Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 161-07
City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES MARCH 5, 2007 CMR: 161:07 CERTIFICATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR), APPROVAL OF STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PREFERRED RESERVOIR AND WELL SITES; AND PARK IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCES FOR EL CAMINO, ELEANOR PARDEE, TIMOTHY HOPKINS, RINCONADA, AND PEERS PARKS RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: Adopt Resolution certifying the adequacy of the EIR with a statement of overriding- consideration, adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and adopting the EIR findings, 2.Adopt Resolution approving the Project and designating the sites for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, 3.Approve Park Improvement Ordinances for E1 Camino, Eleanor Pardee, Timothy Hopkins, Rinconada and Peers Parks, 4.Direct the City Attorney to return with language and suggested dates for an advisory measure for approval of placement of the reservoir underneath E1 Camino Park, BACKGROUND The projects which constitute the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project were identified in the 1999 Water Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution System Study (1999 Study) by Carollo Engineers. The 1999 Study evaluated 8 potential reservoir sites, which were rated with input from Utilities, Planning and Real Estate staff. The 1999 Study also reviewed 142 City- CMR:161:07 Page 1 of 8 owned properties and identified 40 properties that might be suitable for well construction. These 40 properties were field inspected to assess suitability to support a well construction project. From that review, eight general locations were selected as feasible sites for new wells. Subsequent to the 1999 Study, the UAC and City staff undertook a series of steps to confirm the recommendations of the 1999 Study. For a two-year period, the UAC conducted a detailed review of the 1999 Study project assumptions, timings and recommendations. The UAC requested additional study of alternative emergency supply recommendations and reservoir and well locations. In May 2000, the UAC requested that staff complete a Long-Term Water Supply Study report. The report reviewed the City’s long-term water supply options including using a well to supplement emergency water supplies during a drought. This report concluded that the City could use up to 1500-acre feet of groundwater per year. In November 2001, a report on Alternative Emergency Water Supply Solutions was also completed at the UAC’s request. This report reviewed alternate emergency water supply methods, larger storage reservoir options and system connections to the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). All of the options reviewed in that report proved to be more expensive and had potentially larger environmental impacts than the 1999 Study projects. In fall 2003, the City drilled test borings at E1 Camino Park and Heritage Park. The test borings verified the groundwater production potential of these proposed emergency water supply well sites. The SCVWD and the United States Geological Survey, in a joint project with the City, also test bored adjacent to Eleanor Pardee Park to assess this site for groundwater production data. In February and March 2005, the City held two focus group sessions to present and discuss the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. Staff invited residents, representatives from neighborhood associations and local businesses to participate in these sessions. At the end of each session, participants were asked to rate proposed alternative reservoir and well locations, and/or suggest additional locations for consideration. The focus group participants suggested several parking lot sites that were ultimately included as proposed proj ect alternatives. On December 13, 2004, the City Council held a study session on emergency preparedness issues, including the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. In conjunction with the UAC actions and consistent with the Council study session discussions on emergency preparedness issues, Council authorized preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project on January 30, 2006 (CMR: 124:06). A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Draft Project Description were issued in February of 2006. The UAC held a project scoping public meeting on March 8, 2006 as required by CEQA. On November 2, 2006 the City mailed a Notice of Availability (NOA) to approximately 5,000 residents, businesses and other stakeholdei:s, and advertised the NOA in local papers. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was .circulated on November 8, 2006 for public review and comment. On November 29, 2006 the Planning and Transportation Commission held the first of two public hearings as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Comments were due on December 22, 2006 at the end of the 45 day comment period. The City received written andoral comments from 17 stakeholders. Staff reviewed the results of the DEIR and public comments and selected the preferred reservoir and well sites, considering engineering CMR: 161:07 Page 2 of 8 and environmental/ community factors. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) with responses to the public comments was circulated on February 8, 2007. The Planning and Transportation Commission held a Second public hearing for the FEIR on February 14, 2007 to make a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy of the FEIR and on the Commission’s preferred project. The Commission unanimously supported certification of the FEltS, the staff-recommended reservoir and well site locations, the upgrade to the Mayfield pump station and rehabilitation of up to five existing well sites. The Commission also included in its motion a preference for the Eleanor Pardee Park well site if the facility is constructed underground and it conforms to FEMA regulations. The Commission supported the Middlefield location as its second alternative well site. The Commission did identify some issues regarding the project to convey to Council. The Commission was concerned that any groundwater/well use to address water shortages resulting from a drought could deplete the available groundwater storage and consideration should be given to ensure sufficient groundwater reserves remain for catastrophic emergency use. The Commission also recommended future negotiations with Stanford for the E1 Camino Park site consider anticipated future growth at Stanford medical facility and shopping center. Finally, the Commission was concerned with whether use of park sites for either wells or the reservoir conformed to the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance. DISCUSSION The EIR evaluated four potential sites for a 2.5 million gallon reservoir, pump station and well: E1 Camino Park, Stanford Shopping Center North (in front of Macy’s men’s store), Stanford Shopping Center South (southeast side of Quarry Road adjacent to the existing Quarry Road Electric Substation), and Town and Country Shopping Center (rear parking lot). Ten potential sites were evaluated for up to three new wells. The other existing sites evaluated in the EIR for well and pump station facilities were: Hale, Rinconada, Peers Park, Matadero and Fernando well sites, and the Mayfield Pump Station site. The EIR also evaluated alternatives to a reservoir and wells project, including interties with neighboring communities, connection with Santa Clara Valley Water District supplies, desalination, and the "no project" alternative. These project alternatives either do not meet the criteria established for a stand-alone emergency water supply, cause greater environment affects, or are prohibitively expensive. E1 Camino Park Reservoir and Well Site The preferred site for the 2.5 million gallon water storage reservoir is E1 Camino Park. The site was chosen as the preferred site for the following reasons. The site is close to the Lytton Pump Station which supplies emergency water, primarily to the area within the city limits southwest of Stanford Shopping Center bounded by E1 Camino Real, Quarry Road and San Francisquito Creek and the University Avenue downtown area. This area has been identified as needing additional emergency water supply for fire suppression. The site has also been verified by test well drilling as a viable site for a water production well. Historically, the highest producing well sites have been in north Palo Alto near San Francisquito Creek. E1 Camino Park is the closest site to this creek. It is desirable to locate one of the new wells with the new reservoir as the water CMR: 161:07 Page 3 of 8 from this well can be blended with the water in the reservoir, eliminating the need to add water treatment to one well for use during a severe drought. Also, having one well site co-located with the reservoir reduces the number of separate construction sites. Environmental factors distinguishing this site are that it would not impact parking, although construction activities would temporarily disrupt park recreation use. Impacts to ornamental trees in E1 Camino Park would be mitigated to less than significant. There is an existing fenced pump site at E1 Camino Park known as Lytton Station. Lytton Station will be modified by constructing below grade pump station and well facilities, replacing the existing above-grade structure with a similarly sized structure and replacing and upgrading the existing turnout and pumping equipment. The construction will require the temporary closure of all or a part of the park for up to a two-year period. There will be extensive underground construction, including the installation of underground pipes connecting the underground reservoir to the pump station/well facility. Underground reservoir, pump station and well facilities will have access hatches and/or vent structures, typically about 50 square feet each in area, installed within the existing fenced area of the Lytton Station, or landscaped into the park lands so as not to diminish park usage. Such facilities will not alter the existing location and square footage of the existing athletic fields. Upon completion of construction, the park will be restored and improved with new facilities. There will be no reduction in park area and no part of the park will be used for a non-park usage, other than that which is already occupied by the Lytton Station. Eleanor Pardee Park Well Site Eleanor Pardee Park site was test drilled for water production by the Santa Clara Valley Water- District and United States Geological Survey. The results from the test drilling indicated that the park has a high likelihood of having a relatively high water production rate. The location of this potential well site is in the west corner of the park, away from the grassy areas that have high recreational use. Library/Community Gardens Well Site This site is in north Palo Alto, though not as near San Francisquito Creek as several of the other potential well sites, is approximately 1500 feet from the existing Rinconada well, which has a good production rate. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND MITIGABLE IMPACTS The following is a summary of the more significant potential impacts that would be reduced to less than significant by the mitigation measures listed. Recreation Resources Impacts: Construction of some proposed project facilities would temporarily disrupt access to or enjoyment of existing recreation facilities. Mitigation measures include a public notification program and rescheduling park use. CMR:161:07 Page 4 of 8 Visual Quality: Light and glare from well drilling activities would require 24 hour activities over 6 weeks. Mitigation measures include regulations for nighttime lighting for construction such that no light source is directly visible from neighboring residential areas. Hydrology and Water Quality: Potential temporary lowering of groundwater levels during pumping. Mitigation measures include an aquifer test following construction to verify the basin’s response to pumping, and limiting emergency demand pumping .to 1,500 acre-feet in any one year. Also, potential interference with nearby wells may reduce their production capacity. Mitigation measures include not locating new wells closer than 500 feet from existing emergency wells and avoiding groundwater table drawdown of greater than 40 feet during pumping. Cultural Resources The Hale Well pump house is a tile-roofed building and identified as an historic property eligible for the National Register. Any alteration to the.existing structure could result in a significant impact. Mitigation measures include review of project actions by the Historic Resources Board and rehabilitation in accordance with the Department of the Interior’s standards and guidelines for protecting historic structures. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED Noise and Vibration Construction of proposed facilities and well drilling activities would generate temporary noise levels above existing ambient conditions, resulting in City Municipal Code violations. The drill rig would operate 24 hours a day for a period of up to three weeks per well sitel making all nighttime drilling potentially a violation of the Municipal Code relating to regulated hours for- construction. The drilling equipment will need to be continuously operated once it starts boring a new well to keep the drilled hole from collapsing. The following mitigation measures would reduce noise levels from construction, but impacts would continue to be significant for most project sites. Siting project facilities at least 100 feet from property lines adjacent to sensitive receptors, if sufficient space is available. Installation of engineered sound wall or noise blanket during 24-hour construction activities. Notification of construction schedule to all residents and other sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of construction sites. Compliance with Municipal Code noise requirements, with the exception of well drilling and testing. RESOURCE IMPACT Staff has proposed a new Emergency Water Supply Capital Improvement Project WS-08002 for Council consideration as part of the FY08-012 Capital Improvement Program Budget approval CMR:161:07 Page 5 of 8 process. To partially fund this project, staff will close out the following Water Fund projects: WS-01008, WS-01010, WS-01011, WS-01012, WSr01014, WS-02004, WS-02005, WS-02006, WS-02007, WS-02008, WS-04004 and return approximately $8.5 Million to Water Fund reserves. If WS-08002 is approved, it is expected that this project will be funded through a combination of reserves and debt financing. Staff is in the process of evaluating all current Utility Revenue Bonds (including water) for potential savings through refinancing and at the possibility of issuing new bonds for utility capital improvements. Approximately $1.5 million was spent on the Emergency Water Supply Project to perform tasks associated with the preparation of the project EIR. Staff estimates that project costs for land acquisition could exceed $8,200,000. Total project costs are estimated at $40.15 million (for three new wells, five rehabilitated wells, a new reservoir and pump station, rebuilding Mayfield Pump Station and land acquisition). POLICY IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Municipal Code, a Park Improvement Ordinance is required for E1 Camino Park, Eleanor Pardee Park, Peers Park, Rinconada Park and Hopkins Park. Park Improvement Ordinances Section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires that: "[b]efore 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, either by the city or by a lessee, licensee or permittee thereof, the council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefore." The City Charter at VII creates the Park Improvement Ordinance .requirement as follows: "No substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development upon or with respect to any lands so dedicated shall be made except pursuant to ordinance subject to referendum." The project includes construction at a series of parks. Thus, the Council will need to pass five Park Improvement Ordinances to approve the construction. While these Park Improvement Ordinances are subject to referendum, the Council passes them under the authority contained within the ordinance mentioned above and there is no procedure or requirement for a vote of the people. E1 Camino Park The City Charter at Article VIII states the requirements for a vote of the people when parkland is no longer used for that purpose: "No land heretofore or hereafter dedicated for such purposes shall be sold or otherwise disposed of, nor shall its use be abandoned or discontinued except pursuant to majority vote of the electorate." As E1 Camino Park will remain a park and no portion will be dedicated for purposes other than park use, an election is not a requirement. However, the City Attorney recommends that an advisory vote of the people be sought in order to approve of the temporary use of the park for construction as well as the underground placement of the reservoir and related structures. While this is not legally necessary, it will permit the voters to determine if this is an acceptable interim use of the park. The City Attorney CMR:161:07 Page 6 of 8 recommends against a formal mandatory vote under Article VIII of the Charter as these circumstances are not covered by the Charter provision and this would set an unnecessary precedent. PROJECT SCHEDULE Staff anticipates that the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Projects will be completed within the 2008-2012 timeframe of the FY08-012 Capital Improvement Program Budget. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA for the Project. The EIR identified the potential impact and provided mitigation measures for all but two impacts, construction impacts for any reservoir and well site and loss of parking for a well at the California Avenue parking lot site. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR; the EIR is considered complete and adequate and in compliance with CEQA. ATTACHMENTS A: UAC Memorandum dated February 12, 2007 B: PTC Staff Report dated February 14, 2007 C: PTC draft minutes from February 14, 2007 2nd Public Hearing D: Park Improvement Ordinance for E1 Camino Park E: Park Improvement Ordinance for Eleanor Pardee Park F: Park Improvement Ordinance for Timothy Hopkins Park G: Park Improvement Ordinance for Rinconada Park H: Park Improvement Ordinance for Peers Park I: Resolution certifying the adequacy of the EIR with a statement of overriding consideration, adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and adopting the EIR findings J: Resolution approving the Project and designating the sites for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project PREPARED BY: CMR:161:07 JIM FLANIGAN, Project Engineer, WGWE ROMEL ANTONIO, Sr. Project Engineer, WGWE Page 7 of 8 GREG SCOBY, Acting WGW Engineering Manager ROGER CWIAK, Acting Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering DEPARTMENT HEAD: ONG Director of Utilities CITY MANAGER HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:161:07 Page 8 of 8 ~¯ATTACHMENT A -- cITY OF PALO ALTO Water-Gas-Wastewater Utilities - Engineering 1007 Elwell Couri, Pale-Alto, CA 94303 Tel: (650) 566-4504 Fax: (650) 566-4536 Internet: http://www.cpau.com/emergencywater/ ATTACHMENT B PLANNING AND TRANSPOR TA TION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Tricia Schimpp Contract Planner DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community Environment February 14, 2007 Ci,ty of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project:, Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for a proposed 8-Hour Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project which would upgrade up to five existing groundwater wells, construct up to three new wells, construct a new storage reservoir and pump station, and upgrade an existing pump station. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission recommends that the City Council: 1. Certify the Environmental Impact Report. 2. Approve the project to: Construct a new 2.5 million gallon (MG) storage reservoir and associated pump station. ¯Construct up to three new wells. ¯Upgrade the existing Mayfield pump station. ¯Rehabilitate up to five existing City wells including: Hale well Site, Rieonada Park well site, Fernando well site, Peers Park well site, and Matadero well site. 3. Approve staff’s recommendation of preferred sites: ¯2.5 MG Reservoir and pump station at E1 Camino Park. ¯Three new wells at: E1 Camino Park, Eleanor Pardee Park and the Main Library/Community Gardens. BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) held a public hearing on November 29, 2006 to accept public testimony and Commission comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project described below (see Staff City of Palo Alto Page ] Report and Minutes Attachment A). Comments were received from the Commission and one member of the public. Following the public review period for the DEIR (November 8 - December 22, 2006), a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) containing the comments on the DEIR, response to comments, and revisions intended to correct and clarify the DEIR was prepared (see FEIR Attachment B). The DEIR and the FEIR constitute the Final EIR and were prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Office of Plarming and Research. CEQA requires certification by the City Council of the FEIR prior to discretionary action on the project. The purpose of this second public hearing by the PTC is to accept public testimony on the FEIR and for the Commission to recommend to Council on (1) the adequacy of the FEIR, (2) approval of the project and (3) selection of preferred well and reservoir sites. Project Description The City of Palo Alto currently relies on the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Hetch Hetchy system for its water supply. According to the California Department of Health Services (DHS), the City does not have enough water to meet normal and emergency demands in the event of a temporary shutdown of the SFPUC aqueducts. The DHS recommends provision of an emergency water supply in a stand-alone system that could supply eight hours of maximum day water demand while.maintaining fire-fighting reserves. Currently, the City owns five groundwater wells, which are available for limited use during a drought or emergency. The Proposed Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project is intended to bring the City’s emergency water supply system into compliance with the DHS minimum recommendations. The proposed project would support a minimum of eight hours of normal water use at the maximum day demand level and four hours of fire suppression at the design fire duration level, and would be capable of providing water supplies (up to 1,500 acre feet per year) for up to 30 days under curtailed water usage. The proposed groundwater system may also be used to a limited extent for water supply during drought conditions (up to 1,500 acre feet), and potentially for up to an average day supply during extended shutdowns of the SFPUC system. The proposed project would provide 11,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of reliable well capacity and 2.5 MG of water storage for emergency use in Pressure Areas 1, 2 and 3 by: Constructing a new 2.5 MG storage reservoir, associated pump station, and new well at one of the following sites: E1 Camino Park- between E1 Camino Real and Alma Street Stanford Shopping Center North site - the northernmost parking lot of the Stanford Shopping Center Stanford Shopping Center South site - the parking lot accessed from Quarry Road immediately north of Arboretum Road Town and Country Shopping Center site - the triangular parking lot behind the Town and Country Shopping Center where Embarcadero Road intersects Alma Road 2.Constructing up to three new wells (two located at sites listed below and one located proximate to the selected new reservoir site): City of Palo Alto Page 2 ¯Eleanor Pardee Park - northeast area of the park away from the demonstration gardens ¯Main Library/Community Gardens -northwest comer of the community gardens ¯Heritage Park - Waverly Street to the north, Bryant Street to the south, Homer Street to the west, and Channing Street to the east Middlefield site - south side of Middlefield Avenue at a vacant lot between Lincoln and Kingsley Streets ¯Downtown Parking Lots - exact location not yet determined ¯California Avenue Parking Lots - exact location not yet determined 3. Upgrading an existing pump station (Mayfield Pump Station) o Rehabilitating up to five of the existing City wells: ¯ Hale well site - in Timothy Hopkins Creek Park (HopkinsPark), adjacent to San Francisquito Creek at the intersection of Hale Street and PaloAlto Avenue ¯Rinconada Park well site - in Rinconada Park located along Hopkins Street ¯Femando well site - in Boulware Park, on Femando Avenue near Matadero Creek ,,Peers Park well site - the southeast comer of Peers Park adjacent to the railroad ¯Matadero well site - on Matadero Avenue, between E1 Camino Real and Matadero Creek Park Improvement Ordinances are required for upgrades to existing wells (Hale Well, Rinconada Well, Peers Park Well) and construction of new water facilities (Eleanor Pardee Park Well, E1 Camino Park Reservoir and Well) located on dedicated parklands. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed upgrade to the Mayfield pump station and for new well and/or reservoir sites not zoned for public facilities. In addition, if the proposed reservoir and well proje.ct is sited on land that is not owned by the City, the City would acquire the appropriate interest in the land in order to facilitate the project. Review by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) would be required if new construction at the Hale Well site could result in any modification to the existing pump house which has been identified as an historic property eligible for the National Register. Review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) would be required for all new above ground structures or expansion to existing above ground structures located on non-dedicated park land under consideration (Femando Well, Matadero Well, Library/Community Center Well, Middlefield Well, Downtown parking Lots Well, California Avenue Parking Lots Well, Stanford Shopping Center North and South Reservoir, Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir, Mayfield Pump Station). Additionally, the project is subject to the regulations of outside agencies and permits may be required from: the Department of Health Services.(DHS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Resources Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department offish and Game, California Air Resources Board, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. In addition, the project must comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Oily of Pato Alto Page 3 SUMMARY OF DRAFT EIR KEY ISSUES The November 29th Commission’s staff report, Attachment A, discusses the environmental impacts of the Project and includes a synopsis of the significant adverse impacts. The DEIR concludes there would be significant and unavoidable impacts t~om construction noise for the proposed new well drilling at all proposed well sites and the potential loss of permanent dedicated parking spaces if the California Avenue parking lot site is selected; approval of these project components would require adoption of a statement of overriding considerations by the City Council. All other potentially significant impacts relating to Recreation, Visual Quality, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Hydrology, Biological, Cultural Resources, Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality, Noise and Vibration, Hazards and Hazardous Materials could be adequately mitigated to less than significant levels. Additional discussion relating to specific environmental issues that were raised at the November 29t~a Commissionpublic hearing and in written correspondence received during the 45-day comment period is presented below by category. Visual Simulation The EIR has been amended t0include visual simulations showing an above ground pump house structure and a below ground well facility with access hatch prepared to address some of the comments relating to visual impacts, massing and size (see Section 5, Figures 3.3-17 and 3.3- 18). The new graphics show conceptual bulk and massing at two of the preferred sites, Eleanor Pardee Park for the proposed below ground structure, and the Library/Community Gardens for the proposed above ground structure. Upon project approval, design details would be developed to make the proposed facilities compatible and complementary to their selected sites. In addition, the design concepts of these facilities would be reviewed by the ARB. Hydrology There were several comments related to local hydrology; aquifer recovery rates, groundwater levels, ground water gradients, salt-water intrusion and seepage. The DEIR addresses these issues on pages 3.5-19 through 3.5-22 and page 2-30. As discussed; the wells proposed for construction or rehabilitation are designated as standby sources and would only be operated under emergency conditions. The operation of the proposed wells would be limited and infi:.equent, and they are not expected to have a long-term impact on the local hydrology. Also, as described, significant salt-water intrusion is typically the result of chronic, long-term changes in local or regional hydraulic gradients; such impacts are not anticipated for the proposed project. As the proposed water reservoir structure will be located above the groundwater table, concrete- lined, and conform to design regulations, no seepage impacts to the surrounding groundwater or San Francisquito Creek are anticipated as a result of the project. Drought Year Supplemental Production There were several comments related to the provision for drought year supplemental production at one of the proposed new well sites and the appropriateness of the inclusion of this project objective. The DEIR addresses these issues on pages 3.5-19 through 3.5-22. As discussed, although the DHS recommendation only addresses an outage of 8 hours, the City wishes to be prepared for a variety of potential emergencies. Drought is a longer-term emergency that can be partially alleviated using well water as a supplemental supply. The City’s SFPUC supplies are described in the City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. The amount of water that is available to the City in a drought is determined by the Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan, City of Palo Alto Page 4 which expires in June 2009. In addition to water conservation, the City could use supplemental supply from its wells if needed to ensure that the City’s water demands were being met. The operation of the wells would be coordinated with the SFPUC supplies to help address the deficiency in water supply and demand. Therefore, the project facilities are needed for emergencies such as SFPUC outages of 8 hours, outages of 30 to 60 days, and long-term cutbacks during multi-year droughts. Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site The management of the Town and Country Shopping Center commented on reasons why that site should not be selected for the reservoir including: loss of permanent parking spaces and insufficient parking during peak season due to construction, conflict with future expansion plans, economic hardship during construction, and traffic and air quality impacts during construction. The FEIR includes text changes that incorporate additional mitigations to the Traffic Control/.Traffic Management Plan for the project. The City will minimize impacts to commercial areas by scheduling construction to avoid the Thanksgiving/Christmas shopping season and provide valet parking service or attendant parking during weekends or peak shopping periods if needed. The response also informed the commenter that while the final reservoir location will be selected by the City Council, who will consider all comments, based on the established project objectives, which include reducing or minimizing environmental effects to the degree feasible, and implementing improvements in the most cost effective manner. reasonably available, the E1 Camino Park site is City staffs preferred reservoir location. Stanford Shopping Center Sites The management of the Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford representatives raised objections for locating the reservoir at either of the two shopping center sites due to construction phase parking impacts, conflicts with future expansion plans, and the designation of the Stanford Shopping Center South site on the Stanford Community Plan as a future housing site. As with the response to Town and Country Shopping Center, the City will minimize impacts to commercial areas by scheduling construction to avoid the Thanksgiving/Christmas shopping season and provide valet parking service or attendant parking during weekends or peak shopping periods if needed. The FE]R inclttdes text changes that incorporate these additional mitigations to the Traffic Cont~ol/.Traffic Management Plan for the project. The portion of the shopping center south site that is not within the City of Palo Alto would require approval by the County of Santa Clara to change the housing designation on approximately 1 acre of the 8 acre planned housing site. The response also indicated that siting the reservoir on the shopping center south site would result in a loss of approximately 25 of the 200 housing units planned for the site (see Responses 0-8 and 0-9). The commenter was also informed that the E1 Camino Park is the preferred reservoir site. Existing Water Supply System Capacity There were several comments relating to the existing City of Palo Alto water supply capacity and the need for additional facilities to address the deficiency in emergeneywater supply during emergency conditions. The DHS recommended that the City have facilities able to provide a minimum 8-hour supply of water to provide for the ultimate maximum day demand and needed fire flows, under emergency conditions. The response informed the commenter that the capacity of the existing system is 31,718 gpm for Pressure Areas 1 through 9 and that the total capacity of the existing wells is 3,575 gpm (approximately 16 percent of the ultimate maximum day demand). While Pressure Areas 4 through 9 have adequate emergency supply storage, the City of Palo Alto Page 5 emergency supply for Pressure Areas 1, 2 and 3 is deficient by 21,625 gpm (sum of 4,000 gpm maximum day demand deficiency and 17,625 gpm needed for the fire flow deficiency) under emergency supply conditions, Therefore, the existing system alone is not capable of meeting the City’s maximum day demand in terms of flow rate alone. The proposed project, a combination of wells and storage, is the overall most cost-efficient and effective approach for addressing the emergency supply deficiency in Pressure Areas 1 through 3. SITE EVALUATION Preferred Reservoir Site - E1 Camino Park Four potential reservoir/pumping station sites were evaluated in the EIR- E1 Camino Park, Stanford Shopping Center North and Stanford Shopping Center South, and Town and Country Shopping Center. The preferred site for the 2.5 million gallon water storage reservoir is E1 Camino Park. This site has been identified as preferred due to: hydrogeology, constructability, environmental, and economic considerations. The site is located close to the Pressure Areas (Pressure Areas 1 and 3) needing additional emergency supply, is close to the existing Lytton Station (providing means to pumpwater to Pressure Area 1 and 3 easily), and the hydrogeology has been verified by well testing as a viable site for a high water production well. Other considerations include: constructability (including: fewer site constraints, sufficient area to maintain all activities on site) and environmental (would not impact the proposed shopping center parking, would not conflict with proposed future uses, impacts to sensitive resources /omarnental trees would be mitigated to less than significant). Other Potential Reservoir Sites The other potential reservoir sites, Stanford Shopping Center North and South, and Town and Country Shopping Center, would require additio.nal piping, at substantial cost, to convey water to/from Lytton station, would require permanent removal of parking spaces, and would be met with considerable resistance from property owners and tenants. Preferred Well Sites - E1 Camino Park, Eleanor Pardee Park and Library/Community Gardens Ten potential sites for the three new wells were evaluated in the EIR- E1 Camino Park, Downtown parking lots, Middlefield Road site, Eleanor Pardee Park, Library/Community Gardens, Heritage Park, Stanford Shopping Center North and South sites, Town and Country Shopping Center and California Avenue parking lots. The EIR determined that all of the sites are equivalent in terms of environmental impacts for new well development. The three preferred well sites for the proposed project are E1 Camino Park, Eleanor Pardee Park and the Library/Community Gardens. Based on previous site investigations conducted by the City, these sites were identified as preferred due to the site hydrogeology, community impacts, and constructability. El Camino Park. The E1 Camino Park site is preferred because: 1) historically the highest producing well sites have been located in north Palo Alto near San Francisquito Creek; 2) it is desirable to locate one of the new wells adjacent to the new reservoir as the water f~om this well can be blended with the water in the reservoir (reducing treatment requirements); and 3) the siting reduces the number of separate construction sites assuming that the E1 Camino Park site is also selected for the new reservoir and pump station. City of Pa/o A/to Page 6 Eleanor Pardee Park. Eleanor Pardee Park is preferred as: 1) it is located near San ¯ Francisquito Creek and, therefore, has a high likelihood of having a relatively high water production rates, 2) recent work by the USGS and SCVWD at this site confirms its viability as a location for a productive groundwater well, and 3) the proposed siting location minimizes conflicts with the existing high. recreational usage. Library/Community Gardens. The Library/Community Gardens is preferred due to: 1) its proximity to the existing, and highly productive Rineonada well which suggests this is a good area for groundwater wells, and 2) construction at this site can be performed without losing any of the community garden plots, and 3) this project would provide an opportunity to address other maintenance and functionality issues at the Community. Gardens. Other Potential Well Sites The next best location for a new well is the site of the former Middlefield Road well due to its anticipated production capacity. However, considerations for this site include: 1) constructability constraints (e.g. residences surrounding three sides of property, avoidance of significant trees, etc,); and 2) ability to install a well within a site with multiple historical wells. The CaliforniaAvenue Parking lots site is further from San Francisquito Creek than the other sites and would have greater risk of poor water production. In staff’s opinion, the remaining four potential well sites could result in property owner/tenant and/or local community issues that make these sites less desirable than the preferred sites. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Draft EIR for the Project circulated for public review and comment for a 45-day period commencing on November 8, 2006 and ending on December 22, 2006. On November .29, 2006, a public hearing was held by the Planning and Transportation Commission to receive public comments and allow the public to provide testimony on the adequacy of the DEIR as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Comments received at the November 29th public hearing and during the 45 day public comment period and responses to comments are included in the FE!R. Comments received after the Commission February 14, 2007 public hearing will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration in certifying the Final EIR. No new substantial environmental impacts and no increase in the severity of an earlier identified impact havesurfaced in responding to the comments; therefore, this EIR is considered complete and adequate in accordance with CEQA. NEXT STEPS Following review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, the adequacy of the FEIR. and the Project will be heard by the City Council. If the City Council certifies the FEIR and approves the Project, conditional use permits, park improvement ordinances, and land acquisition as appropriate will be obtained and the pre-design, design and construction of the project will be implemented. City of Palo Alto Page 7 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: November 29, 2006 P&TC Staff Report and Minutes Attachment B: Final EIR (Commissioners only) PREPARED BY: Tricia Schimpp, AICP, Contract Planner REVIEWED BY: Julie Caporgno, Chief Plarming and Transportation Official DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams, Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Page 8 ATTACHMENT A. PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Tricia Schimpp, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment AGENDA DATE: November 29, 2006 SUBJECT:City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project: Comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for a proposed 8-Hour Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project to upgrade five existing groundwater wells, construct up to three new wells, construct a new storage reservoir and pump station, and upgrade an existing pump station. The City has identified and evaluated six potential locations for new wells and four potential locations for the 2.5 million gallon (MG) storage reservoir. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission: 2. 3. 4. Accept public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR); Close the public hearing; Provide Commission comments on the DEIR; and Forward comments on the DEIR and direct the consultant and staff to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments. BACKGROUND The purpose of this hearing is to accept public testimony and Commission comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the. Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project described below. The DEIR has been prepared for this project by Environmental Science Associates (ESA), with City staff assistance and technical assistance by Carollo Engineers. This DEIR was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. Notice of Preparation/EIR Scoping Process In February of 2006, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was made available for public review, City of Palo Alto Page indicating the City’s intent to prepare an EIR and soliciting input regarding the issues to be addressed. In addition, these documents were distributed to local and state agencies, as well as interested groups, for reviev~ and comment. As part Of the required 30-day public review period, ¯ the Utilities Advisory Council (UAC) held a public scoping meeting.on March 8, 2006 for members of the public to comment on the potential impacts that should be addressed in the DEIR. DEIR Public Review Period: The DEIR was completed and distributed for public review on November 8, 2006. Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, a minimum 45-day public review period is required for the DEIR and the comment period will close on December.22, 2006. Subsequent to public testimony and along with the written comments submitted on the DEIR during the 45-day public review period (November 8 L December 22, 2006), a Final EIR (FEIR) with Responses to Comments will be prepared by the EIR consultant and staff. Although hearings on DEIRs are not a CEQA requirement, public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. During the public review period for the DEIR, the Planning and Transportation is holding this hearing to receive public comments focused solely on the environmental assessment of the project. The Commission or staff is not required to respond to questions or comments raised by the public at this hearing. The Commission can also provide comments on the DEIR. All comments made at the hearing will be responded to in writing in the FEIR. FEIR Certification: CEQA requires certification by Council of the FEIR prior to discretionary action on the project. The Commission will hold a second public hearing to review and recommend to Council on (1) the adequacy of the FEIR and (2) recommendation of the project. Although no land use entitlements are required for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project, the Commission is requested to recommend on the site alternatives relative to land use considerations that would make one well or reservoir location preferable over another. PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto currently relies on the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Hetch Hetchy system for its water supply. According to the California Department of Health Services (DHS), the City does not have enough water to meet normal and emergency demands in the event of a temporary shutdown ofthe SFPUC aqueducts. The DHS recommends an emergency water supply in a stand alone system that could supply eight hours of maximum day water demand while maintaining fire fighting reserves. Currently, the City owns five groundwater wells, which are available for limited use during a drought or emergency. The proposed Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project is intended to correct the deficiency in the City’s emergency water supply. The proposed project would support a minimum of eight hours of normal water use at the maximum day demand level and four hours of fire suppression at the design fire duration level, and would be capable of providing water supplies for up to 30 days. The proposed groundwater system may also be used to a limited extent for water supply during drought conditions (up to 1,500 acre feet), and potentially for up to an average day supply during extended shutdowns of the SFPUC system. The proposed project would provide 11,000 gpm of reliable well capacity and 2.5 million gallons (MG) of water storage for emergency use in Pressure Areas 1, 2 and 3 by: Rehabilitating all five of the existing City wells: Hale well site - in Timothy Hopkins Creek Park (Hopkins Park), adjacent to San Francisquito Creek at the intersection of I-Iale Street and Palo Alto Avenue ¯Rinconada Park well site - in Rinconada Park located along Hopkins Street o Fernando well site - in Boulware Park, on Femando Avenue near Matadero Creek ¯Peers Park well site - the southeast corner of Peers Park adjacent to the railroad ¯Matadero well site - on Matadero Avenue, between E1 Camino Real and Matadero Creek Constructing up to three new wells (two located at sites selected from those listed below and one located proximate to the selected new reservoir site as listed in the following #3): Eleanor Pardee Park - northeast area of the park away from the demonstration gardens Main Library/Community Gardens - northwest comer of the community gardens Heritage Park - Waverly Street to the north, Bryant Street to the south, Homer Street to the west, and Channing Street to the east Middlefield site - south side of Middlefield Avenue at a vacant lot between Lincoln and Kingsley Streets ¯Downtown Parking Lots - exact location not yet determined ¯California Avenue Parking Lots - exact location not yet determined o Constructing a new 2.5 MG storage reservoir, associated pump station and new well at one of the following sites: ¯E1 Camino Park - between E1 Camlno Real and Alma Street ¯Stanford Shopping Center North site - the northernmost parking lot of the Stanford Shopping Center Stanford Shopping Center South site - the parking lot accessed from Quarry Road immediately north of Arboretum Road Town and Country Shopping Center site - the triangular parking lot behind the Town and Country Shopping Center where Embarcadero Road intersects Alma Road 4. Upgrading an existing pump station (Mayfield Pump Station) Park Improvement Ordinances are required for upgrades to existing wells (Hale Well, Rinc0nada Well, Peers Park Well) and construction of new water.facilities (Eleanor Pardee Park Well, E1 Camino Park Reservoir and Well) located on dedicated park lands. The project improvements at these sites would occur within existing structures including fenced-in areas or would be located below grade and the surface area returned to park use following construction. Any associated ancillary features such as hatches and vents would be small in size and designed for park use (i.e. park bench or other complementary feature). Review by the Historic Resources Board would be required if new construction at the Hale Well site could result in any modification to the existing pump house, which has been identified as an historic property eligible for the ~National Register. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Review by the Architectural Review Board would be required for all. new above ground structures or expansion to existing above ground structures located on non-dedicated park land (Femando Well, Matadero Well, Library/Community Center Well,.Middlefield Well, Downtown Parking Lots Well, California Avenue Parking Lots Well, Stanford Shopping Center North and South Reservoir, Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir, Mayfield Pump Station). Additionally, the project is subject to the regulations of outside agencies and permits may be required from: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Resources Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department offish and Game, California Air Resources Board, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. In addition, the project must comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0)EIR) The following discussion addresses only the potentially significant impacts identified in the DEIR that are key to the project and a brief description of the mitigation measures that have been identified to reduce the impact to less than significant. The DEIR also addresses additional potentially significant impacts that are mitigated by existing regulations and standard procedures. With the exception of noise during construction at all sites and potential loss of parking spaces at the California Avenue Downtown Parking Lots site, the mitigation measures effectively reduce the potential impacts to less than significant levels. 1.Recreation Resources Impacts Impact 3.2-3: Construction of some proposed project facilities would temporarily disrupt access to or enjoyment of existing recreation facilities. If such disruption resulted in disruption of recreational use or the diversion of a large number of recreation users to other recreational facilities within the project region, overcrowding could occur at those facilities during peak-use periods. This potentially significant impact would be reduced to less-than-significant impact with the following mitigation measures: 3.2-3a: Public notification program. 3.2-3b: P~eschedule park usage. 2.Visual Quality Impact 3.3-3: Well drilling activities would require 24 hour activities over 6 weeks, and could result in light and glare effects as experienced from adjacent streets and residential uses. This potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the following mitigation measure: 3.3-3a: Regulations for nighttime lighting for construction-such that no light source is directly visible from neighboring residential areas. 3.Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.5-4: Increased groundwater recovery to meet emergency demands or drought demands City of Palo Alto Page 4 would have the potential to result in groundwater levels below historical low elevations. This potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the following mitigation measures: 3.5-4a: Aquifer test following construction to verify basin’s response to pumping. 3.5-4b: Limit emergency demand pumpage,to 1,500 acre-feet in One year and restrict production until groundwater levels recover to pre-pumping levels. Impact 3.5-6: Placement of new wells would alter localized groundwater gradients during emergency operations, and could result in direct effect to the efficiency of existing wells due to well interference. This potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the following mitigation measure: 3.5-6: To avoid drawdown of greater than 40 feet, new wells shall not be located closer than 500 feet from existing production wells. 4.Cultural Resources Impact 3.7-2: The Hale Well pump house is a tile-roofed edifice and has been identified as an historic property eligible for the National Register and any alteration to the existing structure could result in a significant impact. This potentially significant impact would be reduced to less- than-significant impact with the following mitigation measure: 3.7-2: Review of project actions by the Historic Resources Board and rehabilitate in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Note: Subsequent to publication of this Dt~IR, staff is investigating previous rehabilitation activities to the Hale Well pump house that may have degraded the historic integrity of the structure that may affect the National Register eligibility status. 5.Traffic and Circulation Impact 3.8-4: The proposed project would permanently reduce parking supply at all proposed well (5 spaces) and storage reservoir (10 spaces) locations. This displacement of parking spaces at the shopping center sites is less than significant because those sites are adequately or more than adequately supplied with existing parking spaces. This potentially significant impact at the parking lot sites would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the following mitigation measure: 3.8-4e: In lieu parking fees for each parking space lost at the Downtown Parking Lots site. 3.8-4f: Redesign parking layout at the California Avenue Parking Lots site. If redesign of the lot cannot accommodate all required parking spaces, this impact would remain significant and Unavoidable. 6.Noise and Vibration City of Palo Alto Page 5 Impact 3.10-i: Construction of proposed facilities and well drilling activities would generate ¯temporary noise levels above existing ambient conditions, resulting in City Municipal Code violations. The drill rig would operate 24 hours a day for a period of up to three weeks per well site, making all nighttime drilling a violation of the Municipal Code relating to regulated hours for construction. The following mitigation measures would reduce noise levels from construction, but impacts would continue to be significant for most project sites. 3.10-1a: Site project facilities at least 100 feet from property lines adjacent to sensitive receptors, if sufficient space is available. 3.10-1b: Installation of engineered sound wall or noise blanket during 24-hour construction activities. 3.10-1c: Notification of construction schedule to all residents and other sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of construction sites. 3.10-d: Compliance with Municipal Code 9.10.06 (with the exception of well drilling and testing). The noise impacts remain significant for 24-hour drilling activities at all sites except the Stanford Shopping Center North, and other equipment noise effects at all sites except Downtown Parking Lots, El Camino Park, Stanford North, and Town and Country Shopping Center sites. Cumulative fmpacts For purposes of the cumulative analysis of this DEIR, the geographic area of the project includes the City of Palo and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County, bounded by Route 280 to the west, Highway 101 to the East, the City of Menlo Park to the north, the cities of Los Altos and Mountain View to the south, and further extending from Sunnyvale just south of Los Altos and Mountain View to San Carlos just north of Menlo Park. Cumulative impacts were evaluated based on the planned and approved projects in the project vicinity, summarized in Table 4-1. With the exception of construction noise, the cumulative impacts are found to be less than significant. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects .CEQA requires that the DEIR identify and discuss significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. The DEIR concludes that the proposed mitigation measures would reduce most impacts to less than significant levels. However, the noise impacts remain significant for 24-hour drilling activities at all sites except the Stanford Shopping Center North, and other equipment noise effects at all sites except Downtown Parking Lots, El Camino Park, StanfordNorth, and Town and Country Shopping Center sites. Additionally, the loss of parking spaces at the California Parking Lots site is potentially significant and unavoidable. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Site Alternatives A total of six potential well sites and four potential reservoir sites for implementation of three new wells and one new reservoir were examined. With the implementation of the mitigation measures in Chapter 3, implementation of the proposed project at any of the identified well and reservoir sites would meet the stated project objectives. These impacts and the unavoidable construction noise impacts would be common to any location within the City of Palo Alto. Therefore, all of the well locations are considered equivalent in terms of environmental impacts. Additionally, due to tradeoffs in the potential loss of parking spaces and the disruption of recreational area, the DEIR found none of the reservoir sites as environmentally superior. Alternative to the Pro/ect Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the DEIR is required to review alternatives to the proposed project. Project alternatives are presented and analyzed in Chapter 5 of the DEIK. The following is a brief summary of the project alternatives that were developed and analyzed in the DEIR: No Proj eet Alternative A "No Project" alternative is required to be assessed under the provisions of CEQA. This Alternative would not provide additional groundwater pumping capacity or reservoir storage necessary to meet the DHS minimum emergency supply criteria of 8-hours in the event of an outage to the SFPUC water system. As such, this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. Local Facilities Alternative The City of Palo Alto currently has water supply intercormections with Mountain View, Stanford University and East Palo Alto, all of v~hich rely on SFPUC for between 90 and 100 percent of their water supply. No formal agreements exist between these communities to provide water to each other in the case of a water supply emergency, and it is unlikely that they would be willing to construct the emergengy water supply facilities needed to meet the City ofPalo Alto’s emergency water supply objectives. In addition, the infrastructure and piping needed to convey the required flow rate of water to Palo Alto under emergency supply conditions would significantly increase the project cost. Connections with local facilities would not meet either the 8-hour emergency supply or fire flow objectives, due to their mutual reliance on water supply from upon the SFPUC. As such, this alternative is not comparable with the proposed project objectives and is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. Santa Clara Valley Water District Western Pipeline Extension ARernative A report was prepared by SCVWD to assess the feasibility of extending an existing supply pipeline form Mountain View along Foothill Expressway which could then serve Palo Alto. While the SCVWD has adequate supplies to meet Palo Alto water demands under normal operating conditions, these supplies may be affected by emergency conditions to the extent that the water supply would not be adequate. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Although the proposed new pipeline could be constructed, the SCVWD would require a ’~take-or-pay" contract that would require the City to pay a minimum of 90 percent of the scheduled delivery amount of water regardless of actual water usage. Additionally, the construction of the approximately 15 mile pipeline extension and 3 miles of distribution pipeline within Palo Alto would result in substantial construction related impacts, having the highest overall environmental constraint of the proposed alternatives. As such, this alternative is not comparable with the proposed project objectives and is not Considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. o Desalination Plan Alternative This alternative was identified as having moderate to high constraints for water quality and would result in a 10 to 15 acre site and 4.5 miles of distribution system. Construction of facilities would result in greater impacts across all issue areas. As such, this alternative is not comparable with the proposed project objectives and is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. Growth Inducement The proposed project is intended to correct the deficiency in the City’s emergency water supply and would not directly foster population growth or result in the construction of additional housing. Additionally, the proposed groundwater system would also be used to a limited extent for water supply during drought conditions. During don-drought years, the City would shut down each of the groundwater wells and associated chloramines systems. As such, implementation of the proposed project during drought conditions would not directly foster population growth or result in the construction of additional housing. NEXT STEPS Subsequent to the completion of the public review period on December 22, 2006, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) will be prepared. Written responses will be provided to all comments submitted in writing or at this public hearing, as part of the FEIR. Following preparation of the FEIR, the Planning and Transportation-Commission will conduct a public heating scheduled for February 14, 2007, and will recommend on the adequacy of the FEIR to the City Council. Additionally, the Planning and Transportation Commission will make a recommendation on the proposed project to the City Council. PREPA1LEDBY:Tricia Schimpp, AICP, Contract Planner APPROVED BY:JuIie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager DEPARTMENT/DIVISIONHEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams, Assistant Director Cit~ of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes November 29, 2006 EXCERPT Comments Regarding the City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project: The Planning and Transportation Commission will receive public comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for a proposed 8-Hour Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project which would upgrade five existing groundwater wells, construct up tO three new wells, construct a new storage reservoir and pump station, and upgrade an existing pump station. The City has identified seven potential locations for new wells and four potential locations for the 2.5 million gallon (MG) storage reservoir, evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEll). Ms. Caporgno: Thank you Chair Holman. Before we get into the p~esentation I just wanted to let the Commission know that here tonight we have several people from the Utilities Department, Romel Antonio, Jim Flanigan, Tom Marshall and Roger Cwiak. Also Tricia Schimpp who is the City’s contract planner who prepared the Staff Report as well as oversaw the preparation of the EIR with this also, as well as the consulting engineer and EIR consultant. I am going to give kind of an overview of the findings in the EIR but before that Roger, who is the Engineering Manager for Water, Gas and Wastewater Engineering, is going to give you a brief ov, erview of the project itself. Mr. Roger Cwiak, Engineering Manager, Water, Gas and Wastewater Engineering: Good evening Commissioners. I am going to discuss the City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply project and the Draft Environmental Impact Report and give you an overview of the project. First I will discuss the existing water system operation. Palo Alto currently receives 100 percent of its potable water supply from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and operates a series of reservoirs to meet peak demands including the Fire demands in the city. The city also has five standby wells that do not normally operate. Next I would like to discuss a comparison of the emergency water supply for the Palo Alto water utility versus other local water utilities that are of equal or larger size than the City of Palo Alto. On this graph you will notice that along the bottom of this graph it represents the number of maximum demand days supplied by each of the utilities listed on the left side of the graph. This vertical dashed line represents the minimum level recommended by the Department of Health Services of eight hours of maximum day demand. So if you are going to read this graph you could look at the horizontal yellow bars and these bars could represent the level of emergency water service provided by each of these utilities and how they meet the minimum level recommended by the Department of Health Services. Page 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 When we looked at the Palo Alto level on the bottom of this graph we can see that Palo Alto 2.currently meets approximately one-third of the minimum level recommended by the Department 3 of Health Services of approximately 2.7 hours of maximum day demand. We would like to get 4 to. this level, the minimum level, and the projects included in the Draft Environmental Impact 5 Report would move Palo Alto’s level of emergency water service to the minimum level . 6 recommended by the Department of Health Services. So this chart provides a graphic 7 representation of the City ofPalo Alto’s project purpose to provide enough water to meet the 8 normal and emergency demands if the SFPUC aqueduct system was to shut down. The shut- 9 downs on the system could range l~om a water quality event or a physical separation of their pipelines. The benefits of the project are to provide Palo Alto with a reliable emergency water service. The project objectives are to provide adequate supplies to meet the DFIS recommended eight-hour emergency supply. To provide facilities that would allow for drought year supplemental production. To design facilities to meet fire flow requirements under emergency water supply conditions, and to implement cost-effective improvements to meet the above objectives, and to reduce and minimize the effects of the projects to the degree feasible. In 1999 the City completed a study on the water distribution systems and that study recommended emergency supply improvements. These improvements included the development of 2.5 million gallons of stored water. It recommended that the City develop an 11,000-gallon per minute reliable well capacity. This was to be accomplished by constructing three new wells in the city and rehabilitating the city’s five existing standby wells. The final recommendation was to upgrade the Mayfield Reservoir Pump Station to better meet the emergency water supply needs of the community. Now Julie will cover the CEQA process for this project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report. Ms. Caporgno: The table you see up there outlines what the CEQAprocess entails and where we are in the process. We circulated a Notice of Preparation on February 7 and it had over a 30-day review period through March 13. The Notice of Preparation went to public agencies and they were to identify what issues they wanted to see addressed in the EIR. A public scoping meeting was held on March 8 and the Draft EIR that you have before you circulated on November 8. Right now we are in the 45-day public review period. Written comments on the EIR are due on December 22. Tonight’s hearing is to take public comment and any comments that the Commission may have. We are not here to respond to those comments. If we can clarify an issue for the Commission we would be glad to do that but the responses to all the comments we receive tonight will be included in the Final EIR which should be circulating prior to February 14 when we are anticipating coming back to the Commission for their review of the Final EIR and a ’ recommendation on its adequacy. Then we are anticipating that the Council will be hearing the EIR in the spring of 2007 along with the project. Page 2 1 The EIR addressed four different potential sites for the reservoir itself, ten potential sites for 2 three wells, the rehabilitation of five existing wells, and the rehabilitation of one existing pump 3 station. This approach will enable the City Council to have some flexibility in determining 4 where they want to place the reservoir as well as the wells. 5 , 6 The map that you see before you shows the locations ofthe different potential sites. Everyone 7 within 600 feet of each of these sites was notified of the EIR availability and the notice of this 8 meeting. 9 10 The EIR addressed all of the required impact categories required by CEQA. The highlighted sections are those that were analyzed in the EIR that are key to the project. I am just going togo through each of those just briefly describing the findings for each of those areas. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 For the recreation resources impacts we identified that construction of some of the proposed project facilities would temporarily disrupt access to existing recreation facilities and over crowding could occur at those facilities during peak use periods. The mitigation measures that were identified were a public notification program of the impacts that would be occurring during construction and rescheduling park usage during the construction period. The visual quality section identified that well drilling activities would require 24-hour activities over a three-week period and could result in light and glare effects as experienced from adjacent streets and residential uses. The regulations for nighttime lighting for construction will require that no light source is directly visible from neighboring residential areas and that is the mitigation that we have identified. The hydrology and water quality impact is increasing the groundwater recovery to meet . emergency demands and would have the potential to result in groundwater levels below historic low elevations. The mitigation is that aquifer testing following construction would verify the basin’s response.to the pumping and we would limit emergency demand pumpage to 1,500 acre feet in one year and restrict production. Another impact is that the placement of new wells would alter the localized groundwater gradients during an emergency operation and could result in direct effect to the efficiency of existing wells due to well interference. The mitigation measure would be to insure that new wells would not be located closer than 500 feet from existing production wells. Under the cultural resources section the Hale Well Pump House that is an historic property eligible for the National Register may have alterations to the existing structure in order to implement the project. The mitigation for that would be that any alterations would have to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. I would note that in the Staff Report there is mention that Staff is investigating previous rehabilitation activities in the Hale Well Pump House we have looked into that and there haven’t been any renovations or rehabilitations to the structure that reduces its historic.significance. Under traffic and circulation primarily it is parking that is an issue for this project. The proposed project would permanently reduce parking supply at all proposed well sites by five spaces and in storage reservoir location e by ten spaces. The mitigation measures that were identified were to Page 3 ¯ 1 require in lieu parking fees for each parking space lost in the Downtown parking lot site and 2 redesigning the parking layout at the California Avenue parking lot site. If redesign of this lot 3 were not possible this impact then would be considered significant and unavoidable. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Noise and 4ibration, the construction of the proposed facilities and well drilling activities would generate temporary noise levels above existing ambient conditions. The mitigation measures are that the site project facilities would be located at least !00 feet from the property lines adjacent to sensitive receptors. Engineered sound wall or noise blanket Would be installed during the 24- hour construction activities and all residents of the area would be notified of the construction schedule or any other sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the construction sites. In addition to the site alternatives that were addressed in the project analysis that was done throughout the EIR the EIR also addressed four alternatives to the project as required by CEQA. The ’No Project’ doesn’t meet the project alternatives. It doesn’t have environmental impacts obviously and there aren’t any benefits derived from project. Cormeetions with adjacent agencies also don’t meet the project objectives, has limited or very low environmental impacts, and the benefits are none because the adjacent utilities are dependent on the same water supply. An intercormection with the Santa Clara Valley Water District does not meet the project objectives either, and it would have the greatest land disturbance area, and the highest environmental constraint, and does not meet the fire flow objective. Then desalination would meet the project objectives but the regulatory constraints and water quality constraints, greater land disturbance, greater impacts across all areas, but it would meet the project objectives, as I said. As I said earlier this the review of the EIR in which we are taking public comment. Tonight the public can present their comments orally or they can still submit comments in writing before December 22, and the public process will enable them to attend the meeting on February 14 in which they can also raise issues regarding the adequacy of the EIR. At that point the public comment period will have ended. We have a project website that can be contacted and we are taking email, it doesn’t need to be in letter form to the City, so if someone has comments on this EIR they can submit either letter or email to the City. The contact information is listed above. As ! said, we are taking comments through December 22. With that I will turn it over to the Commission and we welcome comments from the public as well as any Commission comments. Chair Holman: One point that I would like to make also is that typically the Commission likes to do the review of the DEIR later in the review period. As this comment period is open until December 22 this isn’t late in the process but due to scheduling and the holiday this is the best that could be arranged. So as Julie said we can submit comments also until December 22 as can the public. With that do Commissioners have questions or comments? I think I saw Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Just a couple of project questions. They are not directly related to the EIR but they are just so that I understand the project a little bit. The eight hours that the Department of Health Services identifiesas the minimum that communities should have is that eight hours regardless of the size of the community? Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Cwiak: Yes. Commissioner Garber: Just because I don’t understand, does the ~ight hours buy us something that ten hours doesn’t or that six hours would not allow us to do? Mr. Cwiak: I don’t know all of the exact reasons that the DHS determined to use eight hours. I do know that for a water utility to meet that type of demand it takes a significant amount of stored water or other resources like wells to help meet that demand for that period of time. You also have to meet the fire demands in each of the pressure zones that you have. So we have stored water that we have to keep in reserve for fire demands that may occur at the same time if we had no supply from anywhere else outside the city we have to be able to supply the maximum day demand. In Palo Alto that maximum day demand is about three and a half times the normal demand that we have in the city. So it is a demand that is calculated over a day period but it is really based on your maximum hourly demands that you might experience in your system at any high demand hour. Commissioner Garber: So correct me if I am wrong, I am understanding that the eight hours calculated as part of a maximum or as the maximum actually gives Palo Alto essentially a day worth of normal use. Mr. Cwiak: It could but in the emergency that would break pipes or cause an interruption Palo Alto would have to rely on just the water it had at any given time. So during your normal .operations your reservoirs are not always full. You are using water in and out-of them during your daily operation so if it hit at the wrong time you wouldn’t have your full capacity of every reservoir. If there was a break on the lines then that same event may cause breaks on the City’s lines, which would cause us to lose water also until we could control those damages. Commissioner Garber: One more related to this. Eight hours is obviously the minimum. Is there any reason why Palo Alto should be thinking that there should be more? Mr. Cwiak: To meet the eight hours actually gives Palo Alto - for us to be able to supply that amount of water over an eight hour period with fire flows included to develop that type of a reliable emergency water supply service we could with conservation in the system be able to extend it beyond the eight hours. Commissioner Garber: One other just project question then I am done. Who owns the proposed Middlefield well site? Mr. Cwiak: The City of Palo Alto owns that site. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller did you have any clarifying questions? Then after clarifying questions we will go to the public. I don’t have any cards yet but I presume there will be some: Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3t 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I appreciate the emergency water supply comparison chart. I am trying to make sure that I am reading this correctly. It says current CityofPalo Alto mid that says 10.5 MG so I assume that memas the current emergency water supply of the City of Palo Alto is 10.5 million gallons. Mr. Cwiak: Palo Alto currently has a stored water capacity of 10.5 million gallons. Approximately one-third of that is the emergency water supply. Approximately one-third of that is our normal fluctuation in the reservoirs and then the other third would be the reserve for our fire flows: Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So what I am taking from that is we need about three times that or about 31.5 million gallons, is that correct? Mr. Cwiak: That may be close to the number. Commissioner Keller: We are planning to add 2.5 million gallons for storage and I assume the purpose of the storage is for the fire flow issue. Mr. Cwiak: Yes. Commissioner Keller: And assuming that the 31.5 million gallons is correct that would leave about 29 million gallons to be obtained over a period of time from pumping. Mr. Cwiak: Yes. Commissioner Keller: I had the advantage of going to the scoping meeting so I vaguely remember hearing that with emergency usage measures we would hope that the eight hours might last as long as a month depending on how many fires existing and things like that. Is that a reasonable way to think about it? Mr, Cwiak: Yes, if we construct the wells that we need to supply the ll,000-gallon per minute reliable water supply. Then we could pump and supply Palo Alto at nearly its normal rate for about 30 days. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, any clarifying questions? Okay. I have but one card for Jean McCown and you will have five minutes. Welcome. Ms. Jean McCown, Stanford University.: Thank you very much Chairman Holman and members of the Commission. I am the Director of Community Relations at Stanford University. I am here tonight to talk to you about this because three of the four sites that are considered in this EIR for the reservoir specifically are on Stanford land. Page 6 1 I wanted to start offby saying we are very supportive and sympathetic to the purposes of this 2 project.. Stanford has its own water supply not through the City of Palo Alto but directly from 3 Hetch-Hetchy and we have had to deal with the same emergency water supply issue that you are 4 looking at or the City is looking and have had to deal with that on our land. So we absolutely 5 understand the need for the project. 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Earlier in the year when the City Council acted to initiate this EIR the University provided a memo to the City about the sites that are being considered on Stanford land and I brought extra copy of those tonight which I would like to have the Clerk give you copies of. This is back in ¯ January when the Council saw the recommendation from Staffto proceed with this EIR and that identifies the three sites one of them is E1 Camino ballpark, one of them is the parking lot fronting on E1 Camino at the Stanford Shopping Center, and the last the third is the comer of Arboretum Road and Quarry Road which is described in the EIR I believe as the shopping center south site. The things that I wanted to point out to you tonight about the EIR analysis are some missing pieces of analysis with respect to those options. First is with respect to the shopping center site that is the parking lot fronting E1 Camino. The memo points out to the City that we have actually it is now the Simon Corporation has obligations to the major tenants at the shopping center and it specifies them here, Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Neiman Marcus, and Macy’s Men’s where there are ground lease restrictions about any impact on those parking areas. That is not only long-term impacts it is short-term impacts. We believe those obligations and the potential impact on the land use aspects of those obligations need to be understood and evaluated by the EIR. Then the third site, the one being described as the shopping center south site, which is the northeast comer of Arboretum and Quarry Road, that is not actually in the City of Paio Alto. It is in the county. It is part of the campus lands. It is governed by the campus General Use Permit and it is designated as a housing site. That information, at least as we understand it, is not discussed or analyzed in the E!R. I believe that is an omission and an inaccuracy that needs to be corrected in the EIR. As you can see from this memo we provided this information to the City back in January, we provided it again in March when the scoping for the EIR was done, and understood that already had been provided to the consultants for their consideration, and we believe it does need to be included and understood and evaluated inthe EIR. Then the final point I would make is that the absence of understanding those current land use conditions on those parcels means that the alternatives in the EIR that look at cost and feasibility of the project don’t look at the differences of what those costs and feasibility may be on these different alternative sites. For example, with the shopping center parcels as we understand it the Simon Corporation very soon will be bringing forward some ideas at the City’s initiation of potential changes of the shopping center which might involve building in that area, and that would certainly be inconsistent and difficult to accomplish with these sites being considered for the reservoir. So we believe again that this needs to be understood in terms of evaluation of the EIR. The final point I would make as far as E1 Camino ballpark is concemed we have understood for awhile that that is the number one preferred possibility and we support that. The University is Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 -40 41 42 43 44 45 46 supportive of working with the City to figure out how to site a reservoir on that location. We believe the other two alternatives, the shopping center alternative and the Quarry Road/Arboretum alternative, have significant impediments that really make them very difficult to achieve for this project. I would be happy to answer any questions. Chair Holman: If you have anything else to say, as the lone speaker, go right ahead. Ms. McCown: No, again if there are any questions I would be happy to respond to them. We want to be sure that these sort of fundamental land use issues are considered in the consideration. Chair Holman: I believe Commissioner Keller had a question. Commissioner Keller: Looking at the EIR Figure 2-11. Ms. McCown: I don’t have that in front of me, I apologize. Commissioner Keller: Maybe we could put it on the Elmo. It is the E1 Camino ballpark. It states that a potential area for this is the park area, which is the logical north of the park towards where Alma Street meets, the left side of the image. What I am wondering is where are you suggesting it go? Is that a reasonable question? Ms. McCown: My understanding is in the prior conversations that have happened between Stanford and this has been staff other than myself and the Utilities Staff was there was an interest in sort of pushing within the general envelop that the City was looking -at pushing the location further towards I think it is north, left on that map. To look at the options of not having it be sort of dead center in the middle of the park area but potentially moved within the general envelop that the City was looking at out to the north or left. We have not gone into technical discussions about what those options are and my understanding is the EIR doesn’t specifically look at those options either. That is what we would expect would happen if this is the general area that is selected that we would engage in those discussions of more particularly how you would best locate it. Commissioner Keller: So it sounds to me like you are suggesting that it is Stanford’s preference to locate the reservoir away from the ball field and towards the area closer to Menlo Park, if you will. Ms. McCown: That is correct. That has been my understanding of what we have previously communicated to the City. Commissioner Keller: I presume as long as it doesn’t impact our famous namesake, E1 Palo Alto Tree. Ms. McCown: We are a long ways away from E1 Palo Alto Tree. Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissiondr Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert I believe you had a question as well. Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. I just wanted Staffto respond to some of the honorable Jean McCown’s questions or comments. Mr. Williams: IfI can respond, this is not the forum to do that. This is comments on the EIR and they will be responded to in the Final EIR. We will take these back and look at them and prepare analysis and if it is necessary to look at an additional and I think she understands that is the way this process works. It is not an interactive type of deliberative process as far-as preferred sites and such go at this point. Vice-Chair Lippert: I guess what I wanted was clarification that one of the sites is actually outside of the City boundaries. Mr. Williams: Okay, just clarification for that. Is that the case? Mr. Cwiak: Staffis aware the site offof Quarry Road is in the County of Santa Clara and not within the City of Palo Alto ,boundaries. Vice-Chair Lippert: Do we have jurisdigtion commenting on such things? Mr. Williams: That is part of the EIR and you have jurisdiction to comment on that. Ms. Caporgno: The EIR addresses the various sites. Now whether or not when the Council has to take action on a project that maybe an issue. Vice-Chair Lippert: I guess it is not appropriate to get into dialogue here but I just want to have an understanding. I know that when Stanford’s General Use Plan came forward and was reviewed by the Co .unty it was within the purview of the City to comment on that. Is this something similar to that? Ms. Caporgno: You mean is the County going to comment on the EIR?. The County was sent a copy, the County is aware of the EIR, and the County was informed. We sent copies of the Notice of Availability to the County so they have been informed. We have not to date received any comments but again the comment period ends on December 22. Ms. McCown: IfI could j,ust say our main point is I don’t think the EIR identifies the fact that that parcel is in the County and that is really point I am making tonight is to be sure that it does accurately describe that fact. Mr. Williams: We will do that. Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 .43 44 45 Chair Holman: Okay, I think consider your comments accepted and in the record. Thank you very much Ms. McCown for coming. So comments by Commissioners on the DEIR. Commissioner Keller did you have questions or can Commissioner Lippert ask his questions? Okay, Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: A question for Staff. Ibrought this up at yesterday’s meeting. Several of the sites that are designated or indicated are parking lots and there is an incompatibility issue I think with parking lots and we are supposed to plant or requ!re trees plantings in parking lots and there is an incompatibility between trees and large sources of water. The roots try to seek out those sources of water. How would wemitigate or how would we deal with those City requirements for planting in parking lots? Chair Holman: IfI might, might that also actually just be a comment that would be responded to? Mr. Williams: Yes, that is what I was going to say. I think we have to accept these. You can put them in the form of questions that’s fine or comments. We need to take them back and respond to all of those as part of the Final EIR. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Then my understanding is that E1 Camino Real is not only a major roadway but it is also the main line for the Hetch-Hetchy pipeline, is that correct? Mr. Cwiak: The 36 inch Palo Alto pipeline from Redwood City to California Avenue in Palo Alto is mostly within the E1 Camino right-of-way. Vice-Chair Lipp~rt: Okay. All of these or most of these reservoirs are actually right off of E1 Camino Real so would there be additional work done in terms of connecting that line to the reservoirs? Mr. Cwiak: We haven’t finalized any design so the reservoir wherever it was sited it wouldbe connected to the largest supply that we had. So if it were E1 Camino park then there would be pipes from the Palo Alto pipeline to a more than likely a pump station and then the reservoir. Vice-Chair Lippert: My assumption is that there would also be backflow preventers that would go between those. You don’t want our well water that is going into the reservoir to then goback into the main pipeline in case of a disaster. Mr. Cwiak: Right. That is a standard design practice in the water industry. So our current services have backflow prevention devices on them. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Does this take into account any disruption of E1 Camino Real traffic during the construction period if there were those connections made? Mr. Williams: That is an item we will look at as part of the response. Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: Then as sort of a follow up to that has the Draft EIR been sent to Cal Trans for their review? Mr. Cwiak: Yes. Vice-Chair Lippe~t: Okay. Then I guess lastly it is a similar question that since E1 Camino park is being considered as a prime site for one of these reservoirs there is a substantial number of trees that surround the park how would the trees be impacted by this? You don’t need to answer but that needs to be addressed. Then vise-versa is how the reservoir would be impacted by the trees. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. We can come back. I don’t expect people to just have three or four questions. Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I am usually the one who brings up all the math questions so I am going to continue that trend. If you look at page 6-3 of the EIR where it says "Planned Growth and Water Demand," in the fifth paragraph which is the fourth paragraph after City of Palo Alto, it says that the annual water use is somewhere on the order of 13,900 acre feet per year or basically 14,000 acre feet per year. So there is a comment among other places on page 3.5-20 about 1,500-acre feet and that being the maximum pumpage that would be allowed. By my math that is about 12 percent or so of the other number, of the 14,000 number. So what I am wondering is is that 1,500 acre-feet the correct number? It doesn’t sound like it is an eight-hour supply of water. It sounds more like it is a month and a half supply of water so I am confused. I didn’t actually know what an acre foot was because that is not a number that I am generally familiar with. I didn’t know how many gallons it is so I basically asked that useful resource called Google. I asked for acre-feet in gallons and it told me that one acre-foot is about .33 million gallons of water. That would make 1,500 acre-feet 4.89 million gallons of water. So that doesn’t match the approximately 29 or so million gallons we talked about earlier so that doesn’t match either. So there is some inconsistency here. At 11,000 gallons per minute if one were to pump that continuously, I am not sure you could, but if one were to.pump that continuously to produce 29 million gallons it would take about 44 hours. So these are interesting numbers. I am presenting them but I am sort of wondering how they all fit together. I would not expect that we would supply our normal water supply for a month. I am assuming that we would be severely restricted, that we would not allow watering of lawns and shrubbery and stuff like that, that we would reduce water significantly. I think one of the things in terms of the requirements here is it would be useful to identify how much water would be needed for the fire demands which is why you have this 2.5 million gallon storage. I.assume that is for peak fire use. It would also be helpful to have some sort of estimate if the big one, I assume it would be the Hayward fault were to rupture and thereby cause a break in the pipeline to Palo Alto and the peninsula from Hetch- Hereby Reservoir, what are the estimates of how long that would take to repair? I have heard estimates of something like three to nine months of being able to repair it to the extent that water could flow through it assuming that there weren’t a lot of breaks. So the matching of that to what our water supply would be, and I would call these requirements engineering. These are the kinds of things that seem to be missing from the report of how do we figure out eight hours, how does that match what the needs are really for Palo Alto in terms of emergency water supply with Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 !2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 a reasonable amouni of use at a very restricted level. What would be reasonable for the City of Palo Alto to actually provide in contrast to some number, arbitrarily based on the state? I will give more comments later. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: The project benefit is to provide a reliable emergency water supply for Palo Alto. Bullet point number two under Project Objective says provide facilities that would for a drought year supplemental production. The question would be is that legitimately part of the project? It is a good objective but is it really providing for the benefit that it is being provided for? Number two is a question regarding the Stanford locations is would those locations be a part of the upcoming areaplan that is being contemplated for the hospital and other changes that are going to occurring on that? If it is, how does it fit in, etc.? Number three, Ongoing Impacts, not immediately clear to me if there are impacts ongoing once any one of these various facilities is in place relative to maintenance if there are impact there, or monitoring access, repair, I don’t know what those are. Number four, Figure 2-5, just as a way of information here this is an old aerial and does not include the housing that currently exists around there which would Obviously have immediate impacts that are talked about in generalities here. We should recognize that there ishousing immediately in Heritage Park. Number five, on page 5, I could also reference the report itself but on page 5, Hydrology and Water Quality, the draw down test is a common test for establishing how much water a well can. actually sustain obviously. However, the question in my mind is .given any emergency our neighboring communities are also going to be drawing up water and so the test doesn’t really have validity at that point and how do you accommodate or anticipate the impact of having the neighboring communities doing the same thing .we are doing which is drawing down during an emergency? That’s it for the moment. I will have two more I think. Thank you. Chair Holman: I will jump in with a few at the moment. One is fiscal impacts aren’t, as I discovered, described here. So project funding and I can’t remember how this all relates to the CIP, but if there are any fiscal impacts those should be explored. I found a few things a little bit confusing. The groundwater level that is mentioned in a number of places including in this presentation, the potential impacts say that drawing the groundwater could interfere with existing well efficiency. Since the sites have already been identified I am not clear how locating new wells more than 500 feet from existing production wells is a mitigation because if the site are already identified and there is still an impact aren’t they already located 500 feet from or that a discovery? That is a little bit unclear to me. There are a couple of impacts, one of them had to do with noise that basically talked about noise impacts and it said in the Staff Report that notification of neighbors would mitigate the impact. Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 If somebody is pounding on something in my neighborhood and they tell me that they are going to be pounding on it that doesn’t change the fact that there is an impact. So I am not clear how that is a mitigation. Stanford has, and I didn’t read it here, I am sure Ms. McCown could answer this but Stanford has as she described solved their emergency water supply fairly recently. I read somewhere and I don’t think it was here that Stanford has an excess. Stanford was mentioned in I think the Staff Report and I am not sure about the DEIR about there being no joint agreements between them or other cities around but then there wasn’t an exploration of an agreement with Stanford potentially. So I am wondering if that could be explored. I will leave it there with those comments and move back to Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I just have one other question or comment and it is again related to the reservoirs, My assumption is that this is not like building a swimming pool in the backyard of your house that the gallons that we are talking about have considerable mass to them. One of the things I don’t see addressed in here is that in the event of a seismic event you are going to have a tremendous amount of water that is a lot more fluidthan soil being accelerated. Its impact in terms of ruptttring the vessel that it is in and then spilling out and then losing the whole purpose of such a dynamic volume of v~ater. So I am imagining this in E1 Camino park where we have some sort of a deck over it that is a long span structure. Again in the event of a seismic event the lid or the beams that are carrying this being dislodged and falling into this body of water. So these are just concerns that I don’t see necessarily addressed in the EIR that I think are significant enough because as I said you are not building a swimming pool in somebody’s backyard. Chair Holman: Back to Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Following up on some of the other Commissioners comments regarding the potential for drought use I understand.that droughts tend to last several years. They tend to be cyclical and last awhile and the data on droughts here indicates that in the past they have lasted several years. I am concerned about the ability to draw down water several years in a row in the event of a drought particularly to the extent that the ground can recover its and preventing subsidence. It does indicate that emergency demand pumpage shall be limited on page 3.5-20 to 1,500 acre-feet in one year. It doesn’t indicate what happens in subsequent years. It says following this level ofpumpage groundwater production shall be restricted until groundwater levels recover to pre-pumping levels. But it is not clear how that will affect the future years, of drought. So I have some concem about shooting the wad so to speak or drawing all the water in one year and then not having water in subsequent years for an earthquake emergency, which seems to be more important. It seems to me that a drought should be covered through water use restrictions and not through pumping water. Santa Clara Valley has subsided considerably. I understand that parts of Santa Clara Valley have subsided somewhere on the order of 20 to ,40 feet or more due to the extensive groundwater pumping that has happened in the prior years. So considering that somewhere on the order of 2,400 homes are in a flood zone from the Bay subsidence would mean that more homes might be entered into a flood zone. That would mitigate several different things. First of all that would Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 indicate that it is probably a good idea to locate pumping away from the Bay to reduce the subsidence adjacent to the flood zone. I couldn’t find a flood zone map overlaid anywhere in the DEIR. It seems to me that overlaying a map would be helpful in this. It does indicate that because we once pumped 1,500 acre feet and nothing happened and somehow there would be some recharging it is not ctear that that wouldn’t cause subsidence. Subsidence by one foot, I am not sure if we have any measures of what would cause subsidence of one foot, and how many additional homes in Palo Alto might be part of a floodplain and thereby have to pay $1,000 or more per year for flood insurance and have restrictions on what could be built on them and what additions could be done based on that one foot subsidence. So I think the idea that that is not a significant impact from my point of view would have to be quantified somewhat better. Also, I understand that my guess is that you can’t build anything on top of this reservoir. So as was pointed out the financial impact of paying for all this there are financial impacts on the property owners for wherethis is placed. So for example if it is placed at the Stanford Shopping Center all you could build there is a parking lot. You could never build anything else there. You could never put a parkingstructure there. You could never put another store there or something like that and I assume that that would have financial impacts and would affect how much the property owner might want to charge you in order to do that. The same thing would be true in Town & Country if they wanted to build a hotel in the place where there is a nice reservoir that would make it hard for them to do that. To follow up on the comment about the Stanford agreement it would seem to me that Palo Alto probably should consider negotiating an agreement with Stanford with respect to Stanford’s supplying the emergency water at least for the hospital and potentially for the shopping center needs being that that’s most adjacent to what they are doing and that is there own lands. I realize there is some obligation to the City of Palo Alto for providing emergency water in the sense that by using water they are paying into the water enterprise fund which pays for the emergency water supply and all of that but to the extent that some agreement could be made with Stanford that they would provide some sort of backup emergency supply or altemative emergency supply to thoselocations I think that would be in the interest of both Palo Alto and Stanford. It probably would be worthwhile considering as part of the discussions in terms of tlie area plan that is going happen or at least the discussions regarding the changes to the Stanford Hospital and the changes to the Stanford Shopping Center. I think that kind of discussion would be worthwhile as part of that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber back to you. Commissioner Garber: A couple of questions. What is the radius of the reservoir, approximately? Mr. Cwiak: Depending on the final design you could use 150 feet. Commissioner Garber: Okay. Question. The project has been imagined as working 24 hours a day over six weeks. Is the intent there just to simply get it done as quickly as possible? Is that Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 why that is the case versus if it were in some locations where it would be more drawn out, granted it might cost more but it may have less impacts? Sorry, I am not asking for an answer I am just asking the question. Another question. Are there any desalinization plants in the Bay? I’m sorry i just don’t know the answer to that. Mr. Williams: There aren’t are there? Mr. Cwiak: I believe Matin County is trying to site a station. Commissioner Garber: Okay. I thought the question of is there a relationship between wells and flood zone is an interesting one.. I don’t know if there is an answer to that but it is an interesting question. Finally, another question on timing and that is it seems because we have the DEIR in front of us that the intent is to try and make the project move forward as quicklyas possible. However, if investigation into its relationship with Stanford via the area plan or for that matter any other project there is some synchronicity that can be exploited is there a negative impact to doing the project later if that sort of synergy can be taken advantage of either for financial reasons or other mitigation reasons? Chair Holman: Okay, I will take another hit at it here. The Visual Impacts are sort of described but there are no visuals that I discovered in the EIR that show actually what the storage facility or the pumps or well sites would look like. While I know most of this is proposed to be put below ground I went to several earlier .meetings about this and there are probably going to be berms or some aspect, and it is referenced in the E!R, some amount of above-grade structure. That is not described or depicted visually in the EIR. I think for public review that should happen. On the Figures 2-3 and 2-4 actually are transposed. They are rnisidentified. Figure 2-3 is actually the Library Community Center it is identified as Eleanor Pardee and Figure 2-4 is actually Eleanor Pardy and not proposed Library Community Center well site. When I looked at those I was somewhat confused or concerned about why there is tree removal proposed when it would seem there are other locations that I am maybe not smart enough to know where they could go but it seems to me there are other locations that could be used that didn’t require tree removal especially since if these are just well sites they could be below ground. So that is something else I would like a response to. Having to do again with notification. If there is going to be an impact on park usage again notification doesn’t seem to me that that’s a mitigation. Back to costs again, the cost of the project, and I should have been clearer as it might affect or impact community services or other community projects. Also that should include in those cost Page 15 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 impacts the cost of doing the park improvement ordinances. With those I will go back to Commissioner Lippert. 1 2 3 4 Vice-Chair Lippert: I just have one other comment. Again in our regulations we specifically 5 talk about parking lots being permeable or pervious surfaces and that is not addressed here. A 6 certain amount of groundwater needs to percolate back in to recharge the aquifer. What is 7 probably more important than that is that if E1 Camino Park is considered that is all turf. What 8 are we going to do with all that runoff there? Will it be collected in a cistern and then added to 9 the reservoir or will it be treated and added to the reservoir or will it simply just be flushed into the storm sewer system? Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, do you have more questions? Commissioner Keller: Yes.. I guess I renewed my membership in nit’pickers anonymous. If you look at Figure 5-1 the label for Foothill Expressway appears to be the Hetch-Hetchy pipeline. It really should be about a quarter of an inch to the north where it says Stanford University both eight-inch diameter because that sort of gray line is in fact Foothill Expressway. The other thing is it is not clear whether this part of the EIR process or not but I would expect that there should be if there is not already a standby emergency water use measure.that would in some form being triggered by for example the City Manager or the Mayor or someone like that would automatically or at least by ordinance restrict water use to some minimal use that is necessary for protecting public health and safety and that kind of stuff. Those water measures should be reviewed to make sure that they are up to date, that they are in some way enforceable, and understanding how they can be triggered so that when we go through this process of building this reservoir and pumping system that there is some way of malting sure that the water lasts a~ long as it can and it is not wasted. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, do you have more questions or comments? I will give you that time and in the meantime go back to Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Lippert is complete. I will go to a couple more and then come back to you if that is all right. On Noise and Vibration as a mitigation again it is a clarification on these. It is talking about noise impacts and it says site project facilities at least 100 feet from property lines adjacent to sensitive receptors i.f sufficient space is available. It is not explained at all why 100 feet. What determines that 100 feet will be a mitigation? I think I will stop there. I might have more that I could put in through email but I will stop here. Before I forget Commissioner Sandas who became ill did email me with three or four questions and I won’t read them in the record but I will make sure that Staff gets these. Commissioner Garber? So Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I think that it is not clear to the extent to which this is clear. There are the various alternatives to the projects and I ~hink that one of the considerations of the alternative Page 16 1 projects of linking into adjacent systems should specifically consider the event ofa Hetch- 2 Hetchy break because I believe that one of the reasons that the alternative projects are less 3 desirable is because they won’t be usable in the event of a break because everybody else will 4 have the same problem. So to the extent that that’s not made painfully obvious I think it should 5 be. Thank you. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25- 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Just a suggestion that has obviously been a part of some of the questions and that is in the project description something that tells us obviously of what the maintenance structures that are going to be above ground, what they are, what they look like, or something that suggests that as well as ideally a section through the reservoir that shows the ground plain so that some of the questions that Commissioner Lippert was asking would become self-evident as to is there earth above it and existing trees and other such things, how deep is the structure that supports that earth? I don’t know what those things are but just a simple concept section through it would be helpful. Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Continuing the theme that a likely use of the water supply will be during a major earthquake, it is also likely that a major earthquake would result in a suspension in electrical power. It is not clear to me from reading this, maybe I didn’t read enough, the degree of emergency supply of power that exists for the pumping and the impacts of those emergency supplies both on the pumping for the wells and also for pumping water out of the reservoir. The other thing that I was concerned about regarding that was to what extent,, let’ s suppose that somewhere in the city there is a fire and you open up the fire hydrant and you want water to pump out of there very fast, and you might want the water pressure elsewhere in the city to be lower. So I am trying to understand how you would balance that so that there would be some sort of valves or something, I am not sure how you would do it, so that you could have adequate water.pressure for the fire department at hydrants and yet have a lower water pressure for households so that they weren’t using as much water. I am not sure of the answer to that question. Maybe you don’t have a different water pressure but I think that is worthwhile considering. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: With Commissioner Keller’s permission I might try reframing a certain portion of you question and that is some discussion about what the construction mitigations are that allow the system to function in the event there is a physical disturbance. Chair Holman: I have one follow up also to a question or a comment that Commissioner Keller mentioned. If We are in a situation where we are needing emergency water supplies that, and it isn’t referenced in here that I found anyway, that there be the enactment of a city program that you are not washing your dog and washing your car. I am not sure that would be part of the EIR but it should be part of a program that should go with this whole project and that it would be implemented in those situations. So with that it appears that we are .finished with this item. I Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 will close the public comment and again remind public that is either here or watching that you can still submit comments either by letter oremail to the City Staff on this project as well as Commissioners may do the same. Curtis. Mr. Williams: If I could just reiterate that point as well including in fact the Commissioners who have excused themselves are certainly Welcome as individuals to send comments regarding the EIR. We did talk last night about what we willtry to do as we get close to the 22na date forward to you comments that we have received in writing just so you are familiar with them and if they spur any additional comments you want to make you will have time to get us. something else. Ms. Caporgno: I just wanted to add that Utilities provided a card so if there are members in the audience who are interested in this project and want to comment and didn’t want to provide verbal comments that they can take the card home and it has all the relevant information as far as submitting comments. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Maybe during ourbreak you can put this on the Elmo. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. With that we will close this item and take a seven-minute break. Thank you. Page 18 ATTACHMENT C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes February 14, 2007 DRAFT EXCERPT Chair Holman: We would like to call the meeting of Wednesday, February 14 of the Planning and Transportation Commission to order so if we could ask people to take their seats that would be much appreciated. Would the Secretary call the roll, please? Thank you. We are five this evening because Commissioner Tuma and Commissioner Burt have conflicts of interest due to Stanford conflicts and proximity issues. This is the time on the agenda when anyone who would like to speak to any item that is not on the agenda tonight could do so. I don’t have any cards so we will go to the next item. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card. available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Holman: This is our only item this evening, which is City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. Staff would like to make a presentation. NEW B USINESS Public Hearings: Ci.ty of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project: Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation to City Council regarding the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and recommendation for a proposed 8-hour Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project to upgrade five existing groundwater wells, construct up to three new wells, construct a new storage reservoir and pump station, and update an existing pump station. Ms. Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: Thank you Chair Holman. As you will recall on November 29 we brought the Draft EIR to you for a public hearing. Subsequent to that hearing we have prepared the Final EIR, which addresses the comments that ¯ were made at that hearing by the public as well as the Commission and then any comments we received during the review period for the EIR. As we have indicated in your Staff Report the Final EIR concludes that there will be significant and unavoidable impacts from construction noise for the proposed new well, the drilling at all the proposed well sites and the potential loss of dedicated parking spaces if the California Avenue parking lot site is selected for the reservoir. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The other potentially significant impacts relating to recreation, visual quality, geology, soils and seismicity, hydrology, biology, cultural resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise and vibration, and hazards and hazardous materials could all be mitigated to a less than significant level. I just wanted to clarify two items regarding one comment in the Staff Report that we had said that review by the Architectural Review Board would be required for all new above ground structures or expansion to existing above ground structures located on non-dedicated parkland. This would also pertain to dedicated parkland for any above ground elements that would require architectural review. The other clarification was one of the comments that was made by Commissioner Holman at your November 29 hearing. She had questioned whether or not the noise mitigation that we had identified was actual mitigation because we had said that - let me find it here. Public notification was one of the items that we had identified in the Draft EIR as mitigation and she questioned that. We had continued in the response to comment we had identified that there may be ways that we would assist the nearby residents to attenuate nearby noise levels. That is in addition to notifying them of times in which these occurrences would happen. We did conclude in the EIR that the noise impacts were significant and unavoidable and those are the only ways that we had identified that we could even assist area residents. I don’t think that we were saying that notification in and of itself is a mitigation measure. Roger, could you flip to the next slide? Okay. I just wanted to go through the schedule. The NOP comment period for this EIR was from February 7 through March 13. The public scoping meeting was held on March 8. The Draft EIR circulation period was on November 8 and the written comments were due on December 22. As I mentioned before the Draft EIR public heating was held on November 29. Next slide. We circulated the Final EIR on February 8 and it requires a ten-day circulation period. That 26th FEll{ public review period is actually incorrect. There isn’t really the review period for the FE[R there is just a ten-day period that it needs to circulate to all commenters on the EIR, which it has. Then the hearing is tonight and the certification hearing is anticipated to be on March 5, 2007. Tonight with me is Tricia Schimpp, who is contract planner for the project. Roger Cwiak is going to give a presentation now on the actual project and the recommendations from Staff for the preferred sites for both the reservoir and the wells. Then we also have in the audience our consultant team and other members from the Utility Department. So for any questions we hope that we will be able to respond adequately. With that I will turn it over to Roger. Mr. Roger Cwiak, Engineering Manager, WGW: At our last meeting I went over the project in detail and I wasn’t going to do that tonight other than to give a brief history of the project. This project started about 1997 through a study. The study that we did on the system at the Staff level andwith the consultant to determine what we needed to do took about two years. So in 1999 we published the study and for a couple of years after that we went to the UAC. The UAC looked in detail at all of the projects that were recommended in the study and then looked at Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 other options that weren’t considered in the study and looked at those in detail. Some of those were large reservoirs and more wells or less wells and bigger reservoirs. At the end of the day they came back and supported the original Staff recommendations to the City Council. Then the project went to the Council and because of the size of the projects and all of the projects working together the Council felt at that time that we should do an Environmental Impact Report for all the projects that were listed in the original study. Tonight is a culmination of doing that Environmental Impact. Tonight if any members of the public that want to participate they can make comments tonight or give the Staff comments by March the 5th at the website listed below. At the end of the presentation there is another slide that tells you directly who to send that to. The comment period will end on March 5 for the Final EIR. I was going to cover the preferred sites tonight that are in the final document. I will start with the reservoir sites. On the map you can see there are four proposed reservoir sites. One of them was in the rear of the Town & Country center in their parking lot. A second site was in E1 Camino Park. The entire park was studied in this EIR. Than at Stanford Shopping Center the area in front of the Macy’s Men’s there is a parking lot there and that was included. Then on Quarry Road next to an existing City electrical station the Quarry Substation there is a parking lot that is used by Stanford that is actually in the County of Santa Clara and that site was also included in the document. The preferred site at E1 Camino Park is basically inside the blue border that you see on the map. In the upper left hand coruer is the City’s existing Lytton pump station. We are looking at options that basically would go in this area all the way across. There are five different options. The options that we tried to design to fit into different parts of the park basically it is a circular reservoir that is 150 feet in diameter and this end also and then there were other options that looked at reservoirs in different spacing inside that blue area. The green lines show the drip lines of the trees that would have to avoid if we were constructing - if this site ends up being the site. So the preferred reservoir site, some of the considerations and reasons that we ended up at this site is the location. The City needs to provide more emergency water to the pressure area one and three. That pressurearea three is basically the area that is behind Stanford Shopping Center between E1 Camino, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road all the way to the city limits to San Francisquito Creek on the north side. That whole area we need to be able to provide additional - emergency water supply if we were cutoff from the Hetch-Hetchy supply. The second reason is the proximity to the Lytton pump station and that is the pump station that now takes water from area one and pumps into area three if we have an emergency but that water actually would be pumped out of the Mayfield reservoir which is all the way in College Terrace and go through the City’s distribution system to Downtown and then be pumped over into the Stanford area~ So hopefully this project would help eliminate that problem and we would be able to use the Mayfield reservoir for other parts of the city. That is the plan for these projects. The constructability of this site. It has fewer constraints and there is sufficient area on the site to maintain all of the construction activity on this site. This site is a dedicated park. Page 3 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 2 From an environmental viewpoint on the E1 Camino site it does not impact the proposed 3 shopping center parking, does not conflict with identified future uses for this property, impacts to 4 sensitive species or ornamental trees would be mitigated to less than significant. On the other 5 potential reservoir sites they require additional conveyance of piping at substantial cost. If we 6 were to use any of the other sites we would have to bring pipes back to this site so that we could 7 have a pump station or if at the other sites we built a pump station we would have to construct 8 pipe from those locations to this area three. They would require the removal of permanent 9 parking spaces at say Town & County or at the Stanford Shopping Center. Then there is 10 considerable resistance from the owners of those sites for us to try to pursue a project on their property. The proposed new well sites, you will notice that the reservoir sites are also still here because wherever we end up building the reservoir the City wants to place a well there so that if we have a well that we will be able to blend the water in with the water in the reservoir and it would reduce our treatment cost of the water that we pump out of the ground. The Downtown parking lots were proposed as sites for the well. The Heritage Park site, the City actually reserved the right to go back and build on that property when that parkland was created. Then on the old Middlefield well site, that site is here because it was in the past a good producer for water but there are some challenges with that site to try to use it again. The proposed Eleanor Pardee Park well site is in the part of the aquifer under the city that could produce water and make it worthwhile for the City to build a well there. Then the Community Garden’s site is another site that we know would be a good producer of water. Then there were parking lots in the California Business District that were also considered for well sites. The preferred sites are the E1 Camino Park, the Eleanor Pardee Park, and the Lytton Community Gardens. The top two are parklands. The Community Gardens is not dedicated parkland. The preferred Well site at E1 Camino Park would be adjacent probablyto wherever we end up constructing the reservoir if this site is ultimately used. E1 Camino Park, the considerations for the wells. The highest producing well sites have historically been in the North Palo Alto area near San Francisquito Creek. We verified the hydrology by drilling a test well on this site along with the Heritage Park site. We worked with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the US Geological Survey at the Eleanor Pardee Park site and they drilled a test well at that location. We used their data and that also appeared to be a good well site. The ability to locate the well, as I mentioned earlier, adjacent to the new reservoir that is another consideration for E1 Camino Park and as I mentioned before the. blending in the reservoir reducing the treatment requirem~ ents. This new well would be constructed with the proposed reservoir reducing the number of separate construction sites associated with the overall emergency water supply project if we could build the well with the reservoir and if it was at E1 Camino Park everything seems to fit very well there. Then the dedicated parkland that is an issue for the E1 Camino Park, it is dedicated parkland. At the Eleanor Pardee Park site the well site that we have chosen is in this location. This is Center Drive. This is back in an area where there are some gardens in here but we wouldn’t affect the personal gardens that are in that area. Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 In this slide we attempted to show an area that ~would be excavated to build the pump station but you wouldn’t see this on the surface. This would be covered with dirt. The only thing that would be left at the site would be this access hatch. We have calculated that the rim of this would be above the flood elevation that might occur in Palo Alto in the 100-year flood. The park also has mounds throughout it so this wouldn’t be the only mound in the park. There are other rolling hills that have been created in the park and we could create the mounding on this to match that or mimic what is already in the park. Considerations for the owner, Pardee Park, the high likelihood of high water production rates we located near the San Francisquito Creek it is not as near as the other wells but it is still generally in that area of town where the groundwater table gets recharged from the creek. As I mentioned we did work with the USGS and Santa Clara Valley Water District when they drilled a test site about the same time we were doing information and we shared in the cost and received the data from that well site so that we didn’t have to go drill our own well. Then the siting, we have chosen the site to minimize the impact to the existing park users and this is again dedicated parklands, and that the Community Garden, library site, the well site that we have identified is along the side of the property. Again, we wouldn’t permanently displace any of the people that are using this land for their gardens. We have some opportunities here that the project may do some improvements along this area for the City in some of the fencing and some of the trees. Another item that we have been requested to possibly do is to remove a stone pine tree that is in the center of this site. There are some reasons that the Arborist wanted us to do that I don’t remember exactly what they were. This is an outline of what the building on the surface here may look like. We tried to depict the outline of the structure. It could be different than that but we tried to show it the best we could. Then the considerations for the garden site, the proximity to the Rinconada well, which is a very high producing well in the city. The construction can be performed without losing the garden plots and it provides an opportunity like I mentioned for us to make some other improvements on the Community Garden site. Other potential sites for wells were the Middlefield Road site that is an old city well site that was a good producer. There are large mature trees along this site, neighbors on three sides of it very close, so there are some challenges with constructing on this site. Normally you don’t want to drill a well near exactly where you had a well and this site has a history of at least two wells we know of being drilled on the property. So we could run into some problems with the production but still it is a site that we can consider if the other preferred sites don’t work out. Then the California Avenue parking lots, the constraints, it is the furthest site from the San Francisquito Creek, the city has had wells near this well in the past and they haven’t really produced as much water as the wells that are near the other sites that we know that it is not as productive. When you drill a well you really don’t know what you are going to find until after you drill through the strata and try to test the production of the well. So we are more confident in the other sites than this site but it is a site we could use. Then there is the other sites the Downtown parking lots and Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 the Heritage Park site and the California Avenue site that are less desirable for us to go than to the preferred sites. Again, if you wanted to participate or if any member of the public wanted to participate you would write to us or send an email to that address that is on the boar& Now we are available for questions about the project or the Final EIR. Ms. Caporgno: I just wanted to also remind the Commission that what we are here for tonight is to ask for your recommendation on the adequacy of the Final EIR as well as your recommendation’on the project alternatives. Chair Holman: Julie, could you clarify that? Is this a recommendation to the Council? I think there is some clarification on that. Ms. Caporgno: This is a recommendation to the Council but it is my understanding from the attorney’s office that this is not a required recommendation from the Planning Commission. We brought it back to you because you had heard the Draft EIR hearing, you had participated in it in November, and we wanted you to be aware of the responses to your comments as well as the public comments, and also the recommendation on the project is not something that is required for the Planning Commission, but since you had participated in the EIR process and it is a land use issue we wanted your recommendation. I believe that the recommendation that will be going to Council is the recommendation from the Utilities Advisory Commission. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: So just to clarify that means we don’t need a vote on this tonight, you are just looking for consensus among us? Ms. Caporgno: We are asking you to make a recommendation and vote it is just that the CMR that will go to Council will not sayPlanning Commission recommendation it will say Utility Advisory Commission recommendation. There will be a portion in the CMR that will discuss this hearing and your deliberation and your recommendations. Commissioner-Sandas: This is probably also a question that is off the topic. I had to play a lot of catch up because I missed the November 29th meeting so forgive me if I am asking things that have already been asked or if it is not okay because this isn’t really an EIR kind of question. I notice that in two places in the Final EIR report that we received in our packet that the City Attorney clarified that the proposed park improvement ordinance does not legally require voter approval but that the City Council may choose to place the issue on a ballot. Bearing in mind that this isn’t an EIR question, I just wonder what is our sense of urgency as a community? Will this potential of putting it on a ballot slow down this process so much that we may be unprepared in an emergency? What do you think? It is sort of a timing question. Once this is approved how long is it going to take to get rolling? Mr. Cwiak: It is one of the issues that the project has hurdles to get over before anything could actually get built. So I am not sure that this one issue is something that is holding the project up. Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Sandas: You said that you are not sure that that? Mr. Cwiak: It is one of many things that have to be accomplished before anything would ever get built. So in and of itself that one issue is not really the stopper at the moment. Chair Holman: If I could, what I would like to do is if Commissioners have clarifying questions for the Staff based on their presentation or anything that has come up as a clarifying issue that we could ask those now. Then we will go to the public, I do have two cards from members of the public, then we will come back have a more in depth discussion of the questions and answers. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Just for the record I would like to clarify that there were several responses to questions that were attributed to me that in fact should be attributed to Chair Holman. They are response numbers R-23, 25, and 26. That is on page 4.R-7. Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a clarifying question regarding one of the illustrations that you have shown. The aerial view ofEi Camino Park with the blue banding around it showing the potential area for where the reservoir might be located. I will make my comment. I think it is an out-of- date photo and the question is does that affect the outline of where that tank can be located? Mr. Cwiak: It is an out-of-date photo and the trumpet part there that used to be the entrance into the Stanford Shopping Center that doesn’t exist now. The blue line that is along that E1 Camino turn lane that used to be there that might extend a few feet more towards E1 Camino than this shows. It doesn’t really materially affect where the reservoir would be placed. Vice-Chair Lippert: The red banding that you have there would come closer to E1 Camino, correct? Then the blue banding could theoretically also project further south, correct? Mr. Cwiak: It could except for the green lines that show the drip lines of the trees. We have been told that we need to stay away from the drip lines of the trees so we tried to show that in that location. The blue line basically follows the drip line of all the trees that are on the site. Vice-Chair Lippert: I guess where the turning lane is located there are no trees there, correct? Mr. Cwiak: No, there are no green lines either. It is an older photograph but it really does not totally change the picture of the park or where we would ultimately want to place the reservoir. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: I just have a question about the access hatch at Eleanor Pardee Park. The hatch extends up above the surface a little bit but I couldn’t quite understand in your Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 conversation if the hatch was going to be covered so it is like a mound or is there going to be some other kind of protective device around it. Mr. Cwiak: Let me get back to that picture. In this area this just tries to show you the outline of the underground structure but there is going to be earth that would be mounded over the top. The only thing left will be the hatch that we will go through. Commissioner Sandas: Okay. That is my question. It is somewhat of an attractive nuisance. So I wonder if people could trip over it or how are we going to prevent something like that from happening? Mr. Cwiak: The final design has not been made and in the final design we were going to try to incorporate that into some type of feature in the park so that it wouldn’t be a nuisance. Commissioner Sandas: Good, thanks. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: With respect to that picture I guess what you are saying is you mentioned earlier that the hatch cover would be above the floodplain and by that I take the implication that this is in a flood hazard zone. Mr. Cwiak: Yes. Commissioner Keller: And given that it is in a flood hazard zone to what extent will FEMA allow us to build this underground in a situation where what is holding back the flood is a column with a hatch on it? Mr. Cwiak: I don’t think - we haven’t approached FEMA to ask about that. We would design this so that the elevation would be above the known flood elevation at this site. Commissioner Keller: Well, being that 1 live in a floodplain I know that I have to build my finished floor above the floodplain. I am sure that the City, which implements those flood regulations for FEMA doesn’t allow me to make my chimney below the flood elevation but that would certainly make it a lot easier for my additions. Also, on page 21 of 27 of this there are remarks attributed to me. I am not sure if this is my error or whatever but I want to clarify it says, that would make 1,500 acre feet 4.89 million gallons of water, it is actually 489 million gallons of water. I don’t have any comments about whether the rest of my data is correct but 1,500 acre-feet is 489 million gallons of water. That matches the data that I got from Google. So I am not sure what happened. I will return to that later when I ask my questions about the ethicacy of the project and exactly what we are trying to do. Thank you. Chair Holman: I have one clarifying question before we go to the public. The figures that you showed, this one being one and then the other one at the library community center, both of this Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 and if you switch to the other one, both of these are described as conceptual well facility structures. Why the difference? Mr. Cwiak: We are trying to show a concept of what the outline of the building on the surface would be at this site. On the other slide we are trying to show a concept of the area that we would be disturbing to construct the underground wells. Chair Holman: Juliel Ms. Caporgno: I think that, and Roger correct me ifI am wrong, this site is showing the well is located above ground or the pump station is located above ground and the other one is located below ground and on properties that are in dedicated parkland the Utilities Department was trying have minimal disruption to the parkland locating them underground. But on other parcels that were not dedicated parkland they were locating them above ground because it is less expensive as far as the construction. Chair Holman: So just to be clear the difference is one is above grade and one is below grade. Mr. Cwiak: All the site on the parkland would be below grade except for any access hatches to the facilities. Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Seeing no other clarifying questions by Commissioners we have two members of the public that would like to speak and you will have five minutes apiece. Enid Pearson is first and then followed by Herb Borock. Ms. Enid Pearson, Palo Alto: Thank you very much and congratulations on our new Planning Commission. I haven’t seen you before that’s great. Well, I have read this thing too and I was very disturbed by the City Attorney’s letter that he chose to put in to tell you that youdidn’t have to go before the voters to get approval of this project. I have to say that it seems to be the trend in this town now that we won’t follow the Park Dedication Ordinance we will do everything we can to avoid going before the voters. The Park Dedication Ordinance the first paragraphs specifically say that if there is any major development or construction or structure put on dedicated parkland that it has to go before the voters. The other paragraph that the attorney keeps citing is that thing that they passed afterwards that said well, if it is minimal or something maybe we can just pass an ordinance. In that case the citizens can referend it. I don’t think that is right. There are several attorneys around town who agree me and are ready to do whatever you have to do. The comment you made was maybe there wasn’t time to go before the voters. There is always time to go before the voters especially when it is a democracy. Democracy is a slow moving instrument and we should go before the voters and do what the voters want us to do and that is obey the laws. The other part of that is that there are so many other things that this project has to get approval of that it certainly would not be a time thing that you would have to worry about because you need to go before the voters. The time thing, you have all these other things you have to do also so you might as well go before the voters. So I guess my wish is that this Page 9 1 Commission will even though you can’t recommend which I think is odd, I think you should 2 recomanend to the Council that if you are going to approve this project and if they are going to 3 approve it that they should make sure that this is approved especially the underground reservoir 4 and the Eleanor Park well that those are approved by the citizens of Palo Alto. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 I had a lot of other stuff here I am not sure I want to bother with. I have a real struggle with Stanford. There are pages and pages of their justification for not being part of this water system and they have their own water they said. Of course according to our charts in this DEIR they are 500 percent over their capacity that they need for an emergency. So they want us to buy a whole system so that we can pay for them so that they don’t have to pay for it and they don’t have to use their water except in those few instances? I find that hard to believe. It seems to me that Stanford should be asked at least by the City Council to be contributing to this project because the main project is to make sure that you protect the two areas one of them being Stanford Industrial Park and the other one being the Stanford Shopping Center. That is what this project is mostly about. So I think Stanford should at least be contributing money and the other part of this as a mitigation on the E1 Camino ballpark they should be saying well, we don’t need to charge you $400,000 a year now because we are going to plant a reservoir there that is going to protect all your buildings. I had another comment about conservation. I can understand when you say you don’t need to think about conservation in this kind of a project because you are looking for water in a drought, you are looking for water when you are going to have some kind of conflagration which may be awful which we certainly hope doesn’t happen. I would hope that some kind of conservation is written into this regarding water because regardless of whether you useit up in a fire or whether you use it up because there is a drought you are going to have to contend.with some way to conserve water because that is going to be the big issue in California before we are through. Thank you very much. Chair Holman: Thank you, Ms. Pearson. Next is Herb Borock. If there is anybody else who would like to speak to this item now is the time to fill out a card. Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you, Chair Holman and good evening Commissioners. I request that you recommend that the Council revise the project description and re-circulate the Draft EIR for review. The California Environmental Quality Act forbids piecemeal review of significant environmental impacts of a project. An accurate, stable, and finite project description is necessary for an informative and legally sufficient Environmental Impact Report. The project description in this project’s EIR fails to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act because the Draft EIR included a menu of four potential sites and no particular location for one of those sites for the construction of a new 2.5 million gallon storage reservoir, associated pump station, and new well instead of identifying a particular location at a specific site for the storage reservoir, associated pump station, and well as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 The project description in this project’s EIR also fails to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act because the Draft EIR included a menu of six potential sites for the construction of two new wells instead of identifying two specific sites for the two wells as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The Draft EIR must be revised by correcting the project description to identify a particular location at a specific site for the new storage reservoir and by identifying two specific sites for the two new wells. The revised Draft EIR with the corrected project description must be re- circulated for review by the public and responsible agencies. In regards to the responses to comments there was a comment letter F from the City Attorney that refers to the Municipal Code instead of the Palo Alto Charter and is incomplete because it omits the fact that the Charter requires that any park improvement ordinance be subject to a referendum petition. Decision-makers need to know that a park improvement ordinance is subject to a referendum petition because their decision may be influenced by the likelihood of whether the park improvement ordinance for the approved project would be the subject of a successful referendum petition. The response to comment F that revises page 5-5 of the EIR that revised text should incorporate the Charter language that all park improvement ordinances are subject to referendum petitions. The revised text on page 5-5 must also reflect the fact that the Charter requires a park improvement ordinance for any substantial construction in dedicated parkland whether the construction is for park purposes or non-park purposes and whether the construction is above ground or below ground. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you very much, Mr. Borock. We do have one more card, Bob Moss. Mr. Bob Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you, Chairman Holman and Commissioners. I was one of the people in the focus group who discussed this project over a period of time so I am quite familiar with it. I think we certainly do need some kind of an emergency storage system but I.think if we put on in we should be very careful to follow all the rules and be sure that there aren’t any potential legal issues. So I think we should have an actual vote to make any modifications not only to E1 Camino Park but also if we are talking about putting wells in Eleanor Pardee Park that also is dedicated parkland and we should have that included even though you can say it is a small structure and it doesn’t really impact the park. Under the Park Dedication Ordinance that still has to be addressed so it still should go on the ballot. Fommately we are going to have an election this November, it is going to be a City election. So putting it on the ballot doesn’t require any delays from the normal procedure and it won’t incur any significant additional cost because we are going to pay the cost for the City Council election anyway. So we may as well do the job right and follow the requirements of our laws and the EIR and a put a request for the public to approve the modifications to the park. One of the things that kind of was touched on but wasn’t really discussed in a lot of depth is if we put this tank under the park depending on precisely where it is and the details of the final design which are not precisely completed yet it may have some impact on park use. Even if you just have a cover a few feet in diameter that people aren’t going to be able to walk on. You should be identifying that in saying that means we will have to do something so people don’t trip Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 when they are going to the park. It is not that it is a deal killer but it makes it nonfunctional. It has to be addressed.. You know it is going to be there you have to talk about it. I also notice that there were several letters from other government agencies complaining about deficiencies in the study in the EIR and of course they all should be addressed and addressed completely so that there are no hanging issues in the future. I don’t think we are faced with a situation where we have a showstopper in terms of the design, construction, or anything else. I do think we should be very careful to follow all the rules, follow all the regulations, and follow all the laws and make sure that there are no possibilities that we overlook something just because we are sloppy and leave some legal issues, which could come back and bite the community later on. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Seeingno other cards from the public we will close the public hearing on this item and come back to Commissioners. Vice-Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question for Staff. Could you clarify for me is E1 Camino Park is that dedicated parkland or lease-land, correct, leased from Stanford? Ms. Caporgno: It is leased from Stanford but it is dedicated parkland. Vice-Chair Lippert: How does that work? Ms. Amy Bartell, Legal Clerk, City Attorney’s Office: I would have to look in the Charter right now to see when it was dedicated but I know it is in our Municipal Code the E1 Camino is dedicated parkland. I am not exactly sure what the date was, it may have been a timing issue where the lease began umpteen years ago and they dedicated it as parkland after the fact. I could look that up I just don’t know it offhand. Vice-Chair Lippert: What happens if the lease expires? Ms. Bartell: I believe the lease will expire in 2033 and at some time before that point the City is going to probably acquire some interest in the land. We are not sure exactly how that is going to occur so that they could continue to keep the reservoir where it is. We are kind of talking about a long-term future possibility so there are a lot of ways the City might acquire an interest in the land. There could be negotiations, there could be another lease, there are a lot of things that would be on the table and I can’t really predict which way they are going to go. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Chair Holman: I would like to follow up on that. That was one of my questions that I had submitted. What happens if Stanford doesn’t renew the lease on this land? The City of Palo Alto is spending a lot of money to put a well site and a reservoir there. It would seem to me that what is going to happen needs to be negotiated now rather than trusting that something in the future could or might happen because if the land reverts back to Stanford use then weno longer have control over it. Personally, I just don’t understand how we can consider this without having Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 that agreement tentatively at least in place. It seems to be wasted effort and kind of betting on the come with a lot of money at stake. So that is my question actually, if you can go any further in depth if you can about what the plan is. Mr. Cwiak: The City will not be building the reservoir on this site unless it has acquired some interest in the property that would allow us to use the property and have the facility there for the life of the facility. Ms. Bartell: IfI may add one follow up to that. I think what the Staff is going for is once Council hopefully approves this on March 5 then a whole bunch of other pieces are going to start rolling and those negotiations and that kind of activity will begin but at this moment they haven’t acquired that interest yet. Chair Holman: I guess the responses to the question don’t indicate that. They just say that the City would procure or acquire the land in some fashion and it doesn’t say how, what method, or that before we go any further. There is no clarification of that and no clear intention. So sorry to be hammering on this but it is a huge issue, I think. Ms. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: This project is a little unusual in that what you are seeing in front of you is the EIR without a specific project. Generally you see a development plan attached to an EIR. Because this is a different type of project what you are seeing is just the EIR. So the first step in this process is to approve the EIR and then once the EIR is approved then you will have the environmental analysis that you or the City Council needs to go forward with other discretionary actions involving acquiring property where there is no current site control. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, follow up? Vice-Chair Lippert: For the sake of brevity I will sort of clarify my question here. Is it possible to make as part of I guess the review and recommendation of this discounting and not considering the Stanford Shopping Center site and the Quarry Road site that the negotiation on the Stanford Medical Center and Stanford Shopping Center expansions be that the E1 Camino site be included as part of those negotiations? Silver Campbell: The question is can you make that recommendation to Council? Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. Ms. Silver: Yes. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, follow up still? Commissioner Keller: Yes, and I understand that Palo Alto High School actually is on land that who’s title is with the school district with a reversion to Stanford University in the event that Palo Alto High School ceases to be a high school located at that facility. Therefore it would seem to me that something along those lines where in the use of-the property would be provided to the City of Palo Alto for the reservoir to the extent that that facility were continued to be used Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 for a reservoir and that it could revert back to Stanford or Stanford could do something else with it to the extent that it were no longer used. So some language like that that wouldn’t require us to renegotiate 30 or 99 or whatever number of years. I kmow Stanford used to give 99-year leases but now they don’t anymore. We want to make sure that the use of the property is such that when the lease comes up sometime in the future that Stanford doesn’t jack up the price dramatically because we are over a barrel so to speak, bad pun. Chair H61man: I will make one last comment about that. I found the language of ’The City will obtain the appropriate interest in the land for the proposed reservoir structure and ancillary facilities, access roads and access hatches and such,’ I guess as a part of this Since those discussions haven’t begun it would seem to me it might be prudent to look at a, and I am not supposing here or presuming either one, that these three are the preferred sites from everybody’s perspective would it not be prudent to look at whatthe fourth in line is so that in case negotiations don’t go forward we don’t have to go back and readdress this again to the various review bodies? Mr. Cwiak: Are you referring just to the reservoir sites here? Chair Holman: Yes, I am talking about E1 Camino. So if that negotiation breaks down or isn’t successful wouldn’t it be prudent to have a fourth site identified so that we don’t have to go back? Mr. Cwiak: There are four. Chair Holman: I shouldn’t say four but this is one of the preferred so something to take its place, something to place its place, next in line I guess is what I should say. Mr. Cwiak: That is why we have included the other three sites for the reservoir in case the E1 Camino site doesn’t work out then we would try to work on one of the other three sites. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, help me with the wording here. I meant like to prioritize them. Commissioner Garber: Has the Staffprioritized the sites in terms of their desirability for this project? Mr. Cwiak: We have identified our number one preferred site, which is E1 Camino Park. Commissioner Garber: Is there a two and three? Mr. Cwiak: All I could really say is the closer we are to E1 Camino Park that is the City’s preference. Commissioner Garber: Thank you, I think. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas I believe you had a question. Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Sandas: I have a couple. One of our speakers from the audience tonight claimed that this EIR fails to qualify for CEQA. Can you speak to that at all please? I would like to get that on the record. Ms. Caporgno: Yes, I believe that the EIR address the project adequately. It addresses the impacts from the location of a reservoir at four sites and wells at six sites. This is done to enable the Council flexibility and options in detelrnining which location they would prefer. The project right now that is addressed in CEQA is a reservoir at four sites and wells at six sites. Then the Council will determine which of those they prefer. So I think that the analysis at all sites provides sufficient information for the Council to assess the environmental impacts from the project alternatives. Commissioner Sandas: I have another question. Ms. Pearson had implied in her comments that the water in the reservoir that would be at E1 Camino Park would be used to protect Stanford’s property. I didn’t get that information when I read both tomes here. I got other information about how the reservoir and the well system works in Palo Alto so that it feeds into our general system. Can you please explain that clearly for the record? Mr. Cwiak: The property that this reservoir would serve is all inside the City of Palo Alto and the City of Palo Alto has the obligation to provide the emergency water service to this area. So it may be property that is owned by Stanford but it is inside the city limits of Palo Alto and Palo Alto has the obligation to provide the emergency water service for them as they do for the rest of the city.. Commissioner Sandas: So that would include College Terrace, it would include South Palo Alto, and it would include West Bayshore Road. Mr. Cwiak: All of the projects taken together allow the City to operate an emergency water supply system. This is one piece of the puzzle that would fall into place if all the projects were built. Then the City would be able to provide the same level of service throughout the city. Commissioner Sandas: Thank you. Then I have one other thing that I just wanted to clarify about a question that I had asked earlier. I would like to speak just for a moment to Ms. Pearson’s gentle admonishment giving me a brief discourse on democracy. With all due and sincere respect to Ms. Pearson, Ms. Pearson’s commitment to our community, our parks, our open space, I love Arastradero Preserve. In recognition that my question was rather clumsy in its delivery I just wanted to clarify that I asked the question about urgency of developing the reservoir and upgrading the current wells and adding wells not to bypass the voters but to recognize that the health and safety of our community rests in the hands of our elected officials. If the need for new wells, reservoirs and the upgrades is urgent that we should act accordingly certainly not to bypass the voters. One of the things that Mr. Moss mentioned tonight that I thought was a light bulb popping off in my head was that if this needs to go to the voters it could go sooner rather than later. So thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, you have a follow up? Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Garber: IfI may follow up on Commissioner Sandas’ initial question of the evening. Is there a deadline that you are working towards in terms of getting this up and operating? Mr. Cwiak: We have no deadline. Our deadline is passed by years so we are still trying to build the project to improve the level of emergency water service that the City provides to the residents. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: In follow up, assuming you went full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, what would be the soonest that you would be able to start construction? Mr. Cwiak: I assume you are talking about the reservoir site. I would say that if everything, all the stars aligned and we go to the voters I would think that we would break construction maybe in two years time. Commissioner Keller: So therefore if you are going to break construction in two years time it seems to me that there is sufficient time to A) go to the voters, and B) to understand all of the details and mitigations of that so we can inform the voters as part of the process of the election exactly what the impacts will be, exactly which thing will be above ground and which thing will be below ground, whether or not we will get approval for use over the reservoir at E1 Camino Park or whether you can have a ball field on there or whether you can just run over the thing or whether you can’t because there was a question about that by somebody in the comments. So I assume that all of those things will be gathered together first and then there will be sufficient time to go to the voters and then be able to get that to come back before construction considering it is about two years. Mr. Cwiak: Yes. The City hasn’t prepared any detailed designs on any of the sites because we don’t have a place that we can really design for. To answer your question about the ball field the plan is if the reservoir was on that site that the top of the reservoir would be at least four feet below the surface so that all the park activities that occur now could continue to occur in the future. Commissioner Keller: Would we need approval from some state agency in order to build a ball field on top of the reservoir? Mr. Cwiak: Yes we would. We would need the Department of Health Services to review the project but a project like this was just built in Mountain View. They built an 8.0 million gallon reservoir under a football field at a school site. Commissioner Keller: So it is possible but you need to go through a formal process of requesting it. Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Cwiak: Yes, they would be part of the design review process and we would meet their requirements on our design. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I have a bunch of different questions or confirmations and I will do my best with them. Questions, not comments. If I am understanding this correctly you have utilized the EIR to essentially address the feasibility of these various sites as opposed to specifying one site and determining its validity or applicability, correct? Ms. Caporgno: Yes, the EIR provides information on the impacts resulting development of the reservoir at any of the four sites and the wells on the six sites. So it enables the decision-makers, in this case the Council, to determine which would be the more feasible from a - or at least it enables them to know all of the impacts for each of those sites in their decision-making to determine which is the appropriate one. Commissioner Garber: You could have created an EIR for each one of the different sites individually. You have put them together? Ms. Caporgno: Basically this is that document. If we had done four separate EIRs and six well EIRs in fact we wouldn’t have had to because some of those individual projects don’t have significant unavoidable impacts, I don’t believe. All of them create noise. We would have had to have ten EIRs prepared. Commissioner Garber: So there is some economy to putting these together. Ms. Caporgno: That is correct and you also get all of the same information. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. If others want to go that’s fine. You had mentioned in E1 Camino there is a bullet that talked about future uses of the park. What was that referring to? Was there some other use other than the use of the park being parkland? Mr. Cwiak: I think that we were conveying that there was no identified use now other than parkland. There is no plan that has been submitted for any other type of development on that property. Commissioner Garber: Okay, thank you. The question about Stanford, just so I can get it clear in my own head, Stanford has their own reservoirs of water that serve their property, granted it is in the City of Palo Alto, that is correct? Mr. Cwiak: No, they have a reservoir to serve the portion that their water utility serves which is on the Stanford campus. Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: So they pump water themselves. They don’t buy water from Palo Alto or they do? Mr. Cwiak: No, they buy water the same as the City from SFPUC. Commissioner Garber: Is that water available to the City in an emergency? Mr. Cwiak: We do have inter-ties with Stanford in this area but the water that they have at the time that they would need it in the same emergency that we would need it in because their supplier is the same it would be hard to be able to share that water across a boundary at that particular moment. Other times when it is just an operational issue then utilities are more inclined to help each other out in those situations. Commissioner Garber: I am forgetting from the first presentation of this project to us you identified the agency which that the City Utility is responding to that identified this requirement that we have to build to, what was that? Mr. Cwiak: That is the Department of Health Services. Commissioner Garber: And their recommendation to the City is based on the requirement not including Stanford it is the just the needs of the City. Mr. Cwiak: Their direction to all the water utilities in the Bay Area was to prepare a plan that could supply your emergency needs for eight hours if your supplier was not able to deliver any water to you. Commissioner Garber: So there is no hidden water source there that we are not taking advantage of?. Mr. Cwiak: No and even though the amount that Stanford has looks like a big number when you look at percentage it only means a couple of hours of water supply if it all came to Palo Alto. Commissioner Garber: Okay, that’s it for the moment. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Yes, this is actually good timing because some of the questions I am going to ask are natural follow-ups to what Commissioner Garber asked. So the requirement is for eighthours of water supply, is that correct? Mr. Cwiak: The Department of Health Services wanted you to supply eight hours at your maximum day demand. If you are going to build the facilities to be able to do that if you only built the facility and you say you use just one reservoir to supply that eight-hour need in the ninth hour you still need water. In Palo Alto we chose this blend of wells and reservoirs so that we could meet that peal( demand for eight hours plus the fire in every pressure zone. We did that with the smallest reservoir and took advantage of all of these existing facilities the City had and Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 tried to come up with a set of project plans that would deliver the eight hour goal but still if the City had a longer emergency than that we would be able to provide that level for an extended period of time. Commissioner Keller: Let me explain my confusion. I understood that in the event of an emergency we would reduce our use and that either the City Manager or the Mayor or somebody with appropriate authority would say don’t use much water we are in a heap of yogurt. So the issue is the eight hours of water supply I understood would last a month or longer or whatever. So what I am trying to understand is is it eight hours of water supply delivered over an eight hour period or is it an eight hour water supply that could be delivered over a month? Mr. Cwiak: You have to design to some criteria. So the design supplies the eight-hour maximum day demand. It will do that. Just by the City building that type of project there are other benefits that come out of it that aren’t there. We had to choose how we could meet that demand for eight hours without putting a huge reservoir in since the groundwater table provides a reservoir of water that we could pump. We don’t have a lot of land to dig up and build reservoirs on so we chose this group of projects to build to meet that eight-hour demand. You also have to remember that in an emergency the same thing that might cause our supplier to be out of water could damage the City’s system severely. There could be breaks in the distribution system. So just using that as a design doesn’t mean that that’s all we are trying to accomplish. There are all of the other things that could occur at the time that you have this emergency and the system could be bleeding severely and crews could be out trying to economize the loss of water while we are still trying to use the emergency facility to keep water in the distribution system to fight fires and to provide water for the people living here. Commissioner Keller: I would like to make a distinction between an emergency. An earthquake is an emergency. It is a disaster. Basically in the event of a disaster what happens is our water supply from Hetch-Hetchy is cutoff, who knows what happens to the pipelines within the City of Palo Alto and the reservoirs or whatever. But it seems to me that is the primary use of the water. So I agree with you in terms of that in the event of an earthquake there is possibility that some of " our underground pipes or supplies within the City of Palo Alto could be ruptured and we could lose water that way. Let me deal first now and I will come back later with other questions, let’s deal with the inconsistency of a bunch of different data that I am confused about. So on this chart, which comes from the presentation on November 29, 2006. It says that currently the City of Palo Alto has 10.5 million gallons, which is. 11 of the amount needed, and what is needed is .33 or one- third of some number, which is the number of maximum demand days supplied, so this .33. So what I am trying to figure out is what is the one? My math says that if 10.5 million gallons is 11 percent of one day’s unit what is one day’s unit? My math says that that’s 95.5 million gallons is one day’s requirement. Is that correct? Mr. Cwiak: If you use your math then you would arrive at that number but that is not the City’s one-day demand. Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Right. That is the other question I have. If you look at the appendix there is a nice chart on Table 1 of Appendix B of the FEIR documents. It says that maximum day demand is 32.18 million gallons. IfI take 10.5 million gallons and divide it into 32.18 million gallons I get 32.6 percent, which is pretty darn close to .33 so I am confused. Could you help me out? Mr. Cwiak: We also have to meet the fire flow in every pressure zone. Could I ask our consultant to try to go into more detail with you on this? I would like to introduce Dave Kraska from Carollo Engineers and he could probably cover in detail your concerns about the numbers. Chair Holman: Thank you. Mr. Dave Kraska, Carollo Engineers, P.C., Walnut Creek: Good evening. That is the point I was going to make that Roger just made. The math you presented is accurate but it doesn’t take into account the fire component that we have stored in each one of these separate pressure zones. We try to cover some of that in this memo that we put back in Appendix B about how much that fire component is in each one of these pressure zones. What the design intent is is to have a fire storage in each pressure zone given the fact that the design of the City system is very well networked in the lower areas, what we call pressure areas one, two and three, as soon as you go west of Foothill Expressway there is essentially one main pipeline that connects all of the remaining supplies. That pipeline could be fairly fragile during say an earthquake event. So we felt it important during the design and the analysis of all these numbers that we keep fire storage in each one of the higher elevation zones. So taking that water out and keeping it in storage then that leaves a certain component that we can bring down from the hills to help meet the demands in pressure area two. Then when you work through those numbers and the demands in pressure area two that water is quickly gone in pressure area two leaving no additional supply for pressure areas one and three. So that is kind of a long explanation but really it is the fire component that needs to be accounted for which is how we end up with this. 11 maximum days when. the DHS is recommending, not requiring but recommending, .33 maximum days. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So in regard to that what we are winding up is you have multiple requirements and you are looking at the lowest supply for a requirement. That is where you get the .11 about. In the 1,500 acre-feet if you could help me with some number I have there. 1,500 acre-feet according to Google, which knows math better than I do. Actually I did the calculation on my calculator to figure out what an acre-foot is compared to gallons. I actually did it on here and it actually matched the number here more or less. It is 488 million gallons. So 1,500 acre-feet is 488 million gallons. Is that reasonable? Is that about the ballpark? Mr. Kraska: It sounds about right. Commissioner Keller: Okay, good. We are pumping at a maximum of 11,000 gallons per minute? Mr. Kraska: Yes. Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: So I basically did the math on that without using Google but using my calculator and that comes out to 44, 434 minutes which when you divide that into so many hours and so many minutes it winds up to be 30.85 days or about a month. So if we basically pump continuously this 489 million gallons that we are maximum allowed that would be 31 days. So the idea is it is not that this 2.5 million gallons would supply the.,water for any length of time but that is essentially peak water so that when there is a fire you can pump 11,000 gallons per minute but the 2.5 million gallons can be pumped more quickly because it is available so primarily I assume for fire suppression. Is that reasonable? Mr. Kraska: Correct. Commissioner Keller: So from that point of view the 31 days with lower usage could be stretched out for several mot~ths which hopefully would be enough time for the Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir pipeline to be repaired or hopefully it will be strengthened before then. It seems to me that that’s what the equation is. It is not that so many gallons available in storage is going to work for us that reservoir is primarily for fire suppression and the pumps are primarily for usage in the event that we don’t have any other water supply or that and the gallons are providing fire suppression. Mr. Kraska: That is a very good way of putting it. Commissioner Keller: ’So if we think about .... Chair Holman: So what you are determining is the accuracy and adequacy of the proposed project. Commissioner Keller: Well, I think that the thing that I am trying to understand is that in some sense we are reality providing a lot more water than would be indicated by .33 days. It seems to me that we are actually providing a lot closer to the amount of water that we would need to use for a several month period that it takes to repair the Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir. But because of funny DHS calculations it looks a lot smaller than it actually is, is that reasonable? Mr. Kraska: That is correct. It has to do with the challenge of water system planning versus real events. With water system planning we have to pick a set of design criteria, crunch the numbers, and come up with an answer. With a real event such as Roger Cwiak alluded to like broken pipelines, ruptured reservoir or main, or so on the demand could be significantly higher even given the best efforts to control or conserve water during an emergency. So still to design something, to pick a number, to have a goal the DHS recommended this eight hours of maximum day demand with the fire protection preserved as well. It is using those criteria that we came up with this balance of reservoirs, the buckets of water to put the fires out, and the wells because it is available to the City to sustain longer demands. There are a lot of benefits to providing both solutions. Commissioner Keller: Great, thank you. I will return later on to the issue of the 1,500 acre feet and the issue of when to use that in the meanwhile I will let somebody else talk. Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber you have a follow up. Commissioner Garber: is it fair to say that the requirement that was made of the City for this eight hours not only presented the City with some challenges to meet that but also in so doing created several opportunities to address other deficiencies within the system that it is looking to ’ take care of with this project? Mr. Kraska: Yes. Commissioner Garber: Although we are not to address cost on a relative value if you were to say half the size of the reservoir would I also be halving the cost? Mr. Kraska: No. Commissioner Garber: So on a relative basis how much money would I save? Mr. Kraska: I would say maybe 25 percent if you cut the reservoir it may be 20 to 25 percent less than the total construction cost. Commissioner Garber: Just because we are playing around here if it were half the size that it is now would we still meet the requirement for eight hours but without the other beneficial effects of the projects? Mr. Kraska: Not with the design criteria as we have it stated. Given that the Insurance Service Office has stated needed fire flows for each of the different pressure areas of the City something would have to give. We wouldn’t either meet a needed fire flow in area three or area one or area two, something would have to give in the numbers the way we have approached this project. Commissioner Garber: So again, on a relative basis the way that the project is currently planned how much over-designed is it to meet the initial eight hours? Mr. Kraska: It is debatable. I would say the only thing about this project that is debatable is whether you really want to preserve the fire flow storage in each pressure zone. Commissioner Garber: Which may be best practice but .... Mr. Kraska: It is theoretically possible to say we are only going to prepare for one fire and we are going store that water in pick a reservoir, and basically forget about the other zones and other needs. In our opinion it wouldn’t be prudent given the design of this system and the fragility of it we felt the most prudent approach would be to provide storage in each one of the pressure zones and that is the recommendation that we made back in 1999. Commissioner Garber: Again, I will just come back to it. If we were only to meet the objective of the eight hours and nothing else how much more does the current on a relative basis how much more has been designed into it? Ten percent? Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Kraska: In meeting the DHS recommendation I would say none. The Department of Health Services leaves it up to the utility to figure out how it is going to meet all of these needs. So if you change that criteria and again go back to saying we are only going to provide for one fire then perhaps you could say well, maybe we don’t need a new reservoir. That would be a change in the criteria. Hopefully I am answering your question. Commissioner Garber: Kind of, thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, I think you had a follow up. Vice-Chair Lippert: Can you tell me what the fire flow actually looks at? Does it look at if we have a Loma Prieta type earthquake again or a 1906 type earthquake? Mr. Kraska: The Insurance Services Office looks at a number of things including the location of fire departments, the readiness of their abilities, and also the distribution system, and the construction of buildings that are in the area, also the number of hydrants in the area, the pressure and flow. To arrive at a number say for pressure area three the number is 5,000 gallons a minute. For that criteria they look at the size of the structure, the proximity to other structures, the construction materials and such to come up with a number that they think in their recommendation 5,000 gallons a minute should be enough to put out a fire quickly enough and preserve the system. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. In doing the analysis of the fire flow did it look at buildings that are prone to seismic failure within Palo Alto? Mr. Kraska: I would have to state that I am not an expert in how the Insurance Services Office (ISO) goes about analyzing that but my estimation is that they do not look at the structural stability and given a certain earthquake event the building would be damaged or would remain standing or would not be damaged. Vice-Chair Lippert: The nexus I guess of my line of questioning, which I guess I would have to defer to the City Attorney’s Office, is would that fire flow in that number looked at in this report be predicated on real numbers of at risk structures within the City rather than insurance estimates. Ms. Silver: I will actually defer to Utilities, which came up with the criteria for that. Mr. Cwiak: I am not an expert on how ISO rates it but they do rate it on the type of construction, the height of the buildings, and their proximity to each other, and then utilities’ ability to deliver water to fight the fire. They also include in their rating they rate the fire department itself and like Dave said, how far they have to travel, what they can respond to, the condition of all their equipment, and then they rate that for all the people that pay fire insurance in the city. So if we don’t try to meet those criteria then people pay higher premiums. Any property owner would pay more for their fire insurance if the City didn’t try to meet this. The fire insurance gives us the tlow that we want to meet but the Department of Health Services is the one that made the recommendation for us to try to meet the eight-hour criteria. Page. 23 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 There is another part of that from them is that they are trying to improve their operations so that you can supply water to your customers if we were cutoff from our supplier. So you have to remember that component in here also. It is not just us tryirig to meet the eight hours. We have chosen to try to meet the eight hours by a combination of wells and reservoirs. If we go build a 30 million gallon reservoir to meet just our eight-hour demand and a pump station we are having a huge difficult time siting a 2.5 million gallon reservoir. If you really look at the numbers I think the original number in the study was 2.43 and we rounded that number to 2.5 million gallons. There is .07 gallon overage based on the basic numbers that were in the 1999 study. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you had a follow up to that? Commissioner Keller: Yes. If you are suggesting that our fire insurance rates will go down when this built that is an interesting thing to tell the voters. The 1906 earthquake in San Francisco the major damage I understand was not from the buildings falling down from the earthquake, although some of that happened, it was from fire. It seems to me that the largest likely source of fire is the natural gas supply and the possibility that our water heaters which are mostly fired by natural gas, I would assume most people have natural gas powered water heaters, that those would topple over and rupture the pipe causing a flow of natural gas and that might ignite in some way from something going on there. It seems to me that that’s the most likely cause. So what I am wondering is, and you might not know the answer to this, what is the City of Palo Alto Utility’s plan for dealing with the gas supply so as not to add fuel to the fire in the event of an emergency. Sorry for another pun. Chair Holman: I think that would be outside the scope of this discussion. It is an interesting question but I think it is not related to the well and reservoir question. Commissioner Keller: It is related to the issue that Vice-Chair Lippert mentioned in terms of the fires that would result. So the issue of if you stop the feeding of gas that stops the potential for fires continuing to breakout. Chair Holman: So I guess the clarifying question would be to Staff is then if there was a presumption of how much fire would be potentially created that would have to be put out there is a formula that is just used generally speaking? Mr. Cwiak: For the types of buildings in pressure area three it was detelanined that the needed fire flow for that area is 5,000 gallons a minute. Chair Holman: Based on? Mr. Cwiak: On the types of buildings, how close they are, the type of distribution system, the ability of the City to fight a fire, the type of equipment the City has at its fire stations, the response time for the crews to get there. They use all of that to come up with design criteria that they think you should have for what you have built. Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Thank you that is helpful. Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I just want to clarify. I think it might be a moot point here because in the event of a major earthquake where we did have a fire or large fire the Fire Department would be overwhelmed and could not possibly put out all the fires. If you take a look at the 1906 San Francisco earthquake or even Loma Prieta and what happened in the marina. So the fire flow would still be restricted by the amount that the Fire Department could handle in terms of fire. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas you have been waiting for a long time. Commissioner Sandas: Actually, I don’t know ifI dare ask another question. I just wanted to ask a question relative to the letter that we received today from Bill Phillips. I am sorry I saw him leave about ten or 15 minutes ago and I was hoping to ask this question while he was still here. In his letter he indicates very clearly that Stanford is very willing to work with the City of Palo Alto on putting the reservoir in E1 Camino Park. The underlying message tome is that there is not really a meeting of minds as to where that might be placed in E1 Camino Park. I realize that this s very premature that we are early on in the process. I am wondering and this is back to do we have a second priority in case we don’t get to ’yes’ on where it is that the reservoir would be place in the park or under the park. Mr. Cwiak: We have included the other three reservoir sites and the preference is E1 Camino Park. The further away from there I would say that the two Stanford Shopping Center sites would probably be second and third but I can’t really put a number on those. Because the Town & Country site is so far from where we need the water it is probably the fourth site that we would want to go to. Commissioner Sandas: Great. Okay, I know, I heard you we are beating a dead horse. I guess I was looking for more of an answer about the negotiation process more or less if anybody had a sense of that at this point. Mr. Cwiak: No. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Just three more things and I apologize for having to ask Counsel again you have already answered this once but just so I have it. Creating the EIR with multiple sites is a legal option? Ms. Bartell: There are a couple of ways to do it. One way is to do all the sites equally the way it was done here and that is a legal option. Commissioner Garber: Okay. Chair Holman had asked the question about the above grade and below grade structures, the pump houses. If I understand correctly there is an alternative you can either put them above grade or below grade on any of the sites that you have defined, you were just using that particular site as an example of it. Is that correct? Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 ~6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr, Cwiak: All of the parkland sites we showed the structures underground, below grade, and because of the expense of doing that we have shown the Community Gardens site as an above ground structure. It costs a lot more to build everything underground. Commissioner Garber: Finally, two questions around the same topic. What is the overall duration of the project again approximately in any of these particular places? Mr. Cwiak: Probably a five-year construction period for the reservoir, the new wells, the rehabilitation of the existing wells, and the rebuild of the Mayfield pump station. Commissioner Garber: But in any one of the parklands how long, five years is the beginning and end of the project, but how long would the l~ark actually be disturbed and unusable for the portion that is being constructed? Mr. Cwiak: On the E1 Camino Park a good estimate would be from eight to 12 months. Commissioner Garber: Okay. So the second part of this question is you have identified a whole series of different criteria that you have been looking at to make your evaluation. Is there a key criteria, the one that you had mentioned in discussion earlier this evening was its closeness to the sort of E1 Camino and Quarry Road location, that is where you would like to be and that is the primary criteria that is driving your recommendation? Mr. Cwiak: We need to provide emergency water service to the entire city. We looked at all of the existing City facilities and came up with a symphony of projects that we thought we could best meet that need. In order to do that if we build a reservoir close to our pressure zone three then we can use the stored water that we have in other parts of the city and rebuild the Mayfield pump station and pump most of that water to South Palo Alto. Commissioner Garber: I understand you have a preference for the sites, which are close to E1 Camino and Quarry Road. Mr. Cwiak: Yes, we have looked at and it is the most economical area to try to provide that. If we move away from that area and try to construct a reservoir further away we still have the need for the water at that location so we have to build larger pump station and more pipe to maintain to deliver the water to that area. Commissioner Garber: So had identified in that location we have E1 Camino Park and we also have the site that is on Quarry Road and we also have the site that is in the parking lot of Stanford mall, is that right? .. Mr. Cwiak: Yes. Commissioner Garber: The reservoir would go into E1 Camino but then your other two sites are needed at Quarry Road and these are for the well, right? If the reservoir is at E1 Camino .... Mr. Cwiak: Wherever we build the reservoir we hope to place a well on the same site. Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Forgive me, wasn’t there more than one well that you are going to dig or just the single? Mr. Cwiak: We hope to build three new wells. Commissioner Garber: Okay, so the other two would be on the other two sites that you mentioned? Mr. Cwiak: Yes. Commissioner Garber: Which are not the Quarry Road or the Stanford. Mr. Cwiak: True. We would only place one well with the reservoir and then the other two sites would be either at .... Commissioner Garber: Further away. Mr. Cwiak: Yes. Commissioner Garber: So why wouldn’t you prefer to have the wells at those other two sites that are close to E1 Camino and Quarry Road? Mr. Cwiak: Because those wells are going to be used throughout the distribution system to meet the emergency water supply for other areas of the city. Commissioner Garber: I see, thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas, did you have another question? Commissioner Sandas: I have forgotten. Chair Holman: I am going to ask one in here then. It is a clarification of something you said earlier and I apologize if I misunderstood it. We were talking about Stanford having reservoirs and perhaps an excess. I have read different reports on that. You said that it might be difficult to use their water anyway or get delivery of that water across a boundary. I think is the word you used, given that the source is the same. What about Mountain View or Menlo Park? There are probably a lot of jurisdictions out there that get their water from the same source so wouldn’t we have the same problem across a boundary or not if we are all getting the water from the same place? Mr. Cwiak: Yes, that is why the DHS recommendation that you had to do this as a standalone system so that you don’t rely on your neighbors that you actually provide this level of service within your own service territory. As far as inter-ties the City does have inter-ties with Stanford in that pressure zone and we are exploring other inter-ties. We have two with Mountain View now and we are looking at possibly a third inter-tie with them and constructing two inter-ties Page 27 1 with [Parisima Hills] Water District on Arastradero Road. But still all of these people have 2 water that comes from Hetch-Hetchy except Mountain View they get some water from Santa 3 Clara Valley Water District also. So those inter-ties are something that help both utilities operate 4 or if we need a supply because of some accident on our system but at a time when nobody has a 5 supply of water they are all going to be looking out for their own interests and their own 6 residents. So it is a hard thing to get an agreement to be able to share that water when there is no 7 supply. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: Yes, this isn’t a clarifying question. I understand what you are saying that the water comes from one place and if it is cutoff we are all cutoff. So we all need to take care of ourselves and that is what the recommendation from the Department of Health Services is all about. Just to clarify a couple of things also that I just think I heard correctly and I want to make sure. E1 Camino Park and Eleanor Park are both dedicated parklands therefore in order to maintain them as park and not take away from the park use we want to put the wells and the reservoir underground and that is the most expensive option but it is one that we would prefer to do as a community so that we can still maintain use of the parks. The second part to that is that the reason that there was depicted an above ground pump station at the Community Garden is that it is .not dedicated parkland and that is the less expensive alternative and you recommend that because it is not necessary to dig it underground. Mr. Cwiak: Yes to both parts. Commissioner Sandas: Thank you. Then one other thing just to clarify. The recommendation on page one, you recommend that we recommend to the City Council to construct the 2.5 million gallon reservoir that would be what you are proposing to locate under E1 Camino Park, to construct up to three new wells one of the new wells is at E1 Camino Park, the other two would be at Eleanor Park and the Community Garden behind the library, and then to upgrade the existing Mayfield pump station and then rehabilitate five wells. So I hope that clarifies what Commissioner Garber was asking because I wasn’t sure that he got the answer. So is that correct? Mr. Cwiak: Yes, Commissioner Sandas: Thank you. Chair Holman: I want to ask a question. Both Staff Reports state that the project would upgrade up to five existing groundwater wells. They both state that and I am kind of curious why it says ’up to.’ I am assuming it is a financial matter but don’t want to absolutely presume that. Mr. Cwiak: It is actually a volumetric problem. If we construct the three new wells first and they produce over 1,000 gallons a minute while they are in production and say they were 2,000 gallons a minute then we could probably eliminate rehabilitating some of the worse existing Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 wells. We want to build new wells first because when we go to take apart this equipment that is 50 or 60 years old we don’t want to be without any emergency water supply at all. So we hope to build new wells first, if they have a higher volume than we expect out of them as far as production then we can eliminate some of the existing wells from the system. Chair Holman: A follow up to that. You answered part of it because I was going to say why not just do the old ones first? I understand that you said earlier that you don’t always want to drill beside where you have an old well, there can be problems to that but if you have well sites that you are thinking of rehabilitating what about doing the well right beside that one instead of disturbing other lands? Mr. Cwiak: Rehabilitating the well won’t necessarily mean re-drilling the well on that site. When we pull the equipment out the hole in the ground and look at if there are ways that we can go in there and maintain the casing and do things to it that would allow us to continue to use the same hole and then put new pumps and equipment down in those same locations that is the plan of how we want to approach this. If we run into problems and there are real problems down in the hole and we don’t think that we will be able to rebuild that existing well site then we will probably be back again in the future to find another well site. Chair Holman: Thank you for the clarification. So asked another way why not drill one well and then go in and rehabilitate another well and then see if you need to do the new wells? That way it seems like you could determine what kind of flow you are going to have with at least less expense. Mr. Cwiak: The wells that we currently have are a certain diameter. The new wells that we are going to put in are going to be a larger diameter hole which will allow more water to come into the well casing. That is how we think that we would have a higher production from the newer wells. It is the physics of actually pumping the water out of the ground and the size and the design of the well that actually would be built new rather than using a 60 or 70 year old well casing,that is encrusted, that has other underground problems than trying - what you would normally do is go in there and if there are parts of the casing that are collapsing you would try to put a liner in there and it might force you to seal off parts of the aquifer that is contributing now just try to save the site. So it is the same as doing something with an old piece of equipment you are just going to try to do the best you can to make it perform the best that you could but it will never be like a new one. Chair Holman: Understand, and pardon me for being stubborn on this and trying to understand the points of it, but if they are going to rehabilitate these wells anyway potentially wouldn’t you still come across the same difficulties or what am I not understanding if you are going to rehabilitate the existing wells? Mr. Cwiak: Rehabilitating is going to be using the same hole that was drilled and the casing that is there. The new wells will be a larger casing so you will have more surface area that would contribute to the flow from the well that you could pump. Page 29 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Chair Holman: I got that. While that is more efficient and you get more flow what we are 2 looking at is not necessarily the most efficient well site but having enough water. So I guess my 3 point is if you could drill one new well and then rehabilitate one of the existing wells even 4 though it might not be as efficient because it is a smaller casing if it still provides enough water at a lesser cost. Mr. Cwiak: Right now the plan is for the three new wells and all of the existing wells just meet what the goal of the project is of the 11,000 gallons a minute. That is what we think we can do. If we get out and we build the new wells and we actually get more flow from them then we will not do some of the rehabilitation on the existing wells. We don’t think that we can rehabilitate the existing wells to come up to the 11,000 gallons a minute. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Before I get to my own questions let me follow up to Commissioner Garber’s question. Is the reason that you want to put the reservoir near the intersection of E1 Camino Real and Quarry Road because the trunk water supply to pressure area three goes down Quarry Road as indicated in Figure 5.2 of the original EIR? That looks like what is going on for me. So you want to be as close as possible to that trunk line, does that make sense? Mr. Cwiak: Yes. Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. The second thing is with regard to Eleanor Pardee Park. I am concerned about the floodplain there and the inability to build a below grade pump station in the park because of the floodplain. I don’t think it is sufficient to simply have the entryway to that be above flood elevation. I am not sure that will fly. So in the event that Eleanor Pardee Park either requires an above grade pump station where the base of the entry of pump station is above what is called base flood elevation would you still want to build at Eleanor Pardee Park or would you prefer an alternative site, and if so, do you have a preference? Mr. Cwiak: If we can’t end up on Eleanor Pardee Park the next preference is the Middlefield well site. Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. Let me go into my questions that I want to get to on my own which is the question that I alluded to earlier regarding use during drought. If you go to the EIR itself onpage 3.5-20 there is a statement here that says, data from the 1988 pumping provides a good example from which to appraise groundwater extraction concepts under the proposed project. In 1988 1,500 acre-feet was extracted with limited impact. Utilizing the data from the 1988 pumping the extraction of 1,000 acre feet from the Palo Alto area will result in a basin-wide water level decline in the order of 15 feet. Historical experience suggests that the basin will recover to pre-pumping levels within a couple of years. It is expected that the water level would decline to 25 feet if the City were to extract 1,500 acre feet in either an extreme emergency or drought year scenario. Then it cites Carollo 2003. So this means to me that we have 25 feet of water table level subsidence from pumping that there are several years, a couple of years, I am going to assume a couple of years is two or three, it will take a couple of years for it to recover 1,000 acre feet assuming it is linear. I am not a hydrology engineer but if it were Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 linear that would mean that it would take 50 percent longer or on the order of three to five years for the water to recover the level from 1,500 acre feet pumping. Therefore the notion of mitigation measures, emergency demand pumpage shall be limited to 1,500 acre feet in one year seems to be insufficient and it seems to me that the data should be 1,500 acre feet in five years. So I am wondering what your response to that analysis of your data from the report. Mr. Cwiak: The elevations that you used in there, the 25 foot drop, historically when the City operated its well system it pumped the groundwater table down to approximately elevation 100 which is about 120 feet of drop that we experienced when the City used the groundwater table as a water supply. So the 25 foot drop in one year that is in there is not an event that would cause subsidence of the ground in Palo Alto because we are not going to be pumping down to the levels that historically the City removed from and then there was subsidence in those layers of earth because of the overbearing weight of that earth in crushing the pores in the soil. So you mentioned subsidence in your question but I think you were talking about the groundwater table elevation going down. Commissioner Keller: Yes, I was specifically referring to groundwater level elevation. I do understand that from groundwater pumping during the agricultural era that parts of the City of San Jose dropped by about 40 feet in elevation, at least that is what I have read. I am not sure that data matches anything else but that is what I understand. So in the of the subsidence factor the issue is that if it goes down in one year by 1,500 acre feet, and 1,500 acre feet means it goes down by 25 feet, and considering that droughts tend to last several years you might want to pump down for several years 1,500 acre feet to supplement our water supply and that would get you down if my math matches in five years 100 feet. I am wondering whether that is the case or perhaps the Carollo Engineer is shaking his head. Maybe you want to respond to that. Mr. Kraska: Let me try. What Roger was alluding to is historically meaning back in the 1950s and 1960s when the City’s primary water supply was its groundwater wells. The groundwater table was about 120 feet lower than it is today and in some cases even more. For subsidence to occur you need to pump down to historic levels and maintain it there. That is to basically remove all of the water out of the pore spaces and allow all the clay particles to align and flatten out and then subsidence occurs. So what we are talking about, a 25-foot reduction, is just an increment of that. It is a percentage of the 125-foot historic levels. So that is one point. In terms of the volume one of the challenges that we had in analyzing this particular case is the lack of real hard numbers, data and models. Santa Clara Valley Water District does have a model of the groundwater basin in the county however in many respects it is poorly calibrated in the Palo Alto area. Palo Alto is at the very most northern most portion of the model. To our understanding it does not or has not in the past accounted for San Francisquito Creek potential ¯ recharge of the groundwater basin and so there is not a lot of information that we can gain from that. However, we looked at historical numbers and back in the last drought of the late 1980s when about 1,500 acre-feet was pumped the regional basin dropped by about 25 feet. It is not a linear situation though. Additional pumping- it tapers off it is not a straight-line decline. Page 31 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 In the report that we did back in 2003 we talked about two events. One is a one-time event and 2 then you allow the basin to recharge and then.we also talked a year-to-year pumping as well. So 3 in the case that it was evaluated in the EIR it was a one-time event 1,500 acre feet, we anticipate 4 it is going to be this much decline in the groundwater table level and we don’t anticipate impacts 5 from that. In a year-to-year pumping we changed that number, I am going from memory, but I 6 believe that number is 500 acre-feet per year. So a year-to-year extraction is less than that and 7 again that is to maintain a relatively high groundwater basin level in comparison to historic 8 levels. So we would recommend a different number if it is going to be a year-to-year extraction 9 but a one-time event we feel it is very safe to pump 1,500 acre feet from the City’sgroundwater basin. Commissioner Keller: So in the event of an earthquake 1,500 acre-feet is a reasonable thing to do. In the event of a drought you would recommend a considerably smaller number? Mr. Kraska: In the event of a drought the City has to manage its water supplies. If SFPUC recommends or requires a set reduction in allocation essentially to the City and if it is a one-year event 1,500 acre-feet can be pumped. If it were going to be year-to-year extraction yes, we would recommend a lower number. Commissioner Keller: Well, I am not a weather person, I don’t predict the weather but I don’t know how many people can predict how long a drought will last. If you could know that that would be pretty good. Let me think of a hypothetical scenario. Suppose what happens with a drought, and I understand is it true that most water use is in the summer? Mr. Kraska: Yes. Commissioner Keller: Okay, so we have a drought that happens and so you are supplementing your water in the summer because that is when you would want to use more water presumably and you have done your pumping. Based on doing your pumping of a certain amount of water an earthquake happens like the last one did in October. You have basically exhausted your pumping allocation for the year and now you don’t have any water available for the earthquake emergency for which I think you really want to build it. So does it really make sense to be pumping water that should be reserved in my opinion for an earthquake when you are using it to supply your ordinary usage in a drought? Mr. Kraska: It is a City policy decision at that point as far as how do you want to manage your water supplies and what is reasonable. You could say in a drought everyone should conserve. Should we really be keeping the lawns green and so on? So you should see a tapering off of demand throughout the year. So 1,500 acre-feet, maybe you don’t need that in a drought situation. I don’t know if I am answering your question. Chair Holman: IfI might, I think that while it is not a part of this there was a comment from the public too and I would trust that the City would implement as they have in the past conservation methods so that we wouldn’t find ourselves in that kind of a situation. Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 I think I have a couple more questions. Once drilling begins at.a well site how long would you anticipate it taking? Mr. Kraska: In a short case, everything goes well, about a week. The drilling could be started and stopped within about a week. In many cases the drilling equipment fails or there are other problems that occur it could take up to three weeks. Chair Holman: Okay. I asked this question and it was deferred saying it wasn’t a part of this but it does actually influence and the City Attorney might cormnent on this. It seems to me there are direct environmental consequences and indirect environmental consequences. So I asked the question about the costs of the project and also the Utility Fund would be paying rent. So if the Utility Fund was paying rent is that no matter where it is located? Say it was located at Eleanor Pardee Park are they paying rent to Stanford or are they paying rent to Palo Alto because we have control of the land? If one of these sites ends up being Stanford Shopping Center as a second or even first priority is the Utility Fund paying money to Stanford? The reason I ask that is because where that money gets paid there could be environmental impacts because if the City doesn’t have money in its own budget being paid by the utilities fund it could mean that we don’t have money for purchase of new parkland to serve new population and expanding population or maintain the parkland that we have. So while it may not be direct it is an indirect I think environmental impact so can Staff respond to that? Ms. Caporgno: I think at this point that would be very speculative because we wouldn’t know, I mean you are assuming something could occur but we don’t know if it would occur and where it would occur. So I don’t know how we would be able to address it in the context of an environmental analysis. Chair Holman: I guess maybe the basic question would be the Utility Fund pays rent for land that it uses so is it the same whether it is on City-owned land or not on City-owned land? That is the basic question. Mr. Cwiak: The Utility Fund would pay rent for any property- the City would acquire the interest in the property and then the City General Fund would rent the site to the utility. Chair Holman: So that would be true if it was on Stanford Shopping Center too, you would acquire the land? Mr. Cwiak: Yes, if the City acquired an interest in the property then the City would lease that site to the utility. Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. The last question that I have is back to the Park Dedication Ordinance and requiring a vote of the public. I don’t know who was here then I think maybe Julie might be the only one. When there was discussion a few years ago about there being a reservoir at Heritage Park I remember Council Members and attorney’s at that time said that that would require a vote of the public to do that. So I guess what has changed? Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Bartell: I wasn’t here back then either but I can speak to what the Charter and Municipal Code say now. As far as what has changed I am not entirely clear. There are two things going on in the Charter. One is that it says that any land that is dedicated for a park if you are going to sell it or dispose of it or abandon it you need to put that to a vote of the people. The other piece of this is that if you are going to do any substantial building or construction in a dedicated park the City Council would have to pass an ordinance about that. There are two different things going on. The vote of the people is required for the first piece, the selling, abandoning, that kind of thing and the park improvement ordinances in this case we are preparing five because if you count up all the preferred site including the reservoir and the upgrades to the existing wells any of those pieces that are going to happen on dedicated parkland we are going to submit a Park Improvement Ordinance for Council to approve on March 5. As far as it going to the whole project as a whole going to a ballot measure that is up to the Council to decide if they are going to do that. Chair Holman: No, not a ballot measure you mean just for the project. Ms. Campbell: Right, for the project because the Park Improvement Ordinance wouldn’t actually go on the ballot that is a Council action to approve the Park Improvement Ordinance. Chair Holman: There is some aspect of land or some bit of land though no matter where that wouldn’t be usable as parkland anymore so wouldn’t that be a change of use? It would be in some way a disposition of that land as park use. Ms. Campbell: Are you talking maybe about like the access hatch at one of the parks? I think it showed on one of the diagrams a small hatch that would be above ground so technically that is not going to be a grassy park anymore. I think Roger mentioned earlier that one of the design elements is going to be to when you get this thing done to take those features like the access hatch and incorporate that into the park. I have heard discussions about malting that into a park bench or incorporating it somehow so that you can still use it as part of the park. Chair Hohnan: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a follow up on that. On E1 Camino Park there is a water vault located on that site right at the corner of I believe it is Palo Alto Avenue and E1 Camino Real. Did that require a vote of the people or was there an ordinance written for that? Mr. Cwiak: On that particular site I think Stanford granted an easement to the SFPUC to construct a turnout for a city for the projects that were built on Sand Hill Road. Vice-Chair Lippert: And that is dedicated parkland, correct? So what was the process that was followed for that? Did it require a vote of the City Council? Mr. Cwiak: No. Vice-Chair Lippert: Did it require an ordinance? Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Cwiak: Excuse me. It did go to the Council and I think that it went through the Planning Department and then it went to the City Council. It has been a long time but I believe I remember it did go to the Council. I am not sure if there was an ordinance for that or not I just can’t remember. Vice-Chair Lippert: Just one last follow up on that. The surface of that, there are some protrusions that do come up at that point. Would that be about the look and profile that we are talking about with regard to the underground pump house that would be visible say at the potential well area location? Mr. Cwiak: Because that facility is SFPUC’s that is their design and that is probably larger than what we would have on our access hatches. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you had another question? Commissioner Keller: I had a follow up to that. Is the purpose of a Park Improvement Ordinance to improve parks like build benches or swings or bathrooms or stuff like that? Ms. Campbell: That is how it has been used in the past. I have been looking at some other Park Improvement Ordinances that have been passed. They did one for a park bench in one spot. I think they did one out at the Baylands when they did some upgrades and renovations there. It is also just the language of the Charter itself just says substantial building or construction or reconstruction or development so that really could encompass all kinds of different uses. Commissioner Keller: So you are suggesting that building a structure on a park that is not of any conceivable benefit to the park other than perhaps supplying a little emergency water to water the ground is a reasonable subject for a Park Improvement Ordinance? Ms. Campbell: If you are going to build a structure on dedicated parkland and you are going to call that a substantial building or construction project then you need to do a Park Improvement Ordinance. Commissioner Keller: I think that if you are building a structure on a park for the purposes and benefit of the park and for which the users of the building are users of the park sure it makes sense to me to use thaf for a Park Improvement Ordinance but if you are going to create a structure that is a benefit tothe utilities and not directly a benefit to the park I am wondering could you explain just because it is a structure whether it is reasonable to think about that as a park improvement even if it is a structure as opposed to would it be reasonable to think of that as saying that you are dedicating a use of that land whether underground or whatever which is not a park use but as part of the parkland? Ms. Campbell: I think if you are underground we are definitely out of the purview of the Park Improvement Ordinance because you are not really affecting anything on the park itself. So if you are talking about other structures like a parking garage or something on the park that has Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 nothing to do with the park use. I think we might just be having a language issue but no matter what you are going to put on there if it is a substantial building you are going to have to do a Park Improvement Ordinance whether the name of the Park Improvement Ordinance maybe should have been called something else I can’t really say. Commissioner Keller: Perhaps you can make the distinction clearly about what requires a Park Improvement Ordinance and what requires a vote of the public because I am confused. Ms. Campbell: Okay. Well what requires a vote of the public is if you are going to take that park and stop using it as a park. If you are going to sell that to somebody else, if you are going to say this is no longer a park and now we are going to put up a parking garage then you are going to need to put that to a vote of the people as required by Article 8 of the Charter. If you are just going to do something that is going to put a structure up on the park or do some construction project or maybe you want to put a water main through the park and you have to dig a trench in order to do that and it really has nothing to do with playing baseball but you need to run this pipe through the park and you are going to dig up the park for a few weeks in order to do it then you do a Park Improvement Ordinance. That would go to Council but probably wouldn’t go to a vote of the people. Does that make sense? Commissioner Keller: So let’s suppose at Eleanor Pardee Park because of FEMA regulations you couldn’t put the pump station underground and had to put it above ground would that require a vote of the people? Ms. Campbell: I would think so if you are going to put a big huge building on top that is going to be some land that would have been disposed of and you can’t use it as a park anymore. Commissioner Keller: So it is effectively rededication of that land to utility use rather than park use. Ms. Ciampbell: I would think so, yes. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: This is just a follow up and it is a hypothetical situation again following up on Commissioner Keller’s line of questioning. Stanford Medical Center put in a huge I think five level underground parking structure right down the middle of Pasture Drive. If we were to build a parking structure underground at E1 Camino Park and it was underground would we require an ordinance for that or would that require a vote of the people? Ms. Campbell: It is going to take some time to put a huge parking garage underground so I think that would be considered substantial construction so you would want to do a Park Improvement Ordinance for that. If it was completely underground and after it was done the park was still a park and people could use it the same way I don’t think you Would need to put it to a vote of the people. When things get close like that that is when we would probably leave it to Council to decide if they want to put it on the ballot. Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, I think that clarifies it. Chair Holman: So we are probably ready for a motion. Commissioner Keller. Are there any comments before we go to a motion? Okay. Commissioner Keller. MOTION Commissioner Keller: Yes, I move that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council 1) certify the Environmental Impact Report, 2) approve the project with the four bullet items stated in the Staff Report of February 14, 3) approve the Staff recommendations of the preferred sites with the proviso that particular consideration should be paid to whether underground at Eleanor Pardee Park is allowed under FEMA regulations, 4) that no use of the system be made for drought and that the water be reserved for true emergencies such as earthquakes or a break in the water supply for the City of Palo Alto such as for example during construction of the Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir pipeline. Chair Holman: If you would just state your motion first. Commissioner Keller: Sure. And 5) that any extended use of the parkland for non-park purposes including an extended period of time of constructing a reservoir be put forth to a vote of the public. Chair Holman: Do I hear a second? Hearing no second would somebody else take a crack at it?. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Just before I do let me clarify the five points that Commissioner Keller has itemized. Number one was the certification or is the correct word ’adequacy’ of the report, whichever word that is. The second one is to approve or recommend the three sites that Staff has put forward as the site of the reservoir and the three wells. Three was what? Commissioner Keller: Number three was approve the Staff recommendations but in particular ensure that the Eleanor Pardee Park is approved in an underground configuration only if that is permitted by FEMA. MOTION Commissioner Garber: All right. So I will move those first three items that we recommend the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report, that we forward the recommendation of Staff for the three sites as defined in the report, and three that we recommend our preference for the underground well housing in Eleanor Pardee Park if that is allowed by FEMA. SECOND Vice-Chair Lippert: I will second that. Chair Holman: Would you care to speak to your motion? Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Yes. It has taken a little while to understand the project. As I understand it there are two primary reasons that form the Staff’s recommendation. One is its understanding of the agency’s recommendation for the eight hours and how to meet that initial eight hours. The second piece is recognizing the constraints that the City has to meet that objective or meet that recommendation. Those constraints include the antiquated system that it has to deliver water to the various areas in the city, it includes underserved pressure zones if I am understanding that correctly, it includes certain areas in the city which have greater access to reliable water than other, and it includes limited areas to place the reservoir.of such a size. Although it has taken a little while to understand it I think that the report does go through each one of these issues and does address the reasons why the three sites are preferred and the various impacts to the community that would result if any of those sites were actually chosen by the Council. For those reasons I have made the motion. I believe that it is important for Council to recognize that there are opportunities for the system in its current configuration or its current planned or proposed configuration to do more or less especially around the issue of drought. I think that how it is used is a separate question from the adequacy of the report this evening. I also believe that there are certain legal and Charter issues that deal with how this recommendation goes forward and gets executed which the Council should consider. In particular, whether the issue is one that needs to be brought to public referendum or not. It is the Commission’s desire that if there is any question that the public be brought into the process. If it is determined that it is not an issue then the project should simply go forward. I think that is the end of my comments for the moment. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, would you care to speak to your second? Vice-Chair Lippert: I think that Commissioner Garber has covered all the points adequately. I would like to ask for a friendly amendment however. That consideration of the E1 Camino Park site be that the site be tied to the negotiations for the expanded Stanford Shopping Center or the Medical Center Facility. Commissioner Garber: If Commissioner Lippert will forgive me I think I would not accept that as an amendment but as comments. If there are synergies as we spoke about in our November meeting I would certainly those synergies to be taken advantage of although my reading of the responses to the questions from November it appeared as though the projects were on separate timetables and there wouldn’t be able to be a synergy there. Staff is welcome to chime in on that. Ms. Caporgno: Given what the Utilities Department has said I believe that the Stanford Shopping Center and Medical Center project is probably two or three years out and they are anxious to go forward. So there probably would be the possibility of linldng the two is probably going to delay the utility’s project. Page 38 1 Vice-Chair Lippert: I will accept it as a comment. I would like to comment on the comment, 2 however. I believe that in doing so what this would do is settle the disposition of the land. In 3 other words, it would make available to the City perhaps as part of this negotiation either the 4 land granted or sold to the City. It also deals with the issue of once the reservoir facility is built 5 Stanford can’t just sort of terminate the lease at some point in the future and take possession of 6 what would be our City improvement. So I look at that as being a key element but I will accept 7 that as a comment. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I appreciate the comment and the concern. My understanding from our discussions this evening is that that is a legal prerequisite to having a project in any case. I also wouldn’t want to tie Staff’s hands or put forth a recommendation that would tie the Staff’s hand and keep them from some flexibility as to how that negotiation is entered into as well as what the possible solution could be. The sorts of things that were discussed this evening were everything from purchase to some language that Commissioner Lippert had suggested to the trading of lands, etc. I suspect the solution set to get to that is probably fairly wide and until the conversation is enjoined you are not going to know what the actual solution is going to be so long as we all agree on what the objective is and that it is a legal prerequisite. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you had comments? Commissioner Keller: Yes. I understand that the reason that you did not accept Commissioner Lippert’s amendment was because you felt it would be most appropriate as a comment and not with respect to actually making a formal motion that would tie Staff’s hands. I notice that you made comments with respect to that in regard to a vote of the public and I accept that. I am wondering the best strategy for dealing with the use of the system for drought purposes. I believe that the Environmental Impact Report is certainly adequate for its purposes with respect to the issues of emergency use for an earthquake, which happens infrequently. I am concerned about the treatment of the Environmental Impact Report with respect to the situation of a multi- year drought and I am not convinced that that aspect is adequately dealt with in the report. So I am wondering how to handle that confusion so perhaps you can respond. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, you had a response? Commissioner Garber: I think this is an important topic and it is one that was actually raised in November, which is what is the project. Initially the drought was presented to us as a project objective and the question at that time was is that the real objective? Isn’t there something more important which is this eight hours. My concern here is the projects are finite things and they can only respond to known criteria. A drought is a very dynamic thing. I don’t think that I am comfortable with my knowledge and/or expertise to define that the system should or should not be used. I suspect and I would hope that there are people out there smarter than I that should that circumstance occur where the City has to struggle with a short term, long term, or very long term drought that it would evaluate any and all the resources it has on hand and would have to make an assessment of risk relative to fire, earthquake, and then drought. That again I don’t think we can do that now. It can only be done either in the context of another plan that is looking at Page 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 drought in a much more global way than just what this does for that or as it occurs in time at some point. Does that make any sense? I am trying to put some thoughts together here. Chair Holman: I think Commissioner Sandas has some comments. Commissioner Sandas: I don’t think I am actually bailing you out but do concur. I don’t presume to know what a coming drought might bring for our community. Having lived in Palo Alto during the last drought the City managed to put mitigating factors into place that dissuaded people from overusing water. I think that is something that would have to be taken into account at the time of another drought. I would hate to tie our hands and say that we are not able to use water for a drought when you have to consider that if everybody’s yards dry out the city becomes a tinderbox. So there is a middle ground there that I don’t think we should be putting too many restrictions on how the water is used because one, I don’t like to put the restrictions, but two I don’t think that is our bailiwick either. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I don’t think a drought is a factor here in that whether we have a drought or we don’t have a drought we still have an emergency need. If we don’t build the facility then comes that emergency we will not have this reservoir. Just finally, I also believe that during drought, drought is a water management issue not one of our overall need and it can be addressed simply by doing a number of things. I believe during the last drought the water usage rate went up when you went beyond a certain number of units. Again, in terms of water rationing that might occur and there might even be citations issued for people that go over their allotment. Chair Holman: Now the water rates go up even if you don’t use more water. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Well, I am in full agreement with the concept that the facilities proposed _ are needed for earthquake. I want to register my strongly held position that if you use these facilities in any significant way for a drought that they might not be available for the potential eventuality of an earthquake. So I think that the EIR covered drought as one of its considerations and covered earthquake as one of its considerations and it did not adequately consider the combination of a drought followed by an earthquake. Our former Mayor Kleinberg refers to her nightmare scenario of a flood happening and then while we are dealing with the flood an earthquake occurs. That is what she has t, alked about publicly as the notion of multiple emergencies happening at once. I think that the potential for an earthquake occurring in the year of a drought is quite a likely scenario considering with climate change droughts are more likely to occur in the future than have to date. I would guess that about one-third of the years are drought years where there is shortage of water. So I think that the issue is that my strong recommendation that this facility not be used for drought.. It has not been studied for a drought and earthquake together. Chair Holman: Comment accepted. Commissioner Lippert, do you have any more comments? I just a couple I guess. This is a tough one I think for a few reasons. I am glad that in your comments you included the portion about the Park Dedication Ordinance and the clarification on Page 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 that. I think there is going to be disagreement about this and I don’t think I would be going out on a limb to forecast that. So I would suggest that the City be very, very clear about what is a change of use or disruption of use or a non-dedicated purpose for parkland. So that is a big concern about this. I think while it is something I referenced earlier about direct and indirect environmental impacts I think that suggests maybe some different locations that weren’t explored for the location of a reservoir. I appreciate absolutely that you looked at the best sites. There are some constraints to where you possibly could put it but where the Utility Fund pays money is money that isn’t coming into the General Fund that could have, like I say, environmental impacts. So that is a concern of mine. The City, I believe, needs to be clearer in whatever goes to Council, needs to be much clearer on what the intention is about the negotiation and the plan for securing the E1 Camino Park site if that is what is recommended and probably it will be. I guess my last comment would be about the Middlefield Road site that I am actually rather favoring, I am not going to push for it but, I am actually rather favoring the Middlefield Road site unless you would accept it as a friendly amendment, I am actually favoring the Middlefield Road site over the Eleanor Pardee site. The reasons are a few but I will hit just a couple. The Middlefield Road site is City-owned. It is not dedicated parkland. It is near residential, agreed, but if the construction project is only one to three weeks surely I who live fairly near there could tolerate that. I don’t live next to it but I could tolerate that for a short period of time especially for a week. So we don’t run up against the issues of park dedication and such. Then the Utility Fund would be paying to the City. The reason I am less enthusiastic about the Eleanor Pardee site is because it is dedicated parkland but also because of something that hasn’t come up this evening and something I hope will come up in the near future is when the zero waste plan goes to the City Council there is as a part of that the desire to have a location for a I can’t remember if it is called a demonstration garden but a garden that demonstrates what can be done from compost that is collected from recycling of residential green matter.. There is land there that that could be used for and it would be pretty much where this well site is being proposed. So those are the reasons I really would prefer the Middlefield site to the Eleanor Pardee site. I am not going to push for it but I do want to get that into comments. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I would just be curious if the other Commissioners had any other comments about the Middlefield site one way or the other. Commissioner Keller: I think that the main benefit that I see of the Middlefield site is I have a great deal of skepticism as to whether you can build an underground facility in a flood zone at the Eleanor Pardee site and failing that you will have to build an over-ground facility which my understanding from our Counsel is that the above ground would require a vote of the public and would remove dedicated parkland is my understanding of what you said. So I think that there is a benefit to using the Middlefield site over the Eleanor Pardee site for that reason. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Page 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Does Staff have any issues with that site as an alternative? I should say a first alternative as opposed to a second alternative. Mr. Cwiak: The Middlefield Road site is a site that there are probably some constructability problems because of the other wells that were drilled on that site. Although we know that it had been a site that produced a good amount of water. So it is a site that we could try to build on. Chair Holman: Perhaps you might accept a friendly amendment to try to put it as a first alternate. Commissioner Garber: I would be happy to do that. Vice-Chair Lippert: I will accept that. Chair Holman: Then if I might clarify your motion. The Staff is requesting that we recommend certification of the FEIR and approve the construction of the reservoir and the three well sites. You said the three sites so I am presuming that includes the reservoir. Then it is also asking for approval to upgrade the existing Mayfield site and to rehabilitate up to five existing well sites and I didn’t hear those as part of the motion. Could I clarify that that was your intention? Commissioner Garber: Yes, thank you, I apologize for the omission. Chair Holman: Is that clarification okay with the seconder? Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Just before we go to the motion I would be curious if any of the other Commissioners would be interested in offering a friendly amendment. There was talk about Commissioner Keller’s concern here in potentially the following manner. I think the issue here the way that I would understand it is an operational one of how this facility is to be used and under what purposes. So that is a question that is outside of the scope of our inquiry this evening but it certainly can go forward as a recommendation and/or a preference to Council. Chair Holman: I think it might be adequate and Staff could please chime in, I think it might be adequate that it has been a significant part of our discussion and that probably would be adequate to get Council’s attention. Then clarification if you would on how this is going. You said the recommendation is going to Council from the Utilities Advisory Commission, so in what form will our motion; minutes, and comments go to Council? Ms. Caporgno: I don’t think that your verbatim minutes will be going to Council but I will check on that. What we were intending to do is summarize your deliberations this evening in addition to your recommendations. So we can summarize this discussion that just took place right now. Page 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Chair Holman: That seems to be the wish of the Commission? Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I am wondering if I can suggest a clarification or a slight rewording? That clarification is that we talked about the Eleanor Pardee well site being used and being built underground if it is compatible with FEMA. I am wondering if the motion should be that we only build at the Eleanor Pardee Park site if the facility is underground and approved by FEMA otherwise we go to the alternative site of Middlefield and that we not build at Eleanor Pardee site if it is over-ground. I think that might be a critical clarification. Chair Holman: That would basically get to my concern, yes. Commissioner Garber: That is fine, I accept that clarification. Chair Holman: So you accept it as a friendly amendment actually. Commissioner Garber: Yes. Chair Holman: Seconder? Vice-Chair Lippert: I will accept that. Chair Holman: Do you have a comment? Vice-Chair Lippert: My comment is simply that if verbatim minutes from our deliberations are not going folavard to Council then my comment on the E1 Camino Real site as part of the negotiations of the Stanford Shopping Center expansion and the Medical Center could in fact be lost. Chair Holman: Can Staff make sure that that’s included? Ms. Caporgno: We will make sure that that’s included. MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Burt and Tuma conflicted) Chair Holman: Thank you very much. So given that I think we are ready for a vote on the motion. So I will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? None. So that motion passes on a five to zero vote with Commissioners Burt and Tuma conflicted. Thank you very much. We will close that item. Thank you for bearing with us through a lengthy deliberation. Page 43 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT D ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO EL CAMINO PARK The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that: (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 therefor. (b)E1 Camino Park is dedicated to park purposes. (c)The City intends to authorize construction of a new 2.5 million gallon (MG) water storage reservoir and associated pump station in E1 Camino Park, and new well, as shown on the E1 Camino Park Reservoir and Well Development Area, the E1 Camino Park Typical Reservoir Construction Layout and the E1 Camino Park Reservoir, Pump Station, and Well Construction Plan (collectively "Plans") attached as Exhibits "A-l", "A-2" and "A-3" including, without limitation, the following: Construction of a new below-grade 2.5 million gallon water storage reservoir. (2)Construction of a new pump station, including a new well, which will replace the existing Lytton Station. The structure will consist of an above- and below- -grade structure which will house the production well facilities and equipment. The above-ground portion of the main structure would be of a similar size as the existing structure, approximately 26 feet by 44 feet wide, and 17 to 25 feet high, (3)Installation of underground piping connecting the underground reservoir to the pump station, turnout, and well facility. (4)Installation of underground piping connecting the reservoir to the existing water distribution and storm water systems. (5)Installation of an access hatch, approximately 50 square feet in area, on top of the reservoir and buried below ground level such that it does not occupy any playing field. 070223 syn 6050091 NOT YET APPROVED (6)Clearing of vegetation and trimming of existing trees in accordance with City policies and as necessary to provide equipment access for construction. (d) The improvements at E1 Camino Park will not alter the existing location and square footage of the existing athletic fields. Upon completion of construction, existing park uses, including the baseball and soccer fields, will be restored and improved with new facilities. (e) The improvements will avoid existing protected trees located along the perimeter of the park and will be either contained within existing structures and fences or buried below- grade, causing no reduction in park area. (f) The improvements described above and as more specifically described on the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-I", "A-2" and "A-3" are consistent with park and conservation purposes. (g) The Council desires to approve the projects described above and as more specifically described on the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-I", "A-2" and "A-3". SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for replacement and construction of improvements in E1 Camino Park and hereby adopts the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-I", "A-2", and "A-3" as part of the official plan for the construction of improvements in E1 Camino Park. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the projects to construct new facilities at E1 Camino Park are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) A Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project was prepared and circulated on November 8, 2006, and a Final Environmental Impact Report for this project was prepared and circulated On February 8, 2007. // // // // // // // // 070223 syn 6050091 2 SECTION 4. date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney NOT YET APPROVED This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Community Services Director of Administrative Services 070223 syn 6050091 ~0~o r- \ © n-.Oo Exhibit A-3 EL CAMINO PARK RESERVOIR, PUMP STATION, AND WELL CONSTRUCTION PLAN The proposed Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project is intended to correct the deficiency in the City’s emergency water supply, when compared to the standards recommended by the Department of Health Services (DHS). Implementation of the proposed project includes the construction of a new 2.5 million gallon water storage reservoir and associated 11.5 million gallon per day pump station, a new well, and pipelines (connecting the reservoir facility to the City’s distribution system) at E1 Camino Park. The proposed project design is preliminary and the final project facility design would incorporate input from the public (including property owner and neighbors) received throughout the project planning and environmental review process. The final project design would be subject to review by the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board to ensure that project design is consistent with that of the surrounding community. El Camino Park Reservoir and Well Introduction E1 Camino Park is situated between E1 Camino Real, a major thoroughfare, Alma Street, and University Avenue. The E1 Camino Park reservoir site is on land leased from Stanford University, with the CalTrain Station and University Avenue to the south. The northwestern portion of the park consists of soccer playfields and unimproved land, while the southeastern portion contains a parking lot and baseball field. Lytton Station is located in the northeastern portion of the park within a fenced area. The entire park is contained within a chain link fence and further screened by large, mature tress along E1 Camino Real and Alma Street. Exhibit A-1 identifies the potential development area at E1 Camino Park. The new reservoir and well facilities could be sited in most locations of the park. A potential reservoir configuration is shown conceptually in Exhibit A-2. The proposed footprint of the reservoir is approximately 152 feet in diameter, at an excavation depth of approximately 32 feet (to maintain the bottom of the reservoir above the groundwater table per DHS requirements). The below grade reservoir would not be visible, with the exception of the associated pump station and access hatch structure. The project siting would avoid existing mature trees located along the perimeter of the park and the northern end of the park to the extent feasible. The project would include removal and replacement of the existing Lytton Station with a new above/below ground pump station. The majority of the new pump station structure would be below grade, with the above grade portion of the pump station structure constructed within the existing Lytton Station fenceline. Below ground pipelines connecting the reservoir facility with the pump station would be required. In addition, underground 070227 syn 6050102 pipelines would connect the reservoir and pump station facilities to the City’s existing water distribution system. Pipeline connections could be located within the alignment of Alma Street. Construction of the reservoir, pump station and well facilities, at E1 Camino Park, would not require permanent closure of the park to public use and no loss of parklands would occur, as the ancillary features (approximately 50 square feet) would be blended into the park features. The post- construction facility area would be approximately 0.03 acre and would be located within the existing Lytton Station fenceline. Under the proposed project, a new 2.5 million gallon reservoir and pump station, and new well facilities would be constructed at E1 Camino Park to provide for emergency water supply as one component of the City’s Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. Proposed Reservoir Construction Activities The construction area required for the proposed reservoir, pump station and well facilities is approximately 4 acres. The project siting would avoid areas with identified sensitive resources to the extent possible. The site would accommodate all of the proposed structures including the 2.5 million gallon reservoir, associated pump station, well facilities, pipelines, access, and staging areas required during construction activities. Construction activities include: Site Clearing and Grading Reservoir and well construction activities would require initial site clearing and grading of up to four acres. Clearing of vegetation and trimming of existing trees would be conducted in accordance with City policies and as necessary for construction activities. New Reservoir and Associated Facilities Following site clearing, excavation of soils for installation of the reservoir would occur. Excavated soil would be stockpiled in an adjacent staging area for use as backfill material, and the remaining excavated soils would be off hauled for disposal. Vertical shoring would be installed to provide support for the reservoir excavation walls during construction. A dewatering operation would be implemented to remove groundwater during construction activities. Following excavation activities, a highly reinforced, concrete floor would be installed. Wall forms would be curved to the radius of the tank and concrete poured into the wall forms. A concrete, tw0-way fiat slab roof would be cast in place. The contractor would then prestress the tank and apply a coat of grout using a strand wrapping machine. The reservoir would be backfilled, with approximately three feet of soil cover over the top of the structure. Reservoir Pump Station The pump station would house the well facilities, pumps, flow meters, hoist, valves, piping, standby generator, and a fuel storage tank. The pump station would consist of an above and below grade structure. The above ground footprint of the structure would be approximately 26 foot by 44 foot, with a below ground structure footprint of approximately 44 foot by 64 foot. The exterior height would be approximately 17 to 25 feet high. The actual configuration would depend on the architectural treatments required to blend the proposed structure with the surrounding area. The facility would include access hatches, stairwells, and ventilation. The above grade structure 070227 syn 6050102 2 would be surrounded by an 8 foot high black, steel chain link fencing, with a locked entrance gate. Construction would involve excavation of the pump station area, installation of shoring materials, pouring concrete for the pump station structure (including forming, reinforcing, concrete placement and curing), and construction of above ground elements. In addition, activities include installation of pumps and motors, electrical/instrumentation, standby generator and fuel storage tank, chloramines system components, appurtenances, access stairwell and ventilation. Chloramine system components include: prefabricated storage tanks, ammonia and chlorine gas detection features, pressure relief valves with a scrubber tank to prevent discharge of ammonia and chlorine gasses, metering pumps, secondary containment to prevent any leaks (e.g. concrete containment berms), instrumentation, and controls. Well Construction The production well facilities (including pump, valves and piping, and electrical equipment) would be accommodated within the pump station structure. Well construction activities include: Drilling - The production well borehole (approximately 28 inches) would be drilled using rotary drilling methods, followed by well construction, well development, and pump testing. The 24-hour well drilling would require portable flood lighting for nighttime construction activities. Installation - Following well drilling, the well casing and well screen would be installed. A sorted gravel envelope would be placed around the screen to prevent sediment from entering with the water during pumping operations. A conductor casing would be installed to a depth of around 100 feet below ground surface, to provide a concrete seal, in accordance with DHS requirements for potable water wells. Pump Testing - Following the installation of the well, a pumping test would be conducted. The test would consist of a step test lasting 8-hours, followed by a 24-hour constant rate test. The step test would be conducted to establish the performance of the well (e.g. production capacity) and to provide the required information to design the pump station facilities. A 24-hour constant rate test would be performed to develop the well and to establish the production capacity. Well Facilities and Connections - Upon establishment of a-the production well, the engineer would complete design of the well facilities including sizing the pumps, and designing the well enclosure. Connection to Existing Stormwater System. - New piping would be constructed connecting the well to the existing storm drain system. Reservoir Access Hatch and Vent Structure One 50 square foot reservoir access hatch and vent would be located on top of the reservoir. Project design would construct the access hatch to either be buried or blend in with the existing USES. 070227 syn 6050102 Reservoir Pipelines New pipelines would be installed connecting the reservoir facilities to the City’s existing water distribution system, as well as to connect the reservoir to the pump station. Reservoir pipelines would be approximately 18-inches in diameter. Pipeline installation activities would generally occur within public right-of-way and existing roadways, and could require temporary closure of one-lane of traffic. The City would retain a 20 foot wide permanent pipeline access easement along the pipeline route. The length of pipeline needed, and the proposed construction method (either open cut trenching or trenchless technology) would vary, based on the location of the reservoir within E1 Camino Park. Pipeline construction would include: cleating and grading the fight-of-way; trenching and hauling of excess spoils; relocation of utilities, if required; delivery and installation of the pipe; backfilling of the trench; filling and flushing, hydrostatic and disinfection/bacterial testing (24 hours minimum); and restoration of the right-of-way. Lighting - Lighting at site would be dependent on the security requirements, and public input. If external lighting is required, motion sensor lighting would be installed. Site Restoration - Following completion of well construction activities, construction work areas and staging areas would be regraded, contoured, and restored to conditions and uses similar to conditions prior to construction activities, or improved with new facilities accounting for local community input. Power - Power would primarily be supplied to the well pump station via an electrical line off of an existing transformer. Access - Access to the reservoir and pump station site would be via existing roads. It is not anticipated that new access routes would be required. Construction Schedule Reservoir, pump station, well and pipeline construction activities would require approximately 24 months to complete. The overall project (including preliminary design, design and construction) would last for approximately 49 months. Construction, with the exception of the 24-hour drilling/well testing, would likely occur during weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Twenty- four-hour construction for the proposed reservoir, pump station and pipeline is not anticipated, but would be required for installation of the well. Anticipated Results The anticipated benefits of this rehabilitation include: oio The ability to meet the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project’s objective to provide a supplemental water supply during "emergency" conditions through providing 11,000 gallons 070227 syn 6050102 4 per minute (gpm) of reliable well capacity and 2.5 million gallons of water storage for emergency use in Pressure Areas 1, 2 and 3. Construction of facilities E1 Camino Park support this objective by: Providing for 2.5 million gallons of water storage for emergency use in Pressure Areas 1 and 3. Providing for a new high production well (approximately 1,000 gpm). Producing chloraminated water that is compatible with the water in the distribution system. 070227 syn 6050102 5 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT E ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO ELEANOR PARDEE PARK The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that: (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 therefor. (b)Eleanor Pardee Park is dedicated to park purposes. (c)The City intends to authorize construction of certain improvement projects within Eleanor Pardee Park as shown on the Eleanor Pardee Park Well Site Map, Eleanor Pardee Park Well Site Conceptual Well Facility Structure, Conceptual Profile of a Below-Grade Well Facility, and Eleanor Pardee Park New Well Construction Plan (collectively "Plans") attached as Exhibits "A-I", "A-2", "A-3" and "A-4" including, without limitation, the following: (1)Construction of a new well in the northwest area of the park. (2)Construction of an access hatch and vent structure that extends through the existing ground surface to the below grade well house structure. (4) Reconfiguration of the existing ground surface surrounding the access hatch such that the top of the hatch will be flush with the surrounding ground surface. Cleating of vegetation and trimming of existing trees in accordance with City policies and as necessary to provide equipment access for construction. (5) (6) Removal of an existing Modesto Ash tree that is in poor condition and presents a safety hazard. Regrading of the existing ground surface surrounding the access hatch such that the ground slopes gently to the existing grade. 070222 syn 6050094 NOT YET APPROVED (7) (8) Construction of below-grade well facilities including the well housing, a production well, chloramines system components, architectural, landscaping and soundproofing treatments, and lighting. Connection to the existing distribution and storm water systems, or both, if feasible, via extension of an underground pipe from the well to the public right-of-way beneath the existing sidewalk. (d) The improvements at Eleanor Pardee Park will be located in the northwest area of the park away from the demonstration gardens. (e) Areas disturbed by construction would be restored to conditions and uses similar to those prior to construction, with the exception of the above ground structures. (f) The project improvements will avoid protected trees and other sensitive resources to the extent possible. (g) The new well facility will be designed such to minimize its impact on recreational uses and the access hatch and vent will be designed to incorporate a feature the compliments existing park uses. (h) The projects described above and as more specifically described on the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-I", "A-2", "A-3" and "A-4" are consistent with park and conservation purposes. (i) The Council desires to approve the projects described above and as more specifically described on the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-I", "A-2", "A-3", and "A-4". SECTION2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for replacement and construction of improvements in Eleanor Pardee Park and hereby adopts the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-1 ", "A-2", "A-3", and "A-4" as part of the official plan for the construction of improvements in Eleanor Pardee Park. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the projects to construct new facilities at Eleanor Pardee Park are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) A Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project was prepared and circulated on November 8, 2006, and a Final Environmental Impact Report for this project was prepared and circulated on February 8, 2007. // // // // 070222 syn 6050094 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Community Services Director of Administrative Services 070222 syn 6050094 pa207f7-6542.ai Exhibit A-1 ELEANOR PARDEE PARK WELL SITE CITY OF PALO ALTO Proposed Above Ground Access Hatch with ventilation (approximately 7 feet x 7 feet) Exhibit A-3 CONCEPTUAL PROFILE OF A BELOW GRADE WELL FACILITY CITY OF PALO ALTO pa207f9-6542.ai Exhibit A=4 ELEANOR PARDEE PARK NEW WELL CONSTRUCTION PLAN The proposed Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project (Project) is intended to correct the deficiency in the City’s emergency water supply, when compared to the standards recommended by the Department of Health Services (DHS). Implementation of the proposed project includes the construction of a new well at Eleanor Pardee Park. The proposed project design is preliminary and the final project facility design would incorporate input from the public (including property owner and neighbors) received throughout the project planning and environmental review process. The final project design would be subject to review by the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board to ensure that project design is consistent with that of the surrounding community. Eleanor Pardee Park Well Introduction Eleanor Pardee Park, located on Center Drive, consists of demonstration gardens surrounded by areas of open space, the September 11 Memorial Gardens, playgrounds and picnic facilities. Eleanor Pardee Park is a 9.6-acre neighborhood park surrounded by single family residences. The proposed well would be located below-grade in the northeast area of the park, away from the existing demonstration gardens. Exhibit A-1 identifies the potential development area. Under the proposed project, a new well would be constructed at Eleanor Pardee Park to provide for emergency water supply as one component of the City’s Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. Proposed Well Construction Activities New Well Construction The construction area required for the proposed well site is approximately 100 feet by 100 feet. The project siting would avoid areas with identified sensitive resources to the extent possible. The well site would accommodate the proposed structure (well house containing the pump, valves and piping, electrical equipment), pipeline connections and access, and staging areas required during construction activities. Construction activities include: Site Grading - Well construction activities would require initial site clearing and grading of approximately 10,000 square feet (100’ x 100’). The ground surface elevation would be graded such that the top of the access hatch for the below grade well structure above the 100 year flood elevation. In addition the existing ground 070227 syn 6050103 surface would be regraded such that the ground slopes gently to the existing grade. This grading feature is consistent with other features already in existence at the park. Tree Removal - An existing Modesto Ash, that is in poor condition, would be removed as it presents a safety hazard according to the City arborist (Dave Dockter). Drilling - The production well borehole (approximately 28 inches) would be drilled using rotary drilling methods, followed by well construction, well development, and pump testing. The 24-hour well drilling would require portable flood lighting for night time construction activities. Installation - Following well drilling, the well casing and well screen would be installed. A sorted gravel envelope would be placed around the screen to prevent sediment from entering with the water during pumping operations. A conductor casing would be installed to a depth of around 100 feet below ground surface, to provide a concrete seal, in accordance with DHS requirements for potable water wells. Pump Testing - Following the installation of the well, a pumping test would be conducted. The test would consist of a step test lasting 8-hours, followed by a 24-hour constant rate test. The step test would be conducted to establish the performance of the well (e.g. production capacity) and to provide the required information to design the pump station facilities. A 24-hour constant rate test would be performed to develop the well and to establish the production capacity. Well Facilities and Connections - Upon establishment of a proposed well, the engineer would complete design of the well facilities including sizing the pumps, designing the well enclosure, and connection to the distribution and storm drain systems. Well House - For Eleanor Pardee Park, a below ground structure, with above grade features of less than 50 square feet, is proposed. The foundation, walls, and roof deck would be constructed of poured in place concrete. The structure would house the production well (including valves and piping), pumping .facilities (including pump and motor), electrical/instrumentation as well as the chloramine system components. Construction activities for the below ground structure include excavation and shoring for the below grade features, construction of poured in place elements (including forming, reinforcing, concrete placement and curing), and construction of above ground elements including the access hatch and vent structure. The below ground facilities at Eleanor Pardee Park would be approximately 58 feet by 42 feet in plan, with above grade features of less than 50 square feet in plan. The above grade features, including at grade access hatches and ventilation, would be designed to blend in to the park setting and preserve public access to the parklands (Exhibit A-2). Exhibit A-3 shows a conceptual cross section of the proposed well facility. Chloramine Facility - System components include: prefabricated storage tanks, ammonia and chlorine gas detection features, pressure relief valves with a scrubber tank to prevent discharge of ammonia and chlorine gasses, metering pumps, secondary 070227syn 6050103 2 containment to prevent any leaks (e.g. concrete containment berms), instrumentation, and controls. Connection to Distribution System and Storm water System. - New 12 inch piping would be installed below ground from the new groundwater well to the existing distribution system pipes. Another pipeline would be constructed connecting the new well to the existing storm drain system. Where possible, the pipeline would be constructed in the same trench as the distribution system piping. It is anticipated that 500 to 2,000 feet of pipe would be installed. Lighting - Lighting at site would be dependent on the security requirements, and public input. If external lighting is required, motion sensor lighting would be installed. Site Restoration - Following completion of well construction activities, construction work areas and staging areas would be regraded, contoured, and returned to conditions and uses similar to conditions prior to construction activities, with the exception of above ground structures (i.e., access hatch) or as desired by the local community. Bare ground would be seeded with native plant species or plantings. Power - Power would primarily be supplied to the well pump station via an electrical line off of an existing transformer. Access - Access to the selected well sites would be via existing roads and it is not anticipated th~ new access routes would be required. Construction of a new well at Eleanor Pardee Park would not require permanent closure of the park to public use and no loss of parklands would occur, as the ancillary features (approximately 50 square feet) would be blended into the park features. During construction, construction of below ground pipelines could temporarily restrict the use of additional park areas and the demonstration gardens. Construction Schedule Well construction activities (including drilling, construction, and testing activities) would require approximately four to six weeks to complete. Once the well is constructed, the final design of the well equipment and housing would commence, followed by selecting the contractor and construction of the actual well. Overall construction activities would take approximately 10 months to complete. The overall project (including preliminary design, design, and construction) would last up to 47 months. Construction, with the exception of the 24-hour drilling/well testing, would likely occur during weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Anticipated Results The anticipated benefits of the new well include: The ability to meet the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project’s objective to provide a supplemental water supply during "emergency" conditions through providing 11,000 gallons per minute of reliable well capacity and 2.5 million gallons of water storage for emergency use in Pressure Areas 1, 2 and 3. Construction of a well at Eleanor Pardee Park would support this objective by: 070227 syn 6050103 Providing for a new high production well (approximately 1,000 gpm). Producing chloraminated water that is compatible with the water in the distribution system. 010227 syn 6050103 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT F ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TIMOTHY HOPKINS CREEKSIDE PARK The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that: (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 therefor. (b)Timothy Hopkins Creekside Park is dedicated to park purposes. (c)The City intends to authorize construction of certain improvement projects within John Hopkins Creekside Park as shown on the Hopkins Park Well Site and Hopkins Park Well Rehabilitation Plan (collectively "Plans") attached as Exhibits "A-I" and "A-2" including, without limitation, the following: (1)Rebuilding and upgrading the existing Hale well, including repair or installation of a new well casing, pumps, motors, and controls; application of architectural, landscaping and soundproofing treatments; and replacement of the existing fence; and lighting. (2)Cleating of vegetation and trimming of existing trees in accordance with City policies and as necessary to provide equipment access for construction. (3)Connection to the storm drain or sanitary sewer system, or both, if feasible, via an underground pipe from the well site to the public right-of-way. (4)If rehabilitation of the existing well is not feasible, a new well will be constructed within the site. New well construction activities may include: drilling of a production borehole; construction of the well (including well casing, pumps, motors, and controls); development of the well (including pump testing); installation of architectural, landscaping, and sound-proofing treatments, piping, mechanical and electrical equipment and lighting; replacement of the existing fence; and installation of new connections to the existing distribution system. 070227 syn 6050095 1 NOT YET APPROVED (d) The improvements at Timothy Hopkins Creekside Park will be limited to well facilities located within the existing fenced area. No modifications or alterations will be made to the exterior of the existing pump house structure. (e) The project improvements will avoid riparian areas, protected trees and other sensitive resources. In addition, existing park uses will be restored following project construction. (f) The projects described above and as more specifically described on the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-I" and, "A-2" are consistent with park and conservation purposes. (g) The Council desires to approve the projects described above and as more specifically described on the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-I" and "A-2". SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for replacement and construction of improvements in Timothy Hopkins Creekside Park and hereby adopts the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-I" and "A-2" as part of the official plan for the construction of improvements in Hopkins Park. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the projects to construct new facilities at Hopldns Park are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) A Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project was prepared and circulated on November 8, 2006, and a Final Environmental Impact Report for this project was prepared and circulated On February 8, 2007. // // // // // // // // // // // 070223 syn 6050095 2 SECTION 4. date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AB STENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney NOT YET APPROVED This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Community Services Director of Administrative Services 070223 syn 6050095 3 Exhibit A-2 HOPKINS PARK WELL REHABILITATION PLAN The proposed Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project (Project) is intended to correct the deficiency in the City’s emergency water supply, when compared to the standards recommended by the Department of Health Services (DHS). Implementation of the proposed project includes rehabilitation of the existing Hale well at Timothy Hopkins Creekside Park (Hopkins Park). The proposed project design is preliminary and the final project facility design would incorporate input from the public (including property owner and neighbors) received throughout the project planning and environmental review process. The final project design will be subject to review by the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board to ensure that project design is consistent with that of the surrounding community. Hopkins Park Well Introduction The existing Hale Well site is located within Timothy Hopkins Creekside Park (Hopkins Park) between San Francisquito creek and Palo Alto Avenue. The existing pump house is a tile roofed edifice and has been identified as an historic property eligible for the National Register). A residential area known as Crescent Park is located directly across. Hopkins Park is a 12.4-acre strip of land that meanders along the creek. It is located along Palo Alto Avenue, from E1 Camino Real to Middlefield Road. There are three open grassy areas with benches and tables. The existing well and associated building are fenced from adjacent public uses. The Hale Well site consists of an existing well, pump house, and old circular discharge reservoir. The Hale site has no external lighting. The well was drilled in 1955 to a depth of 935 feet, with a 14 inch steel casing. The well is currently operational. Performance data collected since the time of construction suggest a current discharge rate of 1,425 gallons per minute. , Under the proposed project, the Hale well will be rehabilitated to increase its production capacity and improve the well site reliability in accordance with the City’s Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. Proposed Well Rehabilitation .Activities Prior to rehabilitation, the well would be inspected and the scope of the required well rehabilitation effort would be identified depending on its condition. Upgrade of existing wells would include repairing or installing a new well casing, pumps, motors, and controls. Appurtenances required could include piping, valves, and meters. No upgrade or reconstruction of the small historic building will be required, rehabilitation activities are limited to the internal structure of the pump house. Other construction related activities would include some site-clearing activities, upgrades to the electrical service, and architectural/landscaping/sound proofing treatments. The project would avoid riparian areas and areas with identified sensitive resources to the extent possible. 070227 syn 6050104 Lighting would be provided similar to existing conditions, and would be dependent on the location of the facility, security requirements, public input and per City, DHS and other requirements. If external lighting is required, motion sensor lighting would be installed. The existing fencing would be replaced with the City’s current standard fencing 8 foot high minimum, PVC black coated, special security type chain link steel fencing, witha locked entrance gate. Because the rehabilitation activities would increase the volume of water produced at each well, modification to the existing water distribution system could be required. Potential modifications include moving the existing groundwater well piping connection point to the distribution system to a different location or increasing the number of pipes connecting the groundwater system to the distribution system in order to dissipate the pipe velocities. While construction activities would primarily be located within the fenced well site, construction vehicles and equipment could be located within recreational use areas during the construction period. Following completion of well construction activities, construction work areas and staging areas would be regraded, contoured, and returned to conditions and uses similar to that prior to construction activities or as desired by the local community. Bare ground would be seeded with native plant species or plantings. Following pipeline construction, disturbed areas would be restored to conditions similar to those prior to pipeline construction. Construction Schedule Well rehabilitation activities would require approximately four to six months to complete if the well casing is in good condition and only the well pump needs to be replaced. If the well casing needs to be replaced, however, the construction activities will mimic those for a new well, as described for Eleanor Pardee Park for example, which would require approximately 25 months. The overall project (including preliminary design, design, and construction) may last up to 47 months, if replacement of the existing well is required. Actual installation time could vary depending on geologic and site conditions. Construction, with the exception of the 24-hour drilling/well testing, would likely occur during weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Anticipated Results The anticipated benefits of this rehabilitation include: The ability to meet the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project’s objective to provide a supplemental water supply during "emergency" conditions through providing 11,000 gallons per minute of reliable well capacity and 2.5 million gallons of water storage for emergency use in Pressure Areas 1, 2 and 3. Rehabilitation of the Hale Well would support this objective by: Increasing the production capacity of the Hale well to 2,300 gpm. Increasing the reliability of the Hale well for emergency purposes. Producing chloraminated water that is compatible with the water in the distribution system. 070227 syn 6050104 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT G ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF TRE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO RINCONADA PARK The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that: (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 therefor. (b)Rinconada Park is dedicated to park purposes. (c)The City intends to authorize construction of certain improvement projects within Rinconada Park as shown on the Rinconada Park Well Site and Rinconada Park Well Rehabilitation Plan (collectively "Plans") attached as Exhibits "A-I" and "A-2" including, without limitationl the following: (1)Rebuilding and rehabilitation of the existing well, including repair or installation of a new well casing, pumps, motors, and controls; application of architectural, landscaping and soundproofing treatments; and replacement of the existing fence. (2)Clearing of vegetation and trimming of existing trees in accordance with City policies and as necessary to provide equipment access for construction. (3)Connection to the storm drain or sanitary sewer system, or both, if feasible, via an underground pipe from the well site to the public fight-of-way. (4)If rehabilitation of the existing well is not feasible, a new well would be constructed within the site. New well construction activities include: drilling of a production borehole; construction of the well (including well casing, pumps, motors, and controls); development of the well (including pump testing); installation of architectural, landscaping and soundproofing treatments, piping, mechanical and electrical equipment and lighting; replacement of the existing fence; and installation of new connections to the existing distribution system. 