (EMS), for all areas within the jurisdictional boundaries
of Palo Alto in addition to some of the unincorporated land surrounding the city
limits, including the project site under a services contract. As of the date of the
City’s response, Stanford University is not under contract with the City of Palo Alto
for fire protection and suppression, and EMS. Stanford cancelled the contract as of
October 2015, and both parties have been extending the contract for short periods
of time (6 to 12 months) while attempting to negotiate a successor agreement.
Stanford does not have a viable or sustainable fire protection and suppression, and
emergency medical service (EMS) model or provider other than the City of Palo
Alto. Stanford does not have access to the State of California Master Mutual Aid
Agreement for fire protection and suppression – access is only available via public
fire departments who are participants in the agreement. Stanford would have
access to EMS ambulance transportation services through Santa Clara County
Ambulance.
23. Police Services Impact. The DEIR analysis of police services concludes that the 2018 GUP
would increase demand for service, but would not result in an adverse physical impact
from construction of additional facilities. No evidence is presented about the effect of on‐
/off‐campus growth on police and emergency dispatch services provided by Palo Alto or
performance criteria for these services. The Final EIR should address impacts of Stanford
population growth and new housing on Police Department police response times, staffing,
facilities, traffic enforcement on City streets, and response in mutual aid situations. The
Final EIR should also address indirect impacts associated with increased calls for mutual
aid assistance and associated impact on the Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD)
performance standards for provision of adequate services. The PAPD has concerns
regarding increased calls for PAPD service especially for parking enforcement, traffic
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 10
enforcement on bordering streets, special sporting and other events, and visiting
dignitaries, which should be addressed in the Final EIR. All additional service requests may
lead to the need for additional facilities and these should be identified and analyzed. If the
University intends to rely on new City facilities, the University should contribute to their
cost.
24. Schools Impacts. The DEIR concludes that the project would increase enrollment in local
schools, but would not result in adverse physical impacts from the construction of
additional school facilities that may be needed in order to maintain acceptable enrollment
standards. Of the new housing provided on‐campus, growth in school‐aged children is
associated only with 550 new units of housing for faculty, staff, postdoctoral scholars, and
medical residents. The Final EIR should also address student growth from undergraduate
and graduate students, and from indirect growth of 367 new households in Palo Alto.
Based on the student generation rates presented in the EIR, the project could result in 183
additional students from new households in Palo Alto.
While enrollment data is not presented, the DEIR states that there will be declining
enrollment in PAUSD schools through 2026/27 and given that, there should be remaining
capacity to accommodate project‐generated students. The 2018 Facilities Master Plan is
being prepared and if school expansion is identified, site‐specific CEQA analysis would be
required. The DEIR indicates that school impacts fees are charged and would be paid by
Stanford for new residential and commercial development under the 2018 GUP. However,
the cumulative analysis states that City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan update considers
future growth scenarios that would result in PAUSD enrollment exceeding existing
capacity, but no specific growth scenario has been selected and approved. The Final EIR
should be revised to reflect the City’s adoption of the Comprehensive Plan as part of the
cumulative analysis and resulting effects on school enrollment and facilities.
In addition, the Final EIR should acknowledge that the need for new school facilities is
determine in part by the location of new households with school‐aged children.
Representatives of the School district have suggested that concentrating new units along
Quarry Road may contribute to the need for a new school in that vicinity.
Recreation
25. Additional Parks and Recreation Facilities Impacts.
a. There is no explanation for why the 3‐mile radius was used to identify parks and
recreational facilities that may be used by Stanford’s population. The impact and
mitigation was limited to the four parks in the College Terrace neighborhood,
and Table 5.14‐2 omits Peers Park, Bol Park, Juana Briones Park, John Boulware
Park, Robles Park, Ramos Park, Sarah Wallis Park, Johnson Park, Seale Park, Hoover
Park, and Monroe Mini‐Park. These parks are within the three‐mile radius of
campus and should be considered in the EIR and included in any mitigation
for compensation.
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 11
b. The Final EIR should also consider the impacts on paths through Bol Park that are
used for recreation and transportation by Stanford‐residing adults as well as
Stanford‐residing children attending Terman and Gunn schools. These paths are
used on a daily basis by many folks traveling from the Stanford campus. Increased
daily use of this path should be assessed.
c. The DEIR did not mention the substantial current impactor anticipated future
impact of the EV housing and 2018 GUP by Stanford affiliates and their children on
the College Terrace neighborhood library located in one of these parks.
Transportation / Traffic
26. Traffic Impact Analysis. Palo Alto has a number of concerns with the Traffic/Transportation
section, assumptions and analyses. The City’s primary concerns are listed below and are
fully articulated in the attached Technical Memorandum from Hexagon Transportation
Consultants who reviewed the DEIR as part of the City’s review. The City requests that all
of the comments presented in the Hexagon memo be addressed as part of the City’s
comments on the DEIR. A summary of the City’s concerns include:
a. There are several concerns with the “No Net New Commute Trips” program
wording, methodology and feasibility. The three key areas of concern are with the
definitions of the peak periods to be monitored, the direction of travel to be
monitored, and the unlimited use of trip credits to meet the goal. A particular
concern that underlies the entire model is the feasibility of further reducing single‐
occupant vehicle trips that would be needed in order to meet the goal for the
development in the 2018 GUP.
b. Given the current experience based on the 2000 GUP development, there is
concern about the Trip generation rate being based on traditional peak periods
that potentially underestimate impacts of project trips and traffic impacts given
the existing and growing level of off‐peak University trips.
c. The analysis relies on mass transit support to meet the No Net New Commute
Trips goal, but the assumptions for adequacy of transit capacity and performance
analysis for transit and Caltrain are not entirely accurate.
d. The project proposes to construct all parking for the 2000 GUP plus a 2,000 space
parking reserve, but does not address how this will affect the University’s TDM and
trip reduction goals.
e. Further evaluation is needed for specific intersections, including the Caltrain grade
separations including at Alma and Charleston, regional impacts including freeway
segments, and cumulative impacts, which may affect levels of significance as well
as the need for more mitigation.
f. The EIR does not analyze the effects of City programs to manage on‐street parking
in the vicinity of the campus and on Margarita routes on the current and future
effectiveness of current and future TDM programs relied on to meet the No New
Net Commute Trips goal.
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 12
27. Impacts if No Net New Commute Trips Goal Not Met. As noted earlier, the city believes
that he county should revisit how the No Net New Commute Trips policy is implemented.
Assuming changes are made the EIR should address whether the Air Quality, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, and Noise analyses will need to be revised.
28. Safe Routes to School. The Final EIR should identify and describe the existing safe routes to
schools activities, which includes crossing guards at busy intersections. The Final EIR
should assess impacts and possible decrease of performance as a result of project traffic in
accordance with the Transportation/Traffic Significance Criterion “f” cited on page 5.25‐54
of the DEIR.
Miscellaneous DEIR Text Corrections
29. EIR Corrections. The Final EIR should make the following corrections.
a. Page xv: "OEM California Office of Emergency Management" should be deleted
(see Cal OES)
b. Page 1‐33: Protection and Maintenance of Emergency Service Access and Routes.
That should be changed to include the Palo Alto Police Department (which runs the
9‐1‐1 center for both Palo Alto and Stanford).
c. Page 5.8‐30, Change "County OEM" to "County OES"
d. Page 5.8‐33, References should also include: City of Palo Alto Emergency
Operations Plan, available on:
http://cityofpaloalto.org/services/public_safety/plans_and_information/ and City
of Palo Alto Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA),
available on: http://cityofpaloalto.org/thira
f. Page 5.13‐2:
Remove: one Rescue truck (at Station 2) for vehicle accidents, hazardous
materials and technical rescues, and search and rescue at fires.
Modify: two advanced life support ambulances (at Stations 1 and 2) that
respond to all medical incidents, and are also included in fire, rescue, and
vehicle accidents and hazardous materials incidents, and one cross‐staffed
ambulance (at Station 4) that responds to medical incidents when the
ambulances from Stations 1 and 2 are not available. (City of Palo Alto, 2015).
g. Page 5.13‐3, Modify the sentence to read: In FY 2016, PAFD arrived at 89 percent
of fire emergencies within eight minutes, 92 percent of EMS calls within eight
minutes, and placed a paramedic at EMS calls within 12 minutes, 99 percent of the
time.
h. In Palo Alto, the Police Department funds 29 crossing guards for the City on school
commute routes. (This fact was left out of the text on page 5.13‐4.)
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 13
Other Issues To Be Addressed
There are other changes that will occur in Palo Alto as a result of the Stanford 2018 GUP project
that will impact our community. The following issues should be a part of Santa Clara County’s
project approval.
1. Long‐Term Stanford Growth and Protection of Foothills. An updated sustainability study
should be prepared by Stanford to define the next ‘phase’ of development and the horizon
of that plan, which should be completed and adopted prior to 2025. While Palo Alto has
recognized and commended Stanford’s commitment to the campus’ Academic Growth
Boundary (AGB), the City has serious concerns regarding the potential change to the AGB
and future protection of foothills from development. Palo Alto prefers and requests that
the commitment to the AGB be renewed as part of the 2018 GUP to ensure protection of
the foothills open space lands.
2. Commitment to Affordable Housing. Stanford is making a real commitment to provide
housing on campus within the AGB to house all undergraduate students, and some faculty,
graduate students, postdoctoral students and some staff. However, it is clear that these
plans will not provide housing for all those in these groups. Stanford should pay a housing
development fee to the County to assist receiver communities with providing housing for
this spillover Stanford population. This would be in addition to fees for affordable housing
Stanford has already agreed to pay if they do not meet their affordable housing need on
campus. Further, based on Stanford’s proximity, the County should share some of the
City’s RHNA allocation in the 2023‐2030 housing cycle.
3. Sharing Costs of Needed Improvements. Because of the close interface with the Central
Campus area, there are a number of facilities provided by the City that will be impacted by
the build‐out of the 2018 GUP. Sharing of the costs arising from campus interface with the
City are focused on:
a. Transportation: In the 2000 GUP there were two intersections that Stanford
committed to improve outside of those shown to also be impacted and addressed
in the No Net New Commute Trips model. The reason for this appeared to be
based on future projects. In the same fashion there are two projects that are
critical to the Palo Alto community based on immediate need and future impact of
the Stanford growth on Caltrain
i. Grade separation at all crossings in Palo Alto. Grade separation will
increase the safety of the intersections, improve through bicycle,
pedestrian and traffic at all intersections and improve Caltrain service
relied on by Stanford for access alternatives to SOV.
ii. Improvement to the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center to accommodate
increased bicycle and bus volumes generated by Stanford’s TDM model as
well as facilitating the 8 car trains that the DEIR indicates will be necessary
to meet the Stanford impact on Caltrain ridership demand with the 2018
GUP project.
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 14
b. Recreation. The DEIR indicates that Stanford has offered to pay the City for on‐
campus resident student and faculty use of the four parks in College Terrace. The
city believes that the payment offered ($300,000) is understated because as a one‐
time fee, it will not address the impact and needed future maintenance at these
and other parks caused by Stanford students and faculty and their families over
the 17 years of the 2018 GUP. Second the fee offered fails to address the fact that
in one of the heavily used parks there is a neighborhood library impacted by the
use of families associated with Stanford. The City Librarian indicates that the
renovation costs to expand the current 2,392 square foot building to 4,860 square
feet would be $617,000 to $950,180 this is based on Sunnyvale and Newark
studies of $250‐385/SF and assumes the entire building would need to be used for
library purposes because of the anticipated increase in service resulting from the
2018 GUP when combined with the EV housing project.
c. Bicycle Improvements. Stanford has offered to contribute to one bicycle
improvement in Palo Alto: Bol Park Trail. Despite the figure in the DEIR, the Bol
Park Trail has not been designed. Part of the existing trail will be located on a
shared pathway parallel to the street on Hanover Street. Currently, improvements
on Page Mill Road will result in the installation of a signal at Page Mill and Hanover
Street. However, the improvement to the Bol Park Trail will require modification to
this signal for bicycles and pedestrians. The funding offered by Stanford ($250,000)
will just cover the cost of the modification to the signal. Since this trail is a
connection between Stanford’s main campus and the Stanford Research park and
can be a part of the TDM measures for the No Net New Commute trips, the City
feels that Stanford should make a greater contribution to the project including:
dedication of right of way under the existing separated pathway on Hanover Street
and contribution of funds to make the necessary upgrade of the Hanover pathway
so that it meets current safety standards.
d. Safe Routes to School. Currently Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Unified School District, the
Palo Alto PTA, and Stanford work cooperatively on making necessary
improvements to provide the safe routes to school, particularly for Escondido and
Nixon elementary schools. If an additional school is provided near Sandhill Road
for students living in University housing on that side of campus, this cooperation
should be extended to access to any future school site as well. Currently,
Stanford’s funding for agreed improvements for safe access to schools has not
been fully implemented. The City asks that Stanford create an annual budget
based on the agreed work program for future improvements that benefit Stanford
faculty, employees, staff and graduate students with children.
4. No Net New Commute Trips. The City of Palo Alto requests that Santa Clara County (lead
agency) revise the No Net New Commute Trips policy and monitoring program. Members
of the Palo Alto community experience traffic congestion on a daily basis that can be
attributed to students, faculty and staff of Stanford University. If the County wants
evidence of this, it should collect data when Stanford is in session, and when Stanford is
not in session. The data will show that traffic congestion is noticeably better when
City of Palo Alto Draft Comments – November 20, 2017
Stanford University 2018 GUP DEIR Page 15
Stanford is not in session and validate community members perspective that the current
“no net trips” program is not working.
