HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-23 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members of the public are welcome to attend this public meeting.
AGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting May 23, 2017 AGENDA Downtown City Library 270 Forest Ave.
7pm *In accordance with SB 343 materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Community Services Department Office at 1301 Middlefield Road during normal business hours. Please call 650-463-4912.
Attention Speakers: If you wish to address the Commission during oral communications or on an item on the agenda,
please complete a speaker’s card and give it to City staff. By submitting the speaker’s card, the Chair will recognize you at
the appropriate time.
I. ROLL CALL
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to limit oral communications period to 3 minutes.
IV. BUSINESS
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the April 25, 2017 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting – PRC Chair Keith Reckdahl – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Review of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (45 min)
ATTACHMENT
3. City of Palo Alto Aquatics Contract Update–Jazmin LeBlanc–Action– (45 min)
- Contract Amendment for Team Sheeper Aquatics ATTACHMENT 4. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion (15 min)
V. DEPARTMENT REPORT
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JUNE 27, 2017 MEETING
VII. ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
April 25, 2017 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Anne Cribbs, Jeff Greenfield, Jeff LaMere, Ryan McCauley, Don 13
McDougall, David Moss, and Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: None 15
Others Present: None 16
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Rob de Geus, Kristen O'Kane, Tanya Schornack 17
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Tanya Schornack 18
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 19
Chair Reckdahl: We'll move onto Agenda Changes, Requests, Deletions. Does anyone 20
want to change anything, move things around? If not, we'll move on to Oral 21
Communications. 22
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 23
Chair Reckdahl: We do have two speaker cards, but these are for items on the agenda. 24
Does anyone have anything for subjects not on the agenda? We'll move on. 25
IV. BUSINESS: 26
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the March 28, 2017 Parks and Recreation 27 Commission meeting. 28
Chair Reckdahl: Herb wanted to speak about draft Minutes. Herb Borock is going to 29
speak. You have 3 minutes. Thank you. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
Herb Borock: Thank you, Chair Reckdahl. I request a correction to my remarks at the 1
top of page 30, the first line. The word lease should be a proper name, Lee, L-E-E. It 2
will read "easement on the common area of the Lee subdivision." Thank you. 3
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 4
Approval of the draft March 28, 2017 Minutes as amended was moved by Commissioner 5
Cribbs and seconded by Commissioner McDougall. Passed 6-0 McCauley absent 6
2. Golf Course Parking Lot Solar Panel Project 7
Chair Reckdahl: The first item is going to be golf course parking lot solar panel project. 8
Daren Anderson: Good evening. I'm Daren Anderson with Open Space, Parks and Golf. 9
It's my pleasure to introduce my colleague from the Utilities Department. This is Shiva 10
Swaminathan, and he's a Senior Resource Planner with the Utilities Department. His 11
colleague, unfortunately, is also working on this project but couldn't be here tonight, 12
Sonika Choudhary. With that, I'll turn it over to Shiva to lead you through the 13
presentation. 14
Shiva Swaminathan: Thank you, Daren. Good evening, Commissioners. You have a 15
report in front of you. This is a project we are contemplating at the golf course parking 16
lot. The discussion today and your input would be valued as we move forward in 17
defining this project better and getting it launched hopefully in the coming months and 18
years. We'll talk about the community's aspirations for solar PV, something which 19
Council had set goals for us back in 2014, what's the objective of this project and what 20
does community solar mean and then land use and community benefits as a result of this 21
project and consideration of design elements and then next steps. In 2014, the Council 22
set a goal of trying to meet 4 percent of the City's electricity needs with local resources, 23
primarily solar PV. Currently, we're at about a 1 percent level, and we are on a path—24
trying our best to get to that 4 percent through various programs. One of the programs 25 identified is a community solar program where we provide the opportunity for residents 26 and businesses who are unable to have PV on their roofs either because of shading or 27 they live in multifamily homes. As we know, about 40 percent of our homes are 28
multifamily here in the City. Those residents don't have an opportunity to have PVs on 29
their roof. This community solar program will provide them an opportunity to source 30
their electric supply from PVs centrally placed. In this instance, the project proposed is 31
at the golf course parking lot. 32
Chair Reckdahl: I have one question about that. I'm a little confused about how this 33
works. Doesn't this just put the power back on the grid, and then anyone pulls it off the 34
grid? 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
Mr. Swaminathan: That's correct. Electrons don't flow directly to the customer 1
subscribing, but it reduces the amount of intake we depend on the transmission grid, but 2
it puts it in the distribution grid. Correct. 3
Chair Reckdahl: Why is it organized that these people who are pulling the energy off the 4
grid are associated with these solar panels? I don't understand the benefit of having 5
people apply and enter this program as opposed to them just pulling it off the grid. How 6 does that change the … 7
Mr. Swaminathan: They have more price certainty, and they encourage local solar as a 8
result. Our dependence on the grid is reduced by that amount. 9
Chair Reckdahl: They would pay a lower cost than they would if they just were not part 10
of this program? 11
Mr. Swaminathan: It's probably going to be a premium product, so customers who have 12
expressed interest in it, when Council approved this to site solar—our retail rate is 13
already below, compared to say joining communities for PG&E. Solar is still—anybody 14
who puts solar on their roof currently tends to pay a premium over what they would have 15
otherwise gotten from the City central plant. It's likely to be a premium product. We 16
don't know for sure. We're in the early stages of exploration, but it's likely to be a 17
premium. 18
Chair Reckdahl: These are people who are willing to pay a premium price. As a result, 19
you will put the panels up. That makes sense. Thank you. 20
Mr. Swaminathan: Good question. Thank you for that question. In 2015, staff 21
formulated a committee to look at different sites within Palo Alto. The golf course 22
parking lot turned out to be the top site, primarily because of its accessibility to the 23
community and its relatively large space, which can provide 100-200 customers 24
electricity. What you see here is an aerial view of the parking lot, the top graphic. At the 25 bottom is just an illustration of what the carport panels will look like. It will be a 26 relatively large project, 500 kilowatts, which can serve about 100-200 residents who are 27 interested to source PV but aren't able to do so. The reason we are here is this area is 28
designated a parkland, and any improvements or construction in that area requires 29
Council approval of a Park Improvement Ordinance. In terms of considerations, the 30
carport PVs would provide shading for the golf course patrons. It also doesn't impinge 31
on existing land use. The parking lot would remain a parking lot. In terms of community 32
benefits, it'll provide energy for the community. It's rather small within the greater 33
scheme of things, but it moves us towards that 4 percent goal the City has set. We have 34
an opportunity to showcase a project along with other facilities in the Bay Area, in the 35
Baylands. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
Mr. Anderson: If I could speak to that briefly. Within the Baylands, we have the 1
EcoCenter staffed by the Environmental Volunteers. We have the Baylands Nature 2
Center, and we have the Water Quality Control Plant that is often on a tour for the school 3
kids. They'll stop and learn about recycled water. They visit the EcoCenter, the Nature 4
Center, the rest of the Preserve. This could be a complementary piece to that 5
environmental, green infrastructure puzzle of that natural area. 6
Mr. Swaminathan: That will be another benefit potentially. Thirdly, since it's an 7
independent parcel, if we later on after installation find other additional sources to put 8
energy storage, we can store the electricity and use it in case of an emergency. That's 9
down the road. These are some of the benefits in addition to the benefits provided to 10
subscribing customers. In terms of design elements, if successfully—it is for the 11
customers who are currently unable to get solar PV. To the extent they subscribe, they 12
know—these projects, once built, their fixed cost is spread over the life of the project so 13
the cost is known. It provides certainty. Whereas, for the Utility, if our supply costs vary 14
over time, we pass it on to customers. The benefit that subscribing customers could get, 15
though they may be paying a premium, is their costs are relatively fixed for the supply 16
portion. The golf course users benefit in different ways as we have just discussed. The 17
community as a whole benefits with the education outreach effort. We are hoping the 18
project—we expect the project to be aesthetically pleasing, complementing the golf 19
course plans, and make it a community asset down the road. Here we are today to seek 20
your input to the project and facilitate a discussion with the community. In the month of 21
June, we plan to go to our Utilities Advisory Commission for their review and their input. 22
On a preliminary basis for the Council to approve a design guideline. 23
Commissioner McDougall: What does screening of panels mean? 24
Mr. Swaminathan: What was that again? 25
Commissioner McDougall: It says community as a whole, education opportunities, 26 aesthetics of PV design, and screening of panels. What is screening of panels? 27
Mr. Swaminathan: To the extent that—there will be some structures in terms of 28
electronics in the parking area, so that could be with shrubs. There is some discussion 29
about potentially from Embarcadero, whether we could put some shrubs and partially 30
screen. 31
Commissioner McDougall: I see, hiding the panels. Thank you. 32
Mr. Swaminathan: That's all we have for you in terms of timelines and next steps. We 33
are seeking your input today. We are not seeking any approval of any ordinance because 34
that requires much more definition. This is an early discussion with the community. We 35
plan to go to Council with these design elements in the summer, and then we'll put out an 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
RFP for potential vendors, who will then come and price a system. Then, we'll 1
competitively bid it for the benefit of takers. We expect to come back here sometime in 2
the summer/fall of 2018 once we have a better project definition, costs, all that, for a 3
specific ordinance approval, and then the project launch sometime in the spring of 2019. 4
We're 2 years away, but this is the early discussion we would like to have with the 5
community and Commissioners. 6
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. We have a couple of speaker cards here, Edie Groner 7
followed by Rebecca White. Please come up to the microphone. 8
Female: I'm actually (inaudible) agenda item (inaudible) talking about the Cubberley 9
field (inaudible). 10
Chair Reckdahl: I guess that would be under fields. We have no public comment, so we 11
can move on to Commissioners. Jeff, do you have anything to comment? 12
Commissioner LaMere: What's the lifecycle of a commercial solar project like this? 13
What do we expect for it to last and any upgrades that would then need to happen or as 14
technology changes quickly, the efficiency of a project versus needing to upgrade the 15
solar cells? Would that be the responsibility of the third-party contractor who bids on it 16
or is that the responsibility of the City? 17
Mr. Swaminathan: That is a two-part question. What is the life of a project like this? 18
We have a number of larger projects in the Central Valley. Those, the life is about 30 19
years. In those contracts, it's an off-take agreement; only when it produces, we pay. If it 20
doesn't produce, we don't pay. That's private-sector owned, and there is a lot of tax 21
equity, which goes into financing these projects. This project, since it's local, since 22
readily we could maintain it, we still plan to leverage tax equity, but we won't have the 23
option of potentially owning it down the road when the tax equity window shrinks or 24
lapses. Who will be responsible? Depending on who owns it. The solar panels 25 themselves have a 20-30 year life. If the golf balls bounce on them, some of them may 26 have to be replaced periodically. The inverter, which is the electronics which converts it, 27 has a life of about 10 years. That's built into the cost premium. 28
Commissioner McDougall: My questions are the same as, I think, other questions I've 29
asked you in terms of context. The first thing is this is 0.1 percent of the 4 percent. A 30
quick calculation would say we need to do this 40 more times in order to come up with 31
the 4 percent. The report says that 50 sites were considered. I'd be really interested in 32
the list of 50 sites because I find it hard to believe that we could find 40 sites in Palo Alto 33
without getting into real contentious "we don't need Foothills Park anymore, so let's cover 34
up that" or whatever it is. I'm only concerned that this is a pilot; it keeps getting defined 35
as a pilot in the thing. We say let's do this pilot, and it lasts for—30 years, I think, was 36
the answer to the question, but we can't find any other places to put more solar panels. It 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
sits there as the one example. I don't know what it costs. If the objective is carbon-free 1
Palo Alto or whatever the thing might be, is there some other way we should be pursuing 2
this as opposed to trying to get this 4 percent local or whatever? I'd like to make sure we 3
understand the context. We don't need to have one of our parks end up being the only 4
example. 5
Mr. Swaminathan: Could I answer that question? 6
Commissioner McDougall: Sure. 7
Mr. Swaminathan: I think there are three parts to that. One is of the 4 percent goal, this 8
is 0.1 percent and where are the other sites. The 4 percent goal includes the residents 9
who put it on their rooftop, businesses who are installing PVs. For example, we're 10
already 1 percent there. All of them are pretty much on private property, on rooftops of 11
buildings. Starting in 2020, there's a Building Code which requires all new buildings 12
shall have, to the extent feasible, PVs. That's expected to be a Building Code related to 13
net zero energy. The 4 percent is broader than the community solar. Community solar is 14
just one building block in the broader scheme. 15
Commissioner McDougall: I understand that. That's a good answer. I would make sure 16
that, if I was out telling people like us about that, I put that in context. You're not going 17
to try and find 4 percent by covering up the parks. My second question would be, in 18
terms of this—I understand it's going to be an expensive electricity, not cheap electricity. 19
We keep talking about residential. Is there some reason why we're not talking about 20
commercial customers that might decide the right thing to do is buy more commercial or 21
buy more expensive electricity to be good citizens? 22
Mr. Swaminathan: A program would not restrict it to residential, but demand has in the 23
past come from residents who have said, "I have a shaded roof. I own my home but still 24
have shading on my roof, which doesn't lend itself to PV." They want to promote PV. 25
Commissioner McDougall: Right, but the paper actually talks about the risk of not 26 having sufficient subscription. It would seem to me you'd like to have a marketing plan 27 that covered everybody in the first place. 28
Mr. Swaminathan: Correct. 29
Commissioner McDougall: My second thing on that would be wouldn't it be better if in 30
fact there was some early adopters that were already identified. If you went to the 31
neighbors of the golf course, went to the golf course itself, went to the Environmental 32
Volunteers, went to the sewage plant, and went to the athletic fields and said, "Let's get 33
them signed up right now," you would enter into this with somebody already signed up. 34
The other thing is if you're serious about doing this, we're looking at the timeline. The 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
timeline is summer, winter, spring, fall, summer. My experience is if you say winter, 1
that's a 3-month period. If you slip to spring, that's 3 months of slippage, but that's only 2
one unit of the calendar you've framed it in. It's only one quarter. It's only one unit; 3
you've only slipped one unit, big deal. You've really slipped 3 months. I would rather 4
see some specifics. When you say summer, is that July or August? When you slip 3 5
months, we'll know you've slipped three units. The same all the way through here. 6 There's no reason why—you're going to slip. I'd rather you slip a month unit, not a 7
quarter unit in doing this in terms of getting it done. The thing this doesn't talk about is, 8
during the timeframe that you're building this, there's going to be a lot of disruption in the 9
golf course. That needs to be identified as well. 10
Mr. Swaminathan: That's the only constraint we imposed on ourselves. We'll have 11
greater definition as we proceed, so that's why we have 3-month chunks. One thing we 12
want to target is construction would be in stages. It won't disrupt completely the parking 13
lot. Daren and his team tell us that the golf course is least used in the winter period, so 14
we are trying to stage the construction in the winter. That was winter of 2019. Any 15
slippage can be accommodated as long as that timeframe is met. We were trying to see 16
whether it could be winter of 2018. It was too soon for that. That's on the time scale. 17
Just in terms of the other sites, none of them were parkland. The next bigger one we have 18
is the airport. They have a project to do hangars, but that's not readily accessible and 19
they're still further away from where we can be. The rest of them are mostly City-owned 20
building rooftops. 21
Commissioner McDougall: I understand that it wouldn't be all parks. In the end, I think 22
it would be a mistake if we couldn't figure out the rest, and we ended up with the one. If 23
there's a possibility of spending whatever this money is, achieving the same carbon-free 24
goal in some other way. Thank you. 25
Mr. Swaminathan: Just one other comment in terms of carbon free. Existing electric 26 supply is all carbon free. 27
Commissioner McDougall: I understand that. 28
Mr. Swaminathan: This is mainly to serve residents who have indicated to us. We don't 29
know, when we come up with the premiums—we don't know what the premiums are—30