070227 syn 6050096 NOT YET APPROVED (d) The improvements at Rinconada Park will be limited to well facilities located within the existing fenced area. (e) The project improvements will avoid protected trees and other sensitive resources. Existing park uses, including access to tennis and shuffleboard courts and the swimming pool, will be restored following project construction. (f) The projects described above and as more specifically described on the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-I" and "A-2" are consistent with park and conservation purposes. (g) The Council desires to approve the projects described above and as more specifically described on the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-I" and "A-2". SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for replacement and construction of improvements in Rinconada Park and hereby adopts the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-I" and "A-2" as part of the official plan for the construction of improvements in Rinconada Park. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the projects to construct new facilities at Rinconada Park are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) A Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project was prepared and circulated on November 8, 2006, and a Final Environmental Impact Report for this project was prepared and circulated On February 8, 2007. // // // // // // // // // // // 070222 syn 6050096 2 SECTION 4. date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: NOT YET APPROVED This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor APPROVED: City Attorney City Manager Director of Community Services Director of Administrative Services 070222 syn 6050096 Exhibit A-2 RINCONADA PARK WELL REHABILITATION PLAN The proposed Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project (Project) is intended to correct the deficiency in the City’s emergency water supply, when compared to the standards recommended by the Department of Health Services (DHS). Implementation of the proposed project includes rehabilitation of the existing well at Rinconada Park. The proposed project design is preliminary and the final project facility design would incorporate input from the public (including property owner and neighbors) received throughout the project planning and environmental review process. The final project design will be subject to review by the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board to ensure that project design is consistent with that of the surrounding community. Rinconada Park Well Introduction The existing Rinconada Park Well site is located in Rinconada Park, a City-owned park and recreation area, located along Embarcadero Road and Hopkins Avenue. The Rinconada Park Well is located within the 19-acre neighborhood park, which includes a community swimming pool, two large picnic areas, tennis and shuffleboard courts, playgrounds, open turf and jogging paths. Dense shrubs and mature trees screen both the recreational facilities and the existing well site. The well site, which is nestled in between the pool and tennis area, is set back from the roadway (See Exhibit A-l). The Rinconada well was drilled in 1954 to a depth of 1,084 feet, with a 14 inch steel casing. The well is currently operational and recently collected data suggests a capacity of 1;250 gallons per minute (gpm). The existing Rinconada site includes 8 foot high, black coated, chain link fencing that surrounds the site and has a City padlocked entrance gate. The well at this site can be connected to a portable generator (no generators are on site) to provide power to the facility. The Rinconada site has no external lighting. Under the proposed project, the Rinconada well would be rehabilitated to increase its production capacity and improve the well site reliability in accordance with the City’s Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. Proposed Well Rehabilitation Activities Prior to rehabilitation, the well would be inspected and the scope of the required well rehabilitation effort would be identified depending on its condition. Upgrade of existing wells would include repairing or installing a new well casing, pumps, motors, and controls. Appurtenances required 070227 syn 6050106 could include piping, valves, and meters. The upgrade or reconstruction of the well building may be required depending on the condition of existing structure. Other construction related activities would include site-clearing activities, upgrades to the electrical service, and architectural/landscaping/sound proofing treatments. Lighting would be provided similar to existing conditions, and would be dependent on the location of the facility, security requirements, public input and per City, DHS and other requirements. If external lighting is required, motion sensor lighting would be installed. The existing fencing would be replaced with the City’s current standard fencing 8 foot high minimum, PVC black coated, special security type chain link steel fencing, with a locked entrance gate. Because the rehabilitation activities would increase the volume of water produced at each well, modification to the existing water distribution system could be required. Potential modifications include moving the existing groundwater well piping connection point to the distribution system to a different location or increasing the number of pipes connecting the groundwater system to the distribution system in order to dissipate the pipe velocities. While construction activities would primarily be located within the fenced well site, construction vehicles and equipment could be located within recreational use areas during the construction period. Following completion of well construction activities, construction work areas and staging areas would be regraded, contoured, and returned to conditions and uses similar to that prior to construction activities or as desired by the local community. Bare ground would be seeded with native plant species or plantings. Following pipeline construction, disturbed areas would be restored to conditions similar to those prior to pipeline construction. Construction Schedule Well rehabilitation activities would require approximately four to six months to complete if the well casing is in good condition and only the well pump needs to be replaced. If the well casing needs to be replaced, however, the construction activities would mimic those for a new well, as described for Eleanor Pardee Park for example, which would require approximately 25 months. The overall project (including preliminary design, design, and construction) may last up to 47 months, if replacement of the existing well is required. Actual installation time could vary depending on geologic and site conditions. Construction, with the exception of the 24-hour drilling/well testing, would likely occur during weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Anticipated Results The anticipated benefits of this rehabilitation include: The ability to meet the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project’s objective to provide a supplemental water supply during "emergency" conditions through providing 11,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of reliable well capacity and 2.5 million gallons of water storage for 070227 syn 6050106 emergency use in Pressure Areas 1, 2 and 3. support this objective by: Rehabilitation of the Rinconada Well would Increasing the production capacity of the Rinconada well to 2,300 gpm. Increasing the reliability of the Rinconada Well for emergency purposes. Producing chloraminated water that is compatible with the water in the distribution system. 070227 syn 6050106 3 ATTACHMENT H NOT YET APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO PEERS PARK The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that: (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 therefor. (b)Peers Park is dedicated to park purposes. (c)The City intends to authorize construction of certain improvement projects within Peers Park as shown on the Peers Park Well Site and Peers Park Well Rehabilitation Plan (collectively "Plans") attached as Exhibits "A-l" and "A-2" including, without limitation, the following: (1) (2) Rehabilitation and upgrade of the existing well, potentially including repairing or installing a new well casing, pumps, motors, and controls, application of architectural, landscaping, and soundproofing treatments, installation of standby power generators and associated fuel storage tanks, and restoration of lighting, fencing and adjacent uses as required. Clearing of vegetation and trimming of existing trees in accordance with City policies and as necessary to provide equipment access for construction. O)Connection to the storm drain or sanitary sewer system, or both, if feasible, via extension of an underground pipe from the well to the public fight-of-way beneath the existing utility access driveway. (4)If rehabilitation of the existing well is not feasible, a new well would be constructed within the site. New well construction activities include: drilling of a production borehole; construction of the well (including well casing, pumps, motors, and controls); development of the well (including pump testing); installation of architectural/landscaping/soundproofing treatments, piping, mechanical, electrical equipment and lighting; replacement of the existing fence; and installation of new connections to the existing distribution system. 070228 syn 6050097 NOT YET APPROVED (d) The improvements at Peers Park will be limited to well facilities located within the existing fenced area, which is separate from the public park area. (e) The project improvements will avoid protected trees and other sensitive resources. In addition, existing park uses will be restored following project construction. (f) The projects described above and as more specifically described on the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-1" and "A-2" are consistent with park and conservation purposes. (g) The Council desires to approve the projects described above and as more specifically described on the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-I" and "A-2". SECTION2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for replacement and construction of improvements in Peers Park and hereby adopts the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A-I" and "A-2" as part of the official plan for the construction of improvements in Peers Park. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the projects to construct new facilities at Peers Park are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) A Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project was prepared and circulated on November 8, 2006, and a Final Environmental Impact Report for this project was prepared and circulated On February 8, 2007. // // // // // // // // // // SECTION 4. date of its adoption. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the 070228 syn 6050097 2 INTRODUCED: PASSED: NOT YET APPROVED AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AB S TENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor APPROVED: City Attorney City Manager Director of Community Services Director of Administrative Services 070228syn 6050097 Exhibit A-2 PEERS PARK WELL REHABILITATION PLAN The proposed Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project (Project) is intended to correct the deficiency in the City’s emergency water supply, when compared to the standards recommended by the Department of Health Services (DHS). Implementation of the proposed project includes rehabilitation of the existing well at Peers Park. The proposed project design is preliminary and the final project facility design would incorporate input from the public (including property owner and neighbors) received throughout the project planning and environmental review process. The final project design will be subject to review by the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board to ensure that project design is consistent with that of the surrounding community. Peers Park Well Introduction The existing Peers Park Well site is located in the southeastern corner of the City-owned Peers Park, just north of a curving Park Boulevard. Alexander "Peers" Park is a 4.7 acre neighborhood park with a large grassy area, tennis courts, a basketball court, picnic tables, and playgrounds. The park is abutted by CalTrain railroad tracks to the east. Peers Park is located along Park Boulevard and is bordered by single family residences to the north, south and west, and Alma Street to the east. The existing well site is fenced and set back from the large grassy fields, picnic facilities, tennis courts and playground equipment. The well site and access driveway are screened by tall mature trees (See Exhibit A-l). The well was drilled in 1958 to a depth of 950 feet, with a 14 inch steel casing. The well is currently operational. Performance data collected since the time of construction suggest a current discharge rate of 900 gallons per minute. The Peers Park site has sensored exterior lighting. The site currently has an existing well and operations building fenced off from public use areas. Under the proposed project, the Peers Park well will be rehabilitated to increase its production capacity and improve the well site reliability in accordance with the City’s Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. Proposed Well Rehabilitation Activities Prior to rehabilitation, the well would be inspected and the scope of the required well rehabilitation effort would be identified depending on its condition. Upgrade of existing wells would include repairing or installing a new well casing, pumps, motors, and controls. Appurtenances required could include piping, valves, and meters. The upgrade or reconstruction of the well building may 070227 syn 6050105 be required depending on the condition of existing structure. Other construction related activities would include site-clearing activities, upgrades to the electrical service, and architectural/landscaping/sound proofing treatments. Lighting would be provided similar to existing conditions, and would be dependent on the location of the facility, security requirements, public input and per City, DHS and other requirements. If external lighting is required, motion sensor lighting would be installed. The existing fencing would be replaced with the City’s current standard fencing 8 foot high minimum, PVC black coated, special security type chain link steel fencing, with a locked entrance gate. Because the rehabilitation activities would increase the volume of water produced at the well, modification to the existing water distribution system could be required. Potential modifications include moving the existing groundwater well piping connection point to the distribution system to a different location or increasing the number of pipes connecting the groundwater system to the distribution system in order to dissipate the pipe velocities. While construction activities would primarily be located within the fenced well site, construction vehicles and equipment could be located within recreational use areas during the construction period. Following completion of well construction activities, construction work areas and staging areas would be regraded, contoured, and returned to conditions and uses similar to that prior to construction activities or as desired by the local community. Bare ground would be seeded with native plant species or plantings. Following pipeline construction, disturbed areas would be restored to conditions similar to those prior to pipeline construction. Construction Schedule Well rehabilitation activities would require approximately four to six months to complete if the well casing is in good condition and only the well pump needs to be replaced. If the well casing needs to be replaced, however, the construction activities will mimic those for a new well, as described for Eleanor Pardee Park for example, which would require approximately 25 months. Actual installation time could vary depending on geologic and site conditions. The overall project (including preliminary design, design and construction) may last up to 47 months, if replacement of the existing well is required. Construction, with the exception of the 24-hour drilling/well testing, would likely occur during weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Anticipated Results The anticipated benefits of this rehabilitation include: The ability to meet the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project’s objective to provide a supplemental water supply during "emergency" conditions through providing 11,000 gallons per minute of reliable well capacity and 2.5 million gallons of water storage for emergency use in Pressure Areas 1, 2 and 3. Rehabilitation of the Peers Park Well would support this objective by: 070227 syn 6050105 Increasing the production capacity of the Peers Park well to 1,200 gpm. Increasing the reliability of the Peers Park well for emergency purposes. Producing chloraminated water that is compatible with the water in the distribution system. 070227 syn 6050105 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TIlE EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Introduction and Certification. (a) The following findings are hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.), and Sections 15091, 15092, 15093, and 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15000 et seq.). These findings are made relative to the conclusions of the City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2066022038) (the "Final EIR"), which includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"), Public Comments, and Responses to Comments. The Final EIR addresses the environmental impacts of the implementation of the proposed Project and is incorporated herein by reference. (b) Mitigation measures associated with the potentially significant impacts of the Project will be implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, which is the responsibility of the City, thereby ensuring that the City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project (the "Project") will have no significant adverse environmental impacts, except as noted herein. ’ (c) The City of Palo Alto is the Lead Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 as it has the principal responsibility to carry out and approve the Project, which may have a significant impact upon the environment. (d) Based upon review and consideration of the information contained therein, the City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, and reflects the City of Palo Alto’s independent judgment and analysis. The City Council ha.s considered evidence and arguments presented during consideration of the Project and the Final EIR. In determining whether the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting the findings set forth below, the City Council certifies that it has complied with Public Resources Code sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21082.2. 070228 syn 6050099 NOT YET APPROVED (e) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that no significant new information has been added to the Final EIR so as to warrant recirculation of all or a portion of the Draft EIR. SECTION 2. Project Information. The following Project information is supplied to provide context for the discussion and findings that follow, but is intended as a summary and not a replacement for the information contained in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, or Project approval resolution. The Project, if implemented, would be undertaken by the City of Palo Alto and would consist of various capital improvements intended to correct an existing deficiency in the City’s emergency water supply. As the City of Palo Alto currently relies on the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Hetch Hetchy system for its water supply, the purpose of the Project is to provide enough water to meet normal and emergency demands of the City in the event of a temporary shutdown of the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts. Specifically, the Project consists of upgrades to five existing City wells, construction of up to three new wells (six alternative well locations are fully analyzed in. the Final EIR), construction of one new water storage reservoir with an associated pump station (four alternative well locations are fully analyzed in the Final EIR), and upgrade of the existing Mayfield Pump Station. The Project would provide 11,000 gpm of reliable well capacity, and 2.5 million gallons of water storage for emergency use in underserved areas of the City. SECTION 3. Record of Proceedings. (a) For purposes of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e), and these findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of the following documents, at a minimum: (1) The Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion, Notice of Availability, and all other public notices issued by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the Project; (2) the Draft EIR; (3) the Final EIR; (4) all comments and correspondence submitted by public agencies or members of the public during the public review and comment period (November 8, 2006 through December 22, 2006) on the Draft EIR; (5) comments and correspondence submitted by the California Department of Transportation and the California State Clearinghouse after the close of the public review and comment period; (6) written and oral comments received or made at Planning and Transportation Commission hearings to take public comments on the Draft EIR and Final EIR on November 29, 2006, and February 14, 2007; (7) the Mitigation Monitoring Program; (8) all findings and resolutions adopted by the City Council in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; (9) all final reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City of Palo Alto, consultants, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City of Palo Alto’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA, and with respect to the City of Palo Alto’s actions on the Project; (10) all documents timely submitted to the City of Palo Alto by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project; (11) minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all public meetings and/or public hearings held by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the Project; (12) matters of common knowledge to the City of Palo Alto, including, but not limited to, federal, state, and local laws and regulations; (13) any documents 070228 syn 6050098 2 NOT YET APPROVED expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and (14) any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e). (b) The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is the Director of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301. (c) Copies of all of the above-referenced documents, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City of Palo Alto’s decision on the Project is based, are and have been available upon request at the offices of the Planning and Community Environment Department, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301, and other locations in the City of Palo Alto. (d) The City of Palo Alto has relied upon all of the documents, materials, and evidence listed above in reaching its decision on the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. (e) The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the above- referenced documents, materials, and evidence constitute substantial evidence (as that term is defined by section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines) to support each of the findings contained herein. SECTION 4. Mitigation Monitoring Program. (a) CEQA requires the lead agency approving a Project to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the changes made to the Project that it has adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. An MMP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption by the City Council concurrently with the adoption of these findings to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during Project implementation. As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the MMP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR. The MMP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. (b) The City Council hereby adopts the MMP for the Project attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and finds, determines, and declares that adoption of the MMP will ensure enforcement and continued imposition of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR, and set forth in the MMP, in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment. SECTION 5. Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant. (a)Scoping A Notice of Preparation for the Project was prepared and distributed on February 6, 2006 to all responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties. The notice solicited views of interested persons and agencies as to the scope and content of the 070228 syn 6050098 NOT YET APPROVED environmental information to be studied in the Draft EIR. The City of Palo Alto also held a public scoping meeting to receive public comments and suggestions on the Project on March 8, 2006. Through the scoping process, which included both agency consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.4(a) and CEQA Guidelines section 15082, and early public consultation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15083, the City identified the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the Draft EIR, and eliminated from detailed study issues found not to be important. (b)Draft and Final EIR Identified Impacts (1) The Draft EIR and Final EIR concludes that the Project would result in no impact or a less-than-significant impact in the areas listed below because: (1) mitigating features are incorporated into the Project; (2) existing standard regulations that apply to the Project will mitigate the impact; (3) the level of impact will not exceed the identified thresholds of significance, or (4) the impacts of the Project will be beneficial. 111. V. vi. vii. viii. ix. xii. Xlll. xiv. XV, xvi. xvii. XVln. Agricultural resources (see DEIR, p. 3.2-11); Intensity of overall existing or planned land use patterns (see DEIR, p. 3.2-12); Terrain modification (see DEIR, p. 3.3-29); Shadow of public open space (see DEIR, p. 3.3-29); Division of an established community (Impact 3.2-1); Conflicts with Land Use and Natural Resource Plans (Impact 3.2-2); Slope failure and soil erosion (see DEIR, p. 3.4-11); Potential subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal (Impact 3.4-4); Affect on production efficiency in nearby public and private wells due to increased groundwater production during drought years (Impact 3.5-5); Operational emissions (see DEIR, p. 3.9-7); Long-term emissions, including diesel particulates, from testing and use of standby generators, as well as from employee trips related to inspections and maintenance (Impact 3.9-2); Odor emissions (Impact 3.9-3); Short-term vibration impacts (Impact 3.10-2); Emergency response plan impacts (Impact 3.11-5); Wildland fire risk (Impact 3.11-6); Cumulative long-term impacts to land use (Impact 4.2); Cumulative long-term impacts to water resources (Impact 4.4); Cumulative long-term impacts to groundwater resources (Impact 4.5). 070228 syn 6050098 4 NOT YET APPROVED (2) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that it has reviewed the Draft EIR and the Final EIR with respect to the areas of potential impact set forth above, and finds that the conclusions of the Draft EIR and Final EIR are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the detailed descriptions of potential impacts contained in the Draft EIR, and the additional information and analysis contained in the Final EIR. The City Council further finds that no evidence has been introduced that would tend to call into question any of the conclusions of the Draft EIR or the Final EIR with respect to such impacts. The City Council has independently exercised its judgment to conclude that each of the above impacts is less-than-significant or no impact, and therefore requires no mitigation except as embodied in the Project. SECTION 6. Significant Impacts that Can be Avoided or Mitigated to a Less-Than- Significant Level. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR concluded that the Project would result in potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas listed below. Through the imposition of the identified mitigation measures, the identified potentially significant environmental impacts will be reduced to less-than-significant impacts. (a)Land Use, Agricultural Resources, and Recreation (1) Impact 3.2-3: Recreation Impacts. As set forth on pages 3.2-15 to 3.2-17 of the Draft EIR, construction of some proposed Project facilities could temporarily disrupt access to or enjoyment of existing recreational facilities, and could temporarily result in overcrowding of other recreational facilities. The Draft EIR concludes that this impact is potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measures 3.2-3a, 3.2-3b (Draft EIR, p. 3.2-17). These mitigation measures would, among other things, require the City to provide notice to all surrounding neighbors and other interested parties regarding the park closure and access disruption schedule. The public notification program would include postings on the City’s website. During Project construction, the City shall work with the Parks Services division to reschedule park usage accordingly. (2) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the measures required by Mitigation Measures 3.2-3a and 3.2-3b substantially reduce the disruption of access to recreational facilities in the City. With this mitigation, the potential impacts to the City’s recreational facilities are therefore found to be less-than-significant. (b)Visual Quality. (1) Impact 3.3-1: Short-term visual effects experienced from nearby areas during Project construction. As set forth on pages 3.3-29 to 3.3-32 of the Draft EIR, 070228 syn 6050098 NOT YET APPROVED construction activities associated with the Project could result in short-term, potentially significant visual quality impacts. i.Mitigation Measures 3.3-1a, 3.3-1b, 3.3-1c, 3.6-2a, 3.6-2b, 3.6-2c, 3.6-2d (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-32 - 3.3-33.). These mitigation measures require attractive and easy to understand graphics, screening and maintenance, restoration of Project construction and staging areas, and implementation of a tree protection and preservation plan. (2) Impact 3.3-2: Alteration of the site’s appearance and long-term visual effects. As set forth on pages 3.3-33 to 3.3-35 of the Draft EIR, construction of the Project may alter the site’s appearance and cause potentially significant long-term visual effects. i. Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a, 3.3-2b, 3.6-2a, 3.6-2b, 3.6-2c, 3.6-2d (Draft EIR, p. 3.3-35). These mitigation measures require use of design elements to enhance the aesthetic appearance of proposed facilities, and use of colors selected based on site- specific conditions. Implementation of detailed landscaping plans and a tree protection and preservation plan is also required. (3) Impact 3.3-3: New sources of light and glare. As set forth on pages 3:3-35 and 3.3-36 of the Draft EIR, the Project may result in potentially significant temporary light and glare impacts associated with well drilling activities, and potentially significant long- term light and glare impacts associated with security lighting at the new facilities. i.Mitigation Measures 3.3-3a, 3.3-3b, 3.3-1c (Draft EIR, p. 3.3- 36). To the extent possible, these mitigation measures require construction lighting to be directed downward and oriented so that no light source is directly visible from neighboring residential areas. Additionally, highly reflective building material will not be used, and full cutoff, low- intensity light fixtures will be required to be initalled. Restoration of any removed landscaping is also required. (4) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the measures required by Mitigation Measures 3.3-1a, 3.3-1b, 3.3-1c, 3.6-2a, 3.6-2b, 3.6-2c, 3.6-2d, 3.3-2a, 3.3-2d, 3.3-3a, and 3.3-3b substantially reduce the Project’s temporary visual quality impacts. With this mitigation, the visual quality impacts are therefore found to be less-than-significant. (c)Geology, Soils and Seismicity (1) Impact 3.4-1: Ground shaking capable of causing localized collapse or damage of engineered fills, structural damage, pipeline rupture, or equipment topple. As set forth on pages 3.4-12 to 3.4-13 of the Draft EIR, earthquake ground shaking could damage structures, including buildings, roads, bridges, water conveyance pumping equipment, engineered slopes, buried pipelines and rail lines. This impact is identified as potentially significant. 070228 syn 6050098 6 NOT YET APPROVED i.Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-13). Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 requires a design-level geotechnical investigation, and implementation of site- specific criteria using the California and Uniform Building Codes and structural engineers to mitigate potential risks. (2) Impact 3.4-2: Liquefaction Impacts. As set forth on page 3.4-14 of the Draft EIR, certain Project location could be subjected to liquefaction ground failures in the event of an earthquake. This impact is identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-14 - 3.4-15). Prior to approval of construction plans, a design level geotechnical investigation shall be completed, and site-specific design criteria designed to mitigate potential risks shall be developed and implemented during construction. (3) Impact 3.4-3: Expansive soils impacts. As set forth on page 3.4-15 of the Draft EIR, several existing and proposed Project sites are underlain by expansive soils and could be subjected to damage to foundations, pavement, roadways, and facilities over time. i.Mitigation Measures 3.4-1, 3.4-2 (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-15). These mitigation measures require a design level geotechnical investigation to be completed, and site-specific design criteria designed to mitigate potential risks to be developed and implemented. (4) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the measures required by Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 substantially reduce the Project’s ground-shaking, liquefaction; and soils impacts. With this mitigation, the Project’s above-identified ground-shaking, liquefaction, and soils impacts are therefore found to be less-than-significant.,. (d)Hydrology and Water Quality (1) Impact 3.5-1: Project construction could result in increased erosion and sedimentation and could increase turbidity and decrease water quality. As set forth on pages 3.5-13 to 3.5-16 of the Draft EIR, construction of the Project could result in potentially significant impacts related to erosion, sedimentation, and increased turbidity. i.Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a, 3.5-1b (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-16 - 3~5-17.) These mitigation measures would require compliance with the NPDES Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the Project prior to construction. Additionally, subject to agreement and permit issuance from appropriate regulatory agencies, stream crossing using open-trench construction would be required to be limited to the dry season, or microtunneling techniques would be required to be implemented. ’ 070228 syn 6050098 7 NOT YET APPROVED (2) Impact 3.5-2: Construction of propose facilities would result in a minor increase in local storm runoff volumes. As set forth on pages 3.5-17 and 3.5-18 of the Draft EIR, the Project would result in the construction of three new wells and a below grade reservoir with attendant facilities. These facilities would result in an incremental increase of .7 acres of impervious surface, which is a potentially significant impact. i.Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 (Draft EIR, p. 3.5-18). This mitigation measure requires compliance with applicable NPDES permits, and conveyance of stormwater runoff to appropriate local drainage systems. (3) Impact 3.5-3: If necessary, dewatering during construction activities could result in the discharge of turbid waters into the storm drain systems or nearby creeks. As set forth on page 3.5-18 of the Draft EIR, dewatering activities, if necessary, may result in potentially significant impacts associated with degradation of water quality. i.Mitigation Measure 3.5-1a (Draft EIR, p. 3.5-19). This mitigation measure requires compliance with the NPDES Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prior to construction. (4) Impact 3.5-4: Increased groundwater recovery to meet emergency or drought demands would have the potential to impact aquifer recovery rates and/or result in groundwater levels below historical low elevations. As set forth on pages 3.5-19 and 3.5-20 of the Draft EIR, extraction of groundwater in emergency or drought conditions may impact aquifer recovery rates, and/or result in groundwater levels below historical low elevations. Without mitigation, this impact is identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measures 3.5-4a, 3.5-4b (Draft EIR, p. 3.5-20). These mitigation measures would require an aquifer test to be conducted to verify the basin’s response to pumping, and will limit the emergency demand pumpage to 1,500 acre feet in one year. (5) Impact 3.5-6: Placement of new wells would alter localized groundwater gradients during emergency operations, and could result in direct effects to the efficiency of existing wells due to well interference. As set forth on page 3.5-21 of the Draft EIR, operation of new wells may potentially significantly impact existing production facilities. i.Mitigation Measure 3.5-6 (Draft EIR, p. 3.5-21). This mitigation measure would require that new well facilities be located more than 500 feet from existing municipal production wells. (6) Impact 3.5-7: Construction and operation of potable supply wells would have the potential to affect the quality of potable water and public health. As set forth on pages 3.5-21 to 3.5-22 of the Draft EIR, potable water quality may be affected by the proposed Project. Without mitigation, this impact would be potentially significant. 070228 syn 6050098 NOT YET APPROVED i.Mitigation Measure 3.5-7 (Draft EIR, p. 3.5-22). This. mitigation measure requires all new wells to be approved, designed, and operated in compliance with all applicable California Department of Health Services and Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements. (7) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the measures required by Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a, 3.5-1b, 3.5-2, 3.5-4a, 3.5-4b, 3.5-6, and 3.5-7 substantially reduce the Project’s hydrology and water quality related impacts. With this mitigation, the Project’s above-identified hydrology and water quality impacts are therefore found to be less-than-significant. (e)Biological Resources (1) Impact 3.6-1: Accidental discharge of sediment or toxic materials tO iurisdictional waters and aquatic habitat. As set forth on pages 3.6-22 to 3.6-26 of the Draft EIR, there is a possibility that erosion resulting from Project construction activities or an accidental discharge of sediment or toxic materials could directly impact jurisdictional waters and aquatic habitat where construction is proposed directly adjacent to riparian areas. This impact is identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-26). This mitigation measure requires the City to implement standard best management practices, comply with the City’s stormwater discharge ordinance, and the applicable NPDES permits. (2) Impact 3.6-2: Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the removal of, pruning of, and potential damage to trees and other vegetation. As set forth on pages 3.6-26 to 3.6-31 of the DEIR, Project activities, including construction of pipeline connections that could extend from a Project site and construction staging areas, could result in the removal of, pruning of, and potential damage to trees and other vegetation in the Project area. Without mitigation, this impact is potentially significant. ~ i.Mitigation Measures 3.6-2a, 3.6-2b, 3.6-2c, 3.6-2d (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-31 - 3.6-32.) These mitigation measures require preparation and implementation of a tree protection and preservation plan, protection of trees in accordance with the tree technical manual, and replacement of any removed trees or other protected vegetation according to the City’s requirements. (3) Impact 3.6-3: Activities associated with the construction of the proposed Project could result in adverse impacts on special-status bird species. As set forth on pages 3.6-32 to 3.6-36 of the Draft EIR, construction activities associated with the proposed Project components that are implemented during the breeding season, including removal of trees and other nesting habitat, have the potential to result in direct mortality of special-status birds, This impact is identified as potentially significant. 070228 syn 6050098 9 NOT YET APPROVED i. Mitigation Measure 3.6-3 (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-36 - 3.6-37). Mitigation Measure 3.6-3 requires the City to avoid disturbance of breeding special status birds. (4) Impact 3.6-4: Removal of trees and other proposed construction activities during the breeding season could result in impacts to special-status bats. As set forth on pages 3.6-37 to 3.6-41 of the Draft EIR, construction activities associated with the proposed Project could result in potentially significant impacts to special-status bats. i.Mitigation Measure 3.6-4 (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-41 - 3.6-42). This mitigation measure requires the City to avoid disturbance to maternity roosts of special- status bats during the breeding season. (5) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the measures required by Mitigation Measures 3.6-1, 3.6-2a, 3.6-2b, 3.6-2c, 3.6-2d, 3.6-3, and 3.6-4 substantially reduce the Project’s biological resources related impacts. With this mitigation, the Project’s above-identified biological resources impacts are therefore found to be less-than-significant. (f)Cultural Resources (1) Impact 3.7-1: Potential adverse effects to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, including those previously unidentified. As set forth on pages 3.7-10 to 3.7-16, previously unknown and buried prehistoric or historic resources may be present almost anywhere in the construction zones identified for the Project. As the Project would involv.e excavation, the Project could potentially result in the degradation or destruction of unrecorded cultural resources. This impact is identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measures 3.7-1a, 3.7-1b (Draft EIR, pp. 3.7-16 - 3.7-19). These mitigation measures require the City to take certain actions upon the discovery of any prehistoric or historic resources during ground disturbing activities. Additionally, in areas determined to have high potential for unknown or poorly documented archaeological resources, a qualified consultant shall be required to monitor ground-disturbing or vegetation removal activity. (2) Impact 3.7-2: Potential adverse effect to the Hale Pump House. As set forth on page 3.7-19 of the DEIR, if the Project requires alteration of the Hale Pump House, this action would be considered a significant environmental impact. i.Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 (Draft EIR, p. 3.7-19). This mitigation measure would require review by the Palo Alto Historic Resources Board, and implementation of any board recommendations. Additionally, this mitigation measure requires rehabilitation or reconstruction of the Hale Pump House in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b)(3). 070228 syn 6050098 10 NOT YET APPROVED (3) Impact 3.7-3: Potential adverse effects on paleontological resources. As set forth on page 3.7-19 of the Draft EIR, excavation activities associated with construction of the Project may have a deleterious effect on paleontological resources. This impact, without mitigation, is identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 ~raft EIR, p. 3.7-3). This mitigation measure requires notification of a qualified paleontologist of unanticipated discoveries, and evaluation and assessment of the find pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5. (4) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the measures required by Mitigation Measures 3.7-1a, 3.7-1b, 3.7-2, and 3.7-3 substantially reduce the Project’s impacts on cultural resources. With this mitigation, the Project’s above-identified cultural resources impacts are therefore found to be less-than-significant. (g)Traffic and Circulation (1) Impact 3.8-1: Short-term traffic and transportation conditions impacts. As set forth on pages 3.8-11 to 3.8-17 of the Draft EIR, the Project would result in temporary construction-generated traffic, including movement of construction trucks and lessening of roadway capacities. Without mitigation, these short term impacts are identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measures 3.8-1a, 3.8-1b, 3.8-1c, 3.8-1d, 3.8-1e, 3.8-1f, 3.8-1g, 3.8-1h (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-17 - 3.8-18). These mitigation measures would require the City to obtain all necessary road encroachment permits, prepare and implement a traffic control and traffic management plan, implement special construction techniques to minimize impacts to traffic flow, develop circulation and detour plans, coordinate with CalTrans or other appropriate to minimize cumulative impacts, coordinate bus stop relocations, and develop circulation and detour plans to minimize the impact to bicycle transportation. (2) Impact 3.8-2: Short-term emergency access impacts. As set forth on pages 3.8-18 and 3.8-19 of the Draft EIR, the Project would have temporary, potentially significant effects on traffic flow that could result in delays for emergency vehicle access in the vicinity of construction sites. i.Mitigation Measure 3.8-1b (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-19). This mitigation measure requires the City to prepare and implement a traffic control and traffic management plan. (3) Impact 3.8-3: Short-term transportation service impacts. As set forth on page 3.8-19 of the Draft EIR, the Project could temporarily disrupt access to bus stops and could conflict with bicycle traffic. 070228 syn 6050098 11 NOT YET APPROVED i.Mitigation Measure 3.8-1g (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-19). This mitigation measure requires the City to consult with VTA, Sam Trans, and any other appropriate transit district to coordinate bus stop relocations and to reduce potential interruption of transit service. (4) Impact 3.8-4: Short-term demand for parking spaces. As set forth on pages 3.8-19 to 3.8-22 of the Draft EIR, during construction activities, the Project would create temporary parking demand for construction workers and construction vehicles, and would temporarily reduce the available parking supply at propose well and storage reservoir locations. This impact is identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measures 3.8-4a, 3.8-4b, 3.8-4c, 3.8-4d, 3.8-4e, 3.8-4f, 3.8-1e (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-22, as revised in the Final EIR at p. 5-12). These mitigation measures require that construction parking be provided in the vicinity of the work zone. Additionally construction must be scheduled to avoid peak shopping seasons, in lieu fees are required if spaces in the downtown lots are lost, and the parking layout at the California lot shall be redesigned. (5) Impact 3.8-5: Traffic Safety Impacts. As set forth on pages 3.8-22 to 3.8-23 of the Draft EIR, construction zones in or near the public right-of-way could increase the potential for accidents. This impact is identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measures 3.8-1b, 3.8-1c, 3.8-1d, 3.8-1e, 3.8-1f, 3.8-1g, 3.8-1h (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-23). These mitigation measures would require the City to obtain all necessary road encroachment permits, prepare and implement a traffic control and traffic management plan, implement special construction techniques to minimize impacts to traffic flow, develop circulation and detour plans, coordinate with CalTrans or other appropriate to minimize cumulative impacts, coordinate bus stop relocations, and develop circulation and detour plans to minimize the impact to bicycle transportation. (6) Impact 3.8-6: Wear-and-tear on the designated haul routes and in public parking lots used by construction vehicles to access the Project work sites. As set forth on page 3.8-23 of the Draft EIR, the use of large trucks to transport equipment and material to and from the Project work sites could affect road conditions on the designated haul routes, and conditions of parking lots by increasing the rate of road wear. This impact is identified as potentially significant without mitigation. i.Mitigation Measure 3.8-6 (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-23 - 3.8-24). This mitigation measure requires implementation of a road/parking lot rehabilitation program by the contractor pursuant to an agreement with the City. (7) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that, with the exception of the potential parking impacts at the California Avenue parking lot site, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental 070228 syn 6050098 12 NOT YET APPROVED effects identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the measures required by Mitigation Measures 3.8-1a, 3.8-1b, 3.8-1c, 3.8-1d, 3.8-1e, 3.8-1f. 3.8-1g, 3.8-1h, 3.8-4a, 3.8-4b, 3.8-4c, 3.8-4d, 3.8- 4e, 3.8-4f, and 3.8-6 substantially reduce the Project’s impacts on traffic and circulation. With this mitigation, and with the exception of the potential parking impacts at the California Avenue parking lot site, the Project’s above-identified traffic and circulation impacts are therefore found to be less-than-significant. (h)Air Quality (1) Impact 3.9-1: Short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. As set forth on pages 3.9-7 to 3.9-10 of the Draft EIR, construction of the proposed Project would require ground clearing and excavation activities and could generate substantial amounts of fugitive dust (including PM10). This impact is identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measures 3.9-1a, 3.9-1b (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-10 - 3.9-11). These mitigation measures require implementation of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Basic Control Measures, and additional measures where applicable. Additionally, construction equipment is required to be properly tuned and maintained, diesel trucks may not idle for greater than five minutes, and construction workers shall be encouraged to carpool. (2) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the measures required by Mitigation Measures 3.9-1a and 3.9-1b substantially reduce the Project’s short-term air quality impacts. With this mitigation, the Project’s above-identified air quality impacts are therefore found to be less-than- significant. (i)Noise and Vibration (1) Impact 3.10-1: Construction of proposed facilities (including well drilling) would generate temporary noise levels above existing ambient conditions, resulting in City Municipal Code violations. As set forth on pages 3.10-11 to 3.10-13 of the Draft EIR, and as revised on page 5-17 of the Final EIR, construction activities would generate significant amounts of noise at the Project sites. These impacts are identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measures 3.10-1a, 3.10-1b, 3.10-1c, 3.10-1d, 3,10- le (Draft EIR, p. 3.10-14). These mitigation measures would require, among other things, that certain Project components be sited at least 100 feet from sensitive receptors, that an engineered sound wall or noise blanket be installed and maintained during construction, and that residents and sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of construction sites be notified prior to construction. (2) Impact 3.10-3: Operational noise impacts. As set forth on page 3.10- 15 of the Draft EIR, operational noise associated with the proposed facilities would include 070228 syn 6050098 13 NOT YET APPROVED infrequent use of pumps and emergency generators. This impact is identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measures 3.10-3a, 3.10-3b, 3.10-3c. These mitigation measures would require pump house and well enclosures to be designed such that operational noise would meet City performance standards. Additionally, emergency generators shall be fully enclosed in sound-attenuated housing. (3) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that, with the exception of noise impacts related to 24-hour well drilling activities, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the measures required by Mitigation Measures 3.10-1 a, 3.10-1b, 3.10-1c, 3.10-1d, 3.10-1e, 3.10-3a, 3.10-3b, and 3.10-3c substantially reduce the Project’s construction and operational noise impacts. With this mitigation, and with the exception 0f noise impacts related to 24-hour well drilling activities, the Project’s above- identified noise impacts are therefore found to be less-than-significant. (j)Hazards and Hazardous Materials (1) Impact 3.11-1: Exposure of the public or the environment to hazardous materials or waste through inadvertent excavation of contaminated soil or groundwater. As set forth on pages 3.11-8 to 3.11-11 of the Draft EIR, Project construction would include grading, excavation, trenching, and other activities that would disturb soil and have the potential to disturb groundwater. If such disturbance occurred on properties contaminated by hazardous materials, construction workers, the public, and/or the environment may be exposed to a localized release of compounds considered hazardous to human health or the environment. This is identified as a potentially significant impact. i.Mitigation Measures 3.11-1a, 3.11-1b, 3.11-1c (Draft EIR, pp. 3.11-11 - 3.11-12). Among other things, these mitigation measures would require pre- construction soil and groundwater testing to determine whether the subsurface was impacted by offsite contaminations. If contaminate soil is encountered, these measures require delineation, removal, and disposal in accordance with City and state requirements. (2) Impact 3.11-2: Use of hazardous materials during construction. As set forth on page 3.11-12 of the Draft EIR, construction activities would require the use of certain hazardous materials. The potential inadvertent release of hazardous materials is considered a potentially significant environmental impact. i.Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a, 3.11-2b, 3.11-2c, 3.11-2d (DEIR, pp. 3.11-12 - 3.11-13.) These mitigation measures require the contractor to use best management practices to minimize potential effects on groundwater and soils, and to ensure that, in the event of a release, containment and cleanup occurs in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Additionally, these mitigation measures require disposal of spent oil 070228 syn 6050098 14 NOT YET APPROVED and other solvents in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, and preparation of a construction health and safety plan. (3) Impact 3.11-3: Use of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing school. As set forth on page 3.11-13 of the Draft EIR, there are schools located within one-quarter mile of several of the proposed Project sites, and grading and excavation activities have the potential to disturb contaminated soils or groundwater. The Draft EIR identifies this impact as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measures 3.11-1a, 3.11-1b (Draft EIR, p. 3.11-13). Among other things, these mitigation measures would require pre-construction soil and groundwater testing to determine whether the subsurface was impacted by offsite contaminations. If contaminate soil is encountered, these measures require delineation, removal, and disposal in accordance with City and state requirements. (4) Impact 3~11-4: Operational use of hazardous materials. As set forth on pages 3.11-13 to 3.11-15 of the Draft EIR, each of the proposed new and renovated well sites would be designed to temporarily store and utilize two chemical solutions. These chemicals would be used to chloraminate the groundwater extracted from the wells. These chemicals could spill or leak from their containers. This impact is identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measure 3.11-4 (Draft EIR, p. 3.11-5). This mitigation measure requires the Project to be designed in accordance with the latest adopted versions of the Building and Fire Codes. (5) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the measures required by Mitigation Measures 3.11-1a, 3.11-1b, 3.11-1c, 3.11-2a, 3.11-2b, 3.11-2c, 3.11-2d, and 3.11-4 substantially reduce the Project’s hazards and hazardous materials impacts. With this mitigation, the Project’s above- identified hazards and hazardous materials impacts are therefore found’to be less-than- significant. (k)Public Services and Utilities (1) Impact 3.12-1: Temporary, planned, or accidental disruption to utility services. As set forth on pages 3.12-5 of the Draft EIR, construction activities associated with the Project could potentially result in utility conflicts, due to their potential location within existing roadways. This impact is identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measure 3.12-1 (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-6 - 3.12-8). These mitigation measures require a study to be conducted identifying utilities, obtainment of encroachment permits, development of procedures for excavation, support, and fill of areas around utility cables and pipes, and notification of surrounding residents and businesses. 070228 syn 6050098 15 NOT YET APPROVED (2) Impact 3.12-2: Short-term emergency services impacts. As set forth on page 3.12-8 of the Draft EIR, the Project has the potential to generate a short term increase in demand for police and fire services if an accident were to occur as a result of the Project. This impact is identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measure 3.12-2 (Draft EIR, p. 3.12-8). A copy of the traffic control plan shall be provided to the relevant police and fire departments prior to construction, and the City shall provide notice to the relevant departments prior to construction of individual pipeline segments. (3) Impact 3.12-3: Project implementation would increase power usage needs. As set forth on pages 3.12-8 and 3.12-9 of the Draft EIR, construction activities would result in a commitment of natural resources through direct consumption of fossil fuels and use of materials. Over the long-term, consumption of electricity and nonrenewable resources would occur at the wells and pump stations. These impacts are identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 (Draft EIR, p. 3.12-9). The. City would be required to coordinate design and anticipated energy demands with the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department, and must ensure that energy efficient equipment is used. (4) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the measures required by Mitigation Measures 3.12-1, 3.12-2, and 3.12-3 substantially reduce the Project’s public services and utilities impacts. With this mitigation, the Project’s above-identified public services and utilities impacts are therefore found to be less-than-significant. SECTION 7. Significant Impacts That Can be Avoided or Mitigated to a Less-Than- Significant Level. (a)Construction Related Impacts (1) Impact 4.1: Concurrent construction of several Projects within the Proiect area could result in cumulative short-term impacts associated with construction activities. As set forth on pages 4-10 to 4-14 of the Draft EIR, construction of the Project may result in potentially significant construction related impacts. i.Mitigation Measures 4.1a, 4.1b, 3.3-1a, 3.3-1b, 3.3-1c, 3.3-5a, 3.5-1a, 3.5-1b, 3.6-3, 3.6-4, 3.8-1a, 3.8-1b, 3.8-1c,.3.8-1d, 3.8-1e, 3.8-1f, 3.8-1g, 3.8-4a, 3.8-4b, 3.8-4c, 3.8-4d, 3.8-4e, 3.8-4f, 3.8-6, 3.9-1a, 3.9-1b, 3.10-1a, 3.10-1b, 3.10-1c, 3.10-1d, 3.10-1e, 3.11-1, 3.11-2a, 3.11-2b, 3.11-2c, 3.12-1, 3.12-2 (Draft EIR, p. 4-14, as revised in the Final EIR at pp. 5-19 to 5-20). These mitigation measures require communication and coordination of the Project construction activities with other agencies in the area, and other such mitigation as is described above in this Resolution. 070228 syn 6050098 16 NOT YET APPROVED (2) Impact 4.3: Concurrent construction of Projects could result in cumulative long-term impacts to visual quality. As set forth on page 4-15 of the Draft EIR, the Project and other Projects in the areas may contribute to permanent impacts to surrounding visual resources. These impacts are identified as potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measures 4.3, 3.3-2a, 3.3:2b, 3.3-5b (Draft EIR, p. 4-15L. Mitigation Measure 4.3 requires implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a, 3.3-2b, and 3.3-5b as described above in this Resolution. (3) Impact 4.6: Concurrent construction of Projects could result in cumulative long-term impacts to protected trees and other vegetation. As set forth on page 4-17 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project, and other Projects in the area, may require removal of or pruning of protected trees and shrubs. This impacts is considered potentially significant. i.Mitigation Measures 3.6-2a, 3.6-2b, 3.6,2c, 3.6-2d (Draft EIR, p. 4-17). This mitigation measure requires the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-2a, 3.6-2b, 3.6-2c, and 3.6-2d, as described above in this Resolution. (4) Impact 4.7: Concurrentconstruction of Projects could result in cumulative long-term impacts to cultural resources. As set forth on pages 4-17 and 4-18 of the Draft EIR, construction of the Project, and other Projects in the area may result in impacts to known and unknown cultural resources. i.Mitigation Measures 4.7, 3.7-1a, 3.7-1b, 3.7-2, 3.7-3 (Draft EIR, p. 4-18). This mitigation measure requires the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7- la, 3.7-1b, 3.7-2, 3.7-3, as described above in this Resolution. (5) Impact 4.8: Concurrent construction of Proiects could result in cumulative long-term noise impacts. As set forth on page 4-18 of.the Draft EIR, the Project, and other Projects in the area, may result in potentially significant cumulative noise impacts. i.Mitigation Measures 4.8, 3.10-3a, 3.10-3b, 3.10-3c (Draft EIR, p. 4-18). This mitigation measure requires the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.10-3a, 3.10-3b, and 3.10-3c, as described above in this Resolution. (6) Impact 4.9: Concurrent construction of Projects could result in a cumulative long-term increase in power usage. As set forth on page 4-19 of the Draft EIR, the Project, and other Projects in the area may contribute to long-term increases in power usage. This impact is identified as a potentially significant cumulative impact. i.Mitigation Measures 4.9, 3.12-3 (Draft EIR, p. 4-19). This mitigation measure requires the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.12-3, as described above in this Resolution. (7) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, 070228 syn 6050098 NOT YET APPROVED or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the measures required by Mitigation Measures 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.3, 3.6-2a, 3.6-2b, 3.6-2c, 3.6-2d, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 substantially reduce the Project’s long-term cumulative impacts. With this mitigation, the Project’s above-identified long-term cumulative impacts are therefore found to be less-than-significant. SECTION 8. Growth Inducement. (a) Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including through the elimination of obstacles to growth and development. The removal of obstacles to growth relates directly to the removal of infrastructure limitations. The proposed Project is intended to correct an existing deficiency in the City’s emergency water supply and provide for water supply during certain drought conditions. As set forth in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR, the City Council hereby finds that implementation of the Project would not directly foster population growth or result in the construction of additional housing, and that implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a direct or indirect increase in population or employment. SECTION 9. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. As found by the City Council in sections V and VII above, the Final EIR identifies the following potentially significant impacts that cannot be fully avoided or substantially lessened by the above-referenced mitigation measures. (a) Impact 3.8-4: Short-term demand for parking spaces. As set forth on pages 3.8-19 to 3.8-22 of the Draft EIR, the permanent loss of parking spaces at the California Avenue parking lot site would result in a significant unavoidable impact. (b) Impact 3.10-1: Construction of proposed facilities would generate temporary noise levels above existing ambient conditions and well drilling activities, resulting in City Municipal Code Violations. As set forth on pages 3.10-11 to 3.10-14 of the Draft EIR, impacts associated with 24-hour drilling activities would be significant and unavoidable. SECTION 10. Feasibility of Project Alternatives. (a) Because the Project will result in potentially significant environmental impacts, the City of Palo Alto must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the Project. (b) As described in detail on page 5-3 of the Draft EIR, under the no-Project alternative, the City of Palo Alto would not implement improvements to correct the existing deficiency in emergency water supply. As such, the potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR would be avoided. (1) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project and rejects this alternative for the following reasons: (a) the Project will provide many benefits, as described below in Section XI, 070228 syn 6050098 18 NOT YET APPROVED and these benefits would not be obtained if this alternative were selected; and (b) this alternative will not satisfy any of the stated Project objectives. (c) As described in detail on pages 5-3 to 5-6 of the Draft EIR, the Agency Connections alternative would use existing connections with the City of Mountain View, Stanford University and East Palo Alto to obtain additional water supply. As the intertie connections to adjacent utility districts are already in place, no additional facilities would be required, and no environmental impacts would be associated with implementation of this alternative. (1) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project and rejects this alternative for the following reasons: (a) the Project will provide many benefits, as described below in Section XI, and these benefits would not be obtained if this alternative were selected; and (b) this alternative would not satisfy the Project objectives of meeting the 8-hour emergency water supply and fire flow requirements. (d) As described in detail on pages 5-6 to 5-10 of the Draft EIR, the Santa Clara Valley Water District Western Pipeline Extension would extend a supply pipeline from the City of Mountain View to the City of Palo Alto to assist in meeting the City of Palo Alto’s emergency water supply demand. Construction of the approximately 15 mile pipeline would result in substantial construction related impacts. (1) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project and rejects this alternative for the following reasons: (a) the Project will provide many benefits, as described below in Section XI, and these benefits would not be obtained if this alternative were selected; (b) this alternative, which would result in a total disturbance area of approximately 77 acres over an 18 mile linear corridor would result in the highest overall environmental impacts; and (c) this alternative would not meet the Project’s fire flow objective. (e) As described in detail on pages 5-10 to 5-16 of the Draft EIR, the Desalination Plant alternative would result in construction of a desalination plant to meet emergency demands. Construction of a desalination plant would result in short-term construction related impacts and long-term operational impacts. (1) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project and rejects this alternative for the following reasons: (a) the Project will provide many benefits, as described below in Section XI, and these benefits would not be obtained if this alternative were selected; and (b) this alternative, which would require a 10 to 15 acre site and 4.5 miles of distribution system would result in greater environmental impacts across all issue areas. (f) The City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR describes ’a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project sufficient to foster informed public participation and decisionmaking and permit a reasoned choice. As set forth above, the City Council has evaluated the 070228 syn 6050098 19 NOT YET APPROVED comparative merits of the alternatives, found each of the alternatives infeasible, and has rejected them in favor of the Project. SECTION 11. Statement of Overriding Considerations. (a) As set forth elsewhere in this Resolution, the City Council has found (and the Final EIR concludes) that the proposed Project, even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures and consideration of alternatives, will potentially result in significant, unavoidable parking and noise impacts. - (b) The City Council hereby adopts and makes this statement of overriding considerations concerning the Project’s significant and unavoidable parking and noise impacts to explain why the Project’s health, safety, and welfare benefits override and outweigh its unavoidable impacts. (c) The Project will bring substantial benefits to the City of Palo Alto, in that the Project provides emergency water supply and storage necessary for the City to meet the Department of Health Services recommended eight-hour emergency supply to be provided in the event of a failure in the Hetch Hetchy water delivery system. Additionally, the Project will provide emergency water supply and storage necessary for the City to meet fire flow requirements in every pressure area, and includes facilities that would allow for drought year supplemental production. (d) As set forth in the 1999 Water Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution System Study (which is incorporated herein by reference), a large earthquake could result in the shutdown of the City’s main water supply for as long as 60 days. Coupled with the need to extinguish multiple fires in the hour immediately following such an earthquake, the City’s existing water system would not be able to supply sufficient water to meet demands, even if extensive water conservation measures were implemented during the disaster. The 1999 study concluded that the best way to provide for basic water needs would be to implement the Project. // // // // // // 070228 syn 6050098 20 NOT YET APPROVED (e) The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that each of the overriding considerations set forth in Section l l(c) above constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh its unavoidable impacts. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AB STENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: St. Deputy City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 070228 syn 6050098 21 Mitigation Monitoring and Repo~ng Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCYWATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT Mitigation Measures Land Use, Planning. and Recreation Responsibility for Implementation Responsibility forMonitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Mitigation Measure 3.2-3a (applies to the Hale, Riconada, Fernando, Peers, Eleanor Pardee, Library/Community Center, California Avenue, El Camino Park, Stanford Shopping Center North and South, and Town and Country Shopping Center sites): The City shall provide notice to all surrounding neighbors and other interested parties regarding the park closure and access disruption schedule. The public notification program shall include postings on the City web site and in the vicinity of the proposed project sites, and mailings to surrounding neighbors and interested parties. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3b (applies to the Hale, Riconada, Fernando, Peers, Eleanor Pardee, Library/Community Center, California Avenue, El Camino Park, Stanford Shopping Center North and South, and Town and Country Shopping Center sites): The City shall work with the Community Services Department. particularly the Park Services division, to reschedu]e 0ark usage as available during project construction. City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Visual Quality Measure 3.3-1 a (Applies to all project components): The City of Palo Alto will install City of Palo Altointerpretive signage to explain the engineering and environmental principles related to theproposed project improvements underway at multiple locations within the City of Palo Alto. The interpretive material will be presented in an attractive and easy to understand graphic display. Signage locations could include, but would not be limited to, areas within public parks included as project sites and public parking areas closed during project construction. City of Palo Alto Measure 3.3-1b (Applies to all project components): Forstationary (non-pipeline) project Construction Contractorcomponents, the City of Palo Alto will reouire the contractor to ensure that construction- related activity is screened and maintained as clean and inconspicuous as practical oy storing building materials and equipment within the proposed construction stag=ng areas or in areas that are generally away from public view and by removing construction debris promptly at regular intervals. City of Palo Alto Impact 3.2-1 (Division of an Established Community} wou~¢ be less than significant and mitigation would not be required. Impact 3,2-2 (Conflicts with Land Use and Natural Resource Plans) would be less thansignificant and mitigation would not be required. Impact 3.2-3: Recreation Impact 3.3-1: Short-term visual effects exoehenced from nearby areas during project constructron. Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Park Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well SiteProposed Eleanor Pardee Park Well Site ProPosed Library/Communit~ Center Well Site Prcoosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well SiteProposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Wel~ Site Proposed Hedtage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proccsed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgraoe Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Wel! Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middiefleld Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposeo Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Monitoring Action Schedule Vedfy that postings/ notification inplace, periodic inspections during construction Prior to and during construction Verify that Prior to and during recreation constructionschedule in place Vedfy that signage/F~rior to and during notification in constructionplace, periodic InsPections during construction Vedfy that Prior to and duringconstructionconstructionscreening is in place Cit~ of palo Alto Emergency Water Supply arid Storage Project Mitigation Montiodng and Reporting Plan ESA/201490 Feb~a~ 2007 Mitigation Monitoring ano Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Measure 3,3-1c (APP es to all project components): The City of Palo Alto will require the Construction Contractor City of Pa]o Ait0 Existing Hale Well Site Ved~ restoration Followingcontractor to restore project construction and staging areas to conditions similar to existing Existing Rinconada Park Well Site of construction constructionoy replacing oavement and any landscaping at the project sites that is removed or Existing Fernando Well Site areadestroyed during construction. New olants would include grasses, shrubs, and trees Existing Peers Park We I Site~pical of the surrounding area.Existing Matadero Well Site Additional mitigation (applies to all project components): Implement Mitigation Measures 3.6-2a through 3.6-2d. Measure 3.3-2a (Applies to all project components): The City of Palo Alto will use City of Palo Alto.design elements to enhance the aesthetic appearance of proposed facilities and to reflect the Construction Contractordesign character of adjacent buildings/neighborhoods, integrating new facilities with the existing visual environment. Proposed facilities will be 0ainted or include appropriate concrete admixtures to achieve low.late, and colors that blend with the visual character of the site vicinity. For each project component, colors will be selected based on site-specificconditions with the goal of (1) reducing the visual contrast between new facilities and the surrounding visual setting and/or (2) integrating the facility appearance with the neighboring built environment. The City of Palo Alto will implement landscaping plans for proposed new wells and the ~roposed new reservoir and Mayfield Pump Station (if exPansion/reconstruction required), including native vegetation that orovides screening. New olants would include grasses, shrubs, and trees typical of the surrounding area with an emphasis on native and drought tolerant species. Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site ~rooosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Countw Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfleld Puma Station U ogrede Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Pronosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proaosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shocping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgraoe Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well SiteProposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Pronosed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center Nofth Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Prooosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Measure 3.3-2b (Applies to all project components): The City of Palo Alto will implement landscaping plans for proposed newweils and the nroaosed new reservoir and Mayfield Pump Station ~if expansion/raconstruction required), including native vegetation that provides screening. New plants would include grasses, shrubs, and trees typical of the surrounding area with an emphasis on native and drought tolerant species. The contractor will be required to warrant landscape plantings for one year afterproject completion. City of #alo Alto Impact 3.3-2: Alteration of the site’s appearance ano ~ong-terrr visual effects. Vedfy development and landscaoing ;)lans areappropriate. inspect construction site Prior th, dudng, and following construction City of Palo Alto,City of Palo Alto Existing Hale Well Site Verify development Prior to, during,Construction Contractor Existing Rinconada Park Well Site and landscaping and followingExisting Fernando Well Site clans are constructionExisting Peers Park Well Site appropriate,Existing Matadero Well Site insoectProposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site construction siteProposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Weti Site Pronosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Cit~ of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project 2Miti,gatJon Monitoring and Repot’ring =lan ESA t" 201490 February 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Resoonsibility for Responsibili~ forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Additional mitigation (applies to all project components): Implement MitigationMeasures 3.6-2a through 3.6-2d. Measure 3.3-3a (Applies to existing wells, proposed wells, and new reservoir well):Impact 3.3-3: New sources ofTo the extent possible, the City of Palo Alto will ensure that lighting used dudng nighttime Construction Contractorconstruction is clirected downward and oriented such that no light source is directly visible from neighboring residential areas. Measure 3.3-3b (Applies to all project components): The City of Palo Alto will: City of Palo Alto.City of Palo Alto Require full cutoff, low intensity light fixtures, with no light cast beyond the edge of the well site as demonstrated by a photometric study of the proposed fixtures. ¯Highly reflective building materials and/or f~nishes will not be used in the designs for proposeo structures, including fencing and light poles. In accordance with Measure 3.3-2b. above, landscaping will be provided around creDosed facilities. This vegetation will be selected. Placed. and maintained to minimize offsite ight and glare in surrounding areas. Additional mitigation (applies to all project components): Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1c. light and g~are.Verifij development Prior to, during, c=ans are and followingaporooriateconstruction Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Hedtage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site =roposed Stanfbrd Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposeo Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposea Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Procosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Prooosed Library/Community Center Welt Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposea Middlefield Wel Site Proeosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Prooosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shooting Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoi~ SiteMayfield Pump Station Upgraae Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Prooosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Hedtage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site ProDosed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well SiteExisting Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Sita Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well SiteProposed Heritage Park Well Site Proooseo Middlefield Well Site F~roposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Prooosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopl~ing Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposea Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade City of Palo Alto.City of Palo Alto Vedfy development Prior tc, during,Construction Contractor p=ans are and following appropriate construction City of Palo Nto En’~rgency Water Supply and Storage Project .Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ESA / 201490 February 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALe ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Measure 3,4-1 (applies to all project components): The City shall conduct a design- level geotechnical investigation to include identification of density profiles and soil stability to determine Potential ground shaking risks. The City shall develop and implement site- scecific cdteria using the California Building Code, structural engineers, and the current Uniform Building Code to mitigate potential risks. Measure 3,4-2 (applies to all project components): Prior to the approval of construction plans for the proposed facilities, a design-level geotechnical investigation, including City of Pale Alto City of Pale Alto Impact 3.4-1: Ground shaking Existing Hale Well Site Review Prior to and duringConstruction Contractor capable of causing localized Existing Rinconada Park Well Site geotechnical constructioncollaose or damage of Existing Fernando Well Site investigation.engineered fills, structural Existing Peers Park Well Site ensure thatdamage, pipeline ruoture, or Existing Matadero Well Site recommendationsequipment topple.Prooosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site are incorporated Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site into project City of Pale AltP, Construction Contractorcollection of subsurface data shall be completed by the City. The geotechnical evaluation should include identification of density profiles, determination of maximum shallow groundwater levels, and characterization of the vertical and lateral extent of saturated sand/sik =ayers that could undergo liquefaction during strong ground shaking and develop site-soecific design cdteria to mitigate Potential risks that shall be imalemented during project design and construction. Mitigation (applies to Hale Well, El Camino Park Reservoir, Stanford Parking Lot North and South Reservoir, Town and Country Parking Lot Reservoir, and MayfieldPump Station): Implement Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2. City of Pale Alto Impact 3.4-2: Liquefaction impacts. Proposed "Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Prooosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site ProPosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proeosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Prooosed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Prooosed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir SiteMayfield Pump Station Ucgrade Impact 3.4-3: Expansive soils redacts. Impact 3.4-4 (Ground water withdrawal would have the potential to result in subsidence) would be less than significant ano mitigation would not be reauired. Review geotechnical investigation, ensure that recommendations are incorporated into project Existing Hale Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Snopping Center Sough Reservoir Site Mayfield Pumping Station Uograde Hydrology and Water Quality Measure 3.5-1a (applicable to all project components): The City or its contractors shall prepara and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed project orior to oroject construction. The City shall submit a NOI to the RWQCB to comply with the NPDES Construction Activity Storm Water Permit requirements. City of Pale Alto. Construction Contractor City of Pale Alto Impact 3.5-1: Project construction could result in increased erosion and sedimentation and could increase turbidity and decrease water quality, Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage ParkWell SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proeosed El Camlno Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Review SWPPP, ensure that recommendations are incorporated into project Prior to and during construction Prior to and during construction City of Pale A~to Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project 4Mit~ga0on Monitoring and Repo~ng =tan ESA/201490 FebmaP~ 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Repo~ng Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued} Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Responsibility for Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Preoaration of this plan shall be the responsibility of the City, and implementation of the plan shall be the responsibility of the contractor hired to perform the work. The clan shall ~ncoroorate Best ConstructionManagement Practices IBMPs), including but not limited to: Prior to any excavation, determine whether the depth and extent of excavation would ikely encounter contaminated soils and groundwater. Retain, protect and supplement native vegetation wherever possible. Exposure of soilareas shall be limited to the immediate area required for construction operations. ¯Grading areas should be clearly marked and no equipment or vehicles shall disturb slopes or drainages outside of the grading area. Use barders ~o contain runoff around excavation sites. If unreported contaminated soil is encountered during excavation, appropriate remedlation of soils shall be camed out in contained areas or covered areas, or remediated through treatment prior to initiating excavation. Filter runoff on-sita using silt fences, desiltat~on oonds, baker tanks, and other appropriate control measures. Install tsmDorary (or permanent) storm water retention or detention structures in which treatment can occur. No stockpiling of excavated soil or other materials shall occur in stream channels. Noexcavated soft or other materials shall be disposed of in stream channels but should be haulea away for proper disposal Care should be taken to ensure that oollutant spills do not occur in stream channels. For example, changing of oil or other fluids should not be oerformed in the vicinity of stream channels. Use tarps to cover any excavation soils storage during the October-April rainy period. Afler completion of slope grading, erosion protection shall be provided and must include slope planting. Revegetation shall be facilitated by mulching, hydroseeding or other methods, and shall be initiated as soon as possible after comnletion of grading, and odor to October 15=. Improvement of slopes shall involve ground coverings. Selection of plant materials shall consider native clanfings and shall encourage shrubs and trees as a =ong-term erosion control feature. For any construction activities that shall occur during the wet season (October 15"~ through April 15t~): Anoronriate BMPs for the management of stormwater pollution shall be installed odor to October 15= or the start of construction: BMPs shall be maintained and adjusted, as necessary, throughout the duration of me project; Temporary BMPs shall be removed upon completion of the project The SWPPP shal De Kept on-site dudng construction activity and made available upon request to a reoresentative of the RWQCB. The City’s contractor shall conform to the contract specifications addressing storm water oollution orevention and shall follow all BMPs idenfifled in the project SWPPP at all.times during construction. City of P~do A~to Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project MgigaUon Mongodng and ReportJnc= Plan ESA / 201490 Feb~ary 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Repo~ng Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility for Mitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Measure 3.5-Ib (applicable to all project components): In order to reduce the potential Construction Contractor City of Palo Alto Existing Hale Well Site Insoect During constructionfor erosion and sedimentation, stream crossing using open-trench construction techniques Existing Rinconada Park Well Site constructionshall be limited to the dry season annually, from Apd115th to October 15th, subject to Existing Fernando Well Site activities andagreement and permit issuance from appropriate regulatory agencies. Alternatively, the Existing Peers Park Well Site schedule duringCity could implement microtunneling techniques under channels to reduce the erosion Existing Matadero Well Site affected timepotential.Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site pedods Measure 3.5-2 (applicable to all project components): The duration and volume of additional runoff generated from the new well sites shall be managed per guidelines specified in the SCVURPPP’s Provision C.3. As such, new well sites shall be designed such that stormwater runoff from the proposed facilities is appropriately conveyed to local drainage systems. Construction Contractor City of Palo Alto Impact 3.5-2: Construction of proposed facilities would result in a minor increase in local storm runoff volumes. Mitigation: Implement Measure 3.5-1a (applicable to all project components).Impact 3.5-3: If necessary, dewatering during construction activities could result in the discharge of turbid waters into the storm drain systems or nearby creeks. Measure 3.5-4a (applicable to all project components): An aquifer test shall be conducted following the City’s well construction and rehabilitation efforts to verify the basin’s response to pumping. City of Palo Alto, Construction Contractor City of Palo Alto Impact 3.5-4: Increased groundwater recovery to meet emergency or drought demands would have the potential to impact aquifer recovery rates andlor result in groundwater levels below historical low elevations. Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Hedtage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Mafadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefie]d Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers ParkWell Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgraoe Vedfy that project design and construction =mplementation include required "neasures Existing Hale Well Site FollowingExisting Rinconada Park Well Site constructionExisting Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefie d Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Verify results ofaquifer test Prior to and during construction City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project 6Mii~ga~on Monitoring and Repo~ng Plan ESA 1 201490 Febn~ary 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT {Continued) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Responsibility forImplementationMonitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Measure 3,5-4b (applicable to all project components): Emergency demand pumpageCity of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Existing Hale Well Site Verify that pump During projectshall be limited to ’.500 acre-feet in one year. Following this level of Dumpage, groundwater Existing F~inconada Park Well Site rate is not operationproduction shall be restricted until groundwater levels recover to pre-pumping ~eve=s.Existing Femando Well Site exceededExisting Peers Park Welt Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well SitePrpposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking =ots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station LJ ograde Impact 3.5-5 ’,Increased groundwater production during drought years could reduce Mitigation 3.5-6 (applicable to new well project components): in order to avoid the potential for well interference drawdown of greater than 40 feet. new well facilities shall not be located closer than 500 feet from existing municipal production wells, where such interference effects aco~y. Measure 3,5-7 (applicable to new well project components): All proposed well and treatment facilities shall be designed and ooerated to comply with applicable California DHS and SCVWD regulations. The City shall submit relevant application and informatio~ to DHS regarding individual, new wells odor to facility construction and use. Upbn review and approval, the DHS will issue a permit amendment identifying the conditions fo~ approval of the permit. groundwater levels below existing well pump or screen elevations, thereby affecting oroduction efficiency in nearby public and private wells) would De ~ess than significant and mitigation would not be required. City of Palo Alto,City of Palo Alto Impact 3.5-6: Placement of new Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Verify accurate Prior toConstruction Contractor we~s would alter localized Proposed Library/Communit~ Center Well Site well siting constructiongroundwater gradients during Probosed Heritage Park Well Siteemergency operations, and could Procosed Middlefield Well Siteresult in direct effect to lhe Procosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Siteefficiency of existing wells due to Probosed El Camino Park Reservoir Sitewell interference.Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site City of Palo Alto,City of Palo Alto Impact 3.5-7: Construction and Existing Hale Well Site Vedf~ that well Prior toConstruction Contractor oceration of ootable supply wells Existing Rinconada Park Well Site design and construction andwould have ootential to affect the Existing Femando Well Site operation meets during projectqualify of potable water supplies Existing Peers Park Well Site regulatory ooerefionand public health.Existing Matadero Well Site requirements~rooosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well SiteProposed Heritage Park Well Site Prooosed Middlefield Well Site Procosed Downtown Parking Lots Wel! SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir SiteProoosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station [J ograde City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project M~tigation Monitoring and Reporbng Plan ESAI201490 Feb~a~y 2007 Mitigation Monitoring ane Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALe ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 (applies to Hale Well Site, Matadero Well Site, El Camino City of Pale Alto,Park Reservoir Site, Stanford Shopping Center North Well and/or Reservoir Site):Construction ContractorThe project aDo]icant shall implement standard BMPs to maintain water quality through control of erosion and sedimentatiorL as well as hazardous materials during construction and operations as required by compliance with the City of Pale Alto’s Stormwater Discharge Ordinance and the project’s NPDES Permit and as established by Mitigation Measures set forth in Section 3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality to address impacts to water quality and in Section 3.11, Hazardous Materials to avoid and minimize potential releases of hazardous materials into the environment. BMPs would include, but would .notbe limited to, biolog=cal resources measures such as installing slit fencing between the project site and nparian habitat to orotect jurisdictional waters and riparian habitat, locating fueling stations away from jurisdictiona features, and installing sandbags or straw wattles around nearby storm drains to orevent sediment from entering the storm water drainage system. Measure 3.6-2a (applies to all project components): Provide alternative design solutions ~o avoid tree removal to the maximum extent feasible.City of Pale Alto. Construction Contractor Measure 3.6-2b (applies to all project components): Preparation era Tree Survey Re#oft and a Tree Protection and Preservation P/an by a certified arborist that satisfy the reauirements for such reports set forth in Section 6.00 of the City’s Tree Technical Manual City of Pale Alto City Arborist The Tree Survey Report shall inventory all trees greater than 4 inches in diameter, ncluding trees to be removed, relocated and retained on the property, and all street trees in the right of way within 30 feet of the site or on other 0ublic property, sucr~ as City parks.The reoort must contain the following elements: preparing arborist’s name and certification number; cover letter, title page, table of contents; purpose of the reeort and for whom prepared; site address: site clan showing each tree’s location by numoe~, tree inventory; tree condition; conclusion and recommendations including greservation suitablity ratingsfor each tree. The report must also include a secarata list of all nrotected trees with their locations and an appraisal of all regulated tree values. Supporting information,photographs, and diagrams or other figures may be included and/or reouired. City of Palo Alto City of Pale Alto City Arbodst City of Palo AltoCity Arbodst Impact 3,6-1: Accidental Existing Hale Well Site Vedfy that project Prior to and duringdischarge of sediment or toxic Existing Matadero Well Site construction meets projectmaterials to jurisdictional waters Prooosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site regulatory constructionsand aquatic habitat.Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site requirements Impact 3.6-2: Implementation of the croposed project would result in the remova= of, pruning of, and potential damage to trees and other vegetation. Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Pronosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Prooosed Library/Community Center Well SiteProposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Midd]efield Well Site Prooosed Downtow- Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Pronosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well SiteExisting Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site F~rooosed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking LotsWell SiteProposeo El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir SiteProeosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Verify that project During project design meets design phasemitigatior requirements Verify that survey During project~s completed design phase City of Pate AJto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project 8Mitigation Mongodng and Repo~ng Plan ESA / 201490 February 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Responsibility forImplementationMonitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan is required when trees to be retained might be damaged during construction and must include the following elements: Wdtten recommendations to ensure the health of trees that are to be followed during all abases of construction, Including methods for pruning and avoiding damage, as well as treatments " for damage, and inspection schedules: establishment of a tree protection zone for each tree to ee retained, with site-saecific measures for tree orotection during construction and a continued maintenance p~an for the trees after construction: a site plan showing protected or designated trees (indicated by surveyed location, species, trunk diameter, and leaf canopy) and the tree protection zones of all trees to be retained, as well as erotective tree fencing locations. Measure 3.6-2c (applies to all project components): Protection of trees during construction according to the BMPs outlined in Section 2.0 of the Tree Technical Manual. These would include but not necessarily be limited to. the follovAng: ¯Establishment of tree orotection zones that include most or all of the root zone and are also designed to protect the canopy of each tree to be retained on a site; ¯Installation of tree protection fencing; ¯Tree pruning and/or surgery as needed to enhance the health and structure of the tree: Construction Contractor City of Palo Alto City Existing Hale Well Site Verity thatArboristExisting Rinconada Park Well Site regulatoryExisting Fernando Well Site requirements are ¯Mitigation for soil comeaction and tree injuries, including dust control: and ¯Reporting of damage, Measure 3.6-2d (applies to all project components): Replacement of any trees or other protected vegetation removed as required by Chapters 8.04 and 8.10 of the Code. Reclacement of protected trees is reouired unless the tree is dead dangerous, or a nuisance tree. Designated trees must De reolaced if it is necessary or desirable to maintain the character of the site. The number and nature of the replacement trees will be determined ey the Director. taking the value of the tree (s’, removed and the site design into account. When a orotected or designated tree is to be reolaced on site the reolacement tree shall be of:the same soecies and its location shall be approved by the Director. if street tree removal is authorized by the City, replacement requirements shall be seecified in the Detroit authorizing removal. All replacement trees shall be selected and installed according to the specifications outlined in Sections 3.35 througb 3.50 of the Tree Technica/Manual which address, among other things, quality of planting stock, planting site preparation, and tree installation methods. in the event that it is not feasible to reD,ace a tree on site then the value of the removed tree(sj shall be calculated under the Tree Value Replacment Standard in presented in Section 3.25 of the Tree Technica/Manual Fees equa~ to the value of removed trees will then be collected aria used to add trees and/or other landscaping either on the site or elsewhere in the City. Construction Contractor City of Palo Alto City Arbodst Existing Peers Park Well Site metExisting Matadero Well Site Procosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proeosed Library/Community Center Well SiteProposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proaosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir SiteMayfield Pump Station Upgraoe Existing Hale Well Site Vedfy thatExisting RInconada Park Well Site regulatoryExisting Femando Well Site requirements areExisting Peers Park Wall Site metExisting Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Welt Site Proeosed Library/Community Center Welt Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site P~ooosed Middlefield Well Site Proeosed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Prooosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade During construction Following construction City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Mitigat~or~ Monltottng and RepodJng Plan ESA / 201490 FebnJaty 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALe ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Measure 3.6-3 (applies to all project components): Avoid disturbance of breeding Construction Contractor City of Pale Alto Impact 3.6-3: Activities Existing Hale Well Site Vedfy mitigation During constructionsoec a -status birds. If construction activities (i.e., ground clearing and grading, including associated with the construction Existing Rinconada Park Well Site recluirements areremoval of trees or shrubs) are scheduled to occur during the nonbreeding season of the proposed project could Existing Fernando Well Site met(September 1 through January 31), no mitigation is required,result in adverse impacts on Existing Peers Park Well Site If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season (February 1 special-status bird soecles.Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Sitethrough August 31), the project proponent will imptement the following measures to avoid Proposed Library/Community Center Well Sitepotential adverse effects on nesting raptors and other special-status birds:Proposed Heritage Park Well Site ,Procosed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Procosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Prooosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade No more than two weeks ;~rior to construction, a qualified wildlife biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys of all potential nesting habitat within 500 feet of constructior activities where access is available. If active nests are found during Dreconstruction surveys, the Droject prooonent create a no-disturbance buffer (acceotable in size to the CDFG) around active raptor nests and nests of other special-status birds during the breeding season, or until determined that all young have fledged. Typical buffers include 500 feet for raptors and 250 feet for other nesting birds. The size of these buffer zones and types of construction activities restricted in these areas may be further modified during coordination with CDFG and will be based on existing noise and human disturbance evels at the project site. Nests initiated during construction are presumed to be unaffected, and no buffer would be necessary. However, the "take" (mortality, direct disturbance of. etc.} of individual birds will be prohibited. If preconstruction surveys indicate that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the construction period, no further mitigation is required. Trees and snruos within the construction footodnt that have been determined to be unoccupied oy special-status birds or that are located outside the no-disturbance buffer for active nests may be removed. Measure 3.6.4 (applies to Hale Well, Fernando Well, Matadero Well, Eleanor Pardee Well, El Camino Reservoir, Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir, and Mayfield Pump Station sites): Project implementation shall avoid disturbance to maternity roosts of special-status bats during the breeding season in accordance with the following procedures. No more than two weeks in advance of any tree removal or demolition or construction activity involving noisy or intrusive activities, that will commence dudng the breeding season IMarch 1 through August 31), a qualified bat biologist, acceptable to the CDFG. shall conduct daytime pre-construction surveys of all potential special-status bat preeding habitat in the vicinity of the planned activity. Under such surveys, potentially suitable habitat shall be located visually. In addition, night surveys shall be conducted to detect potential bat roost emergence activity from any suitable habitat. Night surveys shall be conducted using night vision equioment and/or infrarad-caeable video cameras, tn addition, the qualified bat biologist shall be proficient in bioacoustic analysis using ultrasonic detectors, and will use a sufficient number of acoustic detectors to indicate any areas of bat activity. At least four nighttime emergence surveys shall be undertaken on nights that are warm enougn for bats to be active, as determined oy a qualified bat biologist. Surveys should provide, as much as cossible, data on species, population, roost location, and foraging activity. Depending on the survey findings, the following actions shall be taken to avoid ootential adverse effects on breeding special-status bats: 1 If active roosts are identified during pre-construction surveys a no-disturbance buffer will be created by the qualified bat biologist, in consultation with the CDFG around active roosts ~luring the breeding season. The size of the buffer will ta~e into account factors such as the following: a Noise and human disturbance levels at the project site and the roost site at tt~e time of the survey ana the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity; City of Pale Altoqualified biologist, Construction Contractor City of Pale Alto Impact 3.6.4: Removal of trees and other proposed construction activities during the breedingseason could result in imoacts to special-status bats. Existing Hale Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Matadero Well SiteProposed Eleanor Pardee Park Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening Petween the project site and the roost: anti c.Sensitivity of individual nesting species and the behaviors of the Pats. If ore-construction surveys indicate that no roosts of special-status bats are present, or that roosts are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied, no further mitigation is required. Vedfy mitigation reouirements are met During construction City of Pale Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project 10Mitigation Monitoring and RepOr~ng Plan ESA/201490 February 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting ~an MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Responsibility forImplementationMonitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule 3.Pre-construction surveys are not required for demolition or construction activities scheduled to occur during the non-breeding season (September 1 through February 28). 4.Noisy demolition or construction activities as described.above (or activities producing similar noise and activity levels in the vicinity) commencing during the non-breeding season and continuing into the breeding season do not require surveys (as it is assumed that any bats taking up roosts would be acclimated to project-re ated activities already underway). However, if trees are to be removed during the breeding season, the trees would be surveyed for roosts pdor to their removal, according to the guidelines outlined in la through lc, above. 5.Bat roosts initiated during demolition or construction activities are presumed to be unaffected by the activity,, and a buffer is not necessary. 