Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-22 City Council (13)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 2 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER DATE:NOVEMBER 22,1999 CMR: 422:99 SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF NEW WATER VAULT IN EL CAMINO PARKE ADOPTION OF PARK IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE REPORT IN BRIEF The 1997 City Council and voter approval of the Sand Hill Corridor projects requires upgrading the City’s water service for the Sand Hill Corridor. Upgraded water service requires a new connection to the San Francisco Water Department’s main trunk line located in the El Camino Real right-of, way. The connection will include a new water vault. The vault, which is located primarily below ground with access through a metal cover, is proposed to be located across from the Stanford Shopping Center at the comer of E1 Camino Park near the Palo Alto Avenue/E1 Camino Real intersection. The Architectural Review Board has approved the vault’s design. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Park Improvement Ordinance authorizing the installation of the new water vault. CMR: 422:99 Page 1 of 4 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Park Improvement Ordinance approving use of a portion of El Camino Park for a new water vault. BACKGROUND The 1995-97 City review of the Stanford West Apartments, Stanford Senior Housing and Stanford Shopping Center expansion identified the need for upgraded City water service in the Sand Hill Corridor. The Corridor, which extends from E1 Camino Real to San Francisquito Creek, has marginally acceptable water service, primarily because the area has only one access point to the San Francisco Water Department’s (SFWD) E1 Camino Real main trunk line. The lack of a second connection to the SFWD system results in the City’s portion of the Sand Hill Corridor being a long dead end water line with limited water capacity and pressure. The details for improving water service were to be resolved during implementation of the approved Sand Hill Corridor projects. DISCUSSION Staff from the SFWD, Stanford and the City evaluated four .locations for a new connection to the large mink line under E1 Camino Real. A fifth site, located between Palo Alto Avenue and San Francisquito Creek (Creek), was rejected because of potential impacts on existing vegetation and, in the long term, the Creek and Creek bank. The four sites identified included: ¯The E1 Camino Real right-of-way; ¯Stanford Shopping Center; ¯Adjacent to an existing SFWD vault near Quarry Road and E1 Camino Real; and ¯The northwest comer of E1 Camino Park. As described on Pages 2 and 3 of the attached October 7, 1999 Architectural Review Board (ARB) staff report, the sites other than the northwest comer of E1 Camino Park have a variety of engineering and other technical problems. These problems result in the E1 Camino Park site being the only location that is acceptable to the City Utilities Department and the SFWD. The water vault will be a below ground structure approximately 9 feet by 19 feet, with the top of the vault no more than 6 inches above grade and likely to be level with the ground surface. The vault will contain an SFWD water main connecting to the mink line under E1 Camino Real and an outgoing City of Palo Alto water line. The City line, after exiting the vault, will cross under E1 Camino Real and proceed up the Sand Hill Road right-of-way. The connections to and under E1 Camino Real will be located in a gap in CMR: 422:99 Page 2 of 4 the existing trees; no trees will be removed because of the project. New landscaping around the vault will provide visual screening while allowing access for routine maintenance and for emergencies. The area around the vault extending to Palo Alto Avenue will be seeded with a mix of wildflowers and grasses that will not be irrigated. Plans previously approved by the ARB provide for supplemental oak tree planting in the area near the vault and Palo Alto Avenue, and the water vault plans add an additional oak tree to this area. Initial ARB review ofthe design of the proposed water vault occurred on August 19, 1999 (see 8/19/99 ARB staff report attached to the 10/7/99 ARB staff report). The Board continued the item primarily for additional information on alternative water vault locations. On October 7, 1999 the Board approved the proposed location (a 2-1 vote with Board member Lippert opposed because of the park location). The approval was conditional on landscape and vault cover details returning to the Board. On November 10, 1999, the Board approved the additional landscaping and flat gray painted vault cover described in the attached 11/10/99 ARB staff report. The plan attached to the recommended Park Improvement Ordinance incorporates the October 7th and November 10th ARB approvals. ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION As discussed in the October 7, 1999 ARB staff report, alternative locations for a new water vault have a variety of engineering and other technical problems. The only possible alternative location is near the Quarry Road/El Camino Real intersection;however, this location would result in water pressure that probably would not meet Fire Code and City utility water service standards. RESOURCE IMPACT All of the costs related to the new vault and extended water service will be paid for by Stanford, consistent with the 1997 Sand Hill Corridor project approvals and Development Agreement. POLICY IMPLICATION Installation of the new water vault is consistent with the 1997 City approvals of the Sand Hill Corridor projects. City parks, including E1 Camino Park, have a variety of utility facilities. Approval of the water vault is consistent with established policies and precedents for use of City parks. CMR: 422:99 Page 3 of 4 TIMELINE Water vault construction is scheduled to start in February of 2000. This start date is coordinated with the Stanford West Apartment construction schedule that anticipates having the first apartment buildings open for occupancy by late Summer of 2000. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The water vault location was selected after certification of the Sand Hill Corridor EIR. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C to the 8/19/99 ARB staff report) has been prepared. With the ARB’s incorporation of the environmental mitigations, a finding of no significant environmental impact is warranted. ATTACHIVIENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Location Map 11/10/99 ARB staff report 10/7/99 ARB staff report with attached 8/19/99 ARB staff report Park Improvement Ordinance Water Vault plan PREPARED BY: Kenneth R Schrm"~er, Deputy City Manager/Special Projects CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: /--City ~Ivlanager cc: Stanford Management Comp b Reidy, Jim Ingl{;~ Bill Phillips) San Francisco Water Department (Mike Weisenberger) Brian Kangus Faulk (Doug DeVries) SWA Landscape Architects (Jill Gropp) CMR: 422:99 Page 4 of 4 PROPOSED WATER VAULT Site Location Map Proposed Location San Francisco Water Dept. Vault 11/22/99 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation (rely of best avai~ab~ sources,The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. Attachment B Architectural Review Board Staff Rep.ort Agenda Date:November I0, 1999 1 To:Architectural Review Board From:Steve Reiner, Contract Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment Subject:175 E1 Camino Real -San Francisco Water Department Water Vault [99-ARB-102]: Request by Stanford Management Company for final Architectural Review Board review and recommen- dation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for approval of landscape and water vault surface design details of a previously approved water vault to be-installed in the northwest corner ofE1 Camino Park. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the landscape and water vault surface features of the previously approved San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) Water Vault design application. ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR The Architectural Review Board approved the location of the proposed San Francisco Water Department water vault on October 7, 1999 and requested that the following items return on consent calendar: ¯Landscaping modifications to further buffer the water vault from the view of pedestrians and bicyclists. ¯Review of the vault cover, vault color and concrete edging surrounding the vault. 99-ARB-102 / 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault 1 Page 1 Consent Calendar Items Landscaping Modifications The previous landscape plan showed an informal massing of native shrubs around the SFWD vault with access from the northern side. The current plan adds a drift of shrubs adjacent to the AC path to screen views into this side of the vault, and to discourage pedes- tria~£~y~ circulation--~ the ~ault area. The t~c of sh-r~s have been modified to slightly lower varieties (approximately 3’ high), to insure safety to park users -(by preventing people from hiding behind them), while still mitigating views. The plant’list now includes: Arctostaphyllos densiflora ’Howard McMinn’/Manzanit~, Arctostaphyllos ’Pacific Mist’/ Manzanita, Ceanothus gloriosus exaltatus ’Emily Brown’/Ceanothus, and Muhlen- bergia rigens/Deergrasso Vault Materials The SFWD-maintained and operated vault will be concrete with a meta! plate cover painted a flat gray. The concrete will be a standard gray with no color additives. Four inches of concrete will be exposed past the edges of the vault cover. The concrete will have a one-inch chamfer if the cover is one to six inches above the ground. If the cover is flush (the expected condition), there will be no chamfer. The sample submitted for review is a painted piece of the metal plate cover. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this ARB review .of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. TIMELINE ~ity Council consideration on consent calendar of the approved design and Park Improvement Ordinance is scheduled on November 22, 1999. Work on installing the San Francisco Water Department Water Vault will occur in early 2000. Completion of construction by spring 2000 is necessary so that the opening of the initial group of Stanford West Apartments will not be delayed. 99-ARB-102 / 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault ¯ Page 2 Consent Calendar Items ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City filed a Notice of Intent to Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project on July 30, 1999. The ARB approved the MND on October 7, 1999. No further environmental action is required. ATTACHMENTS / EXHIBITS Attachment A: Revised Plan Set: "Landscape Plan / SFWD Meter Vault" (11-03-99) . Copies: Ed Gawf, Director, Dept. of Planning and Community Environment, City.of Palo Alto. Bob Reidy, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025. Mike Weisenberger, San Francisco Water Department, Water Supply and Treatment, P.O. Box 730, Millbrae, CA 94030. Prepared by: Steve Reiner, Contract Planner Manager Review: Kenneth R. Schreiber, Deputy City Manager Filing Index: V F smr.., arb\99-ARB-102 sf water vault \99-arb-102 sfwd water vault consent 99-1110.doc 99-ARB-102 / 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault ¯ Page 3 Consent Calendar Items ATTACHMENT A P.~VISED PLAN SET San Francisco Water Department Water Vault 175 E1 Camino Real / E1 Camino Park / File No. 99-ARB-102 Revised Plan Set: Landscape Plan (Sheet L-I) SFWD Meter Vault (Revised ii-03199) [for ARB members only] 99-ARB-102 / 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault Consent Calendar Items ¯ Attachment A Attac~ent U Agenda Date: To: Subject: Architectural Review Board Staff Report October 7, 1999 Architectural Review Board 3 steve Reiner, Contract Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 175 E1 Camino Real - San Francisco Water Department Water Vault [99-ARB-102]: Request by Stanford Management Company for final Architectural Review Board review of a 9’ x 19’ water vault to be installed in the northwest comer of E1 Camino Park. Installation of the water vault will enable the City to provide water service for Stanford West Apartments and the proposed Senior Housing project along Sand Hill Road and upgraded water service for existing land uses in the Sand Hill Corridor. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed San Francisco Water Department Water Vault design application as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) attached to the August 19, 1999 staff report, subject to the mitigations in the MND and conditions presented in Attachment B of the August 19, 1999 staff report. (Attachment A contains the August 19, 1999 staff report). ITEMS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR The Architectural Review Board, on August 19, 1999, continued the application for design approval of a new Water Vault iri El Camino Park for review of the following issues: Alternative locations; Consideration of adding shrubbery to the adjacent area; and Additional information regarding the park entry sign. This report responds to the issues raised on August 19th and identifies a change in the application. Alternative Water Vault Locations 175 El Camino Real I San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault -’Page 1 The Board requested identification and review of alternative water vault locations to the proposed site in El Camino Park. The water vault contains equipment owned and operated by the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) and thus approval by the SFWD is required. For any location in the El Camino Real right-of-way, approval by Caltrans is required. The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department also needs to accept the vault location since the water main leaving the vault is a City main. Purpose of the Vault Currently, the portion of the City located west ofEt Camino Real is served by one water connection to the main SFWD water main located under El Camino Real. Thus the area from the Shopping Center to the Oak Creek Apartments is a long dead end system. The general approach used by water suppliers is to have areas served from at least v, vo directions both to provide adequate pressure and water volume and backup service in the case of a main failure. The proposed Sand Hill developments and especially the Apartments and Senior Housing provided the opportunity and requirement for upgraded water service to the larger Sand Hill Corridor area. The Sand Hill Corridor EIR identified the requirement for upgraded water service through an additional connection to the primary SFWD ~vater main but did not identify a location for the connection. The Vault ~vould contain a pipe connecting to the SFWD E1 Camino Real water main plus a metering facility to track the amount of~vater being removed from the primary main. It would also contain a City water main that would exit the vault and cross under El Camino Real and then extend up Sand Hill Road. The City main would be enclosed in a heavy-duty steel casing. The City main would be installed beneath El Camino Real using a jack and bore system so that surface activities would not be disrupted. The primary construction concern is the connection to the existing SFWD E1 Camino Real main given the age of that water main. The SFWD connecting main would be installed through an open trench construction process. Alternative Vault Locations The SFWD’s E1 Camino main runs under the south (University) side of the road right-of-way until the Quarry Road area and then angles across the right-of-way to the E1 Camino Park side of the road. Initial discussions of potential vault locations identified four possible