As a legal matter, if the “no net trips” policy is expected to function as mitigation, it should
be revised to address all vehicle trips entering and exiting the campus during the peak
hours, and Stanford should not be able at apply unlimited credits for trip reductions
outside the cordon. Certainly the cordon Credit Area should not be expanded. The
County should identify specific mitigation measures to reduce vehicle trips and the
University should be required to implement or fund those measures as well as making fair
share payments to operational and capital improvements needed to address its
contribution to regional congestion. The effectiveness of all mitigation should be
quantified.
5. San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. Stanford should be required to coordinate
and cooperate, including funding, with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
to provide meaningful large‐scale upstream detention facilities to attenuate and manage
flows in San Francisquito Creek.
Technical Memorandum
Date: November 13, 2017
To: Stephanie Strelow, Dudek
From: Gary Black, President, and Jane Clayton, Associate
Subject: Review of Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Draft Environmental Impact Report
on Behalf of the City of Palo Alto
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) and the supporting Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the 2018 General Use
Permit (GUP) application filed by Stanford University with the Santa Clara County Planning Office. In
order to prepare this letter, we have also reviewed the Project Description and Background
Conditions Report included in the 2018 GUP application, the 2015 and 2016 Stanford University
Traffic Monitoring Reports, and comments made at meetings of the Planning and Transportation
Commission (8/30/17 and 11/8/2017) and the City Council (10/16/17). We have conducted this
review at the request of the City of Palo Alto and have paid particular attention to the areas included
in the City’s comment letter for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) related to transportation and
circulation. We have also reviewed all of the transportation-related impact findings and the proposed
mitigation measures for their adequacy.
The development proposed in Stanford’s 2018 GUP application includes 2.275 million square feet of
academic and academic support space, 3,150 dwelling units or beds (of which 550 units may be
used by faculty, staff, post-doctoral fellows, or medical residents), 40,000 square feet of space for
child care centers and facilities for the university’s commute alternatives program, and a parking
supply reserve of 2,000 spaces. Stanford proposes continuation of the “no net new commute trips”
goal included in the 2000 GUP, which is defined as no additional trips above a measured base level
during the peak commute time in the campus commute direction (inbound towards campus in the
AM peak hour and outbound from campus in the PM peak hour).
Key Areas of Concern
The “No Net New Trips” Goal: Methodology and Feasibility
The 2000 GUP Condition G.4 defines the “no net new trips” goal as “no increase in automobile trips
during peak commute times in the peak direction, as counted at a defined cordon location around
the campus.” That condition also states:
“Stanford shall mitigate the transportation impacts of its additional development and
population growth either through a program of ‘no net new commute trips’ or through
proportional funding of mitigation measures for specified impacted intersections.”
Hexagon has concerns about the “no net new trips” policy as it is currently defined. The three key
areas of concern are the definitions of the peak periods to be monitored, the direction of travel to be
monitored, and the unlimited use of trip credits to meet the goal. The DEIR invokes the “no net new
P a g e | 2
Review of Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR on Behalf of Palo Alto November 13, 2017
trips” policy as mitigation for potential impacts. However, Hexagon is concerned that the policy
overlooks the following traffic issues.
Lengthening of Peak Period and Definition of Peak Hours: Although AECOM gathers 24-hour
cordon count data for 8 weeks every year, the analysis of data to determine whether Stanford has
met the “no net new trips” standard is currently limited to the hours of 7:00 – 9:00 AM and 4:00 –
6:00 PM. There is abundant evidence throughout the Bay Area that these traditional peak periods
have lengthened, and, in fact, the traffic counts conducted at study intersections for this DEIR were
conducted during the hours of 7:00 – 10:00 AM and 4:00 – 7:00 PM. In its NOP letter, the City
specifically requested that the EIR identify the peak travel periods for the campus using these 24-
hour cordon counts, but this was not done. At a minimum, the peak periods used for monitoring
cordon counts should be consistent with the peak periods used for the intersection counts
conducted for the DEIR (7:00 – 10:00 AM and 4:00 -7:00 PM).
Hexagon’s spot review of the raw cordon count data in the 2015 and 2016 Stanford University
Traffic Monitoring Reports indicates that the AM peak hour frequently occurs after the 7:00 – 9:00
AM period. Similarly, the PM peak hour frequently occurs after the 4:00 – 6:00 PM period.
However, for the purposes of determining whether Stanford has met the goal, any peak hour
volume that does not occur during those defined two-hour periods is ignored. The interpretation of
“peak commute time” in the goal should be modified for the 2018 GUP so that if, for example, the
greatest volume of vehicle trips in the evening occurs between 5:30 - 6:30 PM, then that is the
volume that should be used as the basis for monitoring whether or not Stanford has met the
standard.
One of the likely reasons why there appears to be a disconnect between Stanford’s achievement of
the “no net new trips” standard and the community’s experience of increasing levels of congestion
may be that there are higher levels of Stanford-related trips throughout the day or during much
longer periods during the morning and evening than was true in 2001. Therefore, it is critical that a
fresh analysis of the peak periods of travel to and from the campus be conducted and that
recommendations for future cordon counts be based on that analysis.
Direction of Travel: The “no net new trips” standard currently applies only to the peak direction of
travel: inbound towards campus in the AM peak hour and outbound from campus in the PM peak
hour. As the university constructs more on-campus housing for students, faculty, and staff, the
volume of traffic in the “counter-commute” direction will also increase. Figure 4 of Part 1 of the TIA
shows the change in proportion of resident and non-resident peak hour trips between 2015 and
2035, indicating that resident trips are projected to be a larger percentage of total trips in the future.
Under the 2018 GUP proposal, the volume of “counter-commute” travel could increase substantially,
but Stanford would still be deemed to meet its goal as long as the “commute” direction did
not increase (or was offset by trip credits). In its NOP letter, Palo Alto requested that the DEIR
include an analysis of direction of travel, but this was not done.
Even if Stanford meets the “no net new trips” standard as it is currently written, it would be possible
for the development proposed in the 2018 GUP to have intersection impacts that should be
mitigated. The DEIR overlooks the possibility that intersection impacts may result from vehicle trips
in the other direction (outbound from campus in the morning and inbound in the evening). The EIR
should address this issue and propose a means of mitigating any impacts that may be caused by
increases in traffic leaving campus in the morning and entering campus in the evening.
P a g e | 3
Review of Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR on Behalf of Palo Alto November 13, 2017
Trip Credits: The 2000 GUP specifies that the County will recognize participation by Stanford in
off-campus trip reduction efforts and credit reduced trips toward attainment of the goal. Stanford
has not met the PM peak hour 2001 cordon count threshold (3,591 trips) in certain years, but has
been able to meet the “no net new trips” standard by taking credit for its off-campus trip reduction
efforts within a defined geographic boundary (the cordon credit area).
Stanford could continue to increase the number of trip credits it claims in the future as a way of
dealing with rising cordon counts through the life of the 2018 GUP. The fact that in 2015 Stanford
claimed 844 trip credits, equal to 23.5% of the 2001 “trigger” value for the PM peak hour, raises a
question as to whether there should be a limit or cap placed on the percentage of trip credits that
may be taken during the life of the 2018 GUP in order to meet the standard. For example, Stanford
proposes to take trip credits every year after providing funding for bicycle facility improvements in
Palo Alto and neighboring jurisdictions (in Chapter 8 of the DEIR).
This concern is heightened by the large number of potential problems concerning the trip credit
methodology that were raised in the 2016 Stanford University Traffic Monitoring Report. No fewer
than nine issues have been raised by the consultant preparing the report for the County. Hexagon
believes these issues should be addressed and resolved as part of the EIR process since they are
central to the “no net new trips” methodology. Hexagon also believes that trip credits should only
be granted for actual trip reductions, not predicted reductions.
Hexagon notes that the monitoring reports do not provide any information on the various measures
for which credits have been claimed each year, only the total number of credits claimed. In its NOP
letter, Palo Alto requested greater transparency in the cordon count and trip credit reporting.
Feasibility of Mode Split Required to Meet Standard: On page 5.15-156 of the DEIR, the drive-
alone mode share is given as 43.2% in 2015, which would need to be reduced to 36.5% to meet the
“no net new trips” standard for the 2018 GUP development (assuming no trip credits are taken).1
The University has been successful in reducing single-occupant trips to levels much lower than the
County average. However, the TIA (Figure 2 of Part 1) indicates that SOV mode share is
approximately 50% and has been flattening out in recent years, indicating that additional reductions
may be difficult to achieve. Given the environmental characteristics of the commute shed of Stanford
affiliates, such as land use density, transit availability, and other factors, it is likely to be challenging
to reduce that mode share by an additional 6.7%.
The TIA (Part 1, pp. 10-11) includes the following strategies expanding Stanford’s TDM programs in
order to meet the “no net new trips” standard under the 2018 GUP:
Commuter buses
Expand local bus service and first/last mile connections (Marguerite shuttle)
Improve key bike facilities to reduce road stress for cyclists on access routes to campus
Parking fees and policies
Student vehicle prohibitions
However, it is an exceedingly ambitious goal to construct 2.275 million square feet of academic and
academic support space and 3,150 new beds/units and to not increase peak hour vehicle volumes
at all. After many years of a highly successful TDM program, all of the “low-hanging fruit” is gone,
1 The TIA indicates that the drive-alone mode share was approximately 50% in 2015. The Background
Conditions Report also states that the drive-alone rate is 50% (page 4.47) The difference between the two
percentages given for the 2015 drive-alone mode share (43.2% and 50%) should be explained.
P a g e | 4
Review of Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR on Behalf of Palo Alto November 13, 2017
and it may prove difficult to persuade many of the remaining SOV drivers to change modes.
Stanford should explore what it will take to achieve a 36.5% SOV mode share (no net new trips)
with real-world examples.
If the “no net new trips” standard is not met under the 2018 GUP, then Stanford has proposed that it
be “given the option of achieving No Net New Commute Trips by funding other entities’ trip reduction
programs before applying such funds to its proportionate share of intersection improvements.”
Ways in which the funding provided could be programmed as consistently over multi-year
periods as possible should be explored, rather than on an annual basis with large dollar amounts
in some years and no funding at all in other years, depending on the preceding year’s monitoring
report. Successful trip reduction programs require consistent funding to be most effective.
2015 Cordon Counts and the 2018 GUP Trip Generation Rate
The trip generation rates for the new development proposed in the 2018 GUP are based entirely on
the 2015 cordon counts conducted as part of the County’s annual monitoring process regarding the
“no net new trips” standard. To the extent that the 2015 cordon counts do not accurately capture
the number of vehicle trips generated by the campus during the AM and PM commute times, the trip
generation estimates for the proposed growth will be correspondingly underestimated, which should
be corrected in the Final EIR.
Identification of “AM peak hour” and “PM peak hour”: As discussed above, the number of peak
hour trips presented in the 2015 Stanford University Traffic Monitoring Reports is the peak hour
volume during the periods of 7:00 – 9:00 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM. However, due to the lengthening
of peak commute periods throughout the region and the widespread use of flextime schedules, the
peak traffic volume within that window of time may not actually be the peak traffic volume if a longer
or different peak period were considered. The DEIR did not address the issue of changes in the
peak commute times, even though the City requested such an analysis and it is key to the trip
generation estimates used in the DEIR; this should be considered in the Final EIR.
“Hidden” vehicle trips: The 2015 cordon counts may also underestimate Stanford’s existing trip
generation if there are vehicle trips that are not counted. The City’s NOP letter asked the DEIR to
study the extent to which Stanford commuters are avoiding cordon counts by parking on local
streets in adjacent city neighborhoods. The DEIR addresses this concern on page 5.15-176, and
Figure 5.15-21 shows that there are Residential Parking Permit programs in place in all the Palo
Alto residential neighborhoods adjacent to campus. However, two of these programs did not exist
when the 2015 cordon counts were conducted (Evergreen Park – Mayfield and Southgate). The
DEIR should have included some estimate of off-campus parking.
The DEIR also notes that there is very little on-street parking that is not time-restricted adjacent to
campus, with the exception of approximately 150 parking spaces on the Stanford side of El Camino
Real. The DEIR states that:
“These on-street spaces are essentially filled before the traditional peak hour of 8:00 – 9:00
AM. Thus, drivers using these spaces are not traveling during the peak hour, and therefore
are not parking in this location to avoid cordon counts.”
Since the cordon counts begin at 7:00 AM, the fact that these spaces are filled by 8:00 does not
mean these drivers aren’t avoiding cordon counts. As noted above, Hexagon suggests that the
cordon counts be re-evaluated to determine the actual peak hour, and these spaces should be
included.
P a g e | 5
Review of Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR on Behalf of Palo Alto November 13, 2017
Another potential issue with the 2015 cordon counts is related to the exclusion of vehicles that enter
campus and then leave it within 15 minutes, because they are considered cut-through traffic that is
not generated by Stanford. Because of this, if a Stanford affiliate is dropped off or picked up on
campus, the vehicle that enters campus to drop them off in the morning or leaves campus after
picking them up in the evening is excluded from the cordon count, even though that trip is clearly a
Stanford-generated trip. An evaluation of the cordon locations where a vehicle entered and where it
exited campus would help identify some of these trips and distinguish them from actual cut-through
trips. The Final EIR should account for this issue.