6.Destruction of roosts of special-status bats and overt interference with roosting activities of special-status bats shall be prohibited. Cultural Resources Measure 3.7-1a (applies to all project components): The City of Palo Alto will include the following in the proposed project contract specifications for ground-disturbing activities, including .excavation and grading: ¯In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultura! resources are discovered dudng ground disturbing activities, such as structural features or unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, amhitectural remain~ (such asbricks or other foundation elements), or historic arqhaeological artifacts (such as antique glass bottles, ceramics, horseshoes, etc.), all work within 100-feet of the resources shall be ha!ted and the project proponent and/or lead agency shall consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the project proponent and/or lead agency and the qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation, with the ultimate determination to be made by the City. If recommended by the consultingarchaeologist, a!l significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared by the qualified amhaeologist according to current professional standards. ,,In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, City Planning Staff shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted..Work may proceed on other parts of theproject site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out. City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Impact 3.7-1: Potential adverse Existing Hale Well Site Verify inclusion of Prior to and duringqualified archaeologist Department of Planning effects to historical resources or Existing Rinconada Park Well Site requirements in constructionor paleontologist,and Community unique archaeological resources.Existing Fernando Well Site contractConstruction Contractor Environment including those previously Existing Peers Park Well Site specifications,unidentified.Existing Matadero Well Site verify requirementsProposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site imp~ememea Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site dudng constructionPronosed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Prol~osed El Cam!no Park Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center Noah Reservoir SitePror, osed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Preoosed Town ano Country Shopping Center Reservoir SiteMayfield Pump Station Upgrade If the discovery includes human remains, CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (e)(1) shall be followed, which is as follows: (e)In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any.location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be taken: (1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any-nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: (A)The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and (B) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: 1.The coroner shall contact the Native American HeritageCommission within 24 hours. City of Pato Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Mitfgagon Monitoring and Reporting Plan 11 ESA 1 201490 Febrda~j 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule 2.The Native American Heritage Commission shati identify the oerson or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. (2) The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the andowner or the person resoonsible for the excavation work. for "neans of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains ano any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Secfion 5097.98, or Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native Amedcan human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on tr~e property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. (A)The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make arecommendation within 24 hours after being notified oy the commission. (B) The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation: or (c)The landowner or his authohzed representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to orovide measures acceotable to the landowner. Measure 3.7-1b (applies to El Camino Park, Stanford Shopping Center North, and Stanford Shopping Center South reservoir components): The City of Palo Alto willretain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant that has expertise in Californfa orehistory to monitor ground-disturbing or vegetation removal activity within areas determined t~ have high potential for unknown or poody documented archaeologicalresources. If an intact archaeologicel deposit is encountered, all soil-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the deposit will cease. The archaeological monitor will be empowered to temcorarily redirect crews and heavy equipment until the deposit is evaluated. The monitor will immediately notify the City of Palo Alto of the encountered archaeological deposit. The monitor will after making a reasonable effort to assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered archaeological deposit, present the findings of this assessment to the City of Palo Alto. If the archaeological monitor determines that the area Demg excavated does not contain archaeological materials, the monitor will modify the ~evel of monitonng as needed. That is, at the discretion of the on-site archaeologist, themonitoring conducted can be continuous, intermittent, or soot-chect~ only. If the City of Palo Alto. in consultation with the amhaeologlcal monitor, determines that a significant archaeological resource is present and that the resource could be adverselyaffected by the proposed project, the City of Palo Alto will: Redesign the project to avoid any adverse effects on the significant archaeological resource: or City of Palo Alto qualified archaeologist, Construction Contracto- City of Palo Alto Department of Planningand Community Envircnment Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Imolement an archaeological data recovery program (ADRP) {unless the arcnaeo~ogist determines that the resource is of greater interpretive than research s~gnificance and that interpretive use of the resource is feasible). If the circumstances warrant an archaeological data recovery program, an ADRP will be conducted. The project archaeologist and the City of Palo Alto will meet and consult to determine the scoce of the ADRP. The archaeologist will prepare a draft ADRP that will be submitted to the City of Palo Alto for review and approval. The ADRP will identify howthe proposed data recove~ program would preserve the significant information ihe archaeological resource is excected to contain (i.e., the ADRP will identify the scientific/historical research questions that are applicable to the expected resource, the data classes the resource is exoected to ;}ossess, and how the expected data c~asses would address the applicable research questions). Data recovery, in general, should be limited to the portions of the historical property that could be adversely affected by the proposed project. Destructive data recovery methods will not beapplied to oortions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods arepractical. Verify retention ofqualified archaeologist; paleontologist, verify construction monitoring Prior to and during construction City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project 12Mitigation Monitoring and RepoSing Plan ESA/201490 February 2[}07 Mitigation Monitoring and Repo~ng Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Measure 3.7-2: If the Hale Pump House is modified or affected in any way, the City of City of Palo Alto Histodc City of Palo Alto Histodc Impact 3.7-2: Potential adverse Existing Hale Well Site Vedfy HRB review During projectPalo Alto will initiate review of the project actions by the Palo Alto Historic Resources Review Board,Review Board effect to the Hale Pump House and design and duringBoard ~HRB) and implement any recommendations provided by the HRB. Moreover, the Construction Contractor implementation of constructionCity of Palo Alto will rehabilitate or reconstruct the Hale Pump House. in accordance with recommendationsCEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3), following the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer. 1995). Measure 3.7-3 (applies to all project components): An appointed reoresentative of the City of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto will notify a qualified paleontologist of unanticipated discoveries,qualified paleontologist,aocument the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the Construction Contractorsignificance of the find under the criteria set forth in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. In the event a fossil is discovered during construcfion, excavations within 50feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrats Paleontology standards (SVP, 1995). The paleontologist will notify the City of Palo Alto to determine procedures to be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City of Palo Alto determines that avoidance is not feasible, the oaleontologist will prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource imoortant, and the clan will be imolemented. The clan will be submitted to theCity of Palo Alto for review and approval. Traffic and Circulation Measure 3.8-1a (applies to pipeline routes under all project components): The contractor(s) shall obtain and comely with road encroachment permits for roads that are affected by construction activities. The Work Area Protection and Traffic Control Manual includes reouirements to ensure safe maintenance of traffic flow through or around the construction work zone, and safe access of police, fire, ano omer rescue vehicles (CJUTCC, 1996). In addition, the Traffic Management Plan (subject to local jurisdiction review and approval) re~luired by Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 b would direct how traffic flow is safely maintained during project construction. City of Palo Alto Impact 3.7-3: Potential adverse Existing Hale Well Site Vedfy retention of Prior to and duringDepartment of Planning effects on paleontological Existing Rinconada Park Well Site qualified constructio~and Community resources.Existing Fernando Well Site paleontologist.Environment Existing Peers Park Well Site vedfy constructionExisting Matadero Well Site monitoringProposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Prooosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Impact 3.7-4 (Potential adverse effects to historic settings) would be less than significant andmitigation would not De required. Construction Contractor City of Palo Alto Public Impact 3.8-1: Short-term traffic Existing Hale Well Site Vedfy obtainment Prior toWorks Decartment and transportation conditions Existing Rinconada Park Well Site of required permits constructionimoacts.Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Prooosed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Prooosed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Prooosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposeo Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Mitiga~on Monitoring and Reporting Plat=13 ESA 1201490 =ebrua~y 2007 ~litigation Monitoring and Repoding Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCYWATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Measure 3.8-1b (applies to pipeline routes under all project components): The Construction Contractor City of Palo Alto Public Existing Hale Well Site Verify preparation Prior to and dudngcontractor(s) shall prepare and implement a Traffic Control / Traffic Management Plan Works Department Existing Rinconada Park Well Site and execution of constructionsubject to approval by the appropriate jurisdiction [e.g., Caltrans) prior to construction. The Existing Fernando Well Site .olanDtan shall:Existing Peers Parl~Welt Site ¯Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Prooosed Heritage Park Well Site Procosed Middlefleld Well Site include a discussion of work hours, haul routes, imits on the length of open trench, work area delineation, traffic control, and flagging; Identify all access and parking restriction and signage requirements: Layout a plan for notifications and a erocess for communication with affectedresidents and businesses prior to the start of ~onstrucfion. Advance 3ublic notification shall include posting of notices and appropriate signage of construction activities. Thewritten notification shall include the construction schedule the exact location and duration of activities within or adjacent to each street (i.e., which lanes and access ~oinUdriveways would be blocked on which days and for how long), and a toll-free teleohone number for receiving questions or comotaints; Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfieid Pump Station Upgrade ¯nclude a clan to coordinate all construction activities with emergency service providers in the area at least one month in advance. Emergency service providerswould be notified of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities. All roads would remain cassable to emergency service vehicles at all times; ¯Include the requirement that all open trenches be covered with metal plates at the end of each workday to accommodate traffic and access; and ¯Scecify the street restoration requirements pursuant to agreements with the local jurisdictions. ¯Deliveries to site located on arterials or busy roaaways would be requested betweenthe hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 o.m. when the contractor would be ready to receive them. Measure 3.8-1c (applies to pipeline routes under all project components): The contractor(s) shall identify all roadway locations where specla~ construction techniques(e.g., horizontal boring, directional ddlling or night construction) would be used to minimize impacts to traffic flow_ Construction Contractor City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Measure 3.8-1d [applies to pipeline routes under all project components): Thecontractor(s) shall develop cimulation and detour plans to minimize imoact to local street circulation. This may include the use ors gning and flagging to guide vehicles through and/or around the construction zone. Construction Contractor City of Pa[o Alto Public Works Department Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers ParkWell Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well SiteProcosed Heritage Park Well Site Pronosed Middlefield We~l Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir SkeProcosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pumc Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinccnada Park Well Site Existing Femando Well Site Existing Peers ParkWell Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Prooosed Hedtage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Prooosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Pronosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfleld Pump Station Upgraae Vedfy identification of locations for specialized construction technique Vedfy preparation and execution of olan Prior to and duringconstruction Prior to and during construction City of Palo PJto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project 1 4Mitigation Mollitodng and RepoKdn~ Plan ESA 1201490 FebnJary 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Mitigation Measure 3.8-1e (applies to pipeline routes under all project components):Construction Contractor City of Palo Alto Public Existing Hale Wel Site Vedfy use of off During constructionThe contractor(s) shall require the construction crew to parking at staging areas, and Works Department Existing Rinconada Park Well Site site constructionorovide shuttle sewice, as warranted, to limit lane closures in the public right-of-way,Existing Fernando Wel Site parking Mitigation Measure 3,8-1f (applies’to pipeline mutes under all project components): The contractor(s) shall coordinate with Caltrans and any other appropriate entity, regarding measures to minimize the cumulative effect of simultaneous construction activities in overlapping areas. Construction Contractor Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Prooosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Procosed LibrarylComm~nity Center Well SitePrboosed Heritage Park Well Site Prooosed Middlefield Well Site Procosed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Resewoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoi" Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir SiteMayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Prooosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Procosed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Procosed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Procosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Wel’ Site Existing Femando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well SiteProposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Procosed El Camino Park Reservoir S~te Proposed Stanford Shocolng Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site V~ayfield Pump Station L~ ograde City of Palo Alto Public Verify coordination Prior to and dudngWorks Department with transportation construction agencies and imolementation of agreements Measure 3,8-1g (applies to pipeline routes under all project components): The Construction Contractorcontractor(s) shall consult with VTA. SamTrans. and any other appropriate transit district at least one month crior to construction to coordinate bus stop relocations Ias necessary)aria to reduce potential interruotion of transit service. City of Palo Alto Public Vedfy coordination Prior to and duringWorks Deoartment with transportation cons{ruction agencies andmolementation of agreements Measure 3.8-1h {applies to pipeline routes under all project components): Thecontractor(s) shall develop circulation and detour clans to minimize the impact to bicycle transoortation beyond the extent of the project corridor, if a major bicycle route is disrupted, the overall bicycle network shall be reviewed and closure signage may need to occur several blocks away to allow the bicyclist to take advantage of alternative bicycle routes to get around the construction zone. Construction Contractor City of Palo Alto Public Existing Hale Well Site Vedfy preparation Prior to and duringWorks Department Existing Rinconada ParkWell Site and execution of constructionExisting Fernando Well Site planExisting Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Procosed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Pronosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Procosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site ....Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed "]’own and Country Shopping Center Reservoir SiteMayfield Pumo Station Upgrade City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage proje¢~ MiUgatJon Monitoring and Repor~ng Pla~l 15 ESA / 201490 February 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Mitigation (applies to pipeline routes under all project components): Imolement Impact 3.8-2: Short-term Existing Hale Well SiteMitigation Measure 3.8-1b.emergency access impacts.Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Procosed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Procosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir SiteMayfield Pumc Station Upgrade Mitigation (applies to pipeline routes under all project components): Implement Mitigation Measure 3.8-1g. Measure 3.8-4a (applies to project components): The City would require the Construction Contractorcontractor(s) to provide parking for construction worker’s vehicles in the vicinity of the work zone. and as needed, workers would be shuttled to the work site from an off-site~ocation. Measure 3,8-4b (applies to parking lot sites): The City shall prepare construction clans City of Palo Alto,and schedules to minimize impacts to shopping and commercial areas by avoiding the Construction ContractoroeaK shopping season (i.e., the winter holiday from Thanksgiving to Christmas). The construction schedule shall allow parking lots to be returned to paved conditions odor to Thanksgiving, to allow access to the construction area for parking during the Desk holiday period. This mitigation measure shall be incomorated into the Traffic Control / Traffic Management Plan required under Mitigation Measure 3.8-~ D. Measure 3.8-4c (applies to parking lot sites): If warranted, the City shall minimize City of Palo Alto,impacts to shopping centers by providing valet parking service or an attendant that would Construction Contractordirect shoppers to areas within the parking lot or immediately adjacent areas with available uarking during the peak shopping season (Le.. the winter holiday from ThanKsgiving to Christmas) and weekends during project construction. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the Traffic Control / Traffic Management Plan required under Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 b. Impact 3.8-3: Short-term transoortation service impacts. City of Palo Alto Impact 3.8-4: Parking imcscts.Vedfy construction During construction parking Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Welt Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Prooosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well SiteProposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site . Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Procosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site . Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well SiteExisting Matadero Well Site Prooosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Proaosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Procosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site . Procosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Procosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Prooosed California Avenue Parking Lots Well Site Proooseo Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and County Shopping Center Reservoir Site , City of Palo Alto Vedfy construction Prior to and during schedule avoids construction peak shoppingpedods City of Palo Alto Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Vedfy parking During constructionProposed California Avenue Parking Lots Well Site assistanceProposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site provided Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir SiteProoosed Town and County Shopping Center Reservoir Site City of Palo Alto Er~rgency Water Supply and Storage Project 1 6 ESA / 201490Mitigation Monitoring aria ReDoing Plan February 2007 Mitigation Monitoring ana Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALe ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Responsibility forImplementationMonitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Measure 3.8-4d (applies to parking lot sites): The City shall replace designated City of Pale Alto,City of Pale Alto Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Vedfy reolacement Project designnandicao or disabled parking displaced during construction, or lost with construction of the Construction Contractor Proposed California Avenue Parking Lots Well Site of disabled parking chaseproject, in a manner that is no less accessible than the existing spaces.Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir S~te Prol~osed Town and County Shopping Center Reservoir Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteMeasure 3.8-4e (applies to Downtown Parking Lots site): The City shall submit in lieu City of Pale Altooarking fees for each 0arking space lost at the Downtown Parking Lots site, at the applicable fee rate in olace at the time of project implementation. Measure 3.8-4f (applies to California Avenue Parking Lots site): The City shall City of Pale Alto.redesign the parking ~ayout at the selected California Avenue lot and re-stripe the lot to Construction Contractorensure no loss of parking spaces. If redesign of the lot cannot accommodate all required parking spaces, resulting in a loss of parking spaces, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. City of Pale Alto Vedfy fees Project design submitted phase City of Pale Alto Prooosed California Avenue Parking Lots Well Site Veri~ parking lot F~roiect designdesign includes ;~naserequired parking Additional Mitigation (applies .to existing and new wells and pipelines associated with all project components): Implement Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 e. Mitigation (applies to all project components): Implement Mitigation Measure 3.8-1b through 3.8-1 h. Measure 3.8-6 (applies to all project components): The contractor(s) shall enter into an agreement with the City Drier to construction that will detail the ore-construction conditions and the post-construction requirements of the rehabilitation program. Roads damaged by construction would be repaired to a structural condition equal to that which existed odor to construction activity. Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Procosed Eleanor Pardee Well SiteProposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proeosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Prooosed El Camino Park Reservoir site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Procosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well SiteExisting Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadere Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed LIbrary/Communit~ Center Well Site Prooosed Hedtage Park Well Site Prooosed Middlefield Well Site Procosed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shooping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Impact 3,8-6: Traffic safety mDacts. City of Pale Alto.City of Pale Alto Impact 3.8-6: Wear-and-tear on Existing Hale Well Site Vedfy ore- and Pdor to andConstruction Contractor the designated hau routes and in Existing Rinconada Park Well Site cost-construction followingpublic parking lots used by Existing Femando Well Site conditions constructionconstruction vehicles to access Existing Peers Park Well Site the project work sites.Existing Matadero Well SiteProposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade City of Pale Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Mitigation Monitoring and Repo~ng Plan 17 ESA / 201490 Februaw 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALe ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Air Quality Measure 3,9-1a (applies to all project Components): The City of Pale Alto or its construction contractor shall prepare and implement a Dust Abatement Program to minimize fugitive dust generation. At a minimum, the City or its contractor(s) shall include the following measures as applicable: City of Pale Alto,City of Pale Alto Impact 3.9-t; Short-term Existing Hale Well Site Veri~ preparation Prior to and duringConstruction Contractor emissions of critada pollutants,Existing Rinconada Park Well Site and execution of constructiopincluding suspended and Existing Fernando Well Site planinhalable ~articulate matter and Existing Peers Park Well Siteequipment exhaust emissions.Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Prooosed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proeosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade BAAQMD Basic Control Measures ¯Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. ¯Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand. and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of fraeboard. Pave. apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic chemical soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roaos. Darking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. ¯Sweep daily (with water sweeeera~, all paved access roads, ~arking areas, andstaging areas at construction sites. ¯Sweeo streets daily (with water sweepers) ifvisible soil r~aterial is carried onto adjacent public streets. In addition to the Basic Control Measures. the following measures, as applicable, shall be rnolemented because the construction sites are in areas located near sensitive receotors: ¯Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to ~nactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten aays or more). ¯Enclose, cover, water twice dai=y, or apply non-toxic chemical soil binders to exaosed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). ¯Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. ¯Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to Public roadways. ¯Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. ¯Install wheel washers for all exiting tnJCks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks aria equipment leaving a construction site. ¯Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of constructior~ areas. When winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mpn, susoend grading and excavation activities. ¯Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time. City Of Pale Alto Emergenc~ Water Supply and Storage Project 1 8Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ESA / 201490 FebnJaP~ 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALe ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Measure 3.9-tb (applies to all project components): To mitigate equipment exhaust City of Palo Alto,City of Pa!o Alto Existing Hale Well Site Vedfy During constructionemissions, the City of Pale Alto or its construction contractor shall comply with the Construction Contractor Existing Rinconada Park Well Site requirementsfollowing requirements:Existing Fernando Well Site executed ¯Construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturers’ sPecifications~ ¯Diesel trucks shall not idle for greater than five minutes, or as otherwise required bySection 2485 within Chapter 10. Article 1. Division 3. Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. ¯Encourage construction worker commuters to carpool or emeloy other means to reouce trip generation. Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing V~atadem Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Procosed Heritage Park Well Site Prooosed Middlefield Well Site Prooosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposeo El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Prooosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pumo Station Upgrade Noise and Vibration Measure 3.10-1a [applicable to potential new well and reservoir sites): Wells, pump house, treatment facilities, and discharge 0oints shall be sited at ~eas~ 100 feet from property lines adjacent to sensitive receptors, if sufficient space is available. City of Pale Alto,City of Pale Alto Construction Contractor Measure 3.10-’1 b (applicable to potential new well and reservoir sites): The City shall include construction specifications requirements for installation and maintenance of an engineered sound wall or noise blanket during 24-hour construction activities. Specifications shall include use of aDerooriate materials and shall De installed to a height that intercepts the line of sight between the ddll rig and sensitive receotors in order to achieve attenuation of between 10 and 15 dBA. Performance standard for this noise mitigation measure shall be reduction of noise levels within 800 feet of the drill rig to 60 dBA or less. City of Pale Alto,City of Pale AltoConstruction 3ontractor Impact 3.9-2 ILong-term emissions, including diesel particulates, from testing and emergency use of standby generators, as well as from employee trips related to inseections and maintenance) would be less than significantand mitigation would not be reouired. Impact 3.9-3 (Odor emissions) would be ess than significant and mitigation would not Pe required. Impact 3.10-1: Construction ofproposed facilities would generate temporary noise levels above existing ambientconditions and Well drilling activities, resulting in City Municipal Code violations. Prooosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well SiteProoosed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Prooosed El Camino Park Resen/oir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir SiteProeosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir S~te Prooosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Proeosed Middlefield Well Site~rooosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Prooosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proeosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Verify project siting Verify use of sound wall or blanket Project design phase During 24 hour cons[ruction City of Pale Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Mitigation Monitoring and Repo~ng Plan 19 ESA/201490 Feb~a~ 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and RepoPdng Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FoR, THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Responsibility forImplementationMonitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Measure 3,10-tc (applicable to all project components except the Downtown City of Palo Alto1 City of Palo Alto Existing Hale Well Site Verify use of sound During constructionParking Lots and Stanford North sites): For non-drilling activities, the City shall include Construction Contractor Existing Rinconada Park Well Site wall or blanket at soecified sitesconstruction specifications requirements for installation and maintenance of an engineered Existing Femando Well Sitesound wall or noise blanket. Specifications shall include use of appropriate materials and Existing Peers Park Well Siteshall be installed Lo a height that intercel3ts the line of sight between the construction Existing Matadero Well Siteequipment and the sensitive receptors in order to achieve attenuation of between 10 and Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site15 dBA. Performance standard for this noise mitigation measure shall be reduction of Proposed Library/Community Center Well Sitenoise levels within 200 feet of the construction sites to 62 dBA or less, with the exception Pronosed Heritage Park Well Siteof the Library/Community Center and Heritage Park sites which should be 58 dBA or less Proeosed Middlefield Well Sitewithin 350 feet.Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Measure 3.10-1d (applicable to all project components): All residents and other sensitive receotors within 1,000 feet of construction sites shall De notified of the proposed cons[ruction schedule four weeks in advance. The information distributed shall include the following: A brief descdotion of the construction activities, including drilling and testing operations, the necessity for 24-hour drilling, and the proposed schedule for drilling and testing activities. ¯instructions on how to attenuate interior noise levels as much as possible (e.g., c~osewindows and doors facing the active construction site, etc.) ¯A Dispatch Center 24-hour contacttelephone number for noise complaints. The City shal evaluate noise comolaints associated with nighttime drilling within 24 hours of receil3t of the comclaint, but shall reoeat noise investigations at a particular location, if requested, for no more than two times. Proposed Stanford Shopping Center.South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Verify notificationExisting Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well SiteExisting Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Prooosed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proeosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station l~ pgrade City of Pale Alto,City of Pale Alto Prior Io and duringConstruction Contractor construction Measure 3.10-1e: All project construction activity (with the exception of well drilling and testing) shall comply with City Municipal Code 9.10.06. Measure 3.10-3a (applies to all project components): The pump house and well enc~osuras shall be designed such that operational noise resulting from well omductionand reservoir use wou cl meet the performance standard of 60 :~BA Ldn at the nearest residentia= property line. For commercial and industrial uses. the cerformance standards would be 70 and 75 dBA. respectively, City of Palo Alto,City of Palo Alto Existing Hale Well Site Verify compliance During constructionConstruction Contractor Existing Rinconada Park Well Site with regulationsExisting Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Procosed Heritage Park Well SiteProposeo Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Procosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site ProPosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir SiteProposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Impact 3.10-2 {Short-term vibration impacts) would be less than significant and mitigation would not be reouired. City of Palo Alto,City of Palo Alto Impact 3.10-3: Operational noise Existing Hate Well Site Vedfy design Project designConstruction Contractor impacts.Existing Rinconada Park Well Site includes chaseExisting Fernando Well Site requirementExisting Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site ProPosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Centar Well SiteProposed Heritage Park Well Site ProDosed Middlefield Well SiteProposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Suppty ano Storage Project 20Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ESA / 201490 =ebruary 2007 ’vlitigation Monitoring ano Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOP, THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Measure 3.’lg-3b (applies to all project components): During project design, the City City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Ver~ results of Project designshall conduct 24-hour noise surveys in the vicinity of each site. Where Ldn noise levelsare 54 dBA or less. the noise performance standard shall be reduced such that the noise study phase ~eve~s from pumping operations shall not result in a 5 dBA increase in ambient noise ~eve~s. Where site conditions allow, louvers and doors shall be odented away from sensitive receptors. Measure 3.10-3c (applies to all project components): Emergency generators shall befully enclosed in sound-attenuated housing. Exhaust flow from the generator shall include a silencer. With the exceotion of monthly testing for maintenance ~urPoses, the generator and pump wou~o operate only under emergency conditions. City of Palo Alto.City of Palo Alto Verify Project designConstruction Contractor requirements phaseincorporated into design Hazards and Hazardous Materials Measure 3.11-1a (applicable to all project components): For project sites located near contaminated properties, oerform ore-construction soil and groundwater testing to determine whether the subsurface has been impacted by offsite contamination. Soil and groundwater testing shall occur in the areas of proeosed excavation and drilling anosamcles shall be collected and analyzed oy a State-certified analytical laboratory for a list of constituents that is based on reported contamination at the nearby contaminated site. Soil and groundwater testing shall be oerformed by a registered environmental orofessional with experience in soil and groundwater characterization. Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Prooosed Library/Community CenterWell Site Procosed Heritage Park Well Site Procosed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteF~roposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site F’ronosed Stanford Shooping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site ~,layfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadem Well Site Prooosed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Prooosed Heritage Park Well SiteProoosed Middlefield Well Site Prooosed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Snopping Center South Reservoir Site Procosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir SiteM~yfield Pump Station Upgrade Measure 3.1t-lb [applicable to all project components): if contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered and identified constituents exceeo human rlealth risk levels, it shall be delineated, removed, and disoosed of offsite in comoliance with the CUPA requirements and the California Code of Regulations. Title 22. City of Palo Alto,City of Palo Alto Vedfy results of Prior toConstruction Contractor nvestigation construction tm pact 3.11-1: Exoosure of the public or the environment to hazardous materials or wastethrough inadvertent excavation of contaminated soil or grounowa{er City of Palo Alto.City of Palo Alto Verify 3uring constructionConstruction Contractor imciementation of regulatory requirements Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well SiteProposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Pronosed Library/Community Center Well Site Prooosed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Procosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Procosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shoppin; Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Stat|on Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well SiteProposeo Eleanor Pardee Well Site Prooosed Library/Community Center Well SiteProposed Hedtage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Procosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Procosed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir SiteMayfield Pump Station Upgrade Ci~ of Pa}o Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project M{t~g~lJon Monitoring and Reporting P~an 21 ESA / 201490 FebruaP/2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibili~ for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Measure 3.11-1c (applicable to all project components): The proposed croject will be City of Palo Alto.City of Palo Alto Verify that RWQCB Project designreviewed with staff from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Construction Contractor confirmation is phasewritten confirmation from the Board will Pe obtained to verify that the proposed project will received .not adversely impact groundwater contamination cleanup activities in the project vicinity. Measure 3,ti-2a (applicable to all project components): To minimize the potential negative effects on groundwater and soils, contractors shall use best management practices typically implemented as part of construction. These could include the following: ¯Follow manufacturers’ recommendations and regulatory requirements for use, storage and disposal of chemical products and hazardous materials used in construction; ¯Avoid overtopping construction eouipment fuel gas tanks: During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly contain and remove grease and oils; and F’ropedy dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals. Construction Contractor City of Palo Alto Impact 3.11-2: Use of hazardous Verify During constructionmaterials during construction,implementation of~ BMPs Measure 3.11-2b (applicable to all project components): In the event of an inadvertent release of hazardous materials during project operations, ensure that containment and c~eanup of such a release occurs in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Vedfy results of During constructionany cleanup efforts required Measure 3.1t-2c (applicable to all project components): Spent oil and other solvents used during maintenance of construction e~u=pment shall be recycled or disposed of inaccordance with all acolicable regulatory requirements. All hazardous materials shall be transported, handled, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Construction Contractor City of Palo Alto Vedfy disposal During constructionrecords Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site " Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Communify Center Well SiteProposed Heritage Park Well Site F’rooosed Middlefield Well Site F~rooosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir SiteProoosed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Welt Site Existing Fernando Well SiteExisting Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well SiteProoosed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Procosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Prooosed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Tow0 and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Femando Well SiteExisting Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site . Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Maytield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well SiteProposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well SiteProposed Heritage Park Well Site Prooosed Middlefield Well SiteProoosed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfleld Pump Station Upgrade Cl~y of Pa]o/~o Emergency Water Supply and Storage project Mitigation Monitoring and Repo~ng Plan 22 ESA / 201490 February 2007 Mftlgation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) ~itigation Measures Responsibility for Responsibility forImplementationMonitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Measure 3.11-2d (applicable to all project components): A construction health and City of Palo Alto.City of Palo Alto Existing Hale Well Site Vedfy content anc~Prior to and duringsafety plan as required by the California Occunational Safety and Health Administration Construction Contractor Existing Rinconada Park Well Site execution of plan constructionshall be ~repared. This health and safety plan shall describe the hazardous materials that Existing Fernando Welt Sitewould be used during construction and their associated health hazards.Existing Peers Park Well Site Mitigation (applicable to all project components): Implement Mitigation Measures 3.11-10 and 3.11-1b. Measure 3.11-4 (applicable to all project components): The City shall design the project in accordance with the latest adopted versions of the Building and Fire Codes, asacplicable. Impact 3.11-3: Use of hazardous. *naterials. substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing school. Impact 3,tt-4: Operational use of hazardous materials. Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir SitePropose~] Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir SiteMayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well SiteExisting Rinconada Park Well Site Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well SiteProposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Procosed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Project designExisting Rinconada Park Well Site phaseExisting Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well SiteExisting Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Weli Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well SitePt’oposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Coumry Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Impact 3.1 t-5 (Impairment to implementation of or physicallyinterfere with an adopted emergency response o~an or emergency evacuation plan) would be less than significant and mitigation would not be required_ Verify design includes regulatory requirements Impact 3.11=6 (The proposed project could expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss. injury or death involving wildland fires) would be less than significant and mitigation would not be required. City of Pa]o Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project MitJgatJorl Motlitor~ng and Repo~ng Plan 23 ESAI201490 Feb~aw 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE CiTY OF PALO ALTO EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT (Continued) Responsibility for Responsibility forMitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Impact(s) Being Mitigated Applicable Projects Monitoring Action Schedule Public Services and Utilities Measure 3.12-1 (applies to all project components): Upon selection of the preferred City of Palo Alto,sites and dunng design efforts, a detailed study identitymg utilities along the affected Construction Contractor0ortions of the project will be conducted. The cresence of utilities will be identified by contacting utility owners, obtaining as-built drawings, and conducting a field utilities search at the selected sites. For locations with adverse imcacts, the following mitigations are identified: a.Utility excavation or encroacriment permits shall be obtained from the appropriate agencies. These permits include measures to minimize utility disruption. The City and its contractors shall comply with cermit conditions, and such conditions shall be included in construction contract specifications, b.Utility locations shall be verified through field survey and use of the Underground Service Aled services, Detailed specificat!ons shall be 0repared as part of the design clans to include Procedures for the excavation, support and fill of areas around utility cables and Dices. All affected utility services shall be notified of the City’s construction plans and schedule. Arrangements will be made with these entities regarding protection,relocation, or temporary disconnection of these services. The City will employ appropriate construction techniques in areas where installation of connection pipelines would parallel underground utility lines. These measures, which would be included in the engineering specifications, should include trench-wall support measures to guard against trench-wall faiture and possible resulting loss of structura support for the excavated areas. e.Residents and business in the project area shall be notified of any planned utilityserv=ce disruption in advance, in conformance with county and state standards. Measure 3.12-2 (applies to all project components): The City would provide, upon request, a copy of the Traffic Control Plan to the relevant police and fire departments for their review odor to construction. The City will provide adequate notice to the local service providers prior to construction of individual pipeline segments. Discussion of the Traffic Contro’ Plan is provided in Section 3.8, Traffic and Circulation. under Measure 3.8-1a. City of Palo Alto, Construction Contractor Measure 3.12-3 (applicable to all project components): The City would coordinate facility design and anticipareo energy demands with the CPAU department, including submittal of facility design for clan review, as appropriate. Consistent witt~ the California Energy Action Plan//priorities for reducing energy usage and the Renewable Energy Facilitation Plan the City would ensure that energy-efficient equipment is useo, and would continue to time energy usage during off-peaK hours. Where Possible, electricity would oe supplied from a renewable energy resource l.e.g., PaloAitoGreen, a wind and solar cower potion ocerated by CPAU). City of Palo Alto. Construction Contractor City of Palo Alto Public Impact 3.12-1: Temporary,Existing Hale Well Site Verify utilities study Project designWorks Department planned, or accidental disruption Existing Rinconada Park Well Site phaseto utility services=Existing Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Librery/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Procosed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade City of Palo Alto Public Impact 3.12-2: Short-term Existing Hale Well Site Verify emergency Prior to and duringWorks Department emergency services impacts.Existing Rinconada Park Well Site services constructionExisting Fernando Well Site notificationExisting Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadem Well SiteProposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community CenterWell SiteProposed Heritage Park Well Site Proposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well SiteProposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade Existing Hale Well Site Existing Rinconada Park Well SiteExisting Fernando Well Site Existing Peers Park Well Site Existing Matadero Well Site Proposed Eleanor Pardee Well Site Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site Proposed Heritage Park Well SiteProposed Middlefield Well Site Proposed Downtown Parking Lots Well Site Proposed El Camino Park Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center North Reservoir Site Proposed Stanford Shopping Center South Reservoir Site Proposed Town and Country Shopping Center Reservoir Site Mayfield Pump Station Upgrade City of Palo Alto Public Impact 3,12-3: Project Verify project Project designWorKs Department implementation would increase energy chasepower usage needs,requirements City of Palo A~to E~’ergency Water Supply and Storage Project 24Mitigation Monitoring and Reportin9 Plar ESA/201490 Feb~ary 2007 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT J RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING THE EMERGENCY WATER SUPPLY AND STORAGE PROJECT. TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2.5 MILLION GALLON (MG) STORAGE RESERVOIR AND ASSOCIATED PUMP STATION AT EL CAMINO PARK; CONSTRUCT THREE NEW WELLS, AT EL CAMINO PARK, ELEANOR PARDEE PARK AND THE MAIN LIBRARY/COMMUNITY GARDENS; UPGRADE THE EXISTING MAYFIELD PUMP STATION; AND REHABILITATE FIVE EXISTING CITY WELLS: HALE WELL SITE, RINCONADA PARK WELL SITE, FERNANDO WELL SITE, PEERS PARK WELL SITE, AND MATADERO WELL SITE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") has previously approved Resolution No. of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Pursuant to the California Environmental quality Act and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (State Clearinghouse No. 2066022038). WHEREAS, the Project will bring substantial benefits to the City of Palo Alto, in that the Project provides emergency water supply and storage necessary for the City to meet the Department of Health Services recommended eight-hour emergency supply to be provided in the event of a failure in the Hetch Hetchy water delivery system. Additionally, the Project will provide emergency water supply and storage necessary for the City to meet fire flow requirements in every pressure area, and includes facilities that would allow for drought year supplemental production. ," WHEREAS, as set forth in the 1999 Water Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution System Study, a large earthquake could result in the shutdown of the City’s main water supply for as long as 60 days. Coupled with the need to extinguish multiple fires in the hour immediately following such an earthquake, the City’s existing water system would not be able to supply sufficient water to meet demands, even if extensive water conservation measures were implemented during the disaster. The 1999 study concluded that the best way to provide for basic water needs would be to implement the Project. WHEREAS, the E1 Camino Park reservoir and well site is preferred over other possible sites because it is close to the Lytton Pump station, which supplies water to properties west of El Camino Real and to the University Avenue downtown area; is a viable site for a water production well; is in north Palo Alto near San Francisquito Creek, which is the area which has historically had the highest producing well sites; and will not conflict with City parking regulations. 070228 syn 0120210 NOT YET APPROVED WHEREAS, the Eleanor Pardee Park well site is preferred because testing by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the United States Geological Survey indicate that the park has a high likelihood of having a relatively high water production rate, and the location of this well site is in the west corner of the park, away from the grassy areas that have high recreational use. WHEREAS, the Library/Community Gardens well site is preferred because it is in north Palo Alto, and is approximately 1500 feet from the existing Rinconada well, which has a good production rate. WHEREAS, the rehabilitation of the Hale well site, Rinconada Park well site, Fernando well site, Peers Park well site, and Matadero well site and the upgrade of the existing Mayfield Pump Station are necessary to implement the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows. SECTION 1. The Council selects E1 Camino Park (Exhibit A - EIR Figure 2-11) as the site for construction of a new 2.5 million gallon reservoir and associated pump station. SECTION 2. The Council selects E1 Camino Park (Exhibit A - EIR Figure 2-11), Eleanor Pardee Park (Exhibit B - EIR Figure 2-3) and the Main Library/Community Gardens sites (Exhibit C - EIR Figure 2-4) as the sites for construction of five new wells.. SECTION 3. The Council approves the upgrade of the existing Mayfield Pump Station in order to implement the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. // // // // // // // // 070228 syn 0120210 2 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. The Council approves the rehabilitation of the Hale well site, Rinconada Park well site, Fernando well site, Peers Park well site, and Matadero well site in order to implement the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor APPROVED: City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Director of Administrative Services 070228 syn 0120210 Exhibit SOURCE: Carollo Engineers City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project EIR. 201490 Figure 2-3 Proposed Eleanor Pardee Park Well Site Exhibit C LEGEND Remove non-designated trees and ivy. Replace fence as necessary. Replant with native species per City arborist. ~ Area for relocation of displaced plots, C~) Remove Italian stone pines (2). Twelve designated trees - to be protected and retained. @ Ho] ywood Juniper @ Oak ~1 Catalina Ironwood ~Potential new well location area. SOURCE: Carollo Engineers City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project EIR. 201490 Figure 2-4 Proposed Library/Community Center Well Site