sites: []The El Camino Real right-of-way; []Stanford Shopping Center; []Adjacent to an existing SFWD water vault near Quarry Road and El Camino Real; and []The northwest end of El Camino Park. The SFWD will not accept a location in the El Camino Real right-of-~vay. SFWD crews have to periodically access the vault and having crews and trucks be required to park and work ~vithin or adjacent to the travel lanes is not an acceptable safe ~vorking practice. It is also unlikely that Caltrans 175 El Camino Real ! San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault Page 2 would approve a vault location in the right-of-xvay for the same safety concerns plus the impact on travel capacity when a lane had to be closed off to allow vault-related work. A location in the Stanford Shopping Center is also unacceptable tothe SFWD. Their main water line is located on the Park side of El Camino Real and having their water service cross under nearly the entire width of the road adds unacceptable maintenance and connection complexity. Attachment B contains a memo from the SFWD staff regarding their concerns and restraints. A xvater vault location on undeveloped University land south of the Quarry Road/El Camino Real intersection was given considerable review by the various technical staffs. Several problems make this location unacceptable.to the City Utilities Department (see Attachment C). First, the location would add approximately 1,500 feet of pipe between the vault and Sand Hill Road. The additional pipe would reduce the water pressure and volume as water flows toward the Oak Creek Apartments. (Remembering that this end of the Corridor will remain in an end of the line condition although having service from two locations along El Camino Real.) Initial calculations indicate that thd pressure and volume would fall below minimum Fire Code and Utility standards for serving both the ne~v apartments and the Oak Creek site. Also, there is staff concern regarding where the water service along the fron{ of the Shopping Center would be located. A location in the Center would place the line in the parking lot and possibly conflict with the proposed building at the corner of Quarry Road and El Camino Real. A location within the El Camino Real right-of-way would require Caltrans approval and raise concerns regarding safety both for initial construction and if and when maintenance/repair work needed to be conducted. Finally, having the two water vaults So close to one another raises concerns that an event that damaged one vault would damage both vaults and thus impair the desired improvement in service reliability’ for the Sand Hill corridor. Elimination of the alternative locations resulted in the vault location proposed for the undeveloped northwest end of El Camino Park. The vault would be located near the El Camino Real edge of the Park. The connection to the SFWD line would disrupt the first travel lane but not the rest of the Road. The vault is proposed to take advantage of an existing opening in the oak trees along the road and would not have a negative impact on the trees. The area for the proposed vault is not used or appropriate for active recreational use. Access to the vault would be from the existing bicycle/pedestrian path with no new access/paving required. Since the top of the vault is to be no higher than six inches above grade and very likely will be level with the existing ground surface, proposed shrubs and other landscaping would result in the vault having minimal visual impact. City parks serve a xvide variety of utility facilities (e.g., a SF\VD water vault is located on the railroad tracks side of El Camino Park). The introduction of a new vault would be consistent with other park sites and City Council approval of a Park Improvement Ordinance would be required for the proposed vault. Potential Additional Landscaping 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault _" Page 3 The proposed water vault application includes shrubbery on three sides of the new vault, additional trees and a wildflower seeding of areas near the vault that are currently disked dirt. To more effectively screen the vault from El Camino Real, the revised landscape plan now shows shrub; along the western edge of the vault. Access to the vault is now from the north edge. The Board requested that consideration be given to adding bushes to the area. Several years ago, the Cib’ removed bushes from the area l~ecause of public safety concerns associated with the area. The objective was, and remains, to have the area from Palo Alto Avenue to the soccer field visually open from both the road and the park. Therefore, the addition of bushes is not recommended. Modified Application It became evident during the August 19th ARB meeting that the proposed El Camino Park entry sign (which is based on the recently installed entry signs for Greet and Rinconada Parks) had not received previous review and approval by the Board. The Cit’g,_.’ s Community Services Department has decided to bring the Park entry sign to the Board as ffseparate item later this year or in early 2000. They have requested that the sign be removed from the Water Vault application. Since the sign was added to the application at the request of the Community Services Department staff, the requested change has been made and the attached revised plans no longer contain the Park sign and related landscaping (please see the revised Plan Set in Attachment D). PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this ARB review of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. TIMELINE City Council review of the design and park improvement ordinance is scheduled to occur in November 1999. Work on installing the San Francisco Water Department Water Vault will not occur until late 1999 or early 2000. Completion of construction by early spring 2000 is necessary so that the opening of Stanford West Apartments. will not be delayed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City filed a Notice of Intent to Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project on July 30, 1999. ARB approval of the MND is recommended. 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault Page 4 ATTACHMENTS / EXHIBITS Attachment A: Staff report dated August 19, 1999. Attachment B: Letter from Mike Weisenberger, Service Inspector, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Water Supply and Treatment Division to Ken Schreiber, City of Palo Alto, Deputy City Manger, dated September 9, 1999. Attachment C: Memorandum from Roger Cwiak, Engineering Manager, Palo Alto Utilities Department to Ken Schreiber, dated September 8, 1999. Attachment D: Revised Plan Set: "Landscape Plan / SFWD Meter Vault" (07-29-99). Copies: Ed Gawf, Director, Dept. of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto. Bob Reidy, Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025. Mike Weisenberger, San Francisco Water Department, Water Supply and Treatment, P.O. Box 730, ¯ Millbrae, CA 94030. Prepared by: Manager Revie~v: Steve Reiner, Contract Planner Kenneth R. Schreiber, Deputy City Manager Filing Index: V F star.., arb\99-ARB-102 sf water vault \99-arb-102 sfwd water vault consent 99-1007.doc 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco water Dept. Water Vault "Page 5 ATTACHMENT A STAFF REPORT - August 19, 1999 San Francisco Water Department Water Vault 175 E1 Camino Real / E1 C .amino Park / File No. 99-ARB-102 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault Attachment A Agenda Date: To: From: Subject: Architectural Review Board Staff Report August 19, 1999 Architectural Review Board Steve Reiner, Contract Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 175 El Camino Real - San Francisco Water Department Water Vault [99-ARB-!02]: Request by Stanford Management Company for final Architectura! Review Board review of a 9’ x "19’ water vault to be installed in the