how much subscription there is going to be. It's mainly to serve the residents who have 31
said, "We would like to participate in a community solar program." It would not reduce 32
the imputed carbon content of the supply because we'll buy less from outside. 33
Commissioner Cribbs: I did have a couple of pretty simple questions. Do you know how 34
much this is going to cost to get started? 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
Mr. Swaminathan: Yes. These are capital-cost intensive and low operating costs. We 1
estimate the cost to be about $1.8 million for 500 kilowatts of PV panels. That would be 2
financed through tax—different structures, but it'll be spread over the life. Currently, we 3
are estimating it at 20 years. After that, it becomes free electricity. That's (inaudible) cap 4
the project. It'll be funded not with—someone has to fund it. Because there is 5
inexpensive capital because of federal government tax credits for tax equity financing, we 6 plan to leverage those funds. That'll be the primary source of funds at the early stages. 7
Commissioner Cribbs: I guess I thought the City was going to provide the parkland, the 8
golf course parking lot, and a third-party vendor would come in and create the solar 9
panels. They would run it and secure it and all of that. Is that right or not right? 10
Mr. Swaminathan: Correct. That's right. 11
Commissioner Cribbs: Who provides the security for this very attractive carport with 12
solar panels on the top? 13
Mr. Swaminathan: Security to the person who is investing? Is that the question? 14
Commissioner Cribbs: Yes. 15
Mr. Swaminathan: The Utility will enter into something called a Power Purchase 16
Agreement over 20 years. 17
Commissioner Cribbs: If we don't have enough residential subscribers, is there an option 18
B to make this work? 19
Mr. Swaminathan: That's part of the design guideline. Amortizing $1.8 million over 20 20
years, the annual cost we estimate to be $150,000. The cost premium is about 20 percent, 21
so $30,000. We are pursuing this because the committee wants it. We do plan to reach 22
out and get some pre-commitment before we launch. The commitment wouldn't be for 23
10 years or 20 years. It'll be kind of ongoing commitment. Part of the design guidelines 24
with—the Utility Advisory Commission has discussed who is going to pay out that 25 $30,000 a year risk premium. That is a risk the rest of the customers would pay. Does 26 that answer your question? 27
Commissioner Cribbs: It does. When we say it's a pilot program—to me a pilot program 28
assumes there's going to be other programs coming after these. It's either going to be 29
scalable or something. Where would you think that you would put others of these, once 30
this was a success? 31
Mr. Swaminathan: You're absolutely right. The pilot program means multiple things. 32
One is the first site, where there's demand, for example, we think it is, but we don't know 33
for sure yet. That's part of the discussion. The other is what is the level of demand for 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
such systems. That's a function of price. It's going to be very sensitive to the price. Only 1
through an RFP process, we could gather that information. We have some estimates, 2
which pan out to the numbers I just outlined, 20 percent premium compared to what we 3
would buy otherwise. It very well could be that the pilot doesn't even get off the ground 4
because there's not enough subscription or the committee says, "There is 50 percent 5
subscription currently, but in the long term it will be of value to the community because 6 of the education needs and whatever else. Let's still put it up." There is a possibility, as 7
Commissioners correctly point out, that this may be the only site if there's not sufficient. 8
If there is a price discount, clearly there will be higher subscription. That's the pilot 9
nature. The design element is we're trying to make a cookie cutter. If it works out and 10
there is demand, we can contract structures, how we solicit customers, how we evaluate 11
these proposals. When we find other sites, we can replicate this model in other sites. 12
That's the intent. 13
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you very much. 14
Vice Chair Moss: I want to piggy-back on what Don said about parking lots. When I 15
look down on Palo Alto from 5,000 feet, I see maybe ten parking lots or more that are the 16
same size as that one, like HP's parking lot and Varian parking lot. There's a number of 17
parking lots out there. I would like to make sure that those parking lots also—maybe we 18
can mandate that all parking lots should be covered with these solar panels and not jump 19
to a park first. We're going to do that. I want to get Palo Alto to carbon neutral as fast as 20
possible. If this helps, great. Now, my question is to Daren. I didn't quite realize until 21
this meeting how big the parking lot was for the golf course. I'm thinking also to the 22
Cubberley parking lots; there's two of them, three of them. They're huge. I don't want 23
any more cars. I'd like fewer parking lots. Is there an opportunity to reduce the size of 24
the parking lot for the golf course? Why did we decide that the golf course had to have 25 that big a parking lot? Could we get half the parking lot and still do this experiment, this 26 pilot, but reduce the size of the parking lot by half? What would I put in there? A 27 playground, some native plants, something that's park-like and less parking lot on 28
parkland. That's my comment. 29
Mr. Anderson: I would just say the size of that lot probably reflects the really heavy golf 30
play. At one point, we had 100,000 games a year on that course, 100,000 rounds a year. 31
It had very heavy play. The hope is, with this very large investment, that we'll get back 32
to a high number, higher than we are now. I don't know if we'll ever see 100,000 rounds 33
again. I believe we're probably going to need a good portion of that lot for this. Shiva, 34
correct me if I'm wrong. How many stalls do we lose by adding the solar? 35
Mr. Swaminathan: It's not clear. It won't be more than a couple, our estimate. It's going 36
to be right in the middle. It may not be any or maybe a few. We don't have any 37
inclination of what that would be until we see the preliminary design. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
Mr. Anderson: To answer your question, we certainly don't want any more parking lot 1
than we need. We don't want excessive, unused asphalt areas in any park. We also don't 2
want to be under-parked. It's a fine balance. I guess we'll learn more once our golf 3
course opens in November. 4
Rob de Geus: I was just going to add, if I might. We're also talking about adding charger 5
stations at the parking lot. The electric cars will get the premium spots at the golf course. 6 That's another thing we're looking at. 7
Mr. Swaminathan: Yes, the HP parking lot, there are attempts for the Stanford industrial 8
park campuses to put some PV there. We're not mandating them. They're doing it—9
there are some other incentives called the CLEAN program, where we provide incentives 10
for projects to come online and sell that electricity back to us. Those premiums are a 50 11
percent premium. That's what got them going. Council decided to, for about 1/2 percent 12
of our load, provide almost a 50 percent premium, 16 1/2 pennies. We are getting some 13
proposals for that, but that'll be part of the larger mix but not for the community solar as 14
such. 15
Commissioner Greenfield: I think there are lots of precedents for applications of solar 16
panels over parking lots, so I think this is a very reasonable program to consider. I know 17
that we have—is it the MSC on Bayshore that has solar panels over the parking as well? 18
Are we talking about similar panels, a similar look? 19
Mr. Swaminathan: On the MSC, one is parking lots, which is inside, and the other is a 20
tracking. Not the tracker, but the parking lot there is coverage like that, correct. 21
Mr. de Geus: I want to add a little bit here. We've been working closely with Shiva and 22
Utilities on this. A couple of interests that Community Services has—it's not foremost 23
for Utilities but it is for us—is that we have attractive solar panels, something that has an 24
artistic flair or vibrancy to it, almost like it's a bit of a destination to go to. We want to 25 attract people to the golf course. There's some really interesting, creative solar designs 26 out there right now. I know this adds cost, so that's something we would have to 27 consider. That's something that we're very interested in and hope to look at, not just a 28
cookie cutter, very mechanical look. Something that's a little more interesting is our 29
hope. 30
Commissioner Greenfield: You're considering going in front of the Art Commission as 31
well? 32
Mr. de Geus: Maybe, if we have to. 33
Commissioner Greenfield: This model seems to have similarities with the very 34
successful Palo Alto Green plan, which included a premium for the customers. Is the 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
premium anticipated to be similar to the Palo Alto Green, similar or higher, it sounds like 1
perhaps? 2
Mr. Swaminathan: Comparable, similar. 3
Commissioner Greenfield: That suggests you might not have that much difficulty getting 4
people to sign up. 5
Mr. Swaminathan: That's our current market view. The difference is the success of the 6 program was from 10 years ago, which we discontinued when we became carbon neutral. 7
Given 6 percent of our load subscribe for Palo Alto Green program, that's a big market. 8
Commissioner Greenfield: Do you have an idea of roughly how many subscribers you 9
need for this program to be successful? Is it 200 or more than that? 10
Mr. Swaminathan: For the first project, 100-200. 11
Commissioner Greenfield: I'm sure the UAC will have a lot more to say about all that. 12
Just one other question. Is there any potential issue with light reflection off the solar 13
panels impacting the airport flight path? 14
Mr. Swaminathan: We are doing a preliminary review of that with a consultant from the 15
airport. We haven't formed the results yet. That study will determine the orientation 16
potentially. That's being planned. 17
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. 18
Commissioner McCauley: No questions. This seems like a win-win for both golf course 19
users as well as the City. I'm very glad to hear about it. Thank you. 20
Chair Reckdahl: Overall, I'm very optimistic. They still have some issues. There's a lot 21
of risk associated with this. It's a very expensive project. I'm not going to dwell on those 22
as much as how does it affect the park. You mentioned the attractiveness. We've put a 23
lot of money into this new golf course. If this degrades from the experience and people 24
don't go, there's a lot of subtleties. That's why businesses want attractive storefronts. If 25 it's unattractive, people are subconsciously less likely to go. I think it's really important 26 that we look at attractiveness. We don't want—go ahead. 27
Mr. de Geus: I really appreciate that, Chair Reckdahl. I totally agree with you. It's not 28
easy to run a golf course and fully recover costs. That's what expected from our golf 29
course, not only the cost of operations but the cost of any overhead that may come from 30
City Hall. That's a challenge, and we do have a pretty saturated market on the Peninsula. 31
Our hope is that the design of the golf course is very sustainable. It takes 50 acres of 32
what used to be manicured lawns and now is going to be natural, native Baylands. In 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
other words, we had 130 acres total of managed turf; now we'll only have 80. The point 1
is one of the main themes around the new Baylands golf links is a much more 2
sustainable, environmentally friendly course, almost 100 percent recycled water. We 3
hope that a solar project like this, particularly if it's attractive and has an education 4
component and is artistic, will add to that theme and may have people want to play at 5
Palo Alto because of that concentration that we have for our particular course. 6
Chair Reckdahl: The point I want to make is it's not vanity. This is a business issue; we 7
need to keep it attractive. The second thing is Palo Alto's not going to own the panels. A 8
third party is going to own the panels? 9
Mr. Swaminathan: At least in the first 7 years to take advantage of the tax equity. 10
Beyond that, it will be a business decision, whether it's more attractive for us to own or a 11
private party to own. The output obviously will go to the community. 12
Chair Reckdahl: When we sign this contract, we're guaranteeing them so many panels. 13
What I'm concerned about is will this tie our hands. If we want to remodel, if we want to 14
reduce the size of the parking lot, if we want to move things around down there, what 15
kind of constraints will this apply to the park renovations? 16
Mr. Swaminathan: It would impose constraints because the private party is trying to 17
recoup their investment over 20 years. Any reconfiguration or removal of panels and 18
reduction of output would have to be compensated for. That's a risk we'll have to bear. 19
Who bears that? We'll find out. I'm presuming it's the Utilities, but that has to be part of 20
the lease. Currently, we do have lease agreements with the City, not for the golf course 21
parking lot but on City parking lots. As we speak, there is PV panel designs being 22
reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and going to Council for the parking 23
structures in Downtown on high-rise parking structures. There are lease agreements 24
between the panel owner third party and the City. I don't know the terms of that. For 25 example, the same would apply in that instance for whatever reason the City says, "I want 26 that area." I'm presuming the risk would be borne by not the third party but the Utility 27 because, with such a risk, the third party cannot secure financing if that risk is passed on 28
to the project owner. Yes, it would constrain us. We should go in this with eyes wide 29
open for a 20-year commitment. 30
Chair Reckdahl: Go ahead, Rob. 31
Mr. de Geus: I was just going to say the third thing that has me interested in this. The 32
first is it complements the sustainability of the course theme. It could be attractive if we 33
get something that's really interesting, that people will want to be there for. The third 34
thing that we're talking about a little bit here is this third party or some type of lease 35
agreement could involve some revenue to the park system or the golf course to help 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
offset costs, which could be great for the golf course, given that's it's, as I said earlier, 1
difficult to fully recover costs. 2
Chair Reckdahl: I don't understand the tax consequences. Why does this have to be a 3
third party? Do they get a different tax break than if we do it ourselves? 4
Mr. Swaminathan: Correct. 5
Chair Reckdahl: Why is that? 6
Mr. Swaminathan: The federal government provides a tax write-off up to 30 percent of 7
the project for anybody who invests. There are tax equity funds which—I'm not too 8
familiar with the details. 9
Chair Reckdahl: Are you saying basically since it's a tax break only entities who pay 10
taxes would be interested in this? 11
Mr. Swaminathan: Correct. 12
Chair Reckdahl: It would not do the City any good to get a tax break since we do not pay 13
taxes. 14
Mr. Swaminathan: That's correct. All our projects, which the City gets a lot of PV 15
power from in the Central Valley, are financed with private sector. Any investment they 16
make—it's no different than you putting it on your roof as a private citizen. You're a 17
private-sector party. If you put it on your roof, you get the write-off. If it's a $10,000 18
panel on your roof, you pay $3,000 and get a write-off on your taxes. Similarly, that 19
same structure has been created for commercial projects by tax equity investors. 20
Chair Reckdahl: I'm concerned that we may have—if trees get around it and start 21
shading it, we may be constrained with what kind of vegetation we have down there. If 22
we wanted to plant shrubs or trees that, for aesthetics, partially shade them, we may be 23
not able to do that. This does not come risk free. It does tie our hands, and it may have 24
financial impacts if we … 25
Mr. Swaminathan: That's right. We have looked at the tree shading. It's not a major 26 problem as we see it, but we have to study it more closely. 27
Chair Reckdahl: That would be one area that I'm concerned about. Another area is 28
repaving. We've been talking now for many years to repave that parking lot. Would this 29
be repaved as part of this project or is that a separate issue? 30
Mr. de Geus: There is a repaving project in the CIP now to do that this year prior to 31
opening because it's in pretty bad shape right now. Unfortunately, the projects are lined 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
up in such a way that we can't do it all at the same time. When Utilities goes in there to 1
install the panels, should we get to that point, there will be some repaving that will need 2
to happen, hopefully not the whole thing. 3
Chair Reckdahl: We'll just cut it up and patch where needed. 4
Mr. Swaminathan: Yes and no. Yes, in certain limited circumstances. One thing we did 5
evaluate and discount in the past 3 months is to lay conduits before the repaving, which is 6 planned for this summer. We discounted it because the current technology is boring, not 7
trenching. These conduits would be laid through boring devices without the need for 8
trenching. You don't need mass trenches. In certain sectors, we would have to dig up 9
mainly to put the posts, but that's limited to that post area. We don't anticipate major, 10
open trenching to lay conduits. 11
Chair Reckdahl: Does anyone have follow-ups? I hope we can work this out. This 12
would be a nice project to have, but I'm also concerned about impacts on parks. We have 13
to be very careful that we don't paint ourselves into the corner. Good luck. 14
Mr. Swaminathan: Thank you very much for your input. 15
3. Review of Field and Tennis Court Use Policy 16
Chair Reckdahl: We'll move on to the review of field and tennis court policy. Kristen is 17
going to talk about our field use. 18
Kristen O'Kane: Good evening, Commissioners. Kristen O'Kane, Community Services 19
Department. Beside me, next to Daren, is Adam Howard, a Recreation Manager with our 20
department. Adam oversees the field and tennis court use policy and also does the field 21
brokering among managing other programs in the Recreation Division. I've asked Adam 22
to come because he knows the policy and the fields very well. I've asked him to join me 23
here tonight to give a presentation. Before we do that, I wanted to give a little 24
background on why this item is here tonight. When Chair Reckdahl and I were talking 25 about the agenda for tonight and planning it, we thought it would be a good idea in light 26 of the comments we received at the March meeting regarding pickleball. Specifically, 27 some of the speakers commented on the reservation policy for tennis courts and how that 28
precluded pickleball from reserving those courts. We're not here tonight to talk about 29
pickleball but just as a starter. Considering we have many new Commissioners, we 30
thought it would be a good idea to introduce the policy, explain the history of it, what it 31
says. As Adam's going to share with you, the policy was first developed in 2009. At that 32