Analysis of Transit Capacity and Performance
The City’s NOP letter requested that the DEIR evaluate transit performance and efficiency as it
relates to site design, mobility, and access. A map showing transit priority areas for nearby transit
agencies (Figure 5.15-10) and a map showing areas within a 5-minute walkshed of Marguerite stops
with headways of 15 minutes or less (Figure 5.15-22) were included, but they do not show the
location within the 2018 GUP area of key points of development proposed in the 2018 GUP. The
EIR should include further discussion about optimal land use and site design to support an effective
and efficient transit system on campus.
The City’s NOP letter also requested that the demand, capacity, and utilization of Caltrain,
connecting transit services at the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center (PAITC), and the PAITC itself
be studied. The DEIR does not include a capacity assessment of the PAITC at all, including its bus
bays, layover facilities, and the operational impacts of an expanded Marguerite service on other
transit providers, which should be addressed in the Final EIR.
The capacity analysis of Caltrain includes a key assumption that the trains will include eight cars by
2035, rather than the current five cars. The Caltrain electrification/modernization project now
underway does not include funding for extending platforms so that 8-car trains could be utilized. To
make the capacity analysis consistent with the electrification project, it should not be assumed that
the infrastructure improvements necessary to run 8-car trains will be operational by 2035. If train
capacity were constrained by the existing 5-car maximum, then there would be a significant impact
to this transit service. Hexagon suggests that an appropriate mitigation measure would be to make
a fair share contribution to the platform retrofit needed at the PAITC to permit lower level boarding,
which would speed up dwell time.
The DEIR asserts that transit capacity is not a potential impact under CEQA, but we disagree. Since
a project can be found to cause a significant impact to transit if an element of it would conflict with
an adopted policy regarding public transit or decrease the performance or safety of transit facilities,
then operating extremely crowded trains would qualify as conflicting with an adopted policy
and as reducing the performance of the service from the rider’s point of view. Transit services
generally have adopted policies or standards regarding load factor (how many riders they can
accommodate per bus or per car). If a load factor is exceeded by a large amount, then the service is
no longer comfortable or convenient. Such a load factor would clearly also have secondary impacts
on mode choice.
Aside from how the issue is treated under CEQA, there is also a basic operational issue that relates
to Stanford’s ability to achieve the “no net new trips” standard. If achieving the standard would
require an increase in the transit mode share, as conservatively assumed by the DEIR analysis, but
the capacity is simply not available on the trains to handle the increased ridership, then the standard
would probably not be achieved. This could be the case if the assumption regarding 8-car
P a g e | 6
Review of Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR on Behalf of Palo Alto November 13, 2017
trains is changed to 5-car trains. The analysis should be re-assessed in light of these
considerations in the Final EIR.
Requested Parking Reserve of 2,000 Spaces
Stanford has requested approval of a 2,000 space parking supply reserve, for which it does not
seek initial authorization because it seeks to discourage automobile ownership and use. However,
Stanford proposes that it be able to seek Planning Commission approval to construct parking
spaces from that reserve under any of three defined circumstances.
One of the proposed circumstances for increasing the parking supply is meeting the “no net new
trips” standard. There is an obvious contradiction here: if Stanford is meeting the standard, why
would it need up to 2,000 additional parking spaces? Clearly, additional parking supply would make
it increasingly difficult to meet the standard in the future.
There are two obvious ways in which Stanford could meet the “no net new trips” standard and yet
still need 2,000 more parking spaces by 2035. One is that the standard can now be met through an
unlimited use of trip credits. Stanford could meet the standard through services and facilities that
reduce SOV trips off-campus, but still need additional parking for new trips to campus generated by
the development proposed in the 2018 GUP. The second relates to the lengthening of the peak
period. If an increasing number of trips are made outside the peak periods as they are defined (7:00
– 9:00 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM) under the 2000 GUP or if the trips made in a single peak hour no
longer represent as large a percentage of daily traffic as has been true historically (because traffic
is more evenly spread over a much longer period of time), then Stanford would need additional
parking to accommodate those trips – even though the standard, as currently monitored, has
been met. The EIR should address this issue directly and define a more stringent qualifying
circumstance for purposes of allowing construction of 2,000 more parking spaces or eliminate this
circumstance from the request.
Review of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Hexagon evaluated all transportation-related impact findings in the DEIR to determine their
adequacy. The DEIR’s analysis of every study intersection was reviewed carefully, to ensure that
all potential mitigation measures at impacted intersections were included. The following sections
address each impact evaluation about which Hexagon has comments or questions. Impact
discussions – and specific intersection impacts – about which Hexagon has no comments or
questions are not included.
Level of Service Threshold for Unsignalized Intersections
DEIR: The DEIR states on page 5.15-57 that “None of the applicable jurisdictions have an officially
adopted significance criterion for unsignalized intersections. For purposes of this analysis,
significant impacts are defined to occur when the addition of project traffic causes:
The average intersection delay for all-way stop-controlled intersections or the worst
movement for side-street stop-controlled intersections to degrade to LOS F, and
The peak hour traffic signal warrant from the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (CA MUTCD) to be satisfied at an unsignalized intersection already operating at
LOS F.”
Hexagon Comments: The City’s threshold for non-CMP signalized intersections is LOS D, and the
City’s practice has been to apply that threshold to unsignalized intersections as well. The
P a g e | 7
Review of Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR on Behalf of Palo Alto November 13, 2017
significance criteria for impacts at unsignalized intersections have been cited in several TIAs in
recent years as when the project causes a movement to degrade to LOS E or F and the peak hour
signal warrant is met. This Issue concerning Palo Alto’s impact criteria is relevant to the
unsignalized study intersection of Bowdoin Street / Stanford Avenue in the DEIR, which is
discussed further below.
The following section addresses all of the study intersections within Palo Alto where a significant
impact was found and where Hexagon had comments, plus the intersections of I-280 Southbound
Off-Ramp/Page Mill Road, I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp/Page Mill Road, and Bowdoin
Street/Stanford Avenue.
Intersection Impacts (2018 and 2035 Conditions)
I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp and Page Mill Road (#13)
DEIR: Proposed mitigation measure for 2018 impact is “Contribute fair share funding toward the
installation of a traffic signal.” However, on page 5.15-92, the DEIR references the Page Mill
Expressway Corridor Study Report and notes that the improvement concept is for this intersection
is “a roundabout, with traffic signal at the I-280 NB Ramps intersection, and a third eastbound and
westbound through lane on Page Mill Road to the east of the I-280 Northbound Ramps
intersection.” The DEIR says the Project’s fair-share funding towards a traffic signal at this
intersection “may be applied toward a roundabout.”
Hexagon Comments: Stanford should contribute its fair share of the roundabout and other
improvements that have been agreed upon by the three agencies (Santa Clara County, City of Palo
Alto, and Town of Los Altos Hills) for this intersection. Providing fair share funding towards a traffic
signal is insufficient, since that is not the intersection modification that has been agreed upon.
The DEIR does not find an impact at this intersection under 2035 conditions. The LOS calculation
sheets in Appendix F of the TIA indicate that a traffic signal is assumed at this intersection under
2035 conditions, even though Appendix E of the TIA indicates that the lane configuration and traffic
control (all-way stop control) are the same as under 2018 conditions. All changes in roadway
network assumptions should be stated clearly in the text of the report, and all tables and figures
should be consistent with any noted changes.
The intersection should be evaluated under 2035 conditions with all-way stop control and with a
roundabout, not with a traffic signal, since the timing of the roundabout construction is uncertain.
I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp and Page Mill Road (#14)
DEIR: No impact is found at this unsignalized intersection under 2018 or 2035 conditions. Under
2018 conditions, the intersection operates at LOS E both with and without the project, and the
increased delay is one second. Because signal warrant analyses were only conducted for
unsignalized intersections operating at LOS F, no signal warrant analysis is included in Appendix G
of the TIA.
For the 2035 evaluation, Appendix E of the TIA shows no change to the lane configuration or traffic
control at this intersection, although the LOS calculation worksheets indicate that a traffic signal is
assumed under 2035 conditions.
Hexagon Comments: In general, any changes in the roadway network (lane configurations, traffic
controls, signal phasing, etc.) between 2015 and 2018 or between 2018 and 2035 should be clearly
stated in the TIA and the DEIR and all appendices should be consistent.
P a g e | 8
Review of Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR on Behalf of Palo Alto November 13, 2017
Because the intersection is already operating at LOS E during the AM peak hour and the increase in
delay on the stop-controlled approach is only one second, there would not be a significant impact
even if the more stringent LOS D standard were used for unsignalized intersections.
Junipero Serra Blvd – Foothill Expressway and Page Mill Road (#17)
DEIR: The proposed mitigation measure at this intersection for both the 2018 and 2035 impacts is
“Contribute fair share funding toward installation of an overlap signal phase for northbound and
southbound right-turning vehicles and widening of southbound Junipero Serra to two lanes between
Stanford Avenue and Page Mill Road to align with the existing designated right-turn lane.” The text
on page 5.15-92 notes that this would allow southbound right-turning vehicles additional queuing
space so southbound through vehicles do not block the right-turn lane. Under 2018 conditions, there
would still be a significant and unavoidable impact even with this mitigation measure, although under
2035 conditions, this measure was found to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Hexagon Comments: The mitigation measure proposed is reasonable, but ignores the other
changes that have been proposed for this intersection. The Page Mill Expressway Corridor Study
Report recommends the addition of a third eastbound and westbound through lane on Page Mill
Road between the I-280 interchange and Porter Drive (just east of Page Mill Road), as noted on
Page 5.15-124 of the DEIR. Measure B does not provide sufficient funding for the entire Page Mill
corridor project, including modifications to this intersection, so it would be reasonable for Stanford to
make a fair share contribution to it. Because the DEIR’s proposed mitigation does not fully mitigate
the Project’s impact at this intersection, a fair-share contribution to the Page Mill widening (possibly
HOV lanes) at this intersection should also be included in the mitigation measure, in addition to the
proposed changes to the Junipero Serra approach.
Bowdoin Street and Stanford Avenue (#34)
DEIR: No impact is found at this unsignalized intersection under 2018 or 2035 conditions. Under
2035 conditions, the intersection operates at LOS D without the project and at LOS E with the
project during the PM peak hour. Because signal warrant analyses were only conducted for
unsignalized intersections operating at LOS F, no signal warrant analysis is included in Appendix G
of the TIA.
Hexagon Comments: As noted previously, the City’s practice has been to use LOS D as the
impact threshold for unsignalized intersections, even though there is no formal policy statement
regarding unsignalized intersection impact criteria. If a more stringent LOS D threshold were to be
used and if the peak hour signal warrant were met, then the project would result in a significant
impact at this intersection. The Final EIR should include signal warrant analyses on Palo Alto
unsignalized study intersections operating at LOS E.
If the finding of no significant impact were to be changed to a finding of significant impact (based on
LOS E in the PM peak hour and a signal warrant analysis), installing a traffic signal at this location
would not be recommended as a mitigation measure, due to its fairly close spacing with other
signalized intersections on Stanford Avenue, at Peter Coutts Road and at Hanover Street. The
City’s preferred approach to this intersection would be a roundabout or a treatment other than a
signal at this location.
El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road (#48)
DEIR: Significant impact found in 2035, but not 2018. Proposed mitigation measure is “Contribute
fair-share funding toward the addition of a second northbound left-turn lane.” Page 5.15-131 of the
P a g e | 9
Review of Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR on Behalf of Palo Alto November 13, 2017
DEIR notes that VTA’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project has proposed a separate bus lane on El
Camino Real, but not through this intersection. The DEIR concludes that it is not possible to
determine what, if any, effect this mitigation measure would have on the BRT since there is no final
design available.
Hexagon Comments: As part of the Preferred Scenario selected for Palo Alto’s Comprehensive
Plan Update, queue jump lanes (not exclusive bus lanes) in the curbside lane have been proposed
for transit on El Camino Real. Is there be adequate right-of-way for both an additional northbound
left-turn lane and queue jump lanes? Would it be possible to implement both? The DEIR notes that
the City is “currently designing bicycle improvements at this intersection.”
Alma Street and Charleston Road (#58)
DEIR: Significant impact found under both 2018 and 2035 conditions. Proposed mitigation is
“Contribute fair-share funding toward the addition of a designated northbound right-turn lane and
installation of an overlap phase for the northbound and southbound right-turn movements.” The
impact would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of this mitigation.
Hexagon Comments: As part of the Preferred Scenario selected for Palo Alto’s Comprehensive
Plan Update, grade separation between Charleston Road and the Caltrain tracks has been
proposed. Because the DEIR’s proposed mitigation does not fully mitigate the Project’s impact at
this intersection, a fair-share contribution to the grade separation project should also be included in
the mitigation measure.
Freeway Impacts (2018 and 2035 Conditions)
DEIR: The DEIR states that the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on four
freeway segments under 2018 conditions and on 11 freeway segments under 2035 conditions. The
impacted segments are on SR 85 and I-280. No specific mitigation measure is proposed, although it
is noted that to the extent that vehicle trips are reduced to achieve the “no net new trips” standard
and through applying any fees from exceeding the standard to alternative programs that reduce
vehicle trips, the project’s contribution to freeway congestion would also be reduced.
Hexagon Comments: The freeway segment analysis does not follow the methodology set forth in
VTA’s TIA Guidelines or in C/CAG’s guidelines. According to VTA’s TIA Guidelines (page 44), a
freeway segment is said to have an impact if the level of service falls from LOS E or better to LOS
F. If the segment is already operating at LOS F, then a project has an impact if the number of new
trips added by the project is more than 1% of the freeway capacity.
