HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-12 City CouncilTO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:UTILITIES
8
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JANUARY 12, 1998 CMR:101:98
AMARILLO AVENUE AND EMBARCADERO WAY RELIEF
SEWER PROJECT -APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, FINAL PROJECT ALIGNMENT, AND RIGHT-OF-
WAY ACQUISITION
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report requests that Council adopt the Negative Declaration, approve the proposed relief
trunk sewer route and expenditures of $160,000 for the purchase of necessary temporary and
permanent rights-of-way and easements. The proposed project will construct approximately
4300 linear feet of 42 inch relief sewer from Amarillo Avenue to Embarcadero Way.
Microtunneling, bore and jack and open trench construction methods are planned for the
project. Staff anticipates completing the final design and returning to Council in July, 1998
for the award of the construction contract. Funds for the design, rights-of-way acquisition
and construction are in the FY 1997-98 Wastewater Collection System
Rehabilitation!Augmentation CIP 9173.
CMR:101:98 Page 1 of 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
Adopt the Negative Declaration with a finding of no significant environmental
impact (Attachment A);
Approve staff’s recommendation on proposed relief sewer route for the project
contained in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Amarillo Avenue and
Embarcadero Way Relief Sewer Project (Attachment A); and
Approve expenditure of funds in the amount of $160,000 for the purchase of the
necessary rights-of-way for the project.
BACKGROUND
In 1988, Camp Dresser & McKee completed the Master Plan of the Wastewater Collection
System (Master Plan) for Palo Alto’s sanitary sewer collection system. The Master Plan
indicated certain trunk main facilities were in need of capacity relief to carry peak
wastewater flows and recommended improvements to correct these collection system
deficiencies. One of the recommended major capacity relief projects in the Master Plan is
a capacity relief sewer construction project that crosses US 101 at Amarillo Avenue,
continues on East Bayshore Frontage Road to a City bike path, follows the bike path
aligrmaent, crosses under the edge of the City Baylands Nature Preserve and ties into a
manhole in an easement near Embarcadero Way. The existing major sewer trunk main is
located in the central part of the City’s collection system and conveys more than 50 percent
of the City’s wastewater flow to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. To minimize
disruption to the public, traffic flow, and the environment, a trench less construction method,
microtunneling, will be used to install major portions of the relief sewer pipeline. The sewer
pipe alignment which crosses under the Bayshore Freeway, US 101, will be bored and
jacked into place. The alignment portions which cross under the Palo Alto Baylands and
private property will use microtunneling technology. The alignments on Amarillo Avenue
and East Bayshore Road will have the bid option of being microtunneled or traditional "open
cut" construction. Microtunneling technology involves the excavation of construction pits
from which the pipeline is installed beneath the ground surface. The construction pits are
used to launch and retrieve the microtunneling equipment. Unlike traditional open trench
pipeline construction methods, which can involve substantial surface disruption and related
traffic flow problems, the only surface disruption with microtunneling is the building of the
construction pits and.the micr0tunneling work at these pits.
CMR:101:98 Page 2 of 5
On September 30, 1996, Council approved a consultant agreement with Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants, Inc., in the amount of $301,000 for the design of the Amarillo Avenue and
Embarcadero Way Relief Sewer Project (CMR:410:96). On May 5, 1997, Council approved
Amendment No. 1 for surveying services and a limited update of the Master Plan, authorized
staff to proceed with preliminary right-of-way discussions on private property for rights-of-
entry and preparation of easement descriptions, authorized staff to proceed with geotechnical
investigations in public rights-of-way and in easements on private property, and supported
staff’s recommendation on CEQA documentation for the project (CMR:221:97). Staff
anticipated returning to Council in July 1997 to ask Council to approve the proposed relief
sewer route, for authorization of funds to acquire the necessary easements, and to certify the
CEQA Initial Study/Negative Declaration.
The project was delayed for several reasons. The original alignment recommended for
approval was modified due to findings in the geotechnical investigations. Additional soil
borings needed to be performed and analyzed as a result of [he revised alignment. The
revised alignment also resulted in the need for additional surveying services and additional
time for preparation of new easements for the project. Staff has now completed this
additional work.
DISCUSSION
Kennedy/Jenks’ subconsultants have completed the surveying of the proposed route and the
necessary easement descriptions for the acquisition of these easements. A geotechnical~
investigation was conducted through a subconsultant, Woodward-Clyde Consultants. As the
proposed alignment design was developed, the length of each microtunneling segment was
established. Based on the geotechnical lab test data, the sucbonsultant performed
engineering analysis to develop recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of open
.cut trenching and microtunneling methods. These recommendations will be incorporated in
the final design for the proposed project route.
The Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) work was performed by Kennedy/Jenks’
subconsultant, CH2M HILL. A notice regarding the IS/ND for the project was sent to all
property owners and occupants within a 300 foot radius of the project alignment on
November 3, 1997. A public notice of a project Negative Declaration was also published in
the Palo Alto Weekly on November 7, 1997. The public review period of 30 days ended
December 8, 1997. Copies of the IS/ND were also sent to the State Clearinghouse for
Environmental Documents for distribution to various State agencies for comment, in
accordance with CEQA.
CMR:101:98 Page 3 of 5
One comment letter was received from the public in response to the notice for the IS/ND.
The topics of concern in the letter included the location of the proposed new relief.sewer,
status of a public easement on and adjacent to the project alignment, .disruption of normal
and customary use of a building on a property adjacent to the proposed project alignment,
surface drainage concerns, and structural integrity of a building on a property adjacent to the
proposed project alignment, surface drainage concerns, and structural integrity of a building
on a property adjacent to the proposed project alignment. Although not required under
CEQA, a response to these issues was prepared and mailed to’ the commentor. Copies of the
comment letter (Attachment B) and staff response (Attachment C) are attached to this staff
report.
The value of the temporary and permanent fights-of-way required for the project has been
appraised by a State-certified General Real Estate Appraiser. Based on this appraisal, staff
estimates costs to acquire tlae necessary fights-of-way for the project will not exceed
$160,000.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Sufficient funds for this project are included in the FY97-98 Capital Improvement Program
budget for Wastewater Collection System Rehabilitation/Augmentation (CIP Number 9173).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This report does not represent any change to existing City policies.
TIME LINE
Staff anticipates completing the final project design, preparing bid documents, bidding the
project and returning to Council by July 1998 for award of the construction project. The
construction of the project will be completed by March 1999.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental assessment has been prepared, and the Negati.ve Declaration of no
significant environmental impact is attached to this report.
CMR:101:98 Page 4 of 5 ,
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for Amarillo Avenue and
Embarcadero Way Relief Sewer Project
Letter from Michael J. Ackerman
Staff response letter to Michael J. Ackerman
PREPARED BY: Roger W. Cwiak
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Jo
Director of Utilities
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ,
EMIL"~"-H ARR~ 61(I
Assistant City Manager
CMR:101:98 Page 5 of 5
Attachment "A"
NOTICE ~0F AVAILABILITY AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR
AMARILLO AVENUE AND EMBARCADERO WAY RELIEF SEWER PROJECT
TO:All Interested Parties
DATE: October 31, 1997
FROM:City of Palo Alto, Utilities Dept.
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
SUBJECT:NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FOR
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
AMARILLO AND EMBARCADERO WAY RELIEF SEWER PROJECT
LEAD AGENCY:
CONTACT:
City of Palo Alto, Utilities Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Edward Wu, Senior Engineer
Public notice is hereby given that the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department has prepared an
Initial St.udy/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the proposed Amarillo and Embarcadero
Way Relief Sewer Project, and the IS/ND is available for public review. The Relief Sewer
Project involves the construction of a 42-inch relief sewer in a portion of Amarillo Avenue,
East Bayshore Road, and other private and public properties in Palo Alto. The need for this
project was identified in the City’s 1988 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. The
existing 36-inch sewer line extends from the southwest corner of Greer Park in Amarillo
Avenue, under the Bayshore Freeway (U.S. 101), and under the Baylands Nature Preserve
to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and was identified as not having
sufficient capacity to accommodate expected wastewater flows in the year 2000. The
proposed project will provide a 42oinch sanitary sewer to relieve the existing 36-inch trunk
sewer.
The project description and location, along with a discussion of potential environmental
effects that may occur as a result of project implementation, are contained in the attached
Initial Study/Negative Declaration, pursuant to Article 6 (Negative Declaration Process) of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will conduct a public hearing on the
proposed IS/ND at its regular meeting on Monday, December 15, 1997. The meeting will
be held at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94301.
RESPONSES: Due to limits mandated by State law, your response to this notice must be
sent no later than 30 days after receipt. Based on our mailing, this 30 day period will run
from November 3 to December 3, 1997.
PLEASE SENDYOURRESPONSESTO: Mr. Edward Wu, Senior Engineer, at the
address shown above. Please remember to include your name and/or the name of the
contact person in your agency. We will be pleased to receive your input and comments.
Please contact Mr. Wu at (650) 329-2126 should you need more information.
CITY OF PALO ALTO -ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Amarillo Avenue and Embarcadero Way Relief Sewer Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Edward Wu, Senior Engineer
(650) 329-2126
4. Project Location: Amarillo Avenue and East Bayshore Road in Palo Alto, California
5. Application Number(s): Not applicable.
6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
7. General Plan Designation:
City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Edward Wu, Senior Engineer
Not applicable.