time, the agreement was that the policy would be adopted with the condition that it would 33
be reviewed periodically. It was updated in 2012 after that review happened. It's now 34
been 5 years since the policy has been updated. We might want to talk about is now a 35
good time to review that policy again, perhaps a Commission ad hoc group be formed to 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
look at the policy. We can discuss the ad hoc tonight or we could discuss it at the retreat. 1
For now, I'm going to turn it over to Adam. He's going to give you just a brief history on 2
the policy as well as some key points of the policy. 3
Adam Howard: Thank you, Kristen. Good evening, Commissioners. Again, Adam 4
Howard, City of Palo Alto Recreation Manager. This is a pretty brief presentation 5
compared to how in-depth the policy is. I won't go into every detail. It's a 15-page 6 policy that gets into details we don't necessarily need to do tonight. If you have 7
questions, we can go over those. This is pretty top level information. As Kristen said, 8
this was originally created in 2009, revisited at the end of 2012-2013. There were some 9
changes made at that point. The basic overview here is the policy was created to help us 10
manage the fields, help us decide what play was put on what field, help us decide who 11
got fields, and really to make sure Palo Alto residents got priority, and that we were fair 12
to everyone involved. This is the basic level of priority that we use when we are 13
brokering our fields. It goes from top down. As you can see, City and district activities 14
get first shot. Palo Alto youth nonprofit organizations with at least 51 percent residency 15
is next. Then, we go to Palo Alto adult nonprofit organizations with at least 35 percent 16
residency; nonprofit groups with 25 percent or more Palo Alto residents; and then groups 17
that don't fall in that category follow at the end. We also decided that, in the importance 18
of making sure that adults have time to recreate, we carved some time out in the evenings 19
that is strictly for adults. Youth play is extremely popular. If we didn't carve out this 20
time, we figured adults might not get any time. We thought it was important to really 21
carve those times in. The policy really does go into detail about how long a practice is, 22
how long a game slot is, what ages are on what fields to really help us make sure 23
everybody's on the same page and to make sure that, as staff, we have a driving factor for 24
how we broker these fields out. Issues that still exist with this policy. The changes in 25 2013 were great. The policy is working really well, but just a couple of things. One is it 26 doesn't face the reality of the fact that most practices—most teams would like to practice 27 5 days a week. Our policy allows them two practices a week. That's the only way we 28
could really provide space. The meaning there is they put more people on their field slots 29
than what we require. On to the tennis court policy. The tennis court policy was actually 30
not addressed in our last review. The field policy itself was such a huge project that we 31
decided to separate them out and not go too deep into tennis courts. This is a very similar 32
policy to what we had when the policy was created in 2009. The biggest thing here is 33
tennis courts are only reserved to Palo Alto Tennis Club and U.S.T.A. tournament or 34
match play, and the City will keep 50 percent of its courts open even when we do reserve 35
for U.S.T.A. match play. We don't allow reservations for individual use or private 36
lessons. The rest of the courts shall remain open for first-come-first serve. The big thing 37
is it really does spell out that the tennis courts are specifically for tennis use. Some issues 38
that are coming up is (a) it's restrictive. There are other sports that are growing, that we 39
can't reserve for. Actually, this doesn't provide any kind of priority to residents. Right 40
now, it's just first-come-first-serve, resident, nonresident. The only difference is a little 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
bit of a price difference. Those are the basic overview of the policy and some of the 1
restrictions that we're having currently. Do you have any questions? 2
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Before we move on to the Commissioners, we have some 3
public comment. We have Tom Foladare followed by Edie Groner. 4
Tom Foladare: Good evening. My name's Tom Foladare, and I am the founder of the 5
Silicon Valley Pickleball Club, which is based out of Mitchell Park. I'm here to request 6 that we get permission to reserve courts for both play, our programs, and tournaments. In 7
January of this year, we actually incorporated. Part of that was to go out and buy 8
insurance, and part of that process was that we actually have to track our members' play. 9
We have some pretty hard numbers at this point. We currently have 200 members. 10
We're growing at about 10 percent month over month, and all this growth has been 11
organic. We have not run any programs or any outreach to date. We're starting to move 12
in that direction. We're running several programs throughout the week as well as open 13
play. On Saturdays, we use three of the tennis courts, and we have an average of 80 14
players using them. On Sundays, we use the same three tennis courts, and we have on 15
average 60 players using them. On Tuesdays and Thursdays in the morning, we run a 16
Palo Alto City-sponsored class with about 25 people. On Wednesdays, we run a seniors 17
programs with about 30 people. On Tuesday and Thursday nights, we run a "get the 18
techie some exercise" program, which is growing, and it's got about 15-20 people each 19
night. We plan in fall to add a program for homeschoolers in the afternoon. Part of 20
doing that is we have to figure out how we're going to fund that program. We would like 21
to request use—we would like to request the ability to reserve the courts. We'd also like 22
to request the ability to run tournaments so that we can increase these programs. Our 23
initial outreach will be to seniors. About 80 percent of the players that are playing right 24
now are over 60. Our secondary approach this year will be to the technology companies 25 to get their people out and then finally to the homeschoolers. Thank you. 26
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Edie Groner is up, followed by Rebecca White. 27
Edie Groner: Good evening. I'm a Greenmeadow resident of many years, living by 28
Cubberley field, being very shocked to see what has taken place in our field. Many of 29
my neighbors are also shocked and disturbed to see the field being used for commercial 30
enterprise instead of the rules that the City has for the use of the field for the community. 31
My husband did a lot of research about the rules of the City. According to the first 32
paragraph of the City of Palo Alto field use policy, the facilities that are owned either by 33
the City or the School District, Palo Alto fields are utilized for recreational, athletic, 34
cultural, educational, social, community service functions that meet the needs and 35
interests of the community. Blue Flame, a global brand activation production company, 36
is using Cubberley's synthetic turf field from April 24th through May 10th for a private, 37
commercial event. It's use of the Cubberley field appears to be purely commercial and 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
does not appear to be for recreational, athletic, cultural, educational, social, or community 1
service functions. Furthermore, Blue Flame's use does not appear to meet the needs and 2
interests of the nearby community. Are we missing something that we don't understand 3
how Blue Flame's use of the field was justified by the City? In addition to the points 4
raised below, you should know that so far the event mentioned has prevented the 5
neighbors, schools, sports teams from using Cubberley field, track, and part of the 6 parking lot for 2 days. We expect that at least half the field will not be available for use 7
for another 15 days. The teams which require the full field will be precluded from using 8
it during that time. No use of the field and track by anyone will be possible for any 9
additional few days during that period. Furthermore, we expect substantial traffic to 10
disrupt the Greenmeadow neighborhood around May 2nd through the 4th. We don't 11
understand why individual neighbors and Greenmeadow Community Association was not 12
consulted before this disruptive event was approved by the City staff. It seems that this is 13
a use that's outside of the City rules and is not a benefit to the neighborhood and to the 14
purpose of the fields. We're very disturbed about this. Many of my neighbors have been 15
talking with me, letting me know that this has wide implications. There are many soccer 16
teams, track events, things that have been canceled where the majority of the field users 17
will now have to look for places to go elsewhere for their activity. We feel very left out 18
of this process and very angry because this is not a community use as outlined by the 19
City. I hope that you will take some steps to make sure that this does not happen again. 20
It may be too late to stop this event. For the next 2 weeks, it will cause major disruption 21
to members of the City, the citizens, and the neighborhood. Thank you. 22
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Rebecca White followed by Susan McConnell. 23
Rebecca White: I'm Edie's next door neighbor. Last night I was walking with my son 24
through Cubberley, walking our dogs. We usually scoot—there's a place where you can 25 go in Greendell and bring your dogs. We live in Greenmeadow, so we usually scoot 26 through the track. We were stopped, and someone grabbed my arm actually and told me 27 that I needed to leave. All of the track has been fenced in, and there's that green mesh. 28
It's totally creepy. Further, we're disturbed by the fact that the letter and all the 29
communications from the Commission have been relating to Blue Flame, which isn't the 30
client who's throwing the party at Cubberley. Palantir is the client throwing the party at 31
Cubberley. Blue Flame is just an event production company. That in and of itself in a 32
very savvy town just reeks of deception and is just not cool. Why did you allow that? 33
There are a number of things we're concerned about. Why you are overriding the rules of 34
the committee, which you just outlined for us? Who decided that you would do that? 35
What recourse do we have in the future? Do you answer questions when we comment? I 36
don't know how this works. 37
Chair Reckdahl: No. In general, we're listening to your comments. We may react, but 38
we generally do not have discussions. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
Ms. White: We're going to picket the event. Our neighborhood is super stressed about 1
this. In the future, it'd be better if you engaged us and asked us whether or not we 2
thought that a commercial event was appropriate for our community, particularly a 3
company like Palantir, who we're already in bed with. They're renting half of Downtown. 4
They are a defense contractor, which—I grew up in Palo Alto, lived here my entire life—5
is not the values of this City. It's simply not. People may come here, and they don't 6 understand that that is not what Palo Alto is about. 7
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Susan McConnell. 8
Susan McConnell: Good evening. First, I would like to thank all of you for listening to 9
our comments at the last meeting. My name is Susan McConnell. I have been a resident 10
of Palo Alto since 1973. For 20 years, I have captained Palo Alto U.S.T.A. tennis teams 11
and have been a member of the Palo Alto Tennis Club. Unfortunately, serious knee 12
problems and an ever-aging body sidelined me. Along came pickleball, and I was back 13
on the courts again. I have to say being back on the courts again was life changing for 14
me. Now, I am a Board Member and Secretary of the Silicon Valley Pickleball Club at 15
Mitchell Park. Our club is an official entity with insurance. Going forward, we would 16
like to hold tournaments including fundraisers for charities. We need the ability to 17
reserve courts. Apparently the rule that only U.S.T.A. and Palo Alto Tennis Club could 18
reserve courts was done pre-pickleball. We really hope that you will add our club to the 19
list of names that reserve the courts. I also want to say coming up very soon, May 5th 20
and 6th, are the Bay Area senior games at Mitchell Park. We would love to have as many 21
of you come to see it. You could come and watch the extra older players, like me. 22
Really, just thanks for listening to us and thanks for everything. Adam, thank you for 23
your support too. 24
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. We'll move on to Commissioners now. Ryan, do you have 25 any comments or questions? 26
Commissioner McCauley: Adam, the last speaker's comment, maybe you can give a little 27 bit of history and the background of why the Palo Alto Tennis Club and U.S.T.A. are the 28
two designated organizations that can make reservations. 29
Mr. Howard: I'm not positive I have that history. It's long before me. I know the Palo 30
Alto Tennis Club has a co-sponsorship with the City for offering free youth programs and 31
youth tournaments. During their times that they have the courts, they offer open to the 32
public to come in and get lessons for free as well. They have a co-sponsorship is my 33
understanding. The U.S.T.A. was just an organization that we could monitor when they 34
have real matches. They have to sign up with the U.S.T.A., so we can identify official 35
teams and captains. It was a way to track who was actually playing tennis for those 36
reasons rather than just reserving the courts for personal use. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
Commissioner McCauley: Is there any staff recommendation around allowing other 1
groups to make reservations? 2
Mr. Howard: Nothing official; although, we see the need for a more expansive policy 3
that will have some flexibility for up and coming sports like pickleball. 4
Commissioner McCauley: Thanks. 5
Commissioner Greenfield: I have a lot of experience working with Adam on the field 6 policy from the soccer users group. I want to say you have done a great job, and you've 7
also done a great job evolving the policy over time. My first question is does staff have 8
specific needs to revise the policy at this time based on things that have come up in terms 9
of the workability? 10
Mr. Howard: I think with the tennis use policy there is some. We see a group like 11
pickleball using first-come-first-serve, but they have a huge need. It would be beneficial 12
for somebody to be able to have a time that they could use the courts officially. 13
Commissioner Greenfield: I'm sorry; I should have been more specific. Beyond the 14
pickleball application that obviously we have in front of us. 15
Mr. Howard: I also think that writing something in to give Palo Alto residents a priority 16
when it comes to brokering tennis. Right now, it's first-come-first-serve, whoever gets 17
their applications in first. I think it makes sense to have something that would give a Palo 18
Alto resident priority over a nonresident to rent the courts. Even with just tennis, it's 19
becoming more popular. Being able to find space is becoming more difficult. 20
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. What percentage of available tennis courts are 21
currently reserved in advance now and would opening reservations to alternative uses 22
impact the current user reservations with respect to the 50 percent limit? 23
Mr. Howard: The major tennis courts, Cubberley, Mitchell Park, Rinconada, are often 50 24
percent booked with U.S.T.A. match play in the evenings, during the week, and 25 weekends pretty consistently. Yes, anything we do to allow additional brokering of 26 tennis courts will create a shortage of tennis courts. There are other tennis courts out in 27 the parks that aren't used nearly as much, specifically because to book for U.S.T.A. match 28
play there has to be an open bathroom, which some of these courts are not in relation to, 29
so they can't be brokered for U.S.T.A. match play. Often they're just used for first-come-30
first-serve. 31
Commissioner Greenfield: If we were to expand and change the policy, we would have 32
to include brokering stipulations perhaps similar to what you're doing for the field users. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
Mr. Howard: We would need to add some guidelines to decide how and how often we 1
would broker to an additional sport or additional organizations. 2
Commissioner Greenfield: Do you know what percentage of the current U.S.T.A. 3
reservations are from Palo Alto residents? 4
Mr. Howard: I do not. 5
Commissioner Greenfield: How is that determined, whether they're residents or 6 nonresidents? 7
Mr. Howard: Whoever fills out the application form. 8
Commissioner Greenfield: They may or may not bear a resemblance to who's actually 9
using the courts. 10
Mr. Howard: Yeah. We cannot prove that that person is actually out on the court the day 11
of the reservation. We could also not—a team of six could be one resident on the team, 12
and that's the person that filled out the application. 13
Commissioner Greenfield: Do tennis court fees currently only apply when there are 14
reservations? 15
Mr. Howard: Correct. 16
Commissioner Greenfield: As we consider new users like pickleball, are there any other 17
potential new users that we should be considering for the use of tennis courts? 18
Mr. Howard: That would be the biggest group. There's been a small uptick—I think this 19
has more to do with the rain—with youth soccer players using it like a foot control 20
practice. They use the courts and they use the netting as a way of controlling the ball and 21
their foot control. That's been pretty minimal, so I don't think that's something that would 22
tend to grow. I think it's just because we've had so much rain, and they were limited on 23
field space at the time. 24
Commissioner Greenfield: On another subject, I was kind of surprised to hear your 25 comment that most soccer teams would like to practice 5 days a week. My experience is 26 most teams practice twice a week; some would like to practice three times a week. What 27 percentage are you talking about there? 28
Mr. Howard: I don't have specific numbers. As we broker fields, that's the number one 29
concern. As they say, we don't have enough space, we don't have enough space. I kind 30
of point out at two practice slots a week per team, we have plenty of space. The 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
overwhelming answer is we're becoming more competitive. We practice four, five times 1
a week. 2
Commissioner Greenfield: That's all I have other than a question to Keith. Is it 3
appropriate to ask staff for any information regarding the second and third comments 4
regarding what's going on at Cubberley? 5
Chair Reckdahl: Do you want to talk to that at all? 6
Ms. O'Kane: I can. Kristen O'Kane, Community Services. The event that the two 7
speakers were referring to is a special event that is happening at Cubberley Community 8
Center on the synthetic turf field. It's a private event being put on by a local business. 9
It's an all-employee event, so it's—they were in a pinch to find a venue that could hold all 10
of their employees. They came to the City and asked for our help. We put a lot of 11
thought into our response and also in our decision whether we would allow the company 12