Instead of referring to the level of service on the study freeway segments, the DEIR uses volume-
to-capacity ratios (v/c) for both the 2018 and 2035 conditions. The TIA states there would be an
impact if a project causes a freeway’s v/c ratio to increase from less than or equal to 1.0 to greater
than 1.0. If the segment is already operating at a v/c ratio greater than 1.0, then there would be an
impact if the number of new trips added by the project is more than 1% of the freeway capacity. If
the freeway evaluation used level of service instead of v/c ratio, there may be more freeway
impacts than have been identified in the DEIR.
A few cities in Santa Clara County have identified contributions to regional freeway and transit
facilities as mitigation measures for significant freeway impacts. VTA has developed a structure for
a program of Voluntary Contributions to Transportation Improvements, which can be used by local
agencies when preparing development agreements. The County has the opportunity to require
P a g e | 10
Review of Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR on Behalf of Palo Alto November 13, 2017
such a contribution to regional facilities in its development agreement as an additional condition if
the “no net new trips” goal is not achieved.
VTP 2040 includes four highway projects that are relevant to the impacted freeway segments on SR
85 and I-280 and could be considered as candidates for a fair-share funding contribution for the
freeway impacts identified in the DEIR. A contribution to improvements at the Palo Alto Intermodal
Transit Station would also be appropriate to consider.
Freeway Ramp Operations
DEIR: The DEIR notes that ramp queuing is not considered an environmental impact, but rather an
operational consideration that is managed over time by Caltrans and local jurisdictions. The ramp
analysis is presented for information purposes only.
In the text following the Existing, 2018, and 2035 off-ramp queuing evaluations, it is noted that the
left-turn queue at the I-280/Page Mill Road southbound off-ramp would exceed the pocket storage
length, but that the queue would be served within the total ramp storage and would not spillback
into the freeway mainline.
Hexagon Comments: Regarding the I-280/Page Mill Road southbound off-ramp, the text is
somewhat misleading. An extremely long exit lane is provided on I-280 for this off-ramp, and the
queue extends a long way into that lane during the AM peak hour. Due to the length of that exit
lane, it is true that through traffic is not blocked on the freeway, but the DEIR implies that there are
no problems at this location since the “queue would be served within the total ramp storage.” A
more detailed description of existing and future conditions at this off-ramp is warranted. This off-
ramp is analyzed as an all-way stop controlled intersection under 2035 conditions, even though the
intersection analysis assumed the intersection would be signalized by 2035. As discussed above,
the proposed improvement at this location is a roundabout.
Construction Impacts
DEIR: The DEIR finds that construction traffic would cause a significant impact and that it would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level with the proposed mitigation measure.
Hexagon Comments: The City has expressed concern about the difficulty that its emergency
responders have in meeting their response time targets when there are frequent lane closures or
roadway detours due to construction. A new system for emergency responders is being
implemented that will identify the best route for responders to take, based on current information
about the roadway network. The mitigation measure should be revised to require the University to
inform the City of all roadway changes immediately, so that the system is kept current at all times.
Transit Impacts
DEIR: The DEIR finds that the project would result in a less-than-significant impact on public transit
based on (a) an analysis of transit delay and (b) the fact that “The proposed 2018 General Use
Permit does not propose infrastructure changes outside the Project site and, thus, would not
interfere with the ability of transit agencies to modify or expand service.”
Hexagon Comments: The DEIR takes a very narrow view of whether the project would conflict
with an adopted policy, plan, or program regarding public transit, or would otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities. The DEIR does not present the analysis of transit capacity
P a g e | 11
Review of Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR on Behalf of Palo Alto November 13, 2017
as part of the impact analysis, but addresses that topic separately. See comments regarding the
transit capacity analysis of Caltrain under “Key Concerns” above.
The City requested additional transit-related data and analysis in its NOP letter. Although some of
the requested additional information regarding transit has been provided, the following requested
items are not covered in the DEIR:
Boardings, speed, and frequency of individual Marguerite lines;
An evaluation of transit performance and efficiency as it relates to site design, mobility, and
access;
An assessment of the capacity, access, and operations of the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit
Center (PAITC), including a capacity assessment of bus bays, layover facilities, and
potential operating impacts to other transit providers using the PAITC, especially if
Marguerite service is expanded.
The Final EIR should provide this requested additional data and analysis regarding services and
facilities that serve Stanford-affiliated transit patrons.
Residential Streets
DEIR: The DEIR finds that the project would not substantially increase intrusion by traffic in nearby
neighborhoods and that there would be a less-than-significant impact. Traffic impacts on residential
streets were estimated using the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) methodology.
The threshold for an increase in traffic that would be noticeable to residents is a 0.1 increase in the
index. The analysis was conducted for the College Terrace and Crescent Park neighborhoods, and
the minimum daily volume increase required to increase the Index by 0.1 was calculated for a few
roadway segments.
Hexagon Comments: In general, the TIRE methodology is somewhat problematic in evaluating
traffic diversion impacts for a number of reasons. One reason is that it is based on average daily
traffic (ADT), not peak periods of traffic, and sometimes residents are most sensitive to increases in
traffic during commute hours when diversions are most likely to occur. Hexagon acknowledges,
however, that no other tools have been developed that are widely considered superior to the TIRE
index. The TIRE index uses a logarithmic scale, such that as ADT increases, larger proportional
increases in additional project-related traffic are required in order to result in an increase to the
index.
The DEIR notes that “on a daily basis Hamilton Avenue (just west of Lincoln Avenue) carries about
16% of the combined volume (University Avenue plus Hamilton Avenue); however, between 4:00 –
7:00 PM, it carries about 67%.” This clearly indicates that a large amount of traffic is already being
diverted to Hamilton during the PM peak period. Because of that diversion, ADT is already higher
than it otherwise would be on Hamilton. And, because of that higher ADT, the number of additional
vehicle trips needed to trigger a 0.1 increase in the TIRE index is also much higher than the amount
required to trigger a change on the streets evaluated in the College Terrace neighborhood. For
example, Table 5.15-28, “Crescent Park Neighborhood TIRE Index Results,” shows that 1,025
additional vehicles per day would be needed on Hamilton Avenue (between Hamilton Court and
Lincoln Avenue) to increase the index by 0.1, given that the daily traffic volume is 3,700. In other
words, ADT would have to increase by 28% to trigger a 0.1 increase in the TIRE index.
What this boils down to is that because Hamilton Avenue already experiences a large amount of
diverted traffic, the additional diverted traffic resulting from the 2018 GUP development is
insufficient to cause a significant impact under the TIRE methodology. In fact, even if the estimate
P a g e | 12
Review of Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR on Behalf of Palo Alto November 13, 2017
of 121 project-generated trips on the above-referenced segment of Hamilton Avenue were doubled
or tripled, it would be considered a less-than-significant impact, since it would still be well below the
threshold of 1,025 trips. Although some residents may take issue with this finding, the DEIR applies
the TIRE methodology correctly.
Emergency Access
DEIR: The DEIR finds that the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. This
finding is based on the fact that the proposed 2018 GUP “would not result in any infrastructure
changes outside the project site, and thus would not create fixed physical barriers to, or impede,
emergency access.”
Hexagon Comments: The rationale for this finding refers only to infrastructure changes outside
the project site, but the DEIR should also consider any changes on campus due to the 2018 GUP
development that would impede emergency access. In its NOP letter, the City asked that the DEIR
evaluate impacts to response times for fire, rescue, and emergency medical services. This is not
provided in the transportation (or public service) sections of the DEIR, and should be addressed in
the Final EIR.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
DEIR: The DEIR states that the 2018 GUP would not result in a significant impact to bicycle and
pedestrian facilities because it “would not result in any infrastructure changes outside the Project
site and would [not] preclude implementation of planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities and, thus,
would not create hazardous conditions where none exist today.”
The DEIR used StreetScore, a proprietary methodology of Fehr & Peers, to evaluate Quality of
Service (QOS) of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The proposed intersection mitigation measures
are evaluated for secondary impacts to bikes and pedestrians using StreetScore, and none were
found to have a significant secondary impact.
Hexagon Comments: The StreetScore methodology used by Fehr & Peers is a newly developed
tool and is not widely accepted as a standard evaluation tool in the traffic engineering community.
Hexagon notes that the ratings do not seem to be that sensitive to lane geometry changes. In some
cases, the rating given to bicycle or pedestrian facilities does not change at all as a result of the
proposed mitigation measure. In other cases, adding a lane does not affect the Quality of Service
because the intersection is already at the worst rating (4) and the mitigation measure is deemed
to “maintain but not exacerbate current uncomfortable conditions.” This is the equivalent of saying
that if an intersection is already at LOS F that additional trips can’t make it worse – which is clearly
not permitted under the intersection impact criteria. In such cases, the Final EIR should address
ways in which the bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities can be modified to improve conditions for
cyclists and pedestrians as well as motorists.
DEIR: A bicycle capacity analysis of campus gateways was conducted (pp. 5.15-167 – 169), but not
as part of the impact discussion. Peak hour bicycle volumes were converted into cyclists per minute
to provide an indication of how intensely the campus gateways are being utilized. The analysis
concluded that the anticipated growth in bicycle commuters under the 2018 GUP would not exceed
capacity at these gateways.
Hexagon Comments: The City’s NOP letter states that “the DEIR should identify critical
intersections on bicycle routes that currently have inadequate integration of bicycle facilities and
determine needed improvements.” However, the DEIR does not address this. In addition to the
P a g e | 13
Review of Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR on Behalf of Palo Alto November 13, 2017
gateway capacity analysis, the design of bicycle facilities and their integration with routes used by
Stanford commuters should be addressed. For example, Embarcadero Road is a daunting corridor
for cyclists, but the analysis just says there’s adequate capacity at the gateway on Galvez Street
south of Arboretum Road, which is on the campus. Other corridors may also have issues.
The Final EIR should address the access routes used by bicyclists, not just the campus gateways,
and should expand the analysis to include safety, comfort and connectivity, as well as capacity. In
order to meet the “no net new trips” goal, Stanford will need to further increase the bicycle mode
share. One of the strategies put forth in the TIA for expanding the TDM program is to identify key
improvements that would directly reduce the road stress for cyclists on access routes to campus,
which should be included as part of the EIR.
DEIR: Separate from the impact discussion (i.e., not offered as a mitigation measure), The DEIR
notes that Stanford will provide improvements to bike and pedestrian facilities on unincorporated
land near Escondido and Nixon schools.
Hexagon Comments: The list of potential improvements suggested on page 5.15-112 of the DEIR
should be reviewed to confirm that they reflect the most recent ideas regarding needed
improvements for Safe Routes to School for these schools. The University should continue to
coordinate with the City and the Palo Alto Unified School District to define and implement
improvements that reflect the most recent Safe Routes to School recommendations. In addition,
because development on campus can result in large bursts of new school children as residential
projects are completed, it’s important that the University remain responsive when new demands for
school travel are generated by new development. .
DEIR: Stanford also proposes in Chapter 8 of the DEIR to fund specified off-site bicycle
improvements in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and unincorporated San Mateo County.
Stanford would apply for trip credits towards the “no net new trips” goal based on these bicycle
facilities in all future years after the facilities are constructed. The proposal for Palo Alto is to
connect existing facilities at Bol Park and the Stanford Perimeter Trail. “The improvements would
be installed along Hanover Street, which would provide a continuous route through southern Palo
Alto neighborhoods and the Stanford Research Park to the Stanford campus. (DEIR, p. 8-4)”
Stanford would contribute up to $250,000 in funding towards the design and implementation of
bicycle improvements in the Hanover Street corridor, “which is the full estimated cost of these
improvements”.
Hexagon Comments: The proposal to provide better connectivity between the Stanford Perimeter
Trail and the Bol Park Path makes good sense, since the Bol Park Path is a heavily used facility and
provides a route from campus to Terman Middle School and Gunn High School. However, the
specific details of the improvements proposed in the DEIR have not been accepted by the City as
the most critical modifications needed to improve this bike corridor. Further, some of the specific
elements of this project, as listed on page 8-4 of DEIR, may already be covered by the recent
agreement between the City and the County regarding improvements at the intersection of Hanover
Street and Page Mill Road. Stanford representatives should coordinate with Palo Alto staff to better
define this project and ensure that it does not include elements that are already covered by the $3.2
million agreement with the County but does include funding for elements that are still critically
needed for upgrading this bikeway.
On-Campus Parking Supply and Off-Campus Restrictions
See comment under Key Concerns above.
P a g e | 14
Review of Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR on Behalf of Palo Alto November 13, 2017
DEIR: Stanford wants to exclude parking spaces at EV charging stations from the count of parking
spaces allowed under the 2018 GUP. The rationale is that these spaces require turnover, such that
other spaces are needed for the same cars when they are not charging.
Hexagon Comments: Since the number of EV charging stations is likely to increase substantially
by 2035 as EV ownership rates increase, this will not be a trivial number of parking spaces in the
future. Signs at charging stations say that “Vehicles Must Be Actively Charging” to park in these
spaces, but how is that enforced? If someone parks their car at an EV charging station and plugs it
in, do enforcement staff look to see if it is actively charging? How long do people have after their
car is charged to move it? In many public garages, it is common for EV drivers to leave their cars
parked in the space all day long, even if it does not take all day to charge it.
Additional Comments
This section includes additional issues noticed by Hexagon and not addressed in any of the
preceding sections.