8. Zoning: Not applicable.
9.Description of the Project: The project evaluated in this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND)
is a 42-inch relief sewer to be constructed in Amarillo Avenue, East Bayshore Road, and other
private and public properties in Palo Alto. The need for this project was identified in the City’s 1988
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (Camp Dresser & McKee, 1988). The 1988 Plan
recommended a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to address the wastewater system’s current
and expected capacity deficiencies through the year 2000. The existing 36-inch diameter trunk
sewer line extending from the southwest comer of Greet Park in Amarillo Avenue, under the
Bayshore Freeway (U.S. 101), and under the Baylands Nature Preserve to the Palo Alto Regional
Water Quality Control Plant (PA.RWQCP) was identified in 1988 as having insufficient flow capacity,
using a 5-year storm event.
Studies performed by the City in 1996 indicated that the additional required capacity can be provided
by constructing a new 42-inch diameter sewer line to relieve the existing 36-inch diameter trunk
sewer. The existing trunk sewer carries flow from the lower basin area of Palo Altoidentified as
Basin B07 in the Master Plan (the area encircling the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Louis
Road). The sewer system in Basin B07 has experienced significant surcharging during periods of
heavy rainfall. Though recent CIP projects have reduced the potential of manholes overflowing,
surcharging still occurs during storm events. The relief sewer project, along with other improvements
included in the City’s CIP, are designed to correct capacity deficiencies and to convey the
wastewater flows anticipated in the year 2000.
J :\WOR K\ 139139\lSFORM I .doc I
Several alignment options were evaluated for locating the relief sewer project. To identify the
preferred alignment for the project, a series of workshops were held to discuss the feasible options,
define the criteria that would be used to evaluate the alternatives, determine weighting factors, and
rank the alternatives to identify the best apparent solution. These workshops were usually attended
by City staff from the following departments or divisions:
¯Utilities Engineering
¯Regional Water Quality Control Plant
¯Field Operations
¯Planning and Community Environment
¯Real Estate
¯Recreation, Open Space & Sciences
The design team for the project identified the feasible altematives for conveying the flow to the Palo
Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant. These alternatives were discussed at the first workshop
and a decision matrix was developed that considered the short term construction impacts and the
longer term operation and maintenance issues associated with each alternative. Weighting factors
for each impact were also established.
The design team then developed the feasible altematives for the project and applied the decision
criteria with weighting factors to each alternative. Through this process, it was determined that the
best solution was an alignment that parallels the existing 36-inch sewer at the beginning and end of
its alignment, but goes around the edge of the Baylands Nature Preserve in the middle segment; it
was also determined that trenchless construction technologies should be used to minimize the
construction-related impacts in the project area. This alignment was then selected and work was
initiated to secure the necessary easements and geotechnical investigations for the project.
The proposed relief sewer will begin at City manhole #21-4-16 in Amarillo Way near Greer Park, and
.travel eastward adjacent to an existing 15-inch diameter sanitary sewer under U.S. 101 to East
Bayshore Road. The alignment continues north to parallel the existing 15-inch diameter sanitary
sewer in East Bayshore Road for about 730 feet, where it tums eastward along an existing
pedestrian path located between two office buildings. The alignment then crosses eastward
underneath the northwest comer of the Baylands Nature Preserve from the end of the pedestrian
path to a point at the rear of an office building parking lot west of Faber Place, and then to the
parking lot at the rear of The Harbor Business Park located southeast of Faber Place. The alignment
then traverses east through the parking lot to parallel the existing 36-inch trunk sanitary sewer, and
terminates at City manhole #15-1-18 located in the parking lot approximately 220 feet west of
Embarcadero Way. A junction box structure will be required at the beginning and end of the
alignment to connect to the existing 36-inch diameter trunk sewer. Figure 1 shows the project
vicinity. Figure 2 shows the relief sewer schematic design, and Figure 3 shows an aerial photograph
of the project area.
The proposed alignment was developed to avoid conflicts with existing utilities while maintaining
service in the existing sewers. Criteria for the separation of water mains and sanitary sewer mains
have been incorporated into the design.
To minimize disruption to the public, traffic flow, and the environment, trenchless construction
methods (including microtunneling) will be used to install major portions of the relief sewer pipeline.
J:\WORK\I39139~ISFORM 1 .doc 2
The alignment portions which cross the Bayshore Freeway, the Baylands Preserve, and The Harbor
Business Park will use microtunneling technology. The alignments in Amarillo Avenue and East
Bayshore Road will have the option of being microtunneled or traditional "open cut" construction.