northwest comer of E1 Camin0 Park. Installation of the water vault will enable the City to provide water service for Stanford West Apartments and the proposed Senior Housing project along Sand Hill Road and upgraded water service for existing land uses in the Sand Hill Corridor. ..:- RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the proposed San Francisco Water Department Water Vault design application, subject to the mitigations in the MND and conditions presented in Attachment B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Proiect consists of the excavation and installation of a water vault, approximately 9’ by !9’, in the northwest comer of E1 Camino Park, bounded by E1 Camino Real and Palo Alto Avenue. This site is zoned Public Facility ("PF"). The top of the underground vault will be no more than 6 inches above grade and is likely to be level with the ground surface. The water vault will enclose the connection of an incoming City and County of San Francisco water line (i.e., a pipe connecting to the San Francisco Water Department water main under E1 Camino Real) to an out-going City of Palo Alto water line. The City water line will exit the vault, cross under E1 Camino Real and proceed up Sand Hill Road. The entering and exiting water lines will be located in a gap in the trees along E1Camino Real; no trees wil! be removed because of this proiect. 99-AR8-102 I75 El Camino Real / San Francisco VVater Dept. VVater Vault ~ Page 1 This new water line will provide a reliable water source with sufficient pressure for domestic purposes, fire safety and irrigation to the proposed Senior Housing facility and to Stanford West Apartments and will upgrade existing City water service in the Sand Hil! Corridor. " Given the water vault’s location in E1 Camino Park, the vault, park sign and related land- scaping will be reviewed, by the City Council prior to .adoption of a park improvement ordinance. Landscape The Project includes appropriate landscaping around the vault to provide visual screening while allowing for access for ordinary maintenance and for emergencies. The following gallon screening shrubs are arranged around the north, east, and southern edges of the vault: ’Howard McMinn’/manzanita (Arctostaphyllos densiflora), ceanothus (Ceanothus ’concha’), flannel bush (Fremontedenron californica), deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens), and coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica). The Sand Hill Co~idor Road intersection plansapproved by the ARB on February 18, 1999 identified three new coast live oaks in the general area of the Water vault and bicycle/ pedestrian path. Two of the oaks were to be placed east of the water vault and one to the east of the path. The application for proposed ~;ater vault adds an additiona! coast live oak east of the water Vault and shifts one of the pre~dously approved oaks to the to the west (left) side of the bicycle/pedestrian path. This oak will replace an existing 15" cedar in poor health (please refer to Sheet L-l). Further, the application includes an E1 Camino Park entTy sign per the requestof the City’s Parks and Golf Division. The &.slon of the entry’sign is consistent with those recently approved elsewhere in the City (mostly recently for Greet Park). The entry sign will be located close to an existing cedar tree and will be softened by an array of the same shrubs as those screening the water vault. One further modification is to include non-irrigated hydroseeded wildflowers for areas currently without ground cover. The proposed wildflower mix is presented below: Proposed ~Nildflower ML~ Yarrow (Achillea Millefolium) Pot Marigold (Calendula Officinalis) Bachelor buttons (Centaurea Cvanus) Painted Daisy (Chrysanthemum Carinatum) Ox-Eyed Daisy (Chrysanthemum Leucanthernum) Farewell To Sprin~ (Clarkia Amoena) Mountain Garland (Clarki~ Un~iculata) Plains Coreopsis (Corepsis Tinctoria) African Daisy (Dimorphotheca Aurantliaca) Prairie Coneflower (Echinecea Purourea) Indian Basket (Gaifl~rdia Pulchella) Birds Eye (Gili~ Tricolor) Babys Breath IG~soohila Muralis) Candy Tu~ (Iberis Umbellatum) Rose Mallow (Lavatera Trirnestris) Tidy Tips (kayia PlaVglossa) Statice (Limoniurn Blue Flax (Limum Lewisii) Red Flax (Limun Ruberurn) Arrova Luoine (Luoinus Succulentus) 99-ARB-102 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault _~ Page 2 Proposed Wildflower Mix California Poppy (Eschscholzia Califomica)Baby Blue Eyes (Nemophila Menziesii) Shirley Poppy (Papaver Rhoeas)Yellow Eve Primrose (Oenothera Hooker~) Lacy Phacelia (Phacelia Tanacetiflora)Catchfly (Silene Arrnefia) DISCUSSION D ep artment Comments 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The Planning Division approved the plan set without comment, The Transportation Division approved the plan set without comment. Fire Department approved, the plan set without comment, Public Works Department approved the plan set without comment. Utilities / Water-Gas-Wastewater appro~ied the plan without comment. Utilities / Electrical Engineering approved the plan without comment. Utility Marketing Services approved th~ plan set subject to the conditions in Attachment B, PUBLIC NOTICE. Not{ce of this ARB review of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local.newspaper of genera! circulation, TIMELINE City Council review of the design and park improvement ordinance is scheduled to occur in September 1999. Work on installing the San Francisco Water Department Water Vault will not occur until late 1999 or early 2ooo. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City filed a Notice of Intent to Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project on July 3o, 1999. ARB approval of the MND is recommended. Page 399-ARB-102 175 El Cam!no Rea! / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault ATTACHMENTS / EXHIBITS A~achment A: Architectural Review Board Findings Attachment B: Proposed.Conditions of Approval Attachment C: Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment D: Plan set: "Landscape Plan / SFWD Meter Vault" (o7-29-99). Co_pies: Ed Gawf, Director, Dept. of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto. Bob Reidy, Stanford Management Company, 277o Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94o25. Mike Weisenberger, San Francisco Water Department, Water Supply and Treatment, Box 73o, Millbrae, CA 94o3o. Prepared by: Manager Review: Steve Reiner, Contract Planner Kenneth R. Schreiber, Deputy City Manager [][] Filing Index: V F smr.., arb\99-arb-101 ssc retail bldg p\staff rpt bldg p £9-arb-101 99-0819.doc 99-ARB-102 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault -,~ Page 4 ATTACHMENTA - ARCH’ITECTURAL REVIEW B OARD FINDINGS San Francisco Water Department Water Vault ~75 E1 Camino Real / E1 Camino Park / File No. 99-ARB-~o2 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it complies with the Standards for Architec- tura! Review as required inChapter 16.48 of the PAMC. t’he design of the San Francisco Water Department water vault is intended to minimize visual impacts by requiring that the top of the underground vault will be no more than 6 inches above grade and is likely to be level with ground surface. Additional landscaping wil! screen the water vault, thereby further reducing the visual impact of the vault. In addition, the landscaping, which includes four new trees, shrubs, and hydoseeded wildflowers in areas without current ground cover will upgrade the northwest comer of E1 .Camino Park closest to the vault. The design of the new park entry sign is consistent with the design used for entry signs in other City parks. ~ ATTACHMENT B PR(~POSED CONDITIONS OF.APPROVAL San Francisco Water Department Water Vault ~75 E1 Camino Real / E1 Camino Park / File No, 99-ARB-lo2 The following Conditions of Approval supplement the Mitigation Measures in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditions related to Utility Marketing Services:. !.1, T.he Landscape Water E.f-j~iciency Standards apply to this project, but the final landscape plans will not be reviewed until after the ARB has completed its review and plans are submitted foi" a Building Permit, mr 99-ARB-102 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault = Attachment B/Page 1 ATTACHMENT C MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION San Francisco Water Department Water Vault 175 E1 Camino Real / E1 Camino Park / File No. 99-ARB-lo2 99-ARB-102 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault ’-- AttaChment C City Of Palo Alto Department Of Planning And Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue - 5a Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329 2441 NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPROVE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPARTMENT WATER VAULT Environmental Document: Project Planner: Hearing Date: Public Comment Period: State Review Required: 99-EIA- 14 Steve Reiner, Contract Planner, 415 925 6999 No hearing to receive comments has been scheduled. July 30, 1999 to August 19, 1999 No Project Description: The proposed proj ect consists of the excavation and installation of a water vault, approximately 9’ by 19’. The top of the underground vault vdll be no more than 6 inches above grade and is likely to be level with the ground surface. The vault will be screened on 3 sides by a variety of landscaping materials. Project Location: The location of proposed vault is the northwest comer of E1 CaminoPark, bounded by EI Camino Real and Palo Alto Avenue. Directly across from E1 Camino Rea!, to the west, is the Stanford Shopping Center. Owner/Applicant: The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, c/o Stanford Management Company, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025. Public Hearing and Comments: No public hearing has been scheduled to receive comments on 99-EIA-14. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review during the hours of 8:00 AM to 12:00 Noon and 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM in the Planning Division, Civic Center, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5=’~ floor, Palo Alto,CA. Written comments may be submitted until 4:00 PM on August 19, 1999 to: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Office ATTN: Steve Reiner, Contract Plarmer 250 Hamilton Avenue - 7’’~ Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301. f~eference. California Code of Regulations, Title t J,, (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15072(a). ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Departmetit of Planning and. Community Environment Project Title:San Francisco Water Department Water Vault Lead Agency Name and Addresg:City of Palo Alto Utilities Department Water/Gas~Vastewater Division 1007 Eiwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Roger Cwiak, Engineering Manager 650 565 4507 175 E1 Camino Real in the northwest comer of El Carnino Park, bounded by Palo Alto Avenue and E! Camino Real, Pa!o Alto, Santa Clara County, CA. 5.Application Number(s): Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:Mr. Robert Reidy The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University c/o Stanford Management Company 2770 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Palo Alto Environmental Checklist Form San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault / m Page 1 of 17 Genera! Plan Designation:P Zoning:PF (Public Facility) Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. (Attach additional sheets if necessary) The Project consists of the excavation and installation of a water vault, approximately 9’ by 19’, in the northwest corner of E1 Camino Park, bounded by E! Camino Real and Palo~ Alto Avenue. The top of the underground vauh wilt be no more than 6 inches above grade and is likely to be level with the ground surface. The water vault will enclose the connection of an incoming City and County of San Francisco water line (i.e., a pipe connecting to the San Francisco Water Department ~%’ater main under E1 Camino P~eal) to an out-going City of Palo Alto water line. The City water line will exit the vault, cross under E1 Camino Real within and consistent with existing easements, and proceed up Sand Hill Road. The entering and exiting water lines will be located in a gap in the trees along El Camino Real; no trees will be removed because of this project. This new water line will provide a reliable water source with sufficient pressure for domestic purposes, fire safety and irrigation to the proposed Senior Housing facility and to Stanford \Vest Apartments and upgrade existing City water service in the Sand Hill Corridor. The Project includes appropriate landscaping around the vault to provide visual screening while allowing for access for ordinary maintenance and for emergencies. Four new Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifo!ia) are also proposed: three of the new oaks will be grouped to the east of the water vault in the bend of the bicycle/pedestrian path; one new oak will be located on the west side of the bicycle/pedestrian path closer to the entrance of the park. Further, the application includes an ]El Carnino Park entry sign per the request of the City’s Parks and Golf Division. The design of the entry sign is consistent with that recently approved for other city parks. The entry sign ~,~511 be located close to an existing cedar tree. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings) The water vault will be installed at the southeast comer of E1 Camino Real and Pa!o Alto Avenue in ]El Camino Park. Diredtly across EI Camino Real, to the west, is the Stanford Shopping Center. The vault will be located adjacent to an existing pedestrian/bicycle foot path. The vault is surrounded by existing trees and vegetation. "l-he plans call for addi- tional landscaping to pro~(ide an appropriate visual buffer. Palo Alto Environmental Checklist Form San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault/~ Page 2 of 17 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). San Francisco Water Department, Water Supply and Treatment, P.O. Box 730, Milbrae, CA 94030 Caltrans ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact thati~ a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the check list on the following pages: Aesthetics X Biological Resources X Hazards & & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities/ Service Systems Agricultural Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology 1 Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology / S~ils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transp°rtatign I Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wil! be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there ,,vili not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ,,vill be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on anached sheets. An ENVIRONMEN’TAL IMPACT REPORT is.required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to-be addressed. Palo Alt.o Environmental Checklist Form San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault / ~ P.gge 3 of 17 X I find that all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Kenneth R. Schreiber, Deputy City Manager Ed Gawf, Director of Plarm~g and Community Environment Date ¯ Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project fails outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project ,,,,’ill not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). " All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as ‘’,,’ell as on-site, cumulative as ,,,,’ell as project-level, indirect as ‘’vell as direct, and construction as ,,’,’ell as operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then tl-,e checklist answers must indicate ",vhether the impact is potentially