2018 GUP, Background Conditions Report, page 4-58: Intersection improvements identified as
mitigation measures for the 2000 GUP were divided into two tiers. A condition of the 2000 GUP
“required Stanford to construct Tier 1 intersection improvements regardless of whether Stanford
achieved the ‘no net new trips’ goal.” A two-tier approach may also make sense for the 2018 GUP,
with a condition of approval that requires a fair-share contribution towards improvements at the Palo
Alto Intermodal Transit Station in order to accommodate 8-car trains for Caltrain service. The
County could require such a contribution regardless of whether Stanford achieves the “no net new
trips” goal because increased Caltrain capacity is so critical to further reductions to the SOV mode
share and the projected increases in Caltrain ridership.
TIA, Part 1, Figure 5 , “Stanford University Employee Mode Share,” provides information about
the modes used by commuters coming from different geographic subareas. The information is
extremely useful, but also raises questions about survey design and validation. For example, the
figure shows a number of people walking from the North Bay (Marin, Napa, and Sonoma Counties).
Stanford should continue to refine its survey process. Also, East Palo Alto is not identified in any of
the geographic subareas. East Palo Alto should be identified on this figure and in Tables 7 and 8.
TIA, Part 1, Table 7, “Percent of Stanford Affiliates (Driving) by Geographic Area”: The table
indicates that Sunnyvale and Santa Clara are north of campus and would use Alpine Road and
Sand Hill Road to access the campus from I-280. Was this error only made on the table or did the
trip distribution and assignment actually incorporate this error?
TIA, Part 2, pages 103-104: The TIA states that “adjustments were made to the survey data to
account for a known bias in the surveys. More detail on how these biases were adjusted for can be
found in the 2018 GUP TIA Part 1.” Part 1 does not include detail on these adjustments. This
information should be added to the TIA.
TIA, Part 2, page 134: A reference is made to “C/CAG’s bus routes.” This should be corrected to
read “SamTrans’s bus routes.”
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8600)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/4/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: State Housing Bills Summary and Relevance to Palo Alto
Title: Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding the State Housing Bills
Effective January 1, 2018
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This item will allow for a presentation, questions, and discussion about a package of 15 housing
bills approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in September 2017. The resulting
State laws will become effective January 1, 2018 and staff’s intention is to summarize how the
bills will affect Palo Alto.
While no specific action is recommended, the Council could choose to direct staff to return with
additional information or take steps to prepare amendments to the City’s zoning ordinance for
the Council’s consideration. Possible amendments include updates to provide additional
objective development standards for multifamily housing consistent with SB 35 and updates to
the Housing Accountability Act.
Executive Summary
The Legislature and the Governor approved 15 new laws (referred to as a “housing package”)
intended to stimulate housing production in response to the State’s housing crisis. The new
laws will become effective January 1, 2018 and some of these may affect development and
decision-making in Palo Alto. This agenda item is intended to provide an overview of the
housing bills, and allow for discussion of potential local implications. The bills can be grouped
into the following categories:
Housing Accountability Act Changes (AB 678, SB 167, and AB 1515) make it more difficult for
jurisdictions to deny or reduce the density of proposed housing projects, including mixed-use
projects, and increase penalties for jurisdictions that fail to approve zoning compliant housing
projects.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The “By Right” Housing Bill (SB 35) provides for streamlined processing for zoning compliant
projects that meet certain criteria.
RHNA Reporting Requirements & Enforcement Bills (AB 879, SB 35, AB 72, AB 879, and AB
1397) require agencies to report more information to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) each year and give HCD the ability to enforce compliance with
State housing laws during the housing cycle, and not just at Housing Element adoption. These
bills will also make it more difficult to carry forward sites that have not developed into the
City’s next Housing Element.
ADU Clean-up Bills (AB 494 and SB 229) make minor adjustments to the ADU laws adopted last
year and codified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code earlier this year.
Inclusionary Rental Housing provisions (AB 1505) allow local agencies to require affordable
units as part of any rental development, not just for-sale condo development.
Districts for Streamlined Processing (SB 540 and AB 73) are potential alternatives to specific
plans (called “coordinated area plans” in Palo Alto), although they each have disadvantages.
Funding Measures (SB 2 and SB 3) provide funding for the State and local agencies immediately
(SB 2) and will put a large funding package on the ballot in November 2018 (SB 3).
Background
Background materials related to the new housing laws are attached to this report and will be
discussed further at the Council meeting.
As further background, staff offers the following status report on housing production (building
permits) compared to the City’s RHNA obligation:
Table 1. 1998-2016 Housing Production
Compared to Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA)
RHNA allocation Units Permitted % of RHNA*
1998-2006 Housing
Element Cycle
• 265 Very Low
• 116 Low Income
• 343 Moderate Income
• 673 Above Moderate
1,397 Total
• 1,713 total units
• 341 affordable units
• 123% of total units
• 47% of affordable units
City of Palo Alto Page 3
2007-2014 Housing
Element Cycle
• 690 Very Low
• 543 Low Income
• 641 Moderate Income
• 986 Above Moderate
2,860 Total
• 1,062 total units
• 290 affordable units
• 37% of total units
• 16% of affordable units
2014-2022 Housing
Element Cycle
(Thru 2016)
• 345 Extremely Low
• 346 Very Low
• 432 Low Income
• 278 Moderate Income
• 587 Above Moderate
1,988 Total
• 310 total units
• 121 affordable units
(Thru 2016)
• 16% of total units
• 8% of affordable units
(Thru 2016)
Total all cycles
1998-2022
6,246 total units
4,000 affordable units
• 3,085 total units
• 752 affordable units
(Thru 2016)
49% of total units
19% of affordable units
(Thru 2016)
Source: Planning & Community Environment, November 2017
As the Council is aware, regional job growth generally factors into the regional housing needs
allocation (RHNA) and staff expects a larger allocation for the 2023-2031 cycle because of the
regional job growth that’s occurred since the recession and the State’s ongoing housing crisis.
Environmental Review
This agenda item will not result in any action other than possible direction to staff to provide
additonal information or prepare ordinances for future consideration and action. As a result,
this agenda item is not a project subject to review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Memo State Housing Bills November 20, 2017 (PDF)
1of11
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY MANAGER JAMES KEENE
FROM: HILLARY GITELMAN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
MOLLY STUMP, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: APPLICABILITY OF SB 35 (“BY RIGHT” HOUSING BILL) AND OTHER HOUSING
BILLS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
Last month, Governor Brown signed a package of 15 housing bills approved by the California Legislature
intended to spur the production of housing in the State. This memo attempts to summarize the
relevance of these bills to Palo Alto and focuses on those likely to have the greatest impact.
Please note that this is a general summary only and the bills discussed are complex. Further analysis will
be provided prior to the Council’s consideration of any zoning code amendments to address the state
law changes, and as residential projects come forward in 2018. All of the recently enacted legislation
will become effective on January 1, 2018.
A number of the bills will raise the stakes for local agencies when they are considering projects on sites
in their housing inventory, when they are considering approval of housing projects, and when they are
implementing their housing element through other actions (or inaction).
A. SB 35 (“BY RIGHT” HOUSING): STREAMLINED APPROVAL PROCESS FOR ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
SB 35 (Weiner) has been referred to as the “by right” housing bill because it would require local
agencies to expeditiously and ministerially approve multifamily housing projects meeting certain
eligibility criteria, if requested by the applicant. A local agency is subject to the provisions of this bill if
the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines that the jurisdiction
has not issued enough building permits to satisfy its Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) by
income category or did not submit the required annual report to HCD for 2 years. The bill will be
effective from January 1, 2018 until January 1, 2026.
HCD has not yet made the determination as to which agencies will be subject to the bill, but we
anticipate that Palo Alto may be subject to the law. This is based on data through the year 2016 (i.e.
through 25% of the housing cycle) showing that Palo Alto has issued permits for 16 % of its RHNA
allocation for market rate units and 8% of its RHNA for affordable units.
2of11
The summary below focuses on which projects will be eligible for streamlining under SB 35, and then
discusses the project review and approval process for those eligible projects. Parking requirements are
also discussed, followed by some thoughts about how the bill will be relevant to Palo Alto.
1. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
There are a number of requirements that a project must meet to be eligible for SB 35 streamlining. To
be eligible, a project must:
consist of two or more units and be located on a legal parcel or parcels in an area with at least
75% of the perimeter developed with urban uses;
be on a site that is zoned for residential use or residential mixed‐use or has a general plan
designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses;
designate at least two‐thirds of the project square footage for residential use;
be consistent with the current zoning ordinance and all objective zoning standards and objective
design review standards in effect at the time of application;
not be located in a coastal zone, wetland, prime farmland, very high fire severity zone,
hazardous waste site, delineated earthquake fault zone, flood plain or floodway (unless a flood
plain development permit is obtained), within land identified for conservation in an adopted
natural resource protection plan, habitat for protected species, under conservation easement,
or be subject to mobile home park law;
not propose demolition of a listed historic resource;
not propose demolition of existing dwelling units that are subject to affordability restrictions or
have been occupied by tenants within the past 10 years;
not be on a site that was previously used for housing occupied by tenants that was demolished
within the past 10 years;
not involve a subdivision (except for projects using low income tax credits and paying prevailing
wage or satisfying other labor requirements);
provide a minimum percentage of below market rate units for projects with more than 10 units,
with the percentage and the level of affordability based on the City’s track record of unit
production at different levels of affordability during the RHNA period;
3of11
pay prevailing wages if the project consists of 10 units or more; and
use a skilled and trained workforce (e.g. union labor) if the project consists of 75 units or more.
2. PROJECT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
SB 35 establishes an expedited review and approval process for eligible projects. Within 60 days of
submittal of an application, the local jurisdiction must confirm the project’s eligibility under SB 35 and
provide a list of all inconsistencies with objective zoning standards and objective design review
standards in effect at the time the application is submitted (90 days is allowed for projects containing
more than 150 units). “Objective standards” means standards that involve “no personal or subjective
judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
benchmark ….” If the agency fails to provide this list within the required timeframe, the project is
deemed consistent with zoning and design review standards.
Local jurisdictions have a total of 90 days from submittal to process and make a determination on the
application, including any hearings by boards/commissions or the City Council (180 days is allowed for
projects containing more than 150 units). Reviews within the first 60 days of submittal can focus on
applicability of the streamlined process under the law, objective zoning standards and “reasonable
objective design standards published and adopted by ordinance or resolution” prior to receipt of the
application. Reviews within the last 30 days, including any hearings, can only focus on the reasonable
objective design standards. Reviews may be conducted by staff, boards/commissions and/or the City
Council, as long as they are based on these standards, and are conducted within the 90 day timeframe.
3. LIMITS ON PARKING REQUIREMENTS
SB 35 would reduce or eliminate parking requirements for eligible housing projects. Projects that qualify
for streamlined processing are not required to provide any off‐street parking if they are within: ½ mile of
public transit; one block of a car share vehicle location; an area where on‐street parking permits are
required but not offered to the development occupants; or an architecturally or historically significant
historic district. Most of Palo Alto’s multifamily and mixed use districts would meet this requirement.
Eligible projects in other locations could only be required to provide one parking space per unit.
Relevance to Palo Alto
Eligible Sites and Projects: Virtually all of Palo Alto outside of the Baylands and the foothills would be
considered urban areas and virtually all of Palo Alto’s multifamily and commercial/mixed use zoning
districts would allow multifamily projects. Only the AC, R‐E, R‐1, GM, OS, and PF districts do not allow
4of11
multifamily uses. For this reason, project eligibility under SB 35 is likely to be based on site conditions.
For example:
Has the site contained rental housing within the last 10 years?
Does the site have soil or groundwater contamination?
Is there an historic building?
Project eligibility will also be affected by specifics of a developer’s proposal. For example:
Does the proposal comply with current zoning and meet all objective zoning standards without
the need for any variance or exception?
Has the developer agreed to pay prevailing wages?
Has the developer agreed to meet affordability requirements?
For projects with more than 10 units, to qualify for SB 35 streamlining the affordable housing
requirement provides that 10% of the units must be restricted for households earning less than 80% of
the area median income (AMI). The City currently requires ownership projects to provide 15% of the
units as affordable without specifying how many units must be at less than 80% AMI, so ownership
projects could qualify for streamlining by meeting the City’s requirement at the affordability level
required in the State law. 100% affordable projects would also qualify, as would projects proposing 50
percent of the units as affordable to households at less than 80% of AMI.
The City does not currently have an affordability requirement for rental projects (which are required to
pay impact fees instead) so rental projects with more than 10 units would have to meet the State
standard (10% of the units at 80% AMI) to be eligible for streamlining. If the City enacts inclusionary
requirements on rental projects in accordance with AB 1505 (see below), those projects could be
required to meet the 15% standard currently applicable to ownership projects only.
Ministerial Review Process: The City may wish to amend the zoning code to implement the new law. SB
35 includes a provision that prohibits local agencies from adopting any requirements that apply to
projects solely or partially on the basis of eligibility for streamlined review, however, this would not
appear to preclude adoption of necessary procedures or from examining its ARB findings and guidelines
to determine whether some can be re‐framed as objective standards applicable to all projects.
While zoning compliance would be required for projects to be eligible for streamlined review, the City’s
current requirements for a use permit, for site and design approval, and for compliance with subjective
5of11
ARB findings regarding design and compatibility could not be enforced. Objective performance
standards (requirements) in PAMC Chapter 18.23 would remain in effect, although guidelines in that
chapter indicating issues that “should” be addressed may be unenforceable.
Examples: In some ways, SB 35 is a game‐changer for multifamily housing development in Palo Alto
because of its potential to influence the size and location of multifamily housing applications that the
City receives. Large projects requiring legislative actions (e.g. rezoning) or design exceptions will still
have to go through the City’s regular process. However, over 13% of the land in Palo Alto is zoned for
multifamily, commercial, or mixed‐use, and property owners in these areas could choose to shape their
proposals to be eligible for streamlined review.