Microtunneling technology involves the excavation of "jacking" and "receiving". pits, from which the
pipeline is pushed (or "jacked") underground from one pit and received at another pit. The only
surface disruption with this technology is related to construction activities which take place at the
jacking and receiving pits; unlike traditional "cut and cover" (or trench) methods, which can involve
substantial surface disruption and related traffic flow bottlenecks), microtunneling is performed
underground, with virtually no surface disruption. The proposed locations of jacking and receiving
pits are shown in Figure 2. Schematic drawings of typical jacking and receiving pit configurations are
shown in Figure 4.
Jacking pits are typically about 12 to 15 feet wide and 20 feet long, for a total area of 240 to 340
square feet. Receiving pits are usually smaller than jacking pits, and measure approximately 10’ x
10’ o.r 12’ x 12’ square. The entire pit staging area would be approximately 2,500 to 4,000 square
feet in area. The newly-installed pipe would be located approximately 12 feet below ground surface.
This depth is at a sufficient elevation so as not.to .affect the ground surface and tree roots above.
There is virtually no surface vibration from the microtunneling activity.
The total length of the relief sewer is approximately 4,334 feet, with an overall slope of 0.11 percent.
The relief sewer will be completed in eight segments. The pipe material for the alignment will need
to be resistant to corrosion and will be selected in a competitive bidding process, except for the U.S.
101 crossing, which will likely be T-lock lined reinforced concrete cylinder pipe; steel casing may also
be required for this crossing. Actual construction of the project is anticipated to last approximately 6
months.
When completed, the Amarillo Avenue and Embarcadero Way Relief Sewer Project will meet the
City’s Wastewater Master Plan and CIP goals by providing the capacity that the wastewater
collection system needs to convey design flows during major storm events.
10. Su~’rounding Land Uses and Setting: Following is a description of the land uses and setting along
the various segments of the pipeline alignment.
Amarillo Avenue - Greer Park is located on the southeast side of Amarillo Avenue, and
apartment complexes and units are located on the northeast side. Single-family residences
line both sides of Amarillo Avenue west of Greer Park. West Bayshore Road, which parallels
the west side of Bayshore Freeway, is lined with apartment complexes on its west side and a
freeway sound wall on its east side. Large eucalyptus and cypress trees line the southwest
side of Amarillo Avenue in Greer Park.
¯East Bayshore Road - Commercial office buildings are located along both sides of East
Bayshore Road. High tension PG&E wires and towers are located along the northeast side of
this road.
Pedestrian Path - The pipeline will turn eastward from East Bayshore Road and be installed
underneath an existing pedestrian path that provides recreational access from East Bayshore
Road to the Baylands Preserve. Both sides of the path are abutted by parking lots and
offices, and are landscaped with ornamental species, including oleander and eucalyptus.
J :\WORK\ 139139\ISFORM I .doc 3
Baylands Nature Preserve - The pipeline will run underneath the Baylands Preserve which in
this location, consists primarily of open space and marsh vegetation. This portion of the
Preserve does not typically contain water from the bay. The pedestrian path described
above, along with its continuation to the terminus of Faber Place, provide access to the
Preserve from East Bayshore Road and Faber Place. Although access to some portions of
the path may be temporarily restricted due to construction activities, alternate pedestrian and
bicycle access routes will be identified and remain open during project construction.
¯Harbor Business Park - The final leg of the pipeline will be located at the rear of the Harbor
Business Park, where parking lots and ornamental landscaping are the primary land use
features.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement): Various encroachment permits will be required for the project, including
encroachment permits for construction in city rights-of-way, a permit from Caltrans for the U.S. 101
crossing, possible encroachment or other permits from other utilities (such as PG&E, Brooks Fiber
Optic, etc.). Temporary construction easements and permanent public works easements will be
required from a few private property owners in the project vicinity. The following approvals will be
required for the pipeline construction underneath the Baylands Nature Preserve: a) Park Improvement
Ordinance from City of Palo Alto; 2) Letter of Permission from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and 3)
Notice of Intent to Proceed from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
In addition, the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be
notified of the project to solicit their input on issues relating to threatened/endangered species.
J :\WORK\ 139139\ISFORM l.doc
PALO ALTO
MUNICIpAl.
Scale: 1"= 2,900 Feet
//
MTN.
VIEW
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
CH2MHILL ~
5
Environmental Issues Information
Sources
(see list on
page 1 5)
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Signifi-
cant
Impact
No
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a)Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?1
b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 1, 6
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
Pr.0Ject? ......
c)Be incompatible with existing land use in the 1
vicinity?
d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.1
impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 1
established community (including a low-income or minority
community)?