significant, less tha~a significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are ¯ one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporatior{ of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). Palo Alto Environmental Checklist Form San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault / ~ Page 4 of 17 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIK, or other CE.QA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) b) c) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects fromthe above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega! standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. :. Mitigation Measures. For effects that" are "Less than Significant with Mitigati6n Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the projectl o Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to in.formation sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a " previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages ,,,,’here the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; -- - boy;ever, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever, format is selected. ’ " ~he explanation of each issue should identify: a)the significance criteria or threshold,-if any, used to evaluate each question; and the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Palo Alto En,,dronmentai Checklist Form San Francisco V~,tater Dept. ~]ater Vault / 1~ Page 5 of 17 Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources S~gn~ficant ~gaUon S~gn~ficant .o Sources Issues Incorporated Impact I !. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse ~ffect on a scenic vista?l I X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not !X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1.X quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 1 I Xwould adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) b) c) AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies .may refer to the California Agricultural Land Eval- uation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 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? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a W]ltiamson Act contract? 1,2 (L-9) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? X II1.AIR QUALITY, Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determina- tions. Would the project: a) C°nflict with °r °bstruct implementati°n °f the applicablelair quality plan?1’2I I X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substan(ially 1, 2 I X to an existing or projected air quality violation?I c)1,2 XResult in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attain- ment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Palo Alto Environmental Checklist Form San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault / ~, Page 6 of 1T Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources PotenUally Significant ¯ Issues I PotanUa~ly Significant Unless MiUgaUon Incorporated ¯ Less Than Significant Impact ~0 d) e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1,2 1,2 X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) b) c) d) e) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife . Service? 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 Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 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? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as.a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conser- vation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conserva- tion plan? 1,2 1,2. X X X X X X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of I 1,2 a historical resource as defined in 15064.5?I (L-?) Palo Alto Environmenta! Checklist Form San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault = Page Issues and Supporting Information Sources PotenUaIly ~lgnlficant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Les~ Than Significant Impact Impa= an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?. (L-8) c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological I, 2 X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred 1, 2 X outside of formal cemeteries? Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: . ~)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zon- ing 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 Publi- cation 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 2,4 N-8, ~-]o) 2,4 "N-IO) X X X Iiv) Landslides?2 CS-5) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?2 c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spread- ing, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems N/A d) e) X PaIo Alto Environmental Checklist Form San Francisco Wa’.er Dept. Water Vault/= PaSe 8 of Issues and Supporting Information Sources PotenUally S~jnlflcant Issues Potentially Significant Unless MittgaUon Incorporated where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Less "I’han Significant Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) b) c) d) e) g) h) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazard- ous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 2,7 2~.7 For a project located within an airport land Qse plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airpo~ or public use airport, would the project result in a saf.ety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 2,7,8 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? 2,8 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? "N/A Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including wSere wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? :’4 X X 1,2 X X Pa!o Alto Environmental Checklist Form San Francisco Wa;.r Dept. Water Vault TM Pa_:e c cf i Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources PotenUally Significant I~sues Potentialty Significant Unless MIUgatlonIncorporated Less Than Significant Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) b) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere sdbstantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells Would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course ot~ a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substan- tial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 2 04-2) 2 e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stQrmwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Othe~vise substantially degrade water quality? g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X X X X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which "N/A would impede or redirect flood flows?0.4.6) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,2 injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a I~ or dam? j) Inundationbyseiche, tsunami, ormudflow?I2 Pa!o Alto Environmental Checklist Form San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault / ~ Page 10 of Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Stgnlflcant Issues PotenUally Significant Unless MitlgaUon Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact IX. a) b) c) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Physically divide an established community? Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regu- lation 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? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1,2 X X X X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 2 X resource that would be bf value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important 2 X I mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local .. general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Xl. NOlSE. Would the project result in: a) b) c) d) e) 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? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borfle vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 2,7 ~-3) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 2,7 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? N/A Pa!o Alto Environmental Checklist Form San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault / = Page 11 of 1~ Issues and Supporting Information Sources PotenUally Significant Issues PotenUally Slgnlflcant Unless MIUgaUonIncorporated Less Than Significant Impact f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ¯ "NIA X XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by propbsing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1,2,9 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessi- 1,2 I X taring the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?/ c) Displace ~ubstantial numbers of people, necessitating the 1,2 I ~: construction of replacement housing elsewhere?I XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which. could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? X X X1V.RECREATION a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighbor- hood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility ¯ would occur or be accdlerated? Palo Alto Environmental Checklist Form X San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault / " Page 12 of 1 Issues and Supportin~ Information Sources Sources b). ~4/A Potentlatly Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless I~iUgaUon Incomorat.ed Less Than Slgnlflcant. Impact 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? XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio onroads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or Cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? N/A X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature N/A X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom- patible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access?"i’4!A f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?N/A g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs suppo~-l, 2 X ing alternative transpo~ation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceedwastewatertreatmentrequirementsofthe 1 !,2 / X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)!., 2 -XRequire or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? Palo Alto Environmental Checklist Form X San Francisco Water Dept. Water VaL[tt / = Page Issues and Supporting Information Sources PotenUally Significant. Potentially Unless Significant MiUgaUon Issues Incorporated, Significant.Ho Impact d) e) g) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodale the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regula- tions related to solid waste? .N/A NIA N/A N/A XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) b) c) 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? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively consider- able" means tha~ 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)? l0 l0 Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantia! adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? l0 X X X X Palo Alto Environmental Checklist Form San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault/" Page 14 oi 17 SOURCE REFERENCES: 2. 3. 4. o - 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Site visit. Planner’s’knowledge of the site and project. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 and Maps Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 - Zoning Ordinance " Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload. ...: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Uniform Building Code. Information provided by Applicant. FEMA Flood Map, Community Panel Map #060348 0005DX, dated 9-6-89. Stanford Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects EIR, certified by the Palo Alto City Council on Jane 30, 1997. Answers substantiated by the responses provided in Items I-XVI of this Environmental Checklist. EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: - Explain choice of impact category. IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Trenching to lay pipe entering and exiting the proposed San Francisco Water Department.~ater vault will be necessarT. To the extent that the alignment of such trenching cannot avoid travers- ing under the dripline of existing trees, such trenching may cut tree roots and adversely affect the health of the trees. Therefore, the impacts may be potentially significant unless mitigations are incorporated. The following mitigation measure is required to mitigate the potential impacts: Mitigation Measure: Prior to trenching that will occur within the drip line, trees shall be root pruned at the edge of the trench excavation to cut all woody roots cleanly to the depth of the trench excavation. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher v,ith sharp blades, or other approved root pruning . equipment. The City’s Planning Arborist, the City Consulting Arborist, and Stanford’s Project Consulting Arborist or a representative shall be alerted ahead of time to all root- or crown-pruning activities. Trenches shall be shored where necessary to reduce trench width and minimize encroacb..ment into the dripline. Spoil from the trench shall not be placed within the dripline. Any pruning required to provide clearance for construction operations must be performed by a Certified Arborist. Palo Alto Environmental Checklist Form San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault / r, Page-15 of 17 CULTURAL RESOUCES The Comprehensive Plan (Map L-8) indicates that the project site is located within an Archaeo- logical Resource Area of"Moderate Sensitivity." Excavation of the water vault as well as the water mains may result in the discovery of human rem~.ins and/or cultural resources. Therefore, the impacts may be potentially significant unless mitigations are incorporated The following mitigation measures are required to mitigate the potential impacts:. Mitigation Measures: Excavation and construction activities at the northwest comer of El Camino Park shall be subject to archaeological monitoring in areas where ground distrubances will exceed 12 inches bellow the existing grade. At the discretion of Pacific Legacy, the City’s consulting project archaeologist, should monitoring indicate the soils are culturally ste’rile, monitoring may be reduced to intermittent or on-call. Should intermittent monitoring prove warranted, the construction contractor shall be held responsible to contact the City’s consulting project archaeologist in the event that suspected cultural resources are uncovered. The archaeological monitoring program shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secreta_D’ of Interior Professional Qualifications in Archaeology (36 CFR 61); individual field monitors shall be qualified in recognition of cultural resources of both the historic and prehistoric periods. Should previously unidentified cultural resources be discovered during the excavation and construction of the water vault and water mains, the project applicant shall cease work in the immediate area until such time as Pacific Legacy, the City’s consulting project archaeologist, assesses the significance of the find and makes mitigation recommendations (e.g., manual excavation of the immediate area), if warranted. 