For example, the owner of a site along El Camino (in the CN or CS zoning district) could propose a
project with ground floor retail and housing above. As long as the residential square footage makes up
75% of the project and other standards are met, the project would qualify for streamlined review. In
this situation, existing zoning limits residential FAR to 0.5 and other objective development standards
(height, setback, etc.) are in place, so that the project would be fairly modest in scale unless a property
owner assembles a large site. The recent development on the Compadres site at 3877 El Camino Real is
a recent example (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61110). This was a 17‐
unit project on a 32,825 square foot site that could have been eligible for streamlined review if the
applicant had not requested a design enhancement exception for an underground garage extending into
a required setback. (Note that parking would not have been required if the project was eligible for
streamlining, but the applicant may have wanted to provide parking for the units nonetheless.) Also,
in this case and others, the applicant, who provided two affordable units, could have requested bonus
units under the State density bonus law. Bonus units and design concessions enabled by the State
density bonus law are considered code complying and would not make a project ineligible for
streamlined review.
Qualifying developments in CD (downtown) would also be modest if located on small parcels, but could
be more sizeable on larger development sites because of the residential FAR of 1.0 for mixed use
projects. In the Stanford Research Park, in the RP zone district, the property owner/lease holder could
propose development consistent with the RM‐30 standards, as long as the site is not within 150‐feet of
a R‐1 or similar zone. This kind of proposal could be quite large given parcel sizes in the area and the
applicable 0.4 FAR.
Staff has not been able to estimate the total number of projects or units that could be created under the
new law because its applicability is dependent on site‐specific conditions like parcel size, existing uses,
and the property owner’s potential return on investment from redevelopment for multifamily housing.
B. UPDATES TO THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
6of11
The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code § 65589.5) currently precludes a local agency from
denying or reducing the density of a housing development project that meet objective development
standards unless it finds: 1) the project would have specific, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable
impacts on public health or safety, based on objective safety standards, policies, or conditions in
existence at the time the application was deemed complete; and 2) these impacts cannot be mitigated
except by disapproval or reduction in density. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (j)). In addition, for projects
that meet specified affordability thresholds, an agency may not impose conditions that render the
project infeasible for the use or very low, low, or moderate income households, unless it makes similar
findings. For affordable housing projects, these findings may be required even if the project does not
comply with objective development standards. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (d)).
AB 678 (Bocanegra) and SB 167 (Skinner) are identical bills that significantly increase the burden of
proof for local agencies to justify disapproval of housing projects or approval of housing projects at
lower densities than allowed. AB 1515 (Daly) requires the courts to give less deference to a local
government's planning and zoning consistency determination. In sum, the three bills make the
following changes:
The definition of “housing development projects” is expanded to include mixed use projects
where at least two‐thirds of the floor area is designated for residential use.
An agency must now provide a written explanation of any inconsistencies with objective
development standards and policies within 30 days (60 days for projects with more than 150
units). If the agency fails to respond within these timelines, the project is deemed consistent
with all objective standards.
A project must be deemed consistent with objective standards and policies if there is
“substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project is
consistent. In other words, an agency must find consistency with objective standards as long as
there is relevant evidence to support that finding, even if the weight of the evidence is to the
contrary.
The bills clarify that receipt of a density bonus is not a basis for finding a project inconsistent
with objective standards.
Whereas existing law requires that agencies support their findings with substantial evidence in
the record, the bills increase that burden to require a preponderance of the evidence. This is a
much less deferential standard for judicial review of a decision to deny or reduce the density of
a project.
7of11
The bills require an award of attorney’s fees to a successful plaintiff and the imposition of harsh
penalties (at least $10,000 per housing unit) for agencies who fail to comply with a court’s order
within 60 days.
Provisions of the Housing Accountability Act are already quite stringent, and recently resulted in
successful litigation by a developer in Los Gatos. All three of these bills would strengthen existing
provisions in the law and increase penalties for non‐compliance, making it much more difficult for the
City to disapprove or reduce the number of units in a housing project.
Relevance to Palo Alto
Eligible Sites and Projects: The Housing Accountability Act applies to all housing projects in the City,
including mixed use projects that dedicate at least two‐thirds of their square footage to residential uses
and transitional or supportive housing projects. In addition, the HAA provides heightened protections
for affordable housing projects that make at least 20% of their units affordable to low‐income
households (up to 80% of AMI) or 100% of their units affordable to middle‐income households (up to
150% of AMI). These thresholds are greater than the minimums required by the City’s BMR program, so
housing projects will not automatically qualify for this heightened protection.
Short timelines for review: Under the recent amendments to the HAA, staff will have only 30 days to
review projects against objective general plan and zoning code standards before the projects are
deemed consistent. Although the City may not deny or reduce the density of a project once it is deemed
consistent with objective standards, a project may still be subject to discretionary approvals such as
architectural review. Note: if the City re‐frames some of its architectural review findings as objective
standards (as suggested in the discussion of SB 35), this may narrow the scope of discretionary
architectural review. In addition, because HAA permits denial or reduction of density only in the event of
specific adverse impacts on public health and safety, the City may wish to focus discretionary findings on
those issues.
Examples: In Palo Alto, the HAA would come into play if the City wanted to deny a housing project
that is on its face consistent with the City’s objective zoning standards, or if the City wanted to attach
conditions reducing the number of units in such a project.
Because so much of Palo Alto’s multifamily housing development has historically required legislative
changes (e.g. rezoning to Planned Community), the HAA has not regularly come into play. However, this
will be an issue to keep an eye on as the City proceeds with zoning changes to stimulate additional
housing production and proceeds with the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan that sets forth specific
standards for multifamily housing in the area.
8of11
C. NEW HOUSING ELEMENT AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WITH HIGHER THRESHOLDS AND
PENALTIES
Several bills (SB 35, AB 72, AB 879 and AB 1397) affect housing element requirements and annual
reporting of housing development.
AB 879 (Grayson) and SB 35 address the existing requirement that local agencies file a report with the
state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) each year, expanding the information required, and imposing penalties if reports are not
submitted in a timely fashion. A public hearing on the report and submittal of the report to HCD and
OPR must occur by April 1st of each year. (Charter cities such as Palo Alto had previously been exempt
from the requirement for a public hearing on the annual report.)
AB 1397 (Low) will be important the next time the City updates its housing element. Like most fully
developed jurisdictions, Palo Alto’s inventory of housing sites relies heavily on sites that are
underdeveloped, but not vacant. AB 1397 will require a more detailed analysis before allowing sites
with existing uses to be considered suitable for residential development.
AB 72 (Santiago) requires HCD to review any action or inaction by a locality that it determines is
inconsistent with an adopted housing element, including failure to implement any programs in the
housing element. If HCD identifies any inconsistency, it is required to issue written findings and provide
30 days for a response. After 30 days, HDC may revoke its certification of the agency’s housing element
and may notify the Office of the Attorney General that the agency is not in compliance with the law.
Under the current law, HCD makes a decision to certify (or not) an agency’s housing element within 90
days of adoption and certification provides a rebuttable presumption that an agency’s housing element
complies with the law. By allowing HCD to de‐certify housing elements during the eight year housing
element cycle, this bill provides an avenue for developers and advocates to petition HCD and ultimately
challenge the sufficiency of the agency’s housing element in court.
Relevance to Palo Alto
The City of Palo Alto’s adopted housing element contains 72 implementation programs and the City is
making slow progress towards their implementation. In future housing element cycles, the City may
wish to include fewer programs, make them clearer, and identify a realistic schedule for their
implementation.
Based on the heightened scrutiny for housing elements, staff would recommend extreme caution when
considering development on housing sites that would produce fewer units than projected in the housing
element. Staff would also recommend deferring elimination of housing sites along San Antonio Road
9of11
until the next housing element cycle. Both the adopted housing element (Program 2.2.5) and the
recently adopted Comprehensive Plan Update (Program L2.4.1) suggest eliminating these housing sites
in exchange for higher densities and/or additional sites in Downtown and the California Avenue. At a
minimum, staff believes it would be wise to consult with HCD on this proposal after the City adopts a
zoning ordinance to permit higher densities, identifies potential new sites, and completes the
quantitative analysis of housing at all income levels envisioned by SB 166. If this analysis cannot be
accomplished before the next housing element update, it can be completed in that context. Work on
the next housing element will have to begin in 2020 or 2021.
SB 166 (Skinner) amends the existing “no net loss” provision in state law that requires a local
government to accommodate its remaining unmet housing need at all times throughout the housing
element planning period. The bill requires specific “no net loss” findings, based on substantial evidence
in the record if the jurisdiction approves fewer (or no) units or a different income category on a site in its
Housing Element’s inventory than anticipated. If the jurisdiction cannot make the finding that the
remaining sites in the Housing Element inventory are adequate to meet the RHNA by income category,
the jurisdiction would need to identify other sites that are already zoned to accommodate lower or
moderate income housing or rezone sites accordingly. This law does not apply to charter cities like Palo
Alto, although HCD will require all agencies to include related data in their annual reports, which will
allow for a determination as to whether an agency’s sites remain adequate. Because this data could be
used by HCD in a mid‐cycle review of a City’s housing element under AB 72 (above), staff believes it
would be wise to carefully consider the status of City’s housing inventory throughout the housing cycle
and include a sizeable surplus of sites in the City’s next housing element.
Relevance to Palo Alto
Palo Alto included sites for 2,187 units in its Housing Element (which was adopted in November 2014
and certified by HCD in January 2015). This represented 199 more units than the City’s RHNA
requirement and has allowed the City to approve projects on housing sites that do not provide the
number of units anticipated on that site without coming out of compliance with the State requirement.
For example, the City approved two hotels at 744‐48 San Antonio Ave, two sites that were identified in
the housing element with a combined realistic capacity of 38 units. The City still has enough total sites
in its inventory to meet its RHNA because of the surplus included in the Housing Element.
Under the new law, the total number of units isn’t the only thing to watch, because HCD will now be
keeping track of the number of units in each income category. This means that that if sites that are
zoned at 20 units per acre or more (which HCD allows us to count toward low income requirements)
develop with market rate housing, the City could theoretically have a deficit in the lower income
10 of 11
categories. Again, this suggests that the City will need to identify substantially more sites for more units
than required by its RHNA in the next housing element cycle.
D. OTHER 2017 BILLS
1. FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Two of the newly adopted bills are funding bills – SB 2 (Atkins) and SB 3 (Beall). SB 2 establishes a fee
on some real estate transactions and is expected to raise $200 to $300 Million annually. The funds will
be collected by Counties and managed by HDC. In 2018, HCD will make 50% of the funding available to
local agencies for planning and zoning updates, and starting in 2019, HCD will make 70% of the funding
available to local agencies for affordable housing via competitive grant programs. The programs
emphasize rapid rehousing of the homeless and housing for extremely low income households (less than
60% of AMI). SB3 will place an affordable housing bond measure on the State ballot in 2018. If
approved, it would provide approximately $3B in funding for affordable housing. The City can request
some of the SB 2 funds to support zoning for multifamily housing in 2018 if desired.
2. THE PALMER “FIX”
AB 1505 (Bloom) would allow local governments to require a percentage of units in rental housing
projects to be deed restricted as affordable, which has not been allowed since a 2009 California Court of
Appeal decision, Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. City of Los Angeles.
With enactment of this bill, Palo Alto will be able to amend Chapter 16.65 of the Municipal Code to
require 15% of the units in rental projects to be affordable, similar to the requirement for ownership
projects. The City could either impose this requirement on all rental projects, or on projects above a
given size threshold and continue to require payment of impact fees ($20/ft) for smaller rental projects.
The new law requires agencies to make alternatives available to developers who do not wish to provide
the units on site (e. g. payment of fees).
3. SB 540 AND AB 73 – INCENTIVES
SB 540 (Roth) and AB 73 (Chiu) would provide local agencies with financial incentives to expedite
project approvals, rather than mandating a ministerial process.
11 of 11
SB 540 would allow agencies to apply for funding to prepare an EIR and specific plan (called a
coordinated area plan in Palo Alto) to create a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone that would enable
fast track (60‐day) approval of housing consistent with the plan for five years after plan adoption. AB 73
would allow agencies to adopt “housing sustainability districts” subject to HCD approval. Approved
sustainability districts would enable agencies to apply for a “zoning incentive payment” from HCD and
provide for ministerial approvals of housing projects and could be in effect for up to 10 years.
Both SB 540 and AB 73 appear to be targeted at larger cities like San Francisco or San Jose. Staff can
analyze the potential applicability of SB 540 for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan if the City
Council is interested, although the Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone provisions do not appear to
provide any benefits that are not already available to specific plan (and coordinated area plan) areas .
4. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Two of the bills, AB 494 and SB 229, provide minor clarifications of the 2016 state legislation on
accessory dwelling units. Specifically, they clarify that:
An ADU may be proposed on a parcel zoned to allow a single‐family residential use that includes
an existing or proposed single‐family home. This is consistent with the City’s implementation of
the ADU Ordinance, and conforming amendments will soon be presented to Council for
consideration.
Conversions of space within an existing single‐family home or accessory structure (i.e., garage
conversion) to an ADU shall be allowed in any zoning district where single‐family residential is an
allowed use (i.e., multi‐family zoning districts permitting single‐family dwellings). The state law
previously required only that such conversions be allowed in single‐family residence districts,
and the City’s ADU Ordinance therefore applied these provisions to the R‐1 district, all R‐1
subdistricts, and the RE district only. The forthcoming Ordinance amendment will also apply the
conversion provisions to the R‐2, RMD, RM, and OS and PC districts where single‐family
residential is an allowed use.