2.POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 1 x
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly 1 x
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area xor major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 1
housing?
3.GEOLOGY, SOILS, SEISMIClTY: Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts,involving:
a)Fault rupture?1, 2 x
b)’Seismic ground shaking?1, 2 x
c)Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?1, 2 x
d)Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?’1, 2 x
e)Landslides or mudflows? .....1,"’2 ’x
f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable s0il 5 x
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
’g)Subsi(~’~nce of the lan’d? ..............5 ...........x
’h)’Expansive soils?5 x"
i)Uniqu~ geologic or physical features?1, 2 x
:\WORK\139139~lSFORM I .doc I 0
Environmental Issues Information
Sources
(see list on
page 15)
Potentially
Significant
~ssues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Signifi-
cant
Impact
No
Impact
4.WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or 3 x
the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water ~lated 2 x
hazards such as flooding?
3 xc)Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical
storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from
construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use,
nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body or wetland?
3 x
e") Changes in currents, oi’ the course or’direction of 3 x
water movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?
3 xf)Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration
of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has
contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies?
3
3
3
3j)Alteration of wetlands in any way?
5.AIR QUALITY. "Would the proposal:
x
x
x
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 2 x
exiting or projected air quality violation?
b)Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?2, 3
c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or 2 x
cause any change in climate?
xd)Create objectionable odors?2, 3
J:\WORK\139139\ISFORMI .doc 11
Environmental Issues
6.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Information
Sources
(see list on
page 1 5)
Would the proposal result in:
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less No
Than Impact
Signifi-
cant
Impact
a)Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g.. farm equipment)?
c)
uses?
d)
e)
f)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
Ins~’fficient parking Capacity on-site or off-site?
¯ Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies s~pporting
3
1,2
1,2
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
g)Rail, waterborne or a.ir traffic’impacts?1’12
7.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ~Would the proposal result in reduc’tion or interference in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals or birds)?
2,4,6
b)
forest,
d)
e)
8.
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage tree~’i?
Loc’ally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
coastal habitat, etc.)?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, vernal P0ol?)
Wildlife dispersal or ’migration co’r~idors?
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the pro
1,2
1’,2
)osal:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
a)Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
1
3
x
x
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1 x
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
9.HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
3 xa)A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
J:\WORK~ 139139\lSFORM 1 .doc 12
Environmental Issues
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass or trees?
Information
Sources
(see list on
page 15)
1,3
1,3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
.....Incorporated
Less ’No "
Than Impact
’Signifi-
cant
Impact
x
x
x
X
10. NOISE. Would the proposa! result in:
a)
b)
Increase in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
x
x
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or
1
1
1
1,3
storm drain facilities?
e)Other governmental services?1
1’2. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a)Power or natural gas?
b)Communications systems?
)Locai’ 0’r regional’wate~ treatment or distribution
facilities~
1,3
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
d)Sewer or septic tanks?1, 3 x
e)Stormwater drainage or stormwater quality?1, 3 X
f)Solid waste disposal?1, 3 x
g)Local or regional water supplies? ....11 3 ’ ’x
.I :\WORK\139139XISFORM 1 .doc ,13
Environmental Issues Information
Sources
(see list on
page 1 5)
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Signifi-
cant
Impact
Impact
a) .Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or p.~eh!story?
b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a)Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?1, 2 x
b)Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?1, 2 x
c)Create light or glare?3 x
14.CULTURAL RESOURCES. ’Would the proposal:
a)Disturb paleontological resources?1, 2 ’x
b)Disturb archaeological resources?1, 2 x
c)Affect historical resources?1, 2 x
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change 1, 2 x
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 1, 2 x
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional x
parks or other recreational facilities?
b)Affect existing recreational opportunities?x
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
X
c) 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)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
J:\WORK\139139\ISFORM 1 .doc 14
17, INFORMATION SOURCES
1 Draft Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1996~2010, Embracing the New Centuryi
2 ’graf~ Enviionmental Impact Report for Palo Alto ComPrehensive ’Plan Update, prepa’~ed for City Of Palo
Alto by Brady and....As.sociates, December 1996.
............3 ....Task 5 Schematic Design Submittal for the Amarillo Avenue/Embarcader~ Way Relief Sewer Project,
prepared for the City of Palo Alto bY Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, April 1997.
4 Te.lephone conversation with Stephen J. Klein, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, on April 8, 1997.
5 Geotechnical investigation’ for the Amari"ilo Av’en"’~e and Embarcadero way Relief Sewer Project, Palo
/~lto, California, prepared by Woodward Clyde Consultants September 1997.