3. Section 7050(b) of the California Health and Safety Code shall be implemented. In the event that human remains, or possible human remains are located, it states: "In the event of discovery" or recognition of an.v human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery’, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or an.,,’ nearby" area reasonably’ suspected go overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county" in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are nor subject to the provision of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code." "The coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American.origin, is responsible to contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Palo Alto Environmenta! Checklist Form San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vauk / u Page 16 of 17 Commission has various powers and duties to provide for the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains, including the designation of a Native American Most Likely Descendant. Sectio.ns 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code also call for "protection to Native American human burials and skeletal remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction." To achieve this goal, it is required that the constructidn personnel on the project be instructed as to both the potential for discovery of cultural or human remains, and the need forproper and timely reporting of such finds, and the consequences of failure thereof. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED 3"I)LL/ ~ I:) ! 1~ r--4~ PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 175 El Camino Real , PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant’s Name (Printed) / Applicant’s }ignature ~’Da(e / Filing Index: V F star ... c:\projects\paloatto~rb\99-arb-102 sf water vault\env’l check!ist-sf water vault.dcc Palo Alto Environmental Checklist Form San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault / ~ Page 1,7 of 17 ATTACHMENT B LETTER FROM SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 San Francisco Water Department Water Vault 175 El Camino Real / E1 Camino Park / File No. 99-ARB-102 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault Attachment B ANN MOLLER CAEN PRESIDENT FRANK L. COOK VICE PRESIDENT E. DENNIS NORMANDY ROBERT K. WERBE BEN L. HeM CITY AND.COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT DIVISION:.X. : WILLIE L. BROWN, JR., MAY(~I~-!’:..’..’..’" ~’," ANSON B. MORAN, ~Y~t-L~fAN. AGER "~’f l/~ 20 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPARTMENT HETCH HETCHY WATER AND POWER SAN FRANCISCO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM September 9, 1999 Mr. Ken Schreiber, Deputy City Manager City of Pale Alto P.O. Box 10250 Pale Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Schreiber ¯ Please accept this correspondence as verification of the San Francisco Water Department’s agreement to locate the proposed water service connection for the S~nd Hill project at the northwest end of El Camino Park. For various engineering and operational reasons, the west side of El Camino Real at the Stanford Mall is not a viable location for this service turnout. Also, in relation to this project, San Francisco Water Department has approved the landscaping plan proposed by BKF Engineers for the area around the service vault. Please contact me at (650) 872-5918 if I can be of any further assistance to you or your staff in this matter. Sincerely~, Mike Weisenberger, Service Inspector Water Supply & Treatment Division cc: FILE Schreiber\M~khletter99 1000 EL CAMINO REAL ~ MILLBRAE ~ CALIFORNIA 94030 ~ (650) 872-5900 ~ FAX (650) 872-5984 ATTACHMENT C MEMORANDUM FRO PALO ALTO UTILITIES DEPARTMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 San Francisco Water Department Water Vault 175 E1 Camino Real /E! Camino Park File No. 99-ARB-102 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault Attachment C IVi E ’IO RAN DU M UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS DIVISION TO ; From: Date: Subject: Ken Schreiber Roger Cwiak Engineering Manager WGW S~/~ September 8, 1999 San Francisco Water Department Service Vault For the Sand Hill Road Corridor Pr.ojects Ken, moving the location of the proposed water vault from SFWD for the Stanford Projects is not as simple as just relocating the vault location from E1 Camino Park. An extensive engineering analysis was performed by Stanford’s engineering consultants to design the water system extensions for the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects. During the project design and analysis BKF did look at other locations including the Quarry Road at ECR location and the Stanford Shopping Center parking lot. Doug De Vrie’s project analysis should show that the location at Quarry and ECR ~vas a good location for SFWD but not the best location for the City of Palo Alto Operations or the’ hydraulics of the water system. Moving the vault to Quarry Road wil! require 1500’ of additional larger than 12" diameter pipe to be installed in either ECR r/w or on Stanford’s Shopping Center property. This could only be done if the project hydraulic study can confirm that the proposed system will perform as it does in the current design configuration. There will certainly be more head loss in the additional pipe ~vhich will lower the fire fighting capabilities of the City water distribution system. Operation of {,alves for the water line would be covered by parked cars if the City needed to shut the line down in the Stanford parking lot. Remember the water line breaking on ECR and flooding the car dealership in Menlo Park? The same thing could happen at the Shopping Center. The building approved for the this project along ECR at Quarry will be a problem to install the line additional ~vater main on Stanford property and maintaining a water main in ECR will be a future City operations problem not to mention the safety of future City employees working in the ECR rAv. The City will have the unnecessary expense of maintaining the 1500’ of additional water main no mater where it may be located. The Quarry road site may have problems with Stanford’s approval and approvals from the County of Santa Clara. The Quarry Road location is the most expensive and the least desirable location from the City’s Operations view of point. The SFWD vault location in E1 Camino Park will be the least expensive for City water operations and the safest location for this facility to serve future residents of the City of Palo Alto. cc: Starr, Gray, St. Enginers ATTACHMENT D REVISED PLAN SET San Francisco Water Department Water Vault . 175 E1 Camino Real / El Camino Park / File No. 99-ARB-102 Revised Plan Set: Landscape Plan (Sheet L-I) SFWD Meter Vault (Revised July 29, 1999) [for ARB members only] 175 El Camino Real / San Francisco Water Dept. Water Vault Attachment D Attachment D ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING A PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO EL CAMINO PARK The Council of the City of Palo Alto does find and determine 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 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 for it. B. E! Camino Park is dedicated to and for park purposes under Section 22.08.230 of the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code. C. The San Francisco Water Department and the City of Palo Alto wish to install in E1 Camino Park an underground vault and connecting pipelines in order to provide a second water line to those portions of the City of Palo Alto west of E1 Camino Real. D. The underground vault and connecting lines will not adversely effect the use of E1 Camino Park by the public. E. The Council desires to approve the plan for the installation of the water vault and line and addition of landscaping ("Plan") and to adopt it as part of the official plan for the construction of improvements at E1 Camino Park. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. The Plan, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Division of Planning, Department of Planning and Community Environment, and to which copy reference is hereby made concerning the full particulars thereof, is hereby approved and adopted. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that this project will have no significant adverse effect on the environment. 991029 lac 0090382 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement ofthe thirty-first day after the day of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Director of Utilities Director of Community Services 991029 lac 0090382 2 W