Parking requirements for ADUs are further reduced. The City’s Ordinance does not require
parking for an ADU, so the new state law provisions do not require any changes to the
Ordinance.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8656)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 12/4/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Annual Impact Fee Status Report
Title: Annual Report on Development Impact Fees - Early Publication of
Report for Public Review
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Executive Summary
The Annual Status Report on Developers’ Fees provides specific information about
development impact fees imposed by the City. The schedule prepared in accordance with
Government Code Section 66006 (AB1600) must be made available to the public at least 15
days before the Council meeting at which it is considered and within 180 days of the close of
the fiscal year. Since the report is scheduled on the City Council Agenda of January 22, 2018, it
is being included in this early packet to allow time for public review. Additional information will
be available in the January 22, 2018 report.
Attachments:
Attachment A : FY17 Development Impact Fees
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2017
Stanford Research Park/San Antonio/West
FUND El Camino Fund Bayshore Fund
Purpose and Authority Traffic impact fees imposed on new Traffic impact fees imposed on new
for Collection nonresidential development in the nonresidential development in the
Stanford Research Park/El Camino San Antonio/West Bayshore Areas
Real CS zone to fund improvements to fund capacity improvements at
at eight identified intersections.four identified intersections.
PAMC Ch. 16.45 PAMC Ch. 16.46
Amount of the Fee $12.36 per square foot $2.55 per square foot
Fund Balance July 1, 2016 $3,279,523 $891,219
Activity in 2016-17
Revenues
Fees Collected 0 0
Interest Earnings 61,946 16,836
Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments (67,612)(17,846)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues ($5,666)($1,010)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2017 $3,273,857 $890,209 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Funds Available $3,273,857 $890,209
Unexpended balance at next finding
date (FY 2017-18)$2,331,269 $820,629
USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES:
No expenditures have been made from
this fund in Fiscal Year 2017.
Funds will support intersection
improvements at Page Mill Road/Hanover
and Page Mill Road/Hansen concurrent
with construction of the project at 1050
Page Mill Road under a cooperative
agreement currently being negotiated with
the developer and the County.
No expenditures have been made from this
fund in Fiscal Year 2017.
Page 1 of 11
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2017
Commercial Housing University Avenue Parking
FUND In-Lieu Fund In-Lieu Fund
Purpose and Authority Fees imposed on large commercial Fees collected from non-residential
for Collection and industrial development to development within the University Ave.
contribute to programs that increase Parking Assessment District in lieu of
the City's low income and moderate-providing the required number of
income housing stock.parking spaces.
PAMC Ch.16.47 PAMC Ch 16.57
Amount of the Fee $20.37 per square foot $67,429 per space
Fund Balance July 1, 2016 $17,727,522 $3,589,668
Activity in 2016-17
Revenues
Fees Collected 1,518,933
Prior year fees refunded (6,960)
Sale of Property
Interest Earnings 265,414 68,061
Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments (218,076)(88,194)
Operating Transfers
Transfer from Housing In-Lieu Fund
Transfer from SUMC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues 1,566,271 (27,093)
Expenditures
Salaries and Benefit (1,102)
Other Contract Services (14,828)
Transfer to Capital Projects
Reclassify prior year expense to loan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures (15,930)0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2017 $19,277,863 $3,562,575
Other Commitments/Appropriations
Reserve for Notes Receivable
include:$1,290,000 for 2811 Alma, and
$4,137,254 for 801 Alma.(5,427,254)
Reserve for Buena Vista (7,700,000)
Reserve for Encumbrance (16,569)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Net Funds Available $6,134,040 $3,562,575
Page 2 of 11
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2017
Unexpended balance at next finding
date (FY 2017-18)7,571,279 $0
USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES:
Expenditures of funds have been made in
Fiscal Year 2017 for $1.1K for
Management Analyst salaries and benefit,
$14.8K for housing nexus study and
consultantcy fees. The $7.7 million
Reserve for Buena Vista is included for
unexpended balance calculation purposes
because this was only set aside by
council motion.
No expenditures have been made from this
fund in Fiscal Year 2017.
Page 3 of 11
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2017
Residential & Non-Residential Housing Residential & Non-Residential Housing
Community Facilities Community Facilities
FUND Parks Community Centers
Purpose and Authority Fees imposed on new residential and Fees imposed on new residential and
for Collection non-residential development approved non-residential development approved
after Jan 28, 2002 for Parks. after Jan 28, 2002 for Community Centers.
PAMC Ch. 16.58 PAMC Ch. 16.58
Amount of the Fee Residential: Single family $11,864 per
residence (or $17,716 per residence larger
than 3,000 sq ft); Multi-family $7,766 per
unit (or $3,926 per unit smaller than or
equal to 900 sq ft)
Residential: Single family $3,075 per
residence (or $4,605 per residence larger
than 3,000 sq ft); Multi-family $2,024 per unit
(or $1,021 per unit smaller than or equal to
900 sq ft)
Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial
$5,038 per 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel $2,278 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
Nonresidential: Commercial/industrial $284
per 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel $128 per 1,000 sq ft or fraction
thereof
Fund Balance July 1, 2016 $4,013,156 $5,821,379
Activity in 2016-17
Revenues
Fees Collected 436,376 53,053
Interest Earnings 78,769 110,325
Unrealized Gain/Loss (82,012)(115,279)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues $433,133 $48,099
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2017 $4,446,289 $5,869,478
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Net Funds Available $4,446,289 $5,869,478
Unexpended balance at next finding
date (FY 2016-17)430,859 $822,873
USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES:
No expenditure of funds have been made
from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2017.
No expenditure of funds have been made
from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2017.
Page 4 of 11
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2017
Residential & Non-Residential Housing Residential Housing
Community Facilities In-Lieu Fund
FUND Libraries
Purpose and Authority Fees imposed on new residential and Fees collected from residential
for Collection non-residential development approved developments of three or more units in
after Jan 28, 2002 for Libraries. lieu of providing the required below-
PAMC Ch. 16.58 market rate unit(s) to low and moderate
income households.
PA Comprehensive Plan and
PAMC Chapter 18
Amount of the Fee Residential: Single family $1,074 per
residence (or $1,599 per residence larger
than 3,000 sq ft); Multi-family $642 per
unit (or $353 per unit smaller than or equal
to 900 sq ft)Varies
Nonresidential: Commercial/industrial
$271 per 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel $114 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
Fund Balance July 1, 2016 $974,829 $21,572,925
Activity in 2016-17
Revenues
Fees Collected 31,162 1,305,825
Monroe Litigation Settlement
Webster Wood Property Rental 5,875
Interest Earnings 18,614 272,727
Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments (19,118)(241,936)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues $30,658 $1,342,491
Expenditures
Salaries and Benefits (1,102)
Contract Services (149,771)
Housing Program Expense (68,226)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures 0 (219,099)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2017 $1,005,487 $22,696,317
Other Commitments/Appropriations
Reserve for Reappropriations (323,500)
Reserve for Encumbrances (70,372)
Reserve for Buena Vista (6,800,000)
Reserve for Notes Receivable include
$375,000 for 3053 Emerson, $3,804,850
for Tree House Apts, $747,734 for
Sheridan Apts., $2,285,026 for 801 Alma,
$1,000,000 for Palo Alto Housing Project,
$600,000 for 2811-2825 Alma St.,
$203,561 for Colorado Park Housing, and
$51,523 for El Dorado Palace.(9,067,694)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Net Funds Available $1,005,487 $6,434,751
Page 5 of 11
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2017
Unexpended balance at next finding
date (FY 2016-17-Residential & Non
Residential Housing Communities
Facilities Libraries, FY2017-18-
Residential Housing In-Lieu)$537,983 $2,114,048
USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES:
No expenditure of funds have been made
from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2017.
Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2017 include
$1.1K for Management Analyst salaries and
benefit, $135K to Palo Alto Housing Corp for
BMR fees and $15K for housing nexus study
and consultancy fees. The $6.8 million
Reserve for Buena Vista is included for
unexpended balance calculation purposes
because this was only set aside by council
motion
Page 6 of 11
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2017
Parkland Dedication Charleston-Arastradero Corridor
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety
FUND
Purpose and Authority Fees on parkland dedication imposed Fees collected from new development and
for Collection on new residential and non-residential re-development within the Charleston-
development Arastradero Corridor to provide for pedest-
Govt Code Sec.66477 (Quimby Act) rian and bicyclist safety improvements.
PAMC Ch. 16.60
Amount of the Fee Single Family: $58,812 per unit; Multi-
Family: $40,103 per unit. This applies
only to residential projects that require a
subdivision or pacel map. Land
dedications is required for subdivisions
resulting in more than 50 parcels.
Parkland Dedication Fee -Land: Single
Family: 531 sq. ft, per unit; Multi-Family:
366 sq. ft. per unit. When parkland
dedication applies, park impact fees do
not apply.
Residential: $1,300 per unit; Commercial:
$0.38 per sq ft
Fund Balance July 1, 2016 $3,263,832 $10,540
Activity in 2016-17
Revenues
Fees Collected 67,502
Interest Earnings 61,838 191
Unrealized Gain/Loss (61,270)(1,869)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues $68,070 ($1,678)
Expenditures
Operating Transfer to Capital Projects
Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2017 $3,331,902 $8,862
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Net Funds Available $3,331,902 $8,862
Unexpended balance at next finding
date (FY 2016-17-Parkland Dedication,
FY2017-18-Charleston)$745,936 $0
USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES:
No expenditure of funds have been made
from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2017.
No expenditure of funds have been made
from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2017.
Page 7 of 11
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2017
New Public Safety Facilities General Government Facilities
FUND
Purpose and Authority Fees imposed on residential and Fees imposed on residential and non-
for Collection non-residential development to fund residential development to fund facilities
police and fire facilities (including fire associated with municipal administration.
apparatus and vehicles)
PAMC Ch. 16.58
Amount of the Fee Residential: Single family $1,031 per unit;
Multi-family $825 per unit
Residential: Single family $1,299 per unit;
Multi-family $1,039 per unit
Nonresidential: Commercial $576 per
1,000 sq ft. or fraction thereof; Industrial
$192 per 1,000 sq. ft. or fraction thereof;
Hotel/Motel $769 per 1,000 sq ft or
fraction thereof
Nonresidential: Commercial $726 per 1,000
sq ft. or fraction thereof; Industrial $242 per
1,000 sq. ft. or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel
$970 per 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof
Fund Balance July 1, 2016 $20,983 $26,430
Activity in 2016-17
Revenues
Fees Collected 65,556 82,608
Interest Earnings 814 1,025
Unrealized Gain/Loss (193)(243)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues $66,177 $83,390
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2017 $87,160 $109,820
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Net Funds Available $87,160 $109,820
Unexpended balance at next finding
date FY 2019-20 $1,403 $1,768
USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES:
No expenditure of funds have been made
from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2017.
No expenditure of funds have been made
from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2017.
Page 8 of 11
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2017
Citywide Transportation
FUND
Purpose and Authority Transportation impact fees imposed
for Collection on new development in all parts of the City to fund congestion reduction
projects.
PAMC Ch. 16.59
Amount of the Fee $3,559 per net new PM peak hour trip
Fund Balance July 1, 2016 $3,025,738
Activity in 2016-17
Revenues
Fees Collected 375,795
Interest Earnings 55,919
Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments (57,447)--------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues $374,267
Expenditures
Operating Transfer to CIP (432,050)
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures (432,050)--------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2017 $2,967,955 --------------------------------------------------------
Net Funds Available $2,967,955
Unexpended balance at next finding
date (FY 2017-18)$829,261
USE OF FEES:
Expenditures have been made in FY2017
for $432K transfer to capital projects.
Page 9 of 11
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2017
(INFORMATION ONLY)
Public Art Fund
FUND
Purpose and Authority
for collection Fees imposed on new commercial
develoments (including mixed use
projects), including new construction,
remodels, additions and reconstruction
that (i) have a floor area of 10,000 square
feet or more, and (ii) have a construction
value of $200,000, or more, exclusive of
costs for architecture, design, engineering,
and required studies; and all new
residential projects of five or more units to
fund public art for private developments.
PAMC Ch. 16.61
Amount of the Fee 1% of first $108.87 million construction
valuation and .9% of construction
valuation for valuation in excess of
$108.87 million
Fund Balance July 1, 2016 $281,548
Activity in 2016-17
Revenues
Fees Collected 351,809
Interest Earnings 6,530
Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments (7,916)
Operating Transfer from General Fund 78,506
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Revenues $428,929
Expenditures
Salaries and benefits (159,637)
General Expenses (77)
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Expenditures (159,714)
--------------------------------------------------------
Ending Balance June 30, 2017 $550,763
--------------------------------------------------------Net Funds Available $550,763
This fund is not subject to AB1600
requirements and is listed only for
information purposes
Page 10 of 11
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
Annual Report on Development Impact Fees
for Period Ending June 30, 2017
(INFORMATION ONLY)
FUND Water and Wastewater Collection
Purpose and Authority Capacity fees charged to developers that
for Collection are adding load to the water and sewer
systems effective July 1, 2005.
California Government Code Sect 66000
Amount of the Fee Water Capacity Fees: 5/8 in., 3/4 in E-
Meter. $5,000, 1 in. E-Meter $9,400, 1 1/2
in. E-Meter $18,850, 2 in. E-Meter
$56,250 , 4 in. Compound Meter by est.