to use this field. While it's not typical for us to allow this sort of special event to occur at 13
the field or anywhere on any of our fields, we made the decision to support this local 14
business and to issue them a special event permit to have the event. The event actually is 15
May 3rd and May 5th, but their setup takes a significant amount of time. That's why half 16
of the field is being used from April 24th, yesterday, 'til May 10th. Most of that is setup 17
and whatever rehearsals they need to do for their keynote speakers, and then they'll have 18
the event, and then they'll break down the event. We've noticed the community 19
through—we delivered letters to people within 600 feet of the field, and then we've also 20
posted the information on the Greenmeadow Nextdoor site. That's how the neighbors 21
were communicated that this event would occur. We didn't have a lot of time to make a 22
decision. A few of us got together and discussed what the potential impacts would be to 23
the neighbors, to the field users. We really did think about it. It may or may not happen 24
again in the future. Right now, we're just focusing on this event and trying to mitigate for 25 any impacts and inconvenience to the community. We know there is an inconvenience; 26 we're aware of that. We're trying to mitigate that as much as possible. 27
Chair Reckdahl: I think one of the problems that people had with it wasn't so much that 28
there was a private event, but also just the duration, that it's 2 1/2 weeks. That's a long 29
time to lose that field. 30
Ms. O'Kane: It is a long time. 31
Commissioner Greenfield: Is there any precedent in the City for closing a field for 2 1/2 32
weeks for a private event like this? 33
Ms. O'Kane: Not that I'm aware of. I would maybe need to ask Rob as well or Adam or 34
Daren, if you know. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
Mr. Howard: Not for that duration, not since I've been here. 1
Commissioner LaMere: Is that a field that currently sees heavy use for recreational 2
activities or youth sports? 3
Mr. Howard: The field does get used daily and on the weekends for youth sports. We 4
were able to reallocate all of those individuals to different spaces or they could use half 5
the field. Not the perfect situation, but they were able to reschedule everywhere to 6 different locations with our help, of course. 7
Commissioner Cribbs: How much time did you have to make these decisions? How 8
early? 9
Ms. O'Kane: I think it was—I could go back and look at the exact date we were asked. 10
Maybe 2 weeks. Yeah, it was pretty quick. 11
Commissioner Cribbs: Thanks. 12
Commissioner McDougall: If we're on that subject, is there any community benefit that 13
Blue Flame or allegedly Palantir are offering other than just the $7.50 an hour or 14
whatever it is? 15
Ms. O'Kane: Actually, the fee that they're being charged is the hourly rate to rent the 16
field. The fee that they're going to be charged, because it is a long event, will be about 17
$40,000 to the City. They've also paid for the soccer fields. If the soccer clubs had a fee 18
at another facility that they would have to pay, that has been paid by the company. 19
They've also donated $10,000 to each of the soccer clubs, Palo Alto Soccer Club and 20
Stanford Soccer Club. 21
Commissioner Cribbs: Did you say forty or four? 22
Ms. O'Kane: Forty thousand. 23
Commissioner McDougall: Thanks, Kristen. 24
Commissioner LaMere: What was the date? The dates were about April 24th to May 5th 25 that the field's not in use. Is that correct? 26
Ms. O'Kane: April 24th to May 10th. Half of the field is still being used for practices 27 and can be used for the public. The other half is not available. 28
Commissioner Greenfield: That's all at this time. 29
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
Vice Chair Moss: I want to talk about both, the Blue Flame subject and the pickleball 1
subject. I'll start with the pickleball subject. I definitely think we should change the 2
policy to allow the pickleballers to be able to reserve a court. There should be no 3
discussion. The problem that I see is when he says that they're going to do outreach. I 4
think Palo Alto first should—the same rules that took us 5 years to come up with or 3 5
years to come up with on the brokering and the resident percentage rules should apply to 6 them and to the tennis people. Now, we have a constrained resource, and it's only going 7
to get worse. For them to do an outreach to get especially non Palo Alto residents, I don't 8
think they should have carte blanche to do that when we have these rules right now that 9
say 50 percent should be Palo Alto residents. Can that be 50 percent of 10,000 people? I 10
didn't see that there was a limit to the number of people that you could get, say, for 11
AYSO or CYSA. Is there? 12
Mr. Howard: That's correct, no limit on the size of the organization, purely the number 13
of residents in it. 14
Vice Chair Moss: We should change the policy and put a limit—a total number of people 15
in the organization plus a percentage. When somebody asked how many people show up 16
at Cubberley, there are hundreds of kids playing on Cubberley. It didn't used to be like 17
that. Even 3 years ago, it didn't used to be that way. Now, it's hundreds of kids in 18
Cubberley. Multiply that by all of the facilities, all the fields, all the tennis courts, and 19
we cannot grow with those same resources infinite. I would encourage a change in the 20
policy that way as well. That's what I have about the pickleballers. As far as the Palantir 21
event, it's near and dear to my heart because it's right behind my house. These are all my 22
neighbors that were represented there. Not only the comment that you heard here but 23
also somebody said many soccer teams and games have been displaced. There isn't much 24
room on the other fields for those. There was also supposed to be middle school 25 soccer—I'm sorry—a track event with five teams, five schools that was displaced. It's 26 more than just let's try to move people. I noticed in the fine print that you do not have to 27 find room for everybody. You try to find room for everybody, but you don't have to find 28
room for everybody. I think when you moved everybody, you probably impacted the 29
people who are using the other fields. It's not good. The biggest issue I have is you had 30
2 weeks' notice. It's similar to the Bernie event last year, which was very, very short 31
notice. They set up in a day; they did their event; and they were gone the next day 32
because they had to move on to the next city. This should have been a couple of big red 33
flags. You know from experience that Greenmeadow Association is quite verbal and 34
quite vocal. There were enough red flags that you should have gotten them involved. I 35
don't want to see a picket. The two main issues that were brought up are it's a private 36
event. Even if it were a private event, if it was one where there was public benefit, that 37
would have been okay. Because it was a private event, no public benefit, no notice, and a 38
huge impact of 2 1/2 weeks, which is unprecedented, I think it's something of a public 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
relations nightmare. If we can avoid that in the future, any one of those red flags but not 1
all of those—especially all of those red flags, I would appreciate it. 2
Commissioner Cribbs: I'm very happy to talk about pickleball. As many of you know, 3
I've been a big proponent of pickleball since I learned about it about 4 years ago, when I 4
thought it had a really silly name. I would like to commend the people in the audience 5
for the work they've done in organizing the—thank you very much—pickleball club. I 6 sure would like to see how we could work out a time or some times, a change in a policy 7
that they would have the opportunity to be treated like the tennis group as well. Maybe 8
it's a matter of having the club apply for co-sponsorship or maybe it's looking at different 9
policies. I would really love to have us do that. I think it's in the Master Plan. I would 10
love to see some dedicated pickleball courts in the future. I really appreciate Adam and 11
the City for your responsiveness to pickleball, certainly for the Bay Area senior games. 12
We really appreciate it. I would like to invite my fellow Commissioners to come to see 13
the Bay Area senior games, where we will have 140, 150 seniors playing pickleball on 14
the weekend of May 5th and 6th. I think 12:45 might be a good time on Saturday to 15
come. I'd love to see you out there right after the parade. Thank you very, very much for 16
being interested. Thank you, pickleball club, for being exercised. It's just a great sport 17
for seniors, and it's just a great sport for everybody. You're all so enthusiastic and so 18
happy that it's a good thing. Thank you, Keith. 19
Commissioner McDougall: This is where the Chairman is supposed to say no clapping in 20
the audience. I'm really glad he didn't because I support everything Anne said. I want to 21
talk briefly about the event. My question would be—I'm not sure that I'm opposed to 22
having our fields rented or whatever if there's enough community benefit or even funding 23
involved. You told us that the event is the 3rd and the 5th or maybe the 3rd, 4th, and 5th. 24
They have the field 'til the 10th. I'd be really interested—I would request that we go back 25 and say, "What can you guys to do to get out of there and show a response to the citizens 26 by not keeping the thing 'til the 10th? Tell us now you can tear it down overnight, and 27 we can have it back on the 6th" or something. Even 4 days at this point would at least 28
show a responsiveness. I don't challenge your decision. I'm not asking us to go back; we 29
can't go back. At this point, we could at least try and mitigate it a little bit. I think we 30
should try that. In terms of pickleball, they know my enthusiasm; it's the same as Anne's. 31
At the last meeting, you'll remember I said at the end we would be remiss not to bring up 32
pickleball at the next meeting. I guess I want to ask staff or whatever what do we do 33
next. We've all said good things about the nice, noisy people out there. We go away, and 34
maybe they should come back next meeting because we like having them here. How do 35
we do something? We're just talking about—they're asking can they reserve it. What 36
about the fact that the policy says they can't even be on the courts. The policy 37
specifically says nothing else other than tennis. I think we should—they're all here. Let's 38
fine them while they're here. We need to decide what we're going to do and do it quickly. 39
Not "let's see if we can't do this sometime next year, in the next 5-year plan" or whatever. 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
I don't know if that means—I look at this and say this is one line in the field thing. 1
Adam, what you do in terms of juggling all the fields and those violent soccer players and 2
whatnot is outstanding. Maybe we need a separate court policy as opposed to just a field 3
policy. I'm not sure we want to wait that long to at least change it so that pickleball is 4
allowed. I keep wanting to comment that we keep saying pickleball-like. It's not 5
pickleball-like; it's pickleball that we're talking about. Your example of another like is 6 soccer. I can't believe that kids playing soccer on the tennis courts are good for those 7
nets. I would say specifically the other thing that ought to be going into here, if you want 8
to have a statement about no other sport, is it should say no soccer. Kids with soccer 9
balls are going to see how hard they can kick that ball into that net. I know it. That's my 10
questions, Adam. Maybe I should shut up and let you answer. What do we need do to? 11
Mr. Chairman, do we need a motion that says let's do something? I'd like to see us do 12
something. Maybe, Adam, you want to pass that to somebody else? 13
Mr. Howard: Rob (crosstalk) better answer. Ultimately, any changes to the policy would 14
need to be approved by Council. This is the part—staff could decide that we are going to 15
re-look at the policy, in which case a subcommittee of the Rec Commission would help 16
address the issues that we would be moving forward with. We could simply just look at 17
the tennis court policy. It doesn't have to be open to the entire policy. We can do that 18
with your direction. 19
Mr. de Geus: I think that is a good idea, Adam. I would have suggested something 20
similar. How we typically do this is a couple of Commissioners may volunteer to be on 21
an ad hoc committee to review the policy. If there's not a lot of changes, if it's generally 22
working pretty well, which I think it is, we can make revisions, bring it back to the 23
Commission for review, get a vote, bring it to Council for approval. You can make the 24
decision this evening to put an ad hoc committee together to work on that. I would 25 suggest we do that. 26
Commissioner McDougall: Mr. Chairman, rather than making more long speeches, I'd 27 like to volunteer to be on that ad hoc committee. 28
Commissioner Greenfield: I'd be happy to serve as well. 29
Chair Reckdahl: We can have a maximum of three on there. Are you interested? 30
Commissioner Cribbs: I guess I should be. 31
Chair Reckdahl: Are there any objections if Don, Anne, and Jeff are the ad hoc? 32
Male: No objection. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
Chair Reckdahl: No objections. We now have an ad hoc. They will work offline, gather 1
the facts, and propose a change with staff. Then, we will come back, if not next month, 2
the month thereafter with a proposed change. That would have to be an action item. 3
Commissioner McDougall: Just a quick question. Why did you say not next month? 4
Are you just trying to be realistic or being … 5
Chair Reckdahl: If not next month. 6
Commissioner McDougall: If not next month. Sorry. 7
Ms. O'Kane: I wanted to add also that in addition to the policy regarding reserving the 8
courts, one thing that we're doing at the staff level is looking at whether we can have 9
dedicated pickleball courts or if we can stripe the tennis courts for both uses. We're 10
looking at that. We want to be careful as to what path we go and which courts we would 11
do that on. We are having those conversations and looking at that as well. 12
Commissioner McDougall: Thanks, Kristen. 13
Mr. Howard: Could I just quickly add? To be realistic in terms of timeline, once this can 14
opens, we will have a group of tennis players behind us that will be very vocal about their 15
fear of losing space or the perception that one sport is going to be chosen over another. I 16
think there will be quite a bit of need for public outreach on this in terms of both 17
pickleball and tennis. 18
Commissioner Cribbs: Is there something that you would recommend we would do from 19
the offset instead of just announcing that we're having an ad hoc committee to address the 20
idea of looking at the policies and be more inclusive about it? 21
Mr. Howard: I think that's correct. Part of the description for the ad hoc will be to get 22
public input from both sides, which result in public meetings and some brainstorming 23
into how we can make the policy work for both groups. Ultimately, that would be our 24
goal. 25
Commissioner Cribbs: I just want to be really careful that it doesn't look like we're going 26 in one direction, that we're seeking information from everybody so that it's fair to 27 everybody given changes in recreation these days. That's all, just the way we define 28
ourselves. 29
Vice Chair Moss: To follow up on that. Is it possible to do an experiment and let them 30
tomorrow start reserving as an experiment so that you use that data to come up with a 31
policy? 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
Mr. de Geus: We generally don't do that because that's an experiment outside of the 1
existing approved policy by Council. I don't think we would do that. 2
Commissioner McDougall: I like the word pilot. 3
Vice Chair Moss: Pilot, yes. 4
Commissioner McDougall: Since we were using that in the previous discussion. 5
Commissioner Greenfield: I was just going to add that it seems that the tennis court 6 policy has not evolved to the extent that the field use policy has. It seems altogether 7
appropriate to take a look just at the tennis court side of things in the interest of 8
expediency and moving forward more quickly and to leave the field use side as it is. 9
Commissioner LaMere: My only comment, everything was covered as far as the 10
pickleball and the field policy. My only comment would be with the event being held at 11
Cubberley field, we should be very cautious especially with the field crunch. That's all 12
I've heard about, how valuable our field space is to our recreation sports, our youth, and 13
everyone else who would like to use it. To lose field space for over 2 weeks, we just 14
need to be very sensitive to those issues and cautious about if this does set precedent or 15
how we move forward with some of the decision-making. 16
Chair Reckdahl: I have some questions about—was it Tom? Tom, can you come up 17
here? I have a couple of questions about the pickleball logistics. In particular I want to 18
know, if you wanted to reserve courts, how many tennis courts would you need at one 19
time? 20
Mr. Foladare: We would reserve courts 5, 6, and 7 at Mitchell Park, so it's only three 21
courts. These courts are lightly used because there's so much debris from the trees. 22
We've actually had to buy electric blowers and a set of brooms. We spend probably 23
about 3-4 man hours a week keeping them clean, which has brought the tennis players 24
back onto them, since they weren't using them previously. 25
Chair Reckdahl: These are the courts over by the Magical Bridge? 26
Mr. Foladare: Correct. 27
Chair Reckdahl: What do other cities do for pickleball? Does anyone around here 28
support pickleball? 29
Mr. Foladare: The City of Concord just put in 14 dedicated courts. The City of Santa 30
Cruz is about to put in four dedicated courts and four what we call blended line courts, 31
which are courts where they have the pickleball lines in specific colors so they're not 32
white and they don't bother the tennis players as much. Cambria, for example, just put in 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
six courts. Santa Rosa just put in eight courts. Visalia is at the end of construction for 1
eight courts. Eight courts actually fit on two tennis courts; that's why it's an eight, except 2
for Cambria because they started from scratch. 3
Chair Reckdahl: When you play pickleball, which direction is your net? Is it parallel 4
with the tennis net or is it perpendicular? 5
Mr. Foladare: It can be either way. We actually have court 5 as parallel, which is a little 6 bad because the courts are facing east-west. We have courts 6 and 7 facing north-south. 7
Chair Reckdahl: When you use it, you have two pickleball courts on every tennis court? 8
Mr. Foladare: No, we have four. 9
Chair Reckdahl: Four on every tennis court. 10
Mr. Foladare: Sixteen people. 11
Chair Reckdahl: Those three courts give you 12 pickleball courts? 12
Mr. Foladare: Yes. We currently have the capacity to have about 45 players playing 13
simultaneously. 14
Chair Reckdahl: If we restripe something—added pickleball stripes, you would be 15
bringing your own nets, and all we'd be doing is painting the surface? 16
Mr. Foladare: The City approved us putting a box outside the courts. We currently store 17
13 nets there. We've given all 200 of our members the combination to that box, which is 18
why there's so much open play during the week. 19