6 ’Baylands Nature Preserve Master Plan, adopted by City of Palo Alto in 19’78.’
7 Conversation and field visit with Palo Alto City Arborist, David Sandage, April. 21, 1997.
J:\WORK\ 139139’dSFORM 1 .doc 15
19.EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
1 b Approximately 1,000 feet of the relief sewer would be located underneath the northwesternmo~t
portion of the Baylands Nature Preserve. The preserve is owned by the City and is zoned for public
facilities. The preserve has one of the largest undisturbed areas of native marsh vegetation,
endangered species habitats, and habitats for waterfowl and shorebirds in the South Bay.
Recreational facilities for the Baylands Preserve have been planned and implemented.through the
Baylands Master Plan, which was adopted by the City in 1978. The Master Plan is a detailed plan
that seeks to balance ecological preservation of the area with controlled commercial and recreational
use of the area. The relief sewer would be installed underneath this portion of the preserve using
microtmnneling technology; a jacking/receiving pit would be located approximately at the mid-
point of the 1,200-foot length, about 500 feet west of the end of Faber Place. It is possible that access
to the pedestrian/bicycle path in this location may be temporarily restricted by construction
activities associated with this pit, but there would be no surface disruption of the preserve itself.
After construction is completed in this vicinity, the pipeline would not be visible, and there would be
a manhole on the north side of the pathway. Construction activities in this vicinity wilJ be
coordinated with the City’s Recreation, Open Space & Sciences Division, and may require temporary
signage to direct pathway users of alternate routes to access the Preserve. Because there would be no
permanent affects on the Preserve, the project would not COrLflict with the Baylands Master Plan.
1 c Although construction activities may cause short-term temporary disruption to some land uses in
the vicinity of the pipeline project, the project itself would not be incompatible with existing land
uses.
’" 2b The relief sewer project is not growth-inducing because it does not provide additional capacity to or
expansion of sewer collection or treatment infrastructure in Palo Alto. The relief sewer is designed
and intended to provide flow capacity for peak storm events.
3a Based on available information, no active faults are located in the immediate project vicinity;
therefore, the likelihood of surface rupture or fault creep along the proposed alignment is considered
remote.
3b The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan designates"the proj’ ci"area to be prone to very violent shaking in
the event of a major earthquake. This shaking could cause significant damage to underground
infrastructure if not properly designed and constructed. A geotechnical report for the project has
been prepared and is available for public review at the City Utilities Department’ at the address listed
on the front page of this document. The recommended seismic design measures identified in that
report will be incorporated into the project to reduce potential seismic impacts to a less than
significant level.
Liquefaction can occur when loose, ~aturated, rel~tivei~’ dean cohesionless soils are subjected ’to ........
ground vibrations. The geotechnical investigation prepared for the project indicates that the soil
conditions in the project vicinity consist primarily of day soils, with occasional sand and gravel
layers. The day layers are judged not to be susceptible to liquefaction, but there is some potential for
liquefaction to occur in the medium dense sand and gravel layers encountered at some boring
locations. Design measures will be incorporated into the project to address liquefaction issues.
3~ ’ ’Tsunami, ~eiche, or volcanic hazard are geologic problems not associated with’the San Francisco Bay
and its environs. Therefore, this does not represent a significant impact to the project.
J:\WORK\139139’~ISFORM 1 .doe ¯16
3f
3g
The project vicinity is relatively flat, so landslides and/or mudflows would not occur and no impact
would result.
Excavation and fill activities would be associated with the microtunneling jacking and receiving pits.
Excavation and subsequent fill of these pits will be performed in accordance with standard
construction practices, which include protective measures to prevent erosion and unstable soil
conditions. Temporary shoring will be utilized, in accordance with recommendations contained in
the geotechnical investigation.
Based on the available subsurface data, it is anticipated"th~’t the ground conditions that will be
encountered during microtunneling will consist mainly of soft to very stiff alluvial clays,
interbedded with loose to medium dense alluvial sands and gravels. These ground conditions
indicate the need for positive groundwater control during construction and special microtunneling
equipment to minimize the loss of ground and surface settlement. Although no land subsidence is
anticipated, either during or after pipeline installation, special design and construction measures, as
recommended in the geotechnical investigation, will be incorporated into the project to reduce
potential geotechnical impacts to a less than significant level.
3h See response to Item 3g above.
3i There are no unique geologic or physical features in the project vicinity.
4c
4d
Construction activities could temporarily cause surface runoff to storm drains ~r adjacent properties.
However, pursuant to RWQCB permit requirements, a Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP)
will be developed and implemented for the project. The plan will include a description of all
construction practices that would be employed to control pollutants in stormwater discharges. The
SWPPP will be submitted to and reviewed by the City Public Works Department to ensure that
suitable specifications are included in the plan.