$125/FU (min. 5,000 FU) , 6 in.
Compound Meter by est. $125/FU (min.
7,000 FU)
Fire Service Capacity Fees: 2 in. $750, 4
in. $9,000, 6 in. $22,530, 8 in. $43,080,
10in. $69,510
Sewer Capacity Charges: 4 in. connection
with 5/8 in Water Meter (WM) $5,250, 4 in
connection. with 1-in WM $15,750, 4 or 6
in. connection with 1-1/2 in WM $31,668,
6 in. connection with 2 in. WM $94,500, 6
in. and larger connection with 4 in. or
larger WM by est. at $210/FU
Activity in 2016-17
Capacity Fees Collected
Water $1,088,535
Wastewater Collection 803,838
Total $1,892,373
USE OF FEES:
The fees are used exclusively for water
and sewer system improvements
Page 11 of 11
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8682)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 12/4/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Business Registry Certificate
Title: Information Report Regarding Business Registry Certificate
Administrative Changes for 2018 Cycle
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Development Services Department
Background
On November 3, 2014, the City Council added Chapter 4.60 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(Attachment A) creating a Business Registry Certificate (BRC) program. The code requires all
businesses operating in a fixed place of business in the City to obtain a certificate and pay a flat
$50 fee1. Home-based businesses, transitory businesses (such as general contractors whose
corporate office is located outside of the city), non-profit organizations having less than one full
time equivalent employee, businesses having less than one full time equivalent employee, and
religious organizations which operate a worship hall but have no other ancillary facilities or
services are exempt from the ordinance.
At the November 14, 2017 meeting of the Policy and Services Committee, a discussion about
potential changes to questions asked of businesses during the registration process resulted in a
committee recommendation that the BRC process be returned to Council. However; at this
time, no changes to the questions are proposed. Staff awaits results of the City Auditor’s audit
of the BRC to inform any potential changes and would propose returning to Council if and when
any such proposal is fully developed.
Discussion
The City is changing contractors and utilizing MuniServices, LLC. as opposed to our current
contractor, Open Counter Enterprises. This transition will implement a more traditional fee
collection model using an experienced firm in lieu of a custom website and software program.
There will be no changes to the program other than utilizing a new collection firm. All existing
questions asked of businesses during the registration process will stay consistent. Additionally,
businesses will be able to register via an online portal or by mail. MuniServices, on behalf of the
1 In addition to the $50 City fee, an additional $1 will be applied to comply with California Senate Bill 1186 which
increases disability access and compliance with construction related accessibility requirements. The total fee for
the BRC will be $51.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
City, will email and mail notices to the businesses. Attachment B is the BRC application for
reference. Authority to make this change rests with the City Manager under Municipal Code
Section 4.60.120.
MuniServices, LLC, was founded in 1978 as Municipal Resource Consultants (MRC). In 1998,
MRC was acquired and combined with other entities forming what is known today as
MuniServices, LLC. The firm specializes in providing innovative and proprietary revenue
enhancement audit services to local and state governments and offers revenue collection
services encompassing all general sources of municipal tax revenue including Business Registry
Administration, Discovery, Audit and Collections; Transient Occupancy Tax Discovery, Audit and
Compliance; Transaction and Use Tax Audits for Transportation Districts; Sales and Use Tax
Audits; Property Tax; and Utility Users Taxes and Franchise Fees Compliance services.
MuniServices currently provides sales tax audit services through the City Auditor’s Office.
Furthermore, MuniServices provides collection, analysis and reporting of the City’s Downtown
Business Improvement District (BID) through the City Manager’s Office. MuniServices also
works closely with the Administrative Services Department to track sales tax revenues. In
addition to the City, the firm provides services to more than 1,000 jurisdictions nationwide,
with over 500 using business tax discovery, recovery and administration services. The City
values and has confidence in MuniServices work associated with sales tax audits and BID
management. Aligning the Development Services Department’s BRC collection and
administration under MuniServices will provide the City with more accurate data due to the
cross reference and analytical capabilities of the firm.
MuniServices will charge the City roughly $9.00 for processing each business registration. With
approximately 4,000 total entities (non-exempt and exempt) in Palo Alto the total estimated
ongoing costs is roughly $36,000.
Finally, Development Services is aware of the City Auditor’s Office upcoming audit regarding the
Business Registry program. The department will return through the audit process with further
recommendations about updates to the program.
Resource Impact
Funding for the 2018 Business Registry Certificate cycle is included in the Fiscal Year 2018
Adopted Budget for the Development Services Department. Funding for program is included in
the department’s annual budget and reviewed with City Council during the annual budget
hearings.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Palo Alto Municipal Code - Chapter 4 - Business Registration Program
Attachment B - Business Registry Application
1
—Highlights indicate required field—
BASIC INFORMATION
Business Name _____________________________________________________________________ Date ____________
Business Type ______________________________________________________________________________________
(For example: Bar, Daycare, Hair/Nail Salon, Hotel, Medical, Non-Profit, Office, Restaurant, Retail, Private School)
BUSINESS DETAILS
Address____________________________________________________________________________________________
Street Number and Name Suite or Bldg # Zip Code
Main telephone number ______________________________________
Business Structure
___ Sole Proprietorship
___ General Partnership
___ Limited Partnership
___ Limited Liability Partnership
___ Limited Liability Company
___ Corporation
___ Trust
___ Joint Venture
___ Other (select if no business structure)
Business Inception Date Month ______________________ Day _______ Year ___________
Date You Moved to Fixed Place of Business in Palo Alto Month ______________ Day ________ Year ___________
Brief Business Description ____________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT INFORMATION
First Name ____________________________________ Last Name ___________________________________________
Email Address ___________________________________________ Phone number ______________________________
Mailing Address _____________________________________________________________________________________
Street Number and Name (or PO Box) Zip Code
Applicant Role
___ Owner or Principal
___ Employee
___ Administrative or Operational
___ Other
Note: If you selected Employee, Administrative/Operational, or Other, complete the information below for Owner/Principal.
2
PRINCIPAL OR OWNER (if not provided above)
First Name ____________________________________ Last Name____________________________________________
Email Address ___________________________________________ Phone number ______________________________
Mailing Address _____________________________________________________________________________________
Street Number and Name (or PO Box) Zip Code
PRIMARY ADDRESS (where the business is located)
Address____________________________________________________________________________________________
Street Number and Name Suite or Bldg # Zip Code
Floor business is located ________ Square Footage________________
Total # of Employees at this location (this includes the maximum number of part-time and full-time employees,
contractors, and/or volunteers on site during your peak time) _______________
Number of parking permits purchased for employees at this site ________________________
(This is the number of annual number of permits your business purchases for employees at this location to park within the City of
Palo Alto)
Number of parking spaces dedicated to your business on site ________________________
(This is the number of off-street spaces that your business has exclusive (private) access to. If you share exclusive (private) access
with other firm(s), divide total spaces by number of firms, e.g. if there are 10 spaces shared by 2 firms, use 5 spaces as your answer
here)
Is this your primary mailing address? _______ (If N, go to page 3 and provide a different address than the site you’re using for your primary address.)
(Y/N)
Do you have any other registered businesses or entities on site? _____ (If Y, go to page 3 and provide the names of all entities.)
(Y/N)
Does your business have additional locations in the City of Palo Alto? _____ (If Y, go to page 3 and provide information for all locations.)
(Y/N)
HOURS OF OPERATION
Please estimate your opening and closing times to the nearest 30 minute increment. If you’re closed on a particular day,
enter “Closed.”
Monday ____________ to ____________
Tuesday ____________ to ____________
Wednesday ____________ to ____________
Thursday ____________ to ____________
Friday ____________ to ____________
Saturday ____________ to ____________
Sunday ____________ to ____________
3
BUSINESS REGISTRATIONS
If you have any Federal or State registration numbers for your business, please report them below.
Federal Employer Identification Number (EIN) _______________________________________________________
Reseller's license number__________________________________ State of incorporation____________________
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT/ COMMUTER BENEFITS
Does the business provide any of the following benefits for employees?
____ Flexible work hours ____ On-site bike parking
____ Shuttle service
____ Car or bike share program for employees
____ Subsidized public transit
____ Pre-tax payroll deduction for transit passes
COMMUTER PROGRAMS
Let us know if you are interested in learning more about commuter programs within the City of Palo Alto.
____ SamTrans
____ Bike Boulevards
____ Bay Area Bike Share
____ Zipcar
____ Caltrain
____ VTA
____ Palo Alto Free Shuttle
____Transportation Management Association
MAILING ADDRESS
Let us know if you'd prefer correspondence sent to a different address than the site for your primary physical address
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Street Number and Name (or PO Box)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City and State Zip Code
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS ENTITIES (required if you answered yes to additional business entities on page 2. Enter info for
all associated business names. If more than 6, include on a separate sheet)
Many business locations contain more than one entity, particularly in the case of commercial real estate offices,
financial or investment services and medical uses. Please share the legal names of the other associated entities on site.
Associated Business Name 1 ___________________________________________________________________________
Associated Business Name 2 ___________________________________________________________________________
Associated Business Name 3 ___________________________________________________________________________
Associated Business Name 4 ___________________________________________________________________________
Associated Business Name 5 ___________________________________________________________________________
Associated Business Name 6 ___________________________________________________________________________
4
SECONDARY LOCATION 1 (required if you answered yes to additional locations on page 2. Enter all info for all secondary
locations your business maintains within Palo Alto. If more than 4, include on a separate sheet)
Address____________________________________________________________________________________________
Street Number and Name Suite or Bldg # Zip Code
Floor business is located _______ Square Footage________________ # of Employees at this location_______________
Number of annual parking permits purchased from the City for your employees at this site ________________________
Number of parking spaces dedicated to your business on site ________________________
SECONDARY LOCATION 2 (required if you answered yes to additional locations on page 2. Enter all info for all secondary
locations your business maintains within Palo Alto. If more than 4, include on a separate sheet)
Address____________________________________________________________________________________________
Street Number and Name Suite or Bldg # Zip Code
Floor business is located _______ Square Footage________________ # of Employees at this location_______________
Number of annual parking permits purchased from the City for your employees at this site ________________________
Number of parking spaces dedicated to your business on site ________________________
SECONDARY LOCATION 3 (required if you answered yes to additional locations on page 2. Enter all info for all secondary
locations your business maintains within Palo Alto. If more than 4, include on a separate sheet)
Address____________________________________________________________________________________________
Street Number and Name Suite or Bldg # Zip Code
Floor business is located _______ Square Footage________________ # of Employees at this location_______________
Number of annual parking permits purchased from the City for your employees at this site ________________________
Number of parking spaces dedicated to your business on site ________________________
SECONDARY LOCATION 4 (required if you answered yes to additional locations on page 2. Enter all info for all secondary
locations your business maintains within Palo Alto. If more than 4, include on a separate sheet)
Address____________________________________________________________________________________________
Street Number and Name Suite or Bldg # Zip Code
Floor business is located _______ Square Footage________________ # of Employees at this location_______________
Number of annual parking permits purchased from the City for your employees at this site ________________________
Number of parking spaces dedicated to your business on site ________________________
5
___ I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this Application is true and correct as per the BRC
Terms and Conditions.
___ I understand that payment of this business fee does NOT represent approval of my use/business with respect to
zoning, County Health Department approval, hazardous materials use or storage, wastewater discharge, or any other
requirement. Further, I recognize that it is my responsibility to secure appropriate clearances and that it is advisable for
me to secure such requisite approvals prior to establishing this business and paying this business registry fee.
Authorized Signature __________________________
Payment with a Check
Please make check payable to City of Palo Alto and send with application form to:
City of Palo Alto
ATTN: Business Registry
250 Hamilton Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Questions?
Call (650) 329-2360 or send email to BusinessRegistry@cityofpaloalto.org
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
NOTE: Payment of a business registry fee and issuance of a business registry certificate do not necessarily entitle you to conduct business in the City of Palo Alto.
As the owner or operator of a business, you must comply with all applicable zoning and public safety regulations and obtain all required permits.
THIS INFORMATION IS NOT A COMPLETE LISTING OF CLEARANCES THAT MIGHT BE REQUIRED
1. If you intend to alter, remodel, relocate, or install any structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical portions of the building, you will need to obtain building
permits from the Development Services Department at (650) 329-2496
2. Businesses involving any use changes, exterior building changes, or sign changes are advised to secure Department of Planning and Community Environment
approval prior to lease execution or purchase. Contact the Planning and Community Environment Department at (650) 329-2442
3. Businesses operated out of the home must comply with Home Occupation Regulations (Section 18.42.060 of the Municipal Code).
4. If you intend to serve food or beverages on the premises, you must obtain approval from the Santa Clara County Health Department. For information, call (408)
737-1018.
5. If your business uses or stores hazardous materials (including paints, thinners, solvents, acids, compressed gases, etc.), you may be required to obtain a Hazardous
Materials Permit from the Fire Department. NOTE: Certain hazardous materials and processes such as spray-painting, welding, etc., are NOT ALLOWED in certain
buildings. Contact the Fire Department at (650) 329-2184 for information on permitted uses within the City.
6. Industries discharging processed wastewater down the sewer, such as machining fluid, water from glass washing, chemical neutralization, etc., may be required to
obtain an Industrial Waste Discharge Permit from the Public Works Department. For more information, call (650) 329-2122.
7. Police Department approval is required for live entertainment, gaming, massage establishments, and outcall massage services. For more information, call (650)
329-2147.
8. If there is a change of ownership, business name, or location, you are required to obtain a new business registration certificate and are subject to any associated
fees and approvals.