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Does anyone else have … 20
Mr. Foladare: Can I mention one thing? The outreach that I was talking about was 21
strictly to Palo Alto. 22
Chair Reckdahl: Does anyone have questions? 23
Mr. Foladare: We have failed to do that in the past. We're making amends. 24
Commissioner Greenfield: I have a question. What percentage of your organization is 25 Palo Alto residents? 26
Mr. Foladare: I don't have that exact number, but I'm guessing it's just 20 percent. 27 Again, we started with meet-up, and it just drew everybody. Now, we're looking at 28
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
targeted programs to Palo Alto. The first one is the City-sponsored class on Tuesdays 1
and Thursdays, which has 25 people in each session. 2
Vice Chair Moss: What he said about competition with tennis players, it's only going to 3
get more heated. There should be a limit on the number of players. Even though you 4
want to increase the total number of people playing in the United States, the City of Palo 5
Alto has limited resources. We have this dance that we have to do. I don't know how to 6 solve it. 7
Mr. Foladare: The programs that we're really focused on are the senior program, which is 8
on Wednesday when the courts aren't being used during the day, and the homeschool 9
program, which will be during the afternoon when the courts aren't being used. That's 10
really where our focus is going to be this year. There are 2.5 million pickleball players in 11
the United States. We're not inviting them all in at the same time. 12
Commissioner LaMere: Just a quick question. How did the decision to use Mitchell Park 13
come about as opposed to any of the other parks that have tennis courts? 14
Mr. Foladare: When I first came up with the idea of the group, I was a paddle tennis 15
player. Mitchell Park has two paddle tennis courts. All my friends were getting old and 16
hurt, so we needed a sport that had less impact on their bodies. We just shifted them all 17
over to pickleball. As people walked by the courts, they all wanted to play. Eventually, 18
we had to go beg Adam to move us to a facility that could handle more than 14 people at 19
a time. 20
Commissioner Greenfield: I think the usage limitations will get—the question will get 21
answered when we establish brokering guidelines for the courts. 22
Chair Reckdahl: Adam, which tennis courts does the U.S.T.A. use? You mentioned that 23
earlier, and I didn't catch which are the major courts. 24
Mr. Howard: The most popular are Mitchell Park, Rinconada, Cubberley. Again, that's 25 the grouping of tennis courts have five, six, seven courts at a time, bathrooms, and 26 parking. 27
Mr. de Geus: I'm curious, to the gentleman at the mic, if there's any interest in indoor 28
facilities? We do have gymnasiums at Cubberley. I know that pickleball in Milpitas is 29
very popular indoors. Is that something that we could look at as well? 30
Mr. Foladare: Throughout the Bay Area, there are indoor games on a daily basis, Los 31
Altos, San Jose, Milpitas, Walnut Creek. There's probably about ten indoor facilities per 32
day. We can continue to add there. It's not part of our group. There's a larger concern 33
that deals with the indoor sport. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
Chair Reckdahl: Adam, we're talking about checking IDs right now. Don't we check IDs 1
on soccer fields? 2
Mr. Howard: We check residency by utility number. 3
Chair Reckdahl: When people put a team together, they list … 4
Mr. Howard: If it's a priority group—we only look at people claiming they're above 51 5
percent. They would provide their roster and the utility number of any Palo Alto 6 resident. 7
Chair Reckdahl: We don't go on the field and check? 8
Mr. Howard: No, we don't. 9
Chair Reckdahl: I know when we were planning, that was one of the things we wanted to 10
do, but that takes effort. 11
Mr. Howard: Yeah. It would be very difficult with one player showing up one night. 12
We would be chasing our tail at that point. 13
Chair Reckdahl: If we went to tennis brokering, would we do the same thing where you 14
have a roster of the tennis club? 15
Mr. Howard: We would have to do something similar if we're going to make residency 16
count. Right now, it's really about the team captain who is a resident or nonresident. 17
Chair Reckdahl: You have one team captain and everyone else can be out of—am I 18
right? 19
Mr. Howard: Correct. 20
Chair Reckdahl: The ad hoc can deal with that. We don't have to deal with that tonight. 21
Mr. Howard: That's part of the logistics of what we would need to figure out. 22
Chair Reckdahl: I do also want to compliment you. I get a lot of compliments. People 23
who work with field brokering are very happy. We do a good job here. The citizens get 24
their money's worth. Thank you. 25
Commissioner Greenfield: It's probably also worth pointing out the 51 percent number in 26 the policy applies to youth organizations and 35 percent is the number for adult 27 organizations. 28
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. The ad hoc will get together and will work with staff and 1
do outreach as needed and come back eventually with a proposal. We'll move on. 2
4. Planning of Council/Parks and Recreation Commission Joint Study Session, 3
May 22nd, 7 p.m. 4
Chair Reckdahl: Next is planning for the joint study session. Kristen, you're up. 5
Mr. de Geus: I can kick this off if you like, Chair Reckdahl. 6
Chair Reckdahl: Please do. 7
Mr. de Geus: This is really a discussion for the Commission to have on what you want to 8
use the hour you have with the City Council, what you want to bring up. Typically in the 9
past, we do spend a little bit of time reflecting on the year past and what the Commission 10
has done and what the Commission is proud of. I know we have a number of new 11
Commissioners, but that's okay. I think it's important to do that, establish the relevance 12
of the Commission. We typically then will have a discussion—the Commission will—13
about the priorities that you see as a Commission for the year ahead. There's nine 14
Council Members, seven of you; we have an hour. It goes pretty quick. The presentation 15
should be brief in terms of the background. It's important, but then get to—three is 16
usually the maximum—somewhere between three and five topics that you really want to 17
get some feedback from the Council on. You'd want to talk about that here this evening. 18
You should also talk about—Commissions have done it differently between the HRC and 19
the Arts Commission and this Commission as it's changed—who speaks and who 20
presents. Sometimes all Commissioners would like to say something. Other times, just a 21
couple or the Chair takes the lead. These are decisions that you can make as a body, how 22
you want to handle that evening. 23
Chair Reckdahl: When is our retreat scheduled? 24
Mr. de Geus: It's in May. 25
Chair Reckdahl: May 19th, isn't it? 26
Ms. O'Kane: Friday, May 19th. 27
Commissioner Greenfield: Four days before. 28
Chair Reckdahl: Four days before. We can polish it up there? 29
Mr. de Geus: That's really timely too. You don't have to have it in the packet for the 30
Council necessarily or a major, formal presentation. Typically, we have a retreat earlier, 31
and that helps define what you're going to talk about. This will be right before, but … 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
Chair Reckdahl: We won't have much prep time, but we can … 1
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, you'll be ready. The other thing we do before is the Chair and the 2
Vice Chair meet with the Mayor and the Vice Mayor. You get a little bit of a sense from 3
the Council about what they're seeing as priorities as you prepare for it. It's May 22nd, 4
which will be an interesting evening because the Palo Alto Youth Council also has a 5
study session that same evening with the Council, and then we have the Parks Master 6 Plan going forward for feedback from the Council. It's a Community Services evening at 7
Council. 8
Chair Reckdahl: That is scheduled for the vote, the Master Plan? Or is (crosstalk) 9
Mr. de Geus: It's scheduled for action, not to approve the Plan. They're going to do that 10
over two meetings. This will be the first time that they see the whole Plan, give 11
feedback. Depending on the level of feedback they give, we'll do some tweaking to the 12
Plan and then come back once the CEQA's complete in June for final adoption before the 13
break. 14
Vice Chair Moss: When does the Chair and the Vice Chair meet with the Mayor and the 15
Vice Mayor? 16
Mr. de Geus: That's to be scheduled. 17
Vice Chair Moss: Is it before the … 18
Mr. de Geus: Yes. 19
Vice Chair Moss: … 22nd? 20
Mr. de Geus: It is. In the next couple of weeks. 21
Ms. O'Kane: I can help schedule that meeting. 22
Vice Chair Moss: I have some comments. Is that okay? 23
Chair Reckdahl: Go ahead, please. 24
Vice Chair Moss: I think that the most important thing is the passing of the Master Plan. 25 If we spend a significant amount of time in the session to do that, then we will be 26 shortchanging ourselves as far as what we do the rest of the year. I would suggest that 27 maybe we have an additional—we put on the calendar an additional breakout session. 28
Chair Reckdahl: My understanding is that this study session is not going to talk about the 29
Master Plan at all. Is that your understanding? 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
Mr. de Geus: It's really up to the Commission what you want to do there. I would think 1
that you would want to say something because you spent so much time on it, particularly 2
this last year. Maybe it's part of that introduction and reflection on the year past, what 3
you've been able to accomplish with the Master Plan, that you're proud of your 4
accomplishment. I think that would be good as it leads into their review of the Plan later 5
that evening. As for spending a whole lot of time on it, it's probably not necessary unless 6 you think it is. I think you're all pretty supportive of it at this point. 7
Vice Chair Moss: I'd make a recommendation that the new Council Members spend time 8
understanding the Plan ahead of time rather than be going through it with a fine-toothed 9
comb in the session, which we did last time. Last time we spent a lot of time going 10
through it. Maybe this time we don't have the time to do that. I would think the best 11
benefit for the rest of the year is for people to decide what they want to spend their time 12
on. The Master Plan talks about 20 years' worth of stuff to do. We're not going to get it 13
all done in 1 year, so what do we work on. Some of the stuff is long term that we have to 14
get a start on. Some of the stuff is short term that we can just knock out in one year. It 15
takes the initiative of us so, if we're interested in something, we should come prepared to 16
talk about what's interesting for us and then decide what are the low-hanging fruit we can 17
knock out this year and what are the things we have to start now that aren't going to get 18
done for 10 years. 19
Chair Reckdahl: Any other comments? 20
Commissioner McDougall: Kristen, I mentioned what the Library Commission does. 21
They have this buddy system. I always thought the name was awful. This might be an 22
opportunity to do exactly what we were talking about. Between now and the 22nd, every 23
one of us identify one of the Council Members and simply sit down with them and the 24
Parks Master Plan on a one-on-one at least to gauge their interest. Some of them, I think, 25 will be very interested. Some of them may not be. We'd be able to identify what 26 questions so we don't have to make that meeting. When I listened to Rob say what you 27 do in that hour, my reaction is you've got the Baylands and the Foothills. You've got the 28
big things, and then you've got the parks, which is really a big emotional thing. Then, 29
you've got all the recreation activities. I would say you need to find a way to divide it up, 30
a third, a third, a third, between those things relative to near-term things that we would 31
like to see done—the pickleball thing or the recreation or whatever it is—and not spend a 32
lot of time on a 20-year Plan. Just assign us to identify a buddy and go get them up to 33
speed, which would mean each of us, the new people like myself, have to put effort into 34
being an advocate for the Plan as it is. That's goodness, not badness. 35
Chair Reckdahl: I think Council input is very valuable; whereas, it's very nebulous. For 36
example, what to do with the—what is it? How many acres is up … 37
Commissioner McDougall: Seven and a half. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 34
Chair Reckdahl: 7.7 acres, thank you. Or the 10.2 acres down by the Baylands. Those 1
right now—we don't have concrete plans of what we want to do. Having some input 2
from Council could actually be useful. The other option is just go through that—we do 3
have a very concise action plan in the Master Plan. Maybe that's the best route. That 4
contains some of these things that are nebulous, but we also put a lot of thought into that. 5
Maybe that would be the appropriate vehicle to talk through. In the past, when we've 6 presented things to Council, they've always been—we'll present for 20 minutes, and then 7
the Council will go on and on and on. We can hardly get a word in edgewise. We get 8
our pitch at the beginning and then, at that point, we just listen, which is probably the 9
good thing to do because they're the ones who eventually have to vote on anything that 10
we approve. We don't want to put—if it's something they don't want, we don't want to 11
spend our time making something that will not be accepted. 12
Commissioner Cribbs: I think that's right. We're all interested in, after all the work on 13
the Master Plan, seeing it move forward when we get the required studies that are coming 14
in. I'm particularly interested in what the Council's reaction is going to be to the Master 15
Plan and what they think is important. At the end of the day, as you've said, they're the 16
ones that are going to make the decision. After all, it's just our recommendation. The 17
only thing, Don, I would say to your comment, which I thought was really excellent, was 18
I would very much like to include Cubberley as one of those big things that should be on 19
our horizon. The two open space plots, to do something about those, and the big deal 20
with Cubberley. 21
Commissioner McDougall: Yeah, there was actually just a long letter to the editor 22
relative to Cubberley. 23
Chair Reckdahl: What is the status? There was a separate group that was looking at 24
Cubberley between the School District and the City. Wasn't there some … 25
Mr. de Geus: I think you're referring to the Cubberley Community Advisory Committee. 26 The CCAC, a few years ago, met for a year and a half and put together … 27
Chair Reckdahl: They've been disbanded now. 28
Mr. de Geus: They've been disbanded now. Staff have been working with the School 29
District staff to try and define a scope of services to get some consultant support for 30
design services. We're getting closer to that. We have a draft. We hope to be able to 31
present that to the City/School Liaison Committee meeting next month. Kristen was at 32
the meeting last week with our City Manager, Jim Keene, and Max McGee, 33
Superintendent, to talk about Cubberley. Did you want to add anything? 34
Ms. O'Kane: It was really—our meeting last week really was to check in and just 35
reaffirm that we're going to proceed jointly on Master Planning the Cubberley site. I 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 35
think we got that reassurance from both the City and the School District. We are going to 1
move forward and look at the site together, considering that the City has 8 acres and the 2
School District has 27 acres. We really reaffirmed that. Like Rob said, we have a scope 3
of work that we would like to proceed with an RFP soon to get a consultant to help us 4
with that Master Planning effort. We're going to go back to the City/School Liaison 5
Committee next month to just give them an update on that. 6
Chair Reckdahl: What is the scope of that? We have Cubberley; we have Greendell. 7
There's another property that this School District owns. This would just be looking at the 8
Cubberley portion and not those other two properties. 9
Ms. O'Kane: At the moment, we're thinking that it would be the 35 acres of Cubberley, 10
which is the fields, the tennis courts, the buildings, the 8 acres the City owns, and then 11
the 27 acres that the School District owns. That doesn't include Greendell. 12
Vice Chair Moss: It's not only Greendell, but also that Athena property is also, I think, 13
part of the school. It goes all the way over to … 14
Chair Reckdahl: San Antonio. 15
Vice Chair Moss: … San Antonio. My hot button is more land, more parks. In this 20-16
year Plan, as you can see just by this audience that was here, there's a lot of need for 17
every aspect of our parks. If I had a legacy, it would be to have another park. It could be 18
taking the Fry's property and building 1,000 homes on it but also a park or it could be 19
something more with Cubberley where you take away some of the buildings and make 20
them two stories or three stories, and you put parkland and fields instead of the sprawling 21
one-story buildings and massive, massive parking lots. If we could talk about 22
opportunities to expand the land now, because there won't be any 20 years. It's one of 23
those things you would have to start working on now. 24
Commissioner Cribbs: If I could, I would like to go back specifically to Cubberley and 25 just say would it be useful for all of us to have some very factual—a short presentation 26 about Cubberley, where it came from, how many acres there are. For the Commissioners, 27 yeah. I think there's a lot of assumptions of how much land do we really have, who's in 28
charge of that land, what's the timeline, what did that committee do that met 2 or 3 years 29
ago, that we're kind of not sure what happened to it. Going forward for the future, how 30
can we make something happen there? What's our role in doing that? What's the 31
community's role? What's the staff role? What's the combination between the City and 32
the School District? That's what I would love to see us have on a regular basis if that's 33
possible as things develop. Thank you very much. 34
Mr. de Geus: That's a good idea. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 36
Commissioner McDougall: Including the residency, both temporary and permanent 1
residency that's there. 2
Mr. de Geus: Cubberley alone, we could spend an hour on with the Council. 3
Commissioner Moss' point about land acquisition, which is a really good one, is another 4
really big topic and could take an hour or so. We have to think … 5
Chair Reckdahl: I don't want to bite off more than we can chew. Right now, with the 6 Master Plan coming forward, I would rather have them go through the Master Plan items 7
and maybe give them short shrift. We won't have enough time to go deep but overview 8
what we talked about. 9
Mr. de Geus: See what resonates with them. We've got dog parks; we know that's a hot 10
issue. People want to see more of them. We also know when you start trying to do those 11
dog parks in parks, people generally don't want to see them in their community parks. 12
That's just getting a read on Council's real support for that, if we want to push that along. 13
Bathrooms is another example, where clearly in the Master Plan people want to see more 14
bathrooms in parks. Again, when you add them at a local level, there's definitely some 15