The project will not involve any disruptions to surface waters or wetlands. For the jacking/receiving
pits located near the pedestrian path and Baylands Nature Preserve, the marsh and wetlands areas
will be dearly delineated to the contractor, and no construction activity will be permitted in the
Preserve itself. In addition, erosion control measures will be used to prevent accidental discharge of
construction materials to wetlands.
4e See response to Item 4d above.
Shallow groundwater in the project vicinity was encountered in all test borings at depths ranging
between 4 !6 to 616 feet below present ground surface. The shallowest groundwater depths
measured in the borings are typically within or just above the Bay Mud layer. It is anticipated that
the groundwater level will be about 10 to 15 feet above the bottom of the proposed pipe trench;
therefore, a dewatering system will be installed to minimize groundwater infiltration into the
microtunneling operation. The dewatering system will be designed and implemented in accordance
with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation.
4]See response to Item 4d above.
5b An increase in dust and emissions from heavy’machinery and truck traffic is expected during project
construction. This could create a temporary air quality impact to nearby residents and businesses.
To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, construction equipment will be properly
maintained and tuned, engine idling will be minimized, regular street cleaning will be conducted,
and Construction zones will be watered as appropriate to reduce construction dust. Trucks hauling
dirt will also be covered.
J:\WORK\I39139~ISFORM 1 .doc
7b
With microtunneling technology, approximately 6-8 trucks per day would arrive and depart from
the jacking pits with pipe delivery, and approximately 6-8 trucks per day would arrive and depart
from the same pits carrying waste or slurry spoils. Construction spoils would be taken t6 a nearby
landfill. While this truck traffic increase is not considered significant and would not add to traffic
congestion, the trucks would represent a different type of vehicular movement on the local Palo Alto
streets (particularly Amarillo Avenue) where construction would occur. The construction contractor
will be required to prepare and implement a traffic management plan for construction activities that
have the potential to disrupt traffic flow or affect neighboring properties, and to identify appropriate
travel routes for trucks. Both West Bayshore and East Bayshore Roads are designated through truck
routes in the City of Palo Alto, so construction trucks would be limited to these routes. Truck access
to the Amarillo Avenue construction area should be directed to West Bayshore Road, rather than
Greer Road.
Bicycle travel is an important component of the transportation system that Connects Palo Alto, Menlo
Park, Mountain View, and Stanford University. Bicycle facilities are defined as: Class I - bike path
(an exclusive right-of-way for bicyclists and pedestrians, with cross flows .of motorists minimized);
Class II - bike lane (an area designated by lane striping within the paved roadway that is restricted to
bicycle and moped use); Class III- bike route (a right-of-way, usually a paved street, designated by
signs that is shared by bicycle and motor vehicle traffic, and where bicycle usage is encouraged);
shared roadway (no bikeway designation, usage of any street by bicyclists unless specifically
prohibited); and bicycle boulevard (a local street on which bicycle travel is given precedence, and on
which impediments to bicycle travel are removed or minimized). Designated bike routes in the
project vicinity include the following:
¯East Bayshore - on-street bike lane and off-road bike path
¯West Bayshore - on-street bike lane
¯Amarillo and Greer Avenues - signed bike route
¯Oregon Avenue or Oregon frontage road (between Greer and U.S. 101) - on-street bike
lane
¯Pedestrian path off East Bayshore - off-road bike path
Construction activities have the potential to affect these nearby bicycle facilities. The traffic
management plan discussed in Item 6a above will include measures to protect bicyclists and
pedestrians from construction activities and traffic, and to provide for adequate bicycle movement.
As indicated in Item #1b above, a portion of’the relief sewer would be located underneath the
northwesternrnost portion of the Baylands Preserve. The Preserve contains significant native marsh
vegetation and endangered species habitat. Prior to construction of the jacking/receiving pits near
the pedestrian pathway, the limits of the marsh will be clearly delineated and protected from
construction activities. Therefore, there would be no surface disruption to any part of the preserve,
and no endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats would be affected by the project.
No heritage trees ’would be affected by the project. The microtunneling activity ~ould occur about 8
to 14 feet beneath the ground surface, with an average of 11 feet of cover. Tree root systems along
the alignment are expected to reside in the first 3 feet of cover, and roots are not expected at more
than 6 feet of depth, especially with the reduced oxygen available at deeper elevations. Therefore,
tree roots along the alignment would not be affected by the microtunneling activity.
’See response to Items #1b and #7a above.
.1 :\WORKM 39139\ISFORM 1 .doc
98
9b
’"10a
Chemicals such as gasoline, diesel, fuels, lubricating oils, hydraulic oil, lubricating grease, automatic
transmission fluid, paints, and solvents may be used during construction activities. An accidental
spill of any of these substances could occur during construction of the project. Handling and storage
of fuels and other flammable materials is governed by the California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (CAL/OSHA) standards. Construction documents will include a Substance Control
Program for construction activities to reduce and prevent the potential for chemical spills. This
program will require the safe collection and. disposal of hazardous substances generated during
construction activities, and will include an Emergency Response Program to ehsure quick and safe
cleanup of accidental spills.
The project would not interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan. However; because
some project construction would occur within City rights-of-way, some traffic obstruction, including
emergency vehicle travel, may be affected. The contractor will be required to obtain permits for
construction in City rights-of-way, and will notify the City regarding which streets may be affected..
It is not anticipated that the pipeline construhtion will enc0unter’contaminated soils or g.roundwa~er.
In addition, the primary method of pipeline installation will be via trenchless technology; therefore,
the potential for construction workers to come into contact with potentially contaminated materials
would be minimized. Nonetheless, the contractor will be required to prepare and implement a
health and safety plan which will include protocols to be followed in the event that contaminated
soils or groundwater are encountered.
The project would result temporary increased noise levels during Construction, but no long-term
noise increases from operations. Sensitive receptors to construction noise include the residences and
Greet Park along Amarillo Avenue, office building employees along East Bayshore Road and in The
Harbor Business Park, and animals inhabiting the Baylands Preserve. Construction activities
associated with the project would include earth-moving equipment required for excavating and
filling the microtunneling pits, the microtunneling machinery itself, and truck traffic associated with
the microtunneling activity. Construction activities and microtunnelin.g operations may generate
noise levels around 85 to 90 dBA.
According to the City’s Noise Ordinance (City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 9.10),
construction activities that are authorized by a city permit are allowed between 8:00 a.m. and 8!00
p.m. Monday through Friday; 9:,00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday;~and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on
Sundays and holidays, if the construction activities meet at least one of the following requirements:
No individual, piece of equipment may produce a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a
distance of 25 feet.
¯The noise level at any point outside the property plane of the project must not exceed 110
dBA.
Construction on residential property shall be allowed only during the hours between 8:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday; and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
on Sundays and holidays.
The contractor will be required to comply with City noise standards during project construction in
both residential and non-residential areas. If construction activities require exceptions to the noise
standards or ordinance, appropriate permits will be obtained.
10b The noise levels from construction activities ~uld p0tentialiy be c~nsidered severe by adjacent
sensitive receptors, although they would be temporary. As noted in Item #10a above, construction
activities will be required to comply with all applicable City noise standards and ordinances.
J:\WORK\139139~ISFORM 1 .doc 19
11d
1 2c
12d
13b
14a-e
15b
The proposed relief sewer would be required to be maintained by the City of Palo Alto. This is n0~ a
significant impact on City services.
The project would n~t require any modifications to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control
Plant, or any other pipelines in the City’s sewage collection system.
See response to Item #11c above.
The project would be located underground, with no visible components on the ground surface
except manholes. There would be no change to the visual environment in the project vicinity after
construction is completed.
The portion of the p~oject located adjacent to and west ~’f the Bayshore Freeway is considered to be
an area of "Moderate Sensitivity" for archaeological resources in Palo Alto. Areas east of the
freeway are considered to have low archaeological sensitivity. There are no known archaeological or
historical resources in the project construction area. However, in the event that cultural resources
are discovered during construction activities, all .work would cease, and a qualified archaeologist
would be consulted to determine the significance of the findings.
Recreational users of Greer ’Park and the pedestrian path leading from East Bayshore Roadthrough
the Nature Preserve to Faber Place (under which the relief sewer would be located) could be
temporarily affected by project construction activities. Greer Park users may be affected by
construction noise, but there would be no construction activities within the park itself. The
pedestrian path may need to be temporarily restricted to bicyclists and pedestrians during
construction activities. If access to the path needs to be restricted, users would be directed by
temporary signage to alternate routes in the Preserve vicinity. Pathway closures, notices to users,
and temporary signage will be coordinated with the City’s Recreation, Open Space and Sciences
Division. Impacts to recreational users are considered short-term temporary impacts related to
construction only; no long-term effects to the Preserve would occur. Any damage to the
pedestrian/bicycle path due to construction activities shall be repaired, and the path reconstructed
to City standards. Pre- and post-construction surveys of the pathway will be performed; after
construction, the City Engineer will use the surveys to determine if the pathway has been restored to
its original condition.
J :\WORK\ 139139’dSFORM 1 .doc 20