push back. I heard from a resident today that I talked to for half an hour about Seale Park 16
and how that's been the worst thing he believes for the community. He lives right by 17
there, and it's just, he feels like, a lot more use of the park, a lot more parking, people 18
don't leave. It's been a real problem. 19
Chair Reckdahl: If that's the worst problem, that the park is being used, then … 20
Mr. de Geus: I did explain that. I also appreciate where it was coming from. That could 21
be another approach, hit a few of the high-level things we know are important to the 22
Commission, and then see where the Council wants to take it. Staff can also help by just 23
preparing a memo based on some of this feedback that we heard. One thing I didn't 24
understand was about the open space. We have big open space properties in the Baylands 25 and up in the hills. What was the topic for Council as a discussion point for the study 26 session? I didn't understand that. 27
Chair Reckdahl: What was that for? 28
Mr. de Geus: Someone mentioned … 29
Commissioner McDougall: The ITT property? 30
Mr. de Geus: No, it wasn't that, I didn't think. Maybe I misunderstood it, but I … 31
Chair Reckdahl: Tonight this was or this was a previous … 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 37
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, as a topic for Council at the study session. I heard open space as just 1
a topic. 2
Commissioner McDougall: I said there were three things. One was the open space, one 3
was the parks, and the other is recreation as the three umbrellas. Then specifically 4
Cubberley became a fourth. My question was whether you said there was a separate 5
session on the Master Plan later that same evening. 6
Mr. de Geus: Yes. It's a regular Council meeting that evening. After the study sessions 7
are finished, they move into their Consent Calendar and then action. The first action item 8
is the Parks Master Plan. 9
Commissioner McDougall: Would we be redundant if we used our first hour and then … 10
Chair Reckdahl: That was my initial impression. We would be redundant if we dealt 11
with the Master Plan in the first. If you're trying to keep them from getting distracted, 12
maybe we should just do that, all Master Plan all the time until it's approved. This would 13
be a chance—there's more dialog going on. It's a more informal setting. Maybe we 14
could be more useful by having two types of interface with this Council. One with the 15
Master Plan in the working meeting, and then one in the Council. 16
Mr. de Geus: I think that's right. They're very intertwined. The Master Plan is 17
comprehensive of parks, open space, and recreation programs. The things that you're 18
going to bring up that are important, they're hopefully listed in the Master Plan as key 19
priorities. Land acquisition is certainly in there; Cubberley is in there, some of the other 20
things we talked about. 21
Commissioner Greenfield: I would advocate for picking three or four key topics that are 22
near and dear to us that we want to push and really focus on those in our time with 23
Council. To an extent, I feel like the study session is ours to direct to a certain extent. 24
When Council hits the Master Plan on their agenda, they're going to have their own 25 agenda to address there. Most likely, I would hope, whatever we're discussing as our 26 priorities is our key issues within the Master Plan anyway. We're really just emphasizing 27 key sections of the Master Plan that we're looking to act on and get direction for this year. 28
Commissioner McDougall: Here are the four things we're interested in and, oh by the 29
way, they're on pages 7, 24, and 48 of the Master Plan. 30
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah. 31
Commissioner McCauley: The other thing I would add is that I think we should 32
definitely think about things that are a little bit more immediate term, just given the 33
nature of the fact that the Master Plan is long-range planning. Staff knows this better 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 38
than we do, but just from reading the newspaper I imagine the Council is a little bit 1
fatigued with some of the Master Plan discussions. I think they'd probably appreciate 2
talking about the here and now a little bit as well. 3
Commissioner McDougall: You're suggesting we should relate our whole conversation 4
to the Comprehensive Plan discussion. 5
Commissioner Greenfield: One thing that I'll throw out now that I hope to cover in more 6 detail during our retreat is what's kind of low-hanging fruit in this year where budget 7
surpluses are at a premium. If we can look to dedicate park space that isn't currently 8
dedicated, that's a very cost-effective use of time and could be a good priority to focus 9
on. 10
Chair Reckdahl: I mentioned this when I was talking with Kristen when we were doing 11
the agenda. Maybe this is good for the retreat. I would like a 10-minute explanation of 12
what does it mean to dedicate parkland, what does it prohibit, and how hard is it to undo. 13
Commissioner Cribbs: That's good. That's very good. 14
Chair Reckdahl: In one of our study sessions, they were talking about having a second 15
category of park-like land that wasn't really dedicated but still had recreation 16
opportunities and why would you not want to dedicate that. We should talk about that at 17
the retreat. That would be a good … I'm not sure, and I'm sure the newer members are 18
even more cloudy than me. 19
Mr. de Geus: We certainly can do that. We can send it out in advance so that you can 20
read it. If it's unclear, then we can talk, just for efficiency. 21
Chair Reckdahl: You're talking about dedicating land. The other thing is even if it's not 22
dedicated, as long as it's available for recreation, that's the biggest thing from our point of 23
view. To me, whether it's dedicate or not is kind of a check mark. 24
Commissioner Greenfield: What I'm talking about is there are parklands that are 25 functionally in use now, but they're not locked in, to go through the process to make sure 26 they are properly dedicated as parkland so they are locked in for that use. 27
Chair Reckdahl: What kind of properties are you talking about? 28
Mr. de Geus: An example would be—there are several actually. We have a list; Emily 29
Renzel helped us put it together. We had our own list as well. The community gardens, 30
big pieces of land, not dedicated parkland, could we bring that forward and dedicate it? 31
Even some tennis courts in town are not dedicated parkland as well. The Winter Lodge is 32
another example, which was swapped for parkland at the time when the Lodge was saved 33
by the community, but it's not dedicated parkland. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 39
Chair Reckdahl: This was brought up at one of the study sessions, Winter Lodge 1
specifically. What I don't know is should I be for incorporating the Winter Lodge into 2
parks or not. I don't know the tradeoffs on that. 3
Mr. de Geus: That's a fair question. We can send you the information related to what it 4
means if it is dedicated parkland and what restrictions are on there. We'll do that. 5
Chair Reckdahl: Maybe the action then for the retreat is everyone look through the 6 Master Plan, especially the section where we list our greatest hits, the highest priority 7
items, and then say this long list of 20 items or whatever, if you had to talk about two or 8
three or four at the Council, which ones would you want to see. We can discuss that at 9
the retreat and come to consensus of what material we want covered. 10
Vice Chair Moss: I'm available if anybody wants to talk about the Plan or walk through 11
the Plan. I'm available. 12
Commissioner McCauley: I have one other question. I think this was raised quickly at 13
the last meeting. We're going to have, I think, as it's scheduled, three meetings in quick 14
succession, the retreat, the study session with the Council, and then, I think, the next 15
night there's another meeting. I'm a little worried about fatigue within our Commission 16
and/or the staff who we'd be dragging along for all of that time period. I think we 17
probably have to make a decision if we're going to cancel the regular meeting on the 18
23rd. We have to do that, I presume, sooner rather than later. I think we should 19
definitely discuss that, whether or not we should go ahead and cancel the meeting on the 20
23rd. 21
Chair Reckdahl: Obviously, the first two we don't have control over. We want the 22
retreat, and we have the study session. Do we want the meeting on Tuesday after our 23
study session? 24
Ms. O'Kane: I would recommend that, if the decision was to not have it on that Tuesday, 25 possibly to reschedule it as opposed to cancel it. For our May meeting, the agenda is 26 getting full. If we cancel it completely, June is going to be really full. 27
Chair Reckdahl: Should we bump it 1 week? 28
Commissioner McCauley: That's fine by me as well. I just think having three meetings 29
in 4 days or whatever it might be (crosstalk). 30
Chair Reckdahl: Can Tanya send out a Doodle poll—considering how hard it was to find 31
the open time for the retreat—and see if there's another week, whether it be the following 32
Tuesday or whatever, that we could have our special meeting? 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 40
Vice Chair Moss: I'd like to recommend that we leave it just the way it is and promise 1
not to do it again. This hasn't happened before, and it probably won't happen again. This 2
is an extraordinary month, and it might be better just to keep the meetings the way they 3
are and spend the time, even though it is exhausting, knowing it won't happen again 4
probably. 5
Chair Reckdahl: I'm more concerned about staff. Will you have the resources to support 6 all three? 7
Mr. de Geus: We're sort of thinking the same thing, not about the impact on staff but 8
make sure we have a productive meeting. If we have a retreat and then a Council study 9
session, to be ready then to have a productive discussion about those, it's helpful to have 10
a little bit of time in-between so we can think through what was said, where the themes 11
are. I think a little delay would be better, more productive if it works for the 12
Commission. If it doesn't, then we can go forth. 13
Commissioner Cribbs: That would be moving to the 30th of May? Is that what we're 14
thinking? 15
Commissioner Greenfield: I would like to support what Kristen said. If we do not hold 16
the meeting as scheduled, we reschedule it. We got a late enough start as it was this year. 17
Chair Reckdahl: I agree with that. 18
Commissioner McCauley: I think everyone's on board with that idea. I think it's just the 19
question of moving it to the 30th. Is that a date that works for staff? 20
Chair Reckdahl: The good news is there wouldn't be any conflicts with other meetings 21
then, because they're usually in the first four. The fifth Tuesday would not have a 22
meeting on top of it. 23
Ms. O'Kane: It could be the 30th. It doesn't have to be on a Tuesday. It could be … 24
Commissioner McDougall: Do we need a motion? 25
Chair Reckdahl: I don't think we need a motion. Do people know if they're available on 26 the 30th? 27
Ms. O'Kane: It's the day after Memorial Day, just to remind everyone. We can send out 28
a poll; Tanya could do that for that week and see if Tuesday, Wednesday or even 29
Thursday would work. 30
Chair Reckdahl: Let's set on the poll. Let's try to include the 30th. I think that's a good 31
option. If we don't have consensus, we will just keep it as is. If we can find a date. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 41
Mr. de Geus: Can I suggest that the review of the implementation chapter of the Master 1
Plan happen more quickly, if the Commission can do that? Even within a week, it's not 2
that big of a read and you've probably already looked at it. It would be helpful to have 3
that feedback a couple of weeks before the retreat, as we prepare for the retreat and also if 4
you're meeting with the Mayor and Vice Mayor, that you have some of the feedback from 5
other Commissioners. 6
Chair Reckdahl: They would email Kristen then with their opinions of what are the 7
topics that they'd want to talk … 8
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, the top three as they read through the implementation chapter. 9
Mr. de Geus: When you meet with the Mayor and Vice Mayor, you want to go in saying, 10
"We're proposing to do this. What do you think?" If you go in saying, "What do you 11
think," you're not going to get a good—they won't have had the opportunity to really 12
anticipate a good answer to that. They won't have the background. 13
Chair Reckdahl: Graduation is the week of the 30th, so that's going to be a busy week. 14
We'll send out a Doodle poll, and we'll find out. I think 30th will not work. I think 15
there's going to be a lot of constraints with graduation. 16
Commissioner Cribbs: Is the most recent copy of the Master Plan posted online now or 17
has there been another update? 18
Ms. O'Kane: There has been another update. We had an editor look at it just to correct 19
some inconsistencies and make sure the grammar was correct and everything. We also 20
made some changes based on our last Council study session. I can send out that version. 21
You probably won't notice much difference. I can also point out the changes that were 22
made, that were in response to Council comments to help guide your review, if you'd 23
like. 24
Chair Reckdahl: It is really looking nice compared to a year or 2 ago. 25
Commissioner Cribbs: It's looking great. 26
Chair Reckdahl: This is really good. 27
Commissioner McDougall: Are hard copies available? 28
Ms. O'Kane: We can make hard copies. If anyone would like one, just let me know. We 29
can either mail it or you can pick it up at one of our centers or here. 30
Commissioner Cribbs: I'll pick it up. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 42
Commissioner LaMere: Is the Council set to vote on the Master Plan or they're just 1
reviewing it at this next meeting? What's the process for them to approve it? 2
Commissioner McDougall: That's a two-step process. This one is the first review of the 3
full Master Plan. It will be an action item, so they can make motions to amend it, change 4
it. We will go back and do that, and then final approval in June. We'll come back to 5
them, another action item, make sure we captured their input in the way they had hoped, 6 and then approval that same night. 7
Commissioner LaMere: During their review, that's open to public comment as well. 8
Will they also ask questions of Commissioner Reckdahl or somebody on the Commission 9
if they want clarity on something within the Master Plan during that meeting? 10
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, they might do. We, in the past, have always had the Chair there to 11
represent the Commission. Good question. 12
Ms. O'Kane: We will be there as well. We'll be giving them a presentation first. 13
Chair Reckdahl: Coming out of this, we have two actions. One, people should look 14
through the Master Plan and give their recommendations to Kristen. We'll get a Doodle 15
poll out to see whether we want to move that meeting that's currently scheduled for the 16
23rd. 17
Commissioner McDougall: Is it reasonable to pick a date that we need to give an answer 18
back on our priorities? 19
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah. I would say just in spring. Do you want to say 2 weeks, 2 weeks 20
from today? What date is that? Whatever date 2 weeks from today is. 21
Ms. O'Kane: It's May 9th. 22
Chair Reckdahl: Is that it then? We'll move on to the next. 23
5. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates 24
Chair Reckdahl: Ad hoc committee and liaison updates. Do we have any ad hocs? 25
Vice Chair Moss: I had an opportunity to meet with Rich Green, who's the head of the 26 Palo Alto Historical Association about the ITT property. He would like to bring in a film 27 crew to go through the building with a couple of old timers from the ham radio club to go 28
and say this is what this was used for and this is what this was used for and this is what 29
the building was used for and get it on video. I don't know when it's due to be dedicated. 30
Do you know? 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 43
Mr. Anderson: It's coming up. I'm submitting the staff report to Council soon. 1
Vice Chair Moss: It has, as you know, been vandalized and is getting rundown. He 2
wanted to get somebody in there to do it one more time and then decide what we want to 3
do with that property, once it's dedicated. Do we save the building or do we level it and 4
put another building in its place or do we put no buildings and just put plaques to tell the 5
story? That kind of thing. That's one thing. The other is that we had a discussion about 6 closing a loophole as far as how you determine a resident who wants to get into Foothills 7
Park. It says in the fine print that a resident is somebody in your household or a blood 8
relative. It's sometimes difficult for somebody who's away from the house to prove that 9
they are still a resident of that house. I hope that we can continue to come up with an 10
alternative for how you show residency. 11
Chair Reckdahl: I thought you just used either a utility bill or your license. 12
Vice Chair Moss: The child would use the utility bill of the parent. 13
Chair Reckdahl: This is a kid. If a minor shows up there by themselves? 14
Vice Chair Moss: Yeah, especially if their driver's license doesn't show the house 15
because they're at school or they're living in San Diego. They're still a resident if the 16
family still lives in the house. It's complicated 17
Mr. de Geus: It's not something that happens a lot, but it does happen. There is a bit of a 18
loophole here that we're working on. We're aware of this. My interest is any young 19
person that is away at college is still considered a resident of the family that's living here 20
in Palo Alto. We want to make it as easy as possible for them to get access to the park. 21
We want to be sure we're not putting our rangers in a difficult spot, though, in making 22
that judgment. We want to be sure they have some kind of ID that allows the ranger to 23
allow them to come in. We're working on a way to make that simpler for that particular 24
age group. 25
Vice Chair Moss: That's all I have. 26
Chair Reckdahl: Maybe in future meetings we will have an ad hoc for pickleball or I 27 should say tennis court reservations ad hoc. 28
V. DEPARTMENT REPORT 29
Chair Reckdahl: Department Report. 30
Ms. O'Kane: I just have a couple of things. If you look at the calendar that's in your 31
pack, we do have in May—again the May Fete Parade is coming up. Just a reminder, if 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 44
you would like to participate in the parade as a VIP, let Tanya or me know, and we'll 1
make sure that you're all set up for that. 2
Chair Reckdahl: Everyone is encouraged. Last year, even the Library Board beat us. 3
Can't let that happen this year. If you can make it, please make it. 4
Ms. O'Kane: I wanted to turn it over to Daren. He is going to provide an update on our 5
water conservation practices. 6
Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Kristen. Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks, and Golf. As 7
you know or may not know for the new Commissioners, we've been working on water 8
conservation since the drought was declared rather seriously, looking at every irrigated 9
area that we control and systematically looking at where we could dial back irrigation, 10
swap over turf to native landscaping and put it on drip or go to mulched areas or more 11
recycled water. Those were our efforts, and they resulted in significant savings. We 12
realized 37.5 percent relative to our 2013 use. Most recently on April 7th of this year, 13
Governor Brown declared an end to the drought. The question was what does that mean 14
for our endeavors to conserve water. They're going to remain by and large the same. 15
We'll no longer have the imposed requirement of a certain percentage. Now, it's a 16
voluntary 10 percent imposed by our water supplier; that's the San Francisco Public 17
Utilities Commission. As a City, we're still obligated to enforce the permanent water use 18
restrictions around wasteful practices like leaks, runoff, irrigating during or immediately 19
following rain events, things like that. We'll do that in perpetuity. We're also being just 20
good stewards of the land, particularly in open space and park areas. We'll continue 21
those endeavors we've been doing. In fact, currently we're at 35 percent compared to the 22
2013 numbers. We're still on track to vastly exceed that 10 percent voluntary goal. 23
Citywide, we're at 24.1 percent savings. Even excluding the open space, parks, and golf, 24
we're still doing pretty well. Specifically one of the things we're doing … 25
Chair Reckdahl: (crosstalk) by Citywide, you mean the community or the government? 26
Mr. Anderson: All water use in the City, 24.1 percent savings. Where are we going with 27 water conservation, what's coming? Like I said, we're going to continue those things 28
we're doing. One of the big endeavors is to increase our use of recycled water. There's 29
two big pushes. One is at the golf course we converted to a turf type and the size of our 30
course now that allows us to use almost 100 percent recycled water on all the fairways 31
and tees. The greens will still be potable, but everything else recycled. Before we had to 32
do a split because the turf type couldn't accommodate that level of salt that comes with 33
the recycled water. That will be a significant savings. We also ramped up the amount of 34
recycled water we use at Greer and Baylands Athletic Center, the two other sites that use 35
recycled water. We are not seeing any impact on the turf or vegetation, which is great. 36
Concurrent with that move was an endeavor by the water quality staff to bring down the 37
TDS, the total dissolved solids, which are your salts in that recycled water. They've done 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 45
repairs to lines where they've limited the intrusion of the Bay water into that recycled 1
water line, which in turn just makes it cleaner and more usable by different palettes of 2
vegetation. Our parks are doing well with that. The other big future endeavor with 3
recycled water is extending that line to the Stanford Research Park. I talked to Public 4
Works today about where they're at in that project. They've completed an EIR of 5
extending that water system. The next step in that process is to do a business plan and 6 preliminary design. It's about a $30 million project. The business plan will analyze is it 7
sustainable financially. They're also exploring grants, loans, and other things in that 8
business plan. The important part for the Commission to know is as they extend that line 9
up to Stanford business park, they'll be branching off. We don't know exactly what the 10
distance limit will be, but to hit parks along the way with recycled water, which will be 11
great, mainly in south Palo Alto, it seems according to Public Works, but I'll know more 12
as the project moves forward on how many parks could be switched over to recycled. In 13
about the next 6 months, they hope to have that business plan and the preliminary design 14
done to see if they can progress to a full design. Hopefully, more information on that to 15
come. A couple of other things we're doing right now and will continue to do so. I 16
mentioned converting passive turf to native landscaping. We're kind of tying in an 17
element of the Parks Master Plan, which was to create pollinator pathways. Right now, 18
we've just converted—some of these are smaller pockets but still pockets of irrigated, 19
ornamental turf to landscaping especially relative to either monarch butterflies, where 20
you've got the milkweed and other species that are helpful to the pollinators. We just did 21
this area on Embarcadero near Primrose. We had a volunteer help us, supported by our 22
staff to convert that. It turned out beautiful. She got 100 percent buy-in from residents in 23
the area. Other people are coming up to her and saying, "We'd like to do that in our 24
neighborhood or at our church." It seems to be spreading; it's really exciting. Concurrent 25 with that, we're also trying to—we have a new plan to try to get milkweed in every single 26 one of our parks. You've got these monarch stations, if you will, where monarch 27 butterflies can have habitat all around our areas. Another good example is a pilot project 28
at Hoover Park called a rain garden. We've put rain barrels all around—not all around 29
but in strategic spots around the restroom. That rain barrel will feed a small area that was 30
once turf and now is native landscaping. We put milkweed there too. Some exciting 31
stuff coming. I think we're going to continue the effort to save water, be good land 32
stewards. I'll report back when I know more regarding the recycled water line. 33
Chair Reckdahl: When we talked about this last year, there were some areas where it was 34
a slam dunk. Under some trees, we said there's no reason to have irrigated turf under 35
there; let's mulch that and bring that back. There were some areas where we worried 36
about turf or there was currently water that we worried about the trees being stressed. 37
Are any of those trees being stressed, and have we had to go back and water those? 38
Mr. Anderson: Yes. There were issues where we were obligated to cut water. There 39
wasn't a choice. We tried to take a thoughtful, sensitive approach specific to trees. In 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 46
some areas, we pushed them, and stressed them out a little bit. We've come back and 1
changed that. Those are being irrigated. I can't think of any specific examples off the top 2
of my head, but it did happen. 3
Chair Reckdahl: Down by the Baylands Athletic Center, there were some areas where 4
we cut off, and there were trees there along the—which probably we cut down with the 5
new project anyway. The bottom line is that the trees in the parks—there's no areas 6 where we feel they're stressed out now. They're being … 7
Mr. Anderson: We're not going to restrict water to any areas that need it for trees or any 8
other sensitive species. The obligation now is to really look for places with very little 9
impact to any sort of vegetation other than passive turf. 10
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Does anyone have questions for Daren? Daren did a very 11
nice job. It was about a year ago. It's in the notes on the agendas. Maps of all the 12
different parks and what areas were being cut back. If you're worried about water use, 13
that's one are to look at. 14
Vice Chair Moss: Do we have any update on dog parks, Pardee and the other one? 15
Mr. Anderson: We're in the process right now. The ad hoc met with me and was very 16
helpful in discussing next steps. We decided to move forward with preliminary design 17
for Peers Park. It's in process right now. I saw an early draft. We had some edits. As 18
soon as I get this back probably in a couple of days, I'll be setting up a meeting with our 19
ad hoc members and keep working on it. I think we're going to drive this one forward. 20
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 21
Chair Reckdahl: Comments and Announcements. Do you have any? We're all set. 22
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MAY 23, 2017 MEETING 23
Chair Reckdahl: We'll move on to agenda for May 23rd. 24
Ms. O'Kane: Right now, we have Buckeye Creek hydrology study will come back, the 25 Junior Museum and Zoo as well as an update on aquatics. Those are the three items so 26 far. Like I said, our agenda is getting a little full. If it gets too full, we can move 27 Buckeye Creek probably to June. 28
Chair Reckdahl: The other things I had on were—I guess the PIO for the solar panels 29
will not be next month. That's been bumped. 30
Ms. O'Kane: That'll be June. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 47
Chair Reckdahl: The dog park approval might be next month? 1
Ms. O'Kane: It may be or at least information on … 2
Chair Reckdahl: The ITT dedication, that might … 3
Ms. O'Kane: That's doesn't need to come back to the Commission. 4
Chair Reckdahl: That doesn't have to come back, just straight to Council. 5
Vice Chair Moss: What about AT&T property? Can we have an update on that in a 6 couple of weeks? 7
Ms. O'Kane: I can give you a very brief update right now. I think at the last meeting I 8
may have reported that AT&T had submitted their application for the lot line adjustment. 9
That actually was not correct. They didn't submit the application. They were asking for 10
a meeting to talk about submitting their application. The application has not formally 11
been submitted yet to the City. They have submitted what the lot line adjustment would 12
look like and some lot—there's different parcels within that property that would be 13
combined, and then the lot line would be adjusted. They've shared those, and the 14
conversations are starting. We're doing a little bit of research on our park impact 15
development fees and our parkland dedication fees, so that we can present some 16
information to the City Manager to just inform him that this is the background of this 17
property, this is the status. If Council were to make the decision to purchase it, these are 18
potential funds for it. We're looking into that just to make sure we have the right 19
information. We'll get that memo over to the City Manager. 20
Vice Chair Moss: Is there any update on the Fry's property that's next door as far as 21
being able to use some of their funding for that? 22
Ms. O'Kane: I'm not familiar with the Fry's property development. I don't know if you 23
are, Rob. 24
Mr. de Geus: I'm somewhat familiar, but I don't have any information on it now. We can 25 look into that a little further and report back. 26
Chair Reckdahl: Jeff. We'll take a pass. Unless anyone has anything else, we have 27 adjournment. 28
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 29
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner McDougall and second by 30
Commissioner Cribbs at 9:30 p.m. 31
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: KRISTEN O’KANE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: May 23, 2017
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW OF THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND
RECREATION MASTER PLAN
This is a public hearing per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to receive comments from
the public on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) document for the Parks,
Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan). The PRC will not take action on
the Master Plan document.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto has 32 parks and four open space preserves covering approximately 4,165 acres of
land, including Foothills Park, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, Esther Clark Park, and the Baylands Nature
Preserve. A Capital Improvement Project for a Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master
Plan (Master Plan) was adopted by Council for the 2013 fiscal year to provide the necessary analysis and
review of Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system for the preparation of a long-range (20-year) Master
Plan.
When adopted, the Master Plan will provide the City with clear guidance regarding future capital
improvement projects and program enhancements aimed at meeting current and future demands on
the three main elements of the system: 1) parks, trails and open space; 2) recreation facilities; and 3)
recreation programs. Though the Master Plan addresses trails and natural open space, the intent is not
to provide specific guidance on how to manage and maintain the City’s trails and open space preserves.
Existing plans, such as the Pearson Arastradero Preserve Trail Management Plan (2001) and the Foothills
Park Trail Maintenance Plan (2002), provide trail management guidance. Future open space
conservation plans will provide guidance on vegetation and habitat management, wildlife management,
and wildlife-appropriate public access. This Master Plan will focus on the developed areas within the
City’s natural open space areas, such as parking lots, picnic areas and facilities, and provide
recommendations on how they can best be enhanced. The Master Plan includes an implementation
guide for the near, mid, and long-term as well as potential funding strategies.
On December 14, 2016 the PRC voted unanimously to “accept the Draft Parks, Trails, Natural Open
Space and Recreation Master Plan as the embodiment of the programs and policies that are tentatively
recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission.” The PRC could not accept the Draft Master
Plan in its entirety without a completed environmental review.
A CEQA review of the Master Plan to assess whether the recommended policies and programs identified
in the plan will have a signficant impact on the environment has been completed. A Draft Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and was made available for public comment
on May 8, 2017. The 30-day public review period will end on June 6, 2017. The IS/MND is included as
Attachment A. The Draft Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan can be viewed in
its entirety at http://www.paloaltoparksplan.org/.
DISCUSSION
A California Environmental Qualtiy Act (CEQA) review of the Parks Master Plan was conducted by the
consultant firm (MIG) with assistance from City staff. An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with
Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines to determine if the project may have a significant effect on
the environment. For any significant effects, appropriate mitigation measures have been applied to the
project to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) document provides a description of the impacts and mitigation measures. A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that describes the roles and responsibilities in
monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures is included in the
IS/MND.
The Initial Study focuses on the following areas to determine impact:
• AESTHETICS
• AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
• AIR QUALITY
• BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
• CULTURAL TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
• GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
• GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
• HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
• HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
• LAND USE AND PLANNING
• MINERAL RESOURCES
• NOISE
• POPULATION AND HOUSING
• PUBLIC SERVICES RECREATION
• TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
• UTILITIES
• SERVICE SYSTEMS
• ENERGY CONSERVATION
• MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Master Plan contains policies that are implemented through specific recommended programs.
While the Master Plan identifies specific types of park improvements it does not present project level
design plans for any specific improvement or project. In the absence of project level information, the
Initial Study (IS) identifies general areas of potential environmental impacts that could occur from the
implementation of the Master Plan, and identifies how existing City policies, programs, and procedures,
as well as regulatory standards and programmatic procedures, would reduce or avoid environmental
impacts. The impact analysis presents mitigation measures that would be applied to future projects to
reduce or prevent environmental impacts (see Appendix A in the MND Report).
Table 1 of the Draft IS/MND document identifies the Master Plan policies and programs that have the
potential to result in environmental impacts. Only programs that could cause actual changes to the
environment are listed in Table 1. Program actions related to planning, data gathering, outreach
programs, funding, materials upgrades, etc. are not included in Table 1 because they are not considered
to have the potential to create environmental impacts.
Adoption of the Master Plan would not authorize any specific development or the construction of
improvements identified in the Master Plan. Specific development or improvement projects
recommended by the Master Plan would require further evaluation under CEQA once design and
implementation information becomes available. However, certain types of improvements or
modifications proposed under the Master Plan could be implemented if they are found not to be a
project under CEQA, or the City can document that these improvements do not have potentially
significant environmental impacts. If the City can document these improvements do not have potentially
significant impacts, they can be Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
Once project-level information is developed for broader activities proposed pursuant to the goals and
policies of the Master Plan, the City would review the project under CEQA and determine the
appropriate level of environmental impact analysis. In the absence of even conceptual-level design and
implementation information, this Initial Study cannot evaluate the potential environmental impacts of
many of the activities contemplated in the Master Plan. Future review of these projects (for example,
Cubberley Community Center Master Plan, acquiring new parkland, etc.) would focus on those site-
specific and localized environmental issues that could not be examined in sufficient detail as part of this
IS/MND.
Currently the IS/MND is available for public review and comment for 30-days, with the Parks and
Recreation Commission meeting as a forum for the required community meeting. Comments received
during this period may result in revisions to the recommended mitigation measures provided in the
IS/MND or the Master Plan Document itself.
Following the public review period, all comments will be considered and a Final IS/MND and Master Plan
document will be prepared. Staff will return to the Parks and Recreation Commission in June 2017 with
an action item for the PRC to recommend that Council adopt both the Master Plan and IS/MND.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed CIP recommendations are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element
of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community
assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure
adaptability to the changing needs of the community.
TIME LINE
Community Review Period – 30 Day (May 8 - June 6, 2017)
PRC Recommendation for Adoption (June 27, 2017)
Council Adoption (August 2017)
ATTACHMENT
A. DRAFT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and
Recreation Master Plan
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE PALO ALTO PARKS,
TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN
SPACE, AND RECREATION
MASTER PLAN
City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301May 2017
ATTACHMENT A
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE
PALO ALTO PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE, AND RECREATION
MASTER PLAN
Lead Agency:
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Consultant to the City:
MIG, Inc.
2635 N. First Street, Suite 149
San Jose, CA 95134
May 2017
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page ii
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
- This document is designed for double-sided printing -
Table of Contents
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page iii
Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Purpose of CEQA ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Potential Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................................... 2
2. Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Project Title ............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address ............................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number ....................................................................................................... 3
2.4 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ..................................................................................................... 3
2.5 Application Number ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.6 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 3
2.7 General Plan Land Use Designation ........................................................................................................ 5
2.8 Zoning District ......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.9 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 8
2.9.1 Existing Park Facilities....................................................................................................................... 9
2.9.2 Master Plan Description ................................................................................................................. 10
2.9.3 Principles and Goals ....................................................................................................................... 10
2.9.4 Needs .............................................................................................................................................. 11
2.9.5 Programs and Policies .................................................................................................................... 12
2.9.6 Opportunities for the Park System: ................................................................................................ 17
2.9.7 Unique Opportunity Sites ............................................................................................................... 24
2.9.8 High Priority Projects ...................................................................................................................... 24
2.9.9 Plan Implementation ...................................................................................................................... 25
2.9.10 Scope of CEQA Review ................................................................................................................... 25
2.10 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ...................................................................................................... 37
2.11 Other Public Agencies Approval Required ............................................................................................ 37
3. Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts ........................................................................... 39
A. AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................................................... 41
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 47
C. AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................................................................... 49
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 57
E. CULTURAL TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................ 73
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY ......................................................................................................... 85
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................................................................. 89
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............................................................................................. 94
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................... 107
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................................. 118
K. MINERAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................... 126
L. NOISE ................................................................................................................................................... 127
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING .............................................................................................................. 133
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................................................................................. 134
O. RECREATION ........................................................................................................................................ 137
Table of Contents
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page iv
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ........................................................................................................ 139
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 146
R. ENERGY CONSERVATION ..................................................................................................................... 150
S. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................................................... 153
List of Tables
Table 1: Master Plan Policies and Programs with the Potential to Have Environmental Impacts ....................... 12
Table 2: Existing Palo Alto Parks and Natural Open Spaces .................................................................................. 26
Table 3: BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Thresholds of Significance ..................................................................... 50
Table 4: BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Screening Size ........................................................................................ 52
Table 5: Applicable Control Measures of the 2010 Clean Air Plan ....................................................................... 54
Table 6: Applicability of Biological Resources Mitigation by City Park or Recreational Facility ........................... 69
Table 7: BAAQMD Operational GHG Screening Size ............................................................................................. 91
Table 8: Applicable Control Measures from the 2010 Clean Air Plan ................................................................... 93
Table 9: Closed Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) Cases ........................................................................... 101
Table 10: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment .............................................................. 130
List of Figures
Figure 1: Regional Context Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2: Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Spaces Map ............................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Park Search Areas Map .......................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 4: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map ................................................................................................... 20
Figure 5: Natural Systems Map ............................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 6: EnviroStor Cleanup Program Sites ....................................................................................................... 102
Figure 7: GeoTracker Sites .................................................................................................................................. 103
Figure 8: Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Safety Zones ........................................................... 105
Figure 9: Building Height Restriction Contours ................................................................................................... 106
Figure 10: Current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations ........................................................................ 119
Appendices
Appendix A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Appendix B: Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Master Plan Chapter 4: Goals, Policies, Programs
Appendix C: Sensitive Habitats and Special Status Species Documented in Palo Alto
Introduction
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 1
Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
1. Introduction
1.1 Project Background
The City of Palo Alto (City) intends to adopt and implement the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and
Recreation Master Plan, May 2017 (referred to as “Master Plan” throughout the document). The City currently
has no cohesive plan to manage, improve and expand its parks and recreational facilities. The Master Plan is
needed to ensure that the open-space and conservation needs of future generations are appropriately balanced,
and to provide adequate funding to meet these needs.
The Master Plan serves as a guide for park and recreation improvements and projects throughout the City. The
key components of the Master Plan include: principles, goals and policies; an inventory of existing park lands
and facilities; identification of needs and opportunities; recommendations for new parks; improvements to
existing parks and facilities; and an implementation element. The Master Plan components are further described
in Section 2 below.
The City is the lead agency for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has
prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Master Plan. This report has been
prepared to comply with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which sets forth the required contents of
an Initial Study. These include:
• A description of the major elements of the Master Plan (see Section 2).
• Identification of the environmental setting (see Section 3).
• Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other methods, provided that
entries on the checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to
support the entries (see Section 3).
• Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any (see Section 3).
• Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land
use controls (see Section 3.J).
• The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study (see
Section 4).
1.2 Purpose of CEQA
CEQA Guidelines Section 15002 establishes the basic purposes of CEQA which are to:
1. Inform government decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental
effects of proposed activities.
2. Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
3. Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the
use of alternatives or mitigation measures.
4. Disclose to the public the reason why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the
agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
The adoption of the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan is considered a project under
CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a)(1)). Per Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared
this Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. All aspects and
phases of the Master Plan are considered in the Initial Study; site-specific projects identified in the Master Plan
Introduction
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 2
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
would undergo additional CEQA review when the City is ready to move forward with the project and project
design plans are developed.
If the Initial Study analysis determines there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either
individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the City shall prepare an EIR or
determine whether a previously prepared EIR would adequately analyze the project at hand.
The City may prepare a Negative Declaration (ND) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project if
the Initial Study determines there is no substantial evidence that the project, or any of its aspects, may cause a
significant effect on the environment.
1.3 Potential Environmental Impacts
As described in greater detail throughout the document, adoption of the Master Plan would result in future
projects that have the potential for significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, and cultural resources.
Mitigation measures have been applied to the project to reduce these potentially significant impacts to less than
significant levels. Pursuant to Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines, lead agencies are required to prepare a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that describes the roles and responsibilities in monitoring
and reporting on the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. The impacts
and mitigation measures identified in this IS/MND are summarized in the MMRP, presented in Appendix A of
this document.
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 3
Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. Project Description
2.1 Project Title
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan -
2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Clare Campbell, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto Planning Division
650-617-3191
Clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org
2.4 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect / Certified Arborist
Public Works Division
650-617-3183
Peter.jensen@cityofpaloalto.org
2.5 Application Number
Not applicable.
2.6 Project Location
Palo Alto is located on the San Francisco Peninsula approximately 35 miles south of San Francisco and 14 miles
north of San Jose, California (Figure 1 Regional Context Vicinity Map). Part of the San Francisco Metropolitan Bay
Area and the Silicon Valley, Palo Alto is located within Santa Clara County and abuts San Mateo County to the
north. The City boundary extends from San Francisco Bay on the east to the Skyline Ridge of the coastal
mountains on the west, with Menlo Park to the north and Mountain View to the south. The City encompasses
an area of approximately 26 square miles, of which one-third is open space.
The proposed project would encompass all park land spread throughout the City limits. The majority of the City’s
urban parks are located within or near residential neighborhoods west of Highway 101 and east of El Camino
Real, although there are five smaller parks clustered west of El Camino Real north of Page Mill Road. The western
portion of Palo Alto’s urban neighborhoods are served by two parks: Bol Park located along Matadero Creek,
adjacent to Gunn High School and near the intersection of Foothill Expressway and Arastradero Road, and
Terman Park located behind Terman Middle School, east of Arastradero Road.
City of Palo Alto
San JoseFremont
Sacramento
Oakland Stockton
Santa Rosa
Richmond
Gilroy
San Mateo
Monterey
T:\
C
A
S
E
\
E
n
v
\
3
0
3
1
4
_
0
1
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
P
a
r
k
s
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
C
E
Q
A
\
G
I
S
\
M
x
d
s
\
F
i
g
_
1
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
_
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
1
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
7
Source: ESRI, 2017; MIG, 2017
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
0 5 102.5 Miles K
Figure 1 Regional Setting
P a c i f i cO c e a n
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 5
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
In addition to urban parks, the City has several large dedicated open space preserves located along the bay and
in the foothills west of Highway 280. The Baylands Preserve (including Byxbee Park) is located at the end of
Embarcadero Road east of Highway 101, along San Francisco Bay. Esther Clark Preserve, Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve and Foothills Park are natural open space preserves in the western foothills of the City. All City park
land is shown on the map in Figure 2 Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Spaces Map.
2.7 General Plan Land Use Designation
The City’s Comprehensive Plan land use map (1998-2010) shows most City parks and facilities as being located
on lands designated for Public Parks, Publicly Owned Conservation Land, and/or School District Lands, although
some park facilities are located in areas with residential and commercial land use designations. Definitions of
the various, applicable land use designations for the City’s parks, as presented in City’s Comprehensive Plan, are
provided below.
Open Space
Public Park (P). As described in the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the P land use designation allows for
open lands whose primary purpose is active recreation and whose character is essentially urban. These areas
have been planted with non-indigenous landscaping and require a concerted effort to maintain recreational
facilities and landscaping.
Publicly Owned Conservation Land (CL). As described in the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the CL land
use designation allows for open lands whose primary purpose is the preservation and enhancement of the
natural state of the land and its plants and animals. Only compatible resource management, recreation, and
educational activities are allowed.
Streamside Open Space (SOS). As described in the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the SOS land use
designation refers to the corridor of riparian vegetation along a natural stream. Hiking, biking, and riding trails
may be developed in the streamside open space. The corridor will generally vary in width up to 200 feet either
side of the center line of the creek. However, along San Francisquito Creek between El Camino Real and the Sand
Hill Road bridge over the creek, the open space corridor varies in width between approximately 80 and 310 fee
from the center line of the creek.
Open Space/Controlled Development (OS). As described in the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the OS
land use designation refers to Land having all the characteristics of open space but upon which some
development may be allowed. Open space amenities must be retained in these areas. Residential densities range
from 0.1 to 1 dwelling unit per acre but may rise to a maximum of 2 units per acre where second units are
allowed, and population densities range from 1 to 4 persons per acre.
Residential
Adopted South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan Phase 1 (SOFA I CAP). In March of 2000 the City Council adopted
the SOFA CAP, Phase I and a Development Agreement to define future land uses in the approximately 9-block
portion of the SOFA area in which most of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation holdings were originally located. As
part of the Development Agreement, the City acquired title to the historic Roth Building, land for a new public
park, a site for a child care facility, and a site for a below market rate housing project. The City granted approval
for 160 new dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of retail and office space.
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
Figure 2 Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Spaces Map
Page 1 of 2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
Figure 2 Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Spaces Map
Page 2 of 2
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Multiple Family Residential (MF). As described in the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the MF land use
designation refers to the permitted number of housing units. Housing units will vary by area, depending on
existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping, and environmental
problems. Net densities will range from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the
lower end of the scale next to single family residential areas.
Commercial
Regional/Community Commercial (CC). As described in the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the CC land
use designation refers to larger shopping centers and districts that have wider variety goods and services than
the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores,
bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail services such as
offices and banks. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village, and University
Avenue/Downtown. Non-residential floor area ratios range from 0.35 to 2.
Institutional
School District Lands (S). As described in the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the S land use designation
allows for properties owned or leased by public school districts and used for educational, recreational, or other
non-commercial, non-industrial purposes.
Major Institutional/Special Facilities (MISP). As described in the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the MISP
land use designation allows for institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands
that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations. Examples are hospitals and City facilities.
2.8 Zoning District
The City’s Zoning Ordinance identifies City parks and facilities as being located within the Public Facility zoning
districts. Definitions of this zoning district, as identified in the City’s Municipal Code, is presented below.
Public Facility (PF). As described in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.28, the PF District is designed
to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities.
Parks, recreational facilities, and open space areas defined here in this document fall under the PF zoning district.
The Master Plan is consistent with the City’s zoning districts. See A, Aesthetics for a description of suffixes (i.e.,
PF (D) and PF (AS3)) requiring additional review / requirements.
2.9 Project Description
The City of Palo Alto proposes to adopt and implement the Master Plan. The City currently has no cohesive plan
to manage, improve and expand its parks and recreational facilities. The last comprehensive city parks and
recreation master plan was completed in 1965. The proposed Master Plan will serve as a guide for park and
recreation improvements and projects throughout the City for the next 20 years and represents a coordinated
effort to align recreation resources and obtain community support to enhance recreation facilities and services.
The Master Plan provides direction for enhancing recreation opportunities and for the management of the parks
and their infrastructure. The Master Plan goals and policies aim to improve existing park facilities, services and
infrastructure, as well as to acquire and develop new urban parks and facilities in under-served areas of the City.
The key components of the Master Plan include: principles, goals and policies; an inventory of existing park lands
and facilities; identification of needs and opportunities; recommendations for new parks and improvements to
existing parks and facilities; and an implementation element. These are described in more detail below.
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 9
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.9.1 Existing Park Facilities
Chapter 2 of the Master Plan provides a comprehensive discussion of the existing park and recreation system
and breaks down the Master Plan discussion into three separate elements:
• Parks, Trails and Open Space.
• Recreation Facilities.
• Recreation Programs.
Existing Parks, Trails and Open Space System
Most of Palo Alto’s park sites are set in an urban context, within neighborhoods connected by city streets.
However, the largest portion of the land in the system is held in natural open space preserves. An expanding
network of trails and bikeways supplement the sidewalks and streets that connect these assets together.
Palo Alto maintains 174 acres of urban park land distributed throughout the city, as well as over 4,000 acres in
natural open space preserves. Most Palo Alto residents have access to a city park within a ¼ to ½ mile distance
from their residence. Greater distances to urban parks are found north of the Oregon Expressway near Highway
101 and along Sand Hill Road near commercial and institutional land uses. Parks that offer exercise and fitness
opportunities are more common south of the Oregon Expressway, at Peers Park, and the Cubberley Community
Center.
The majority of the parks in Palo Alto are neighborhood parks, primarily designed to support the everyday
activities of local residents. Several parks also feature unique facilities such as community gardens and dog parks.
There are several parks that draw visitors from across the city and from neighboring communities. These parks
typically have a higher concentration of facilities, including high quality sports fields or picnic facilities. Some of
these parks are designed for a specific use and do not serve immediate neighbors (e.g., Baylands Athletic Center,
El Camino Park, and Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields), while others, like Greer, Mitchell, and Rinconada Parks,
which considered regional parks, also function as neighborhood parks.
City parks are diverse in size and amenities, but many are older and/or have aging facilities. Palo Alto urban parks
are highly developed with maintained landscapes across their entire acreage. Due to the era when they were
built, some parks are not flexible enough to allow different uses within the same space. Rather, they provide a
collection of spaces designed for a single activity.
There are four natural open space preserves: Baylands Nature Preserve (which includes Byxbee Park), Esther
Clark Preserve, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, and Foothills Park1. These preserves are large, rich in native
ecosystems and have extensive internal trail systems. With the exception of Esther Clark Preserve, the preserves
also have recreational and interpretive facilities (internal roads, parking lots, restrooms and other user facilities).
These open space preserves contain sensitive biological resources.
It is the City’s intent that the Master Plan’s goals and policies will direct routine maintenance activities and the
improvement or replacement of facilities in already developed areas of the open space preserves. However, the
City will develop individual comprehensive conservation plans for each of the preserves which will direct the
management of the open space areas and ensure protection of sensitive or unique biological resources. Relevant
Master Plan policies will be incorporated into the conservation plans to ensure the guiding principles of the
Master Plan are carried through into the conservation plans.
1 It is worth noting that although Foothills Park has the word, “park” in it, it functions for the City as an open space preserve; thus, the analyses contained
herein this document discuss Foothills Park as one of the four natural space preserves discussed in the Master Plan.
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 10
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dog parks are all located south of the Oregon Expressway, at Greer Park, Hoover Park, and Mitchell Park. Since
dog owners prefer to use dog parks near their residence, adding dog parks to north Palo Alto parks will improve
residents’ dog exercise opportunities.
Community gardens are currently located entirely north of Oregon Expressway, at Eleanor Pardee Park and
Johnson Park. The addition of community gardens in south Palo Alto can improve gardening opportunities to
those residents.
Palo Alto does not have a public gym and the City’s only public pool is located north of Oregon Expressway at
Rinconada Park. As a high propriety project, the Master Plan recommends improving Rinconada pool as outlined
in the Rinconada Mater Plan. The Master Plan recommends exploring the opportunity to construct a gymnasium
either as part of the Cubberley Community Center or at another separate location.
Palo Alto’s parks provide much of the City’s urban forest. The lands and trail/open space connections that make
up the City’s park system are important to the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan recently adopted by the
City.
The Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Space map (Figure 2) depicts all City-owned (or controlled) park sites
and natural open space preserves. Palo Alto Unified School District sites are also acknowledged on this map due
to the long-standing partnership and the importance of school sites as park-like places. A detailed inventory of
the parks can be found in Appendix A of the Master Plan.
Recreation Facilities
The Master Plan provides an inventory of the City’s existing recreation facilities which include play areas in local
parks, basketball and tennis courts, sports fields (soccer, football, baseball, and softball), picnic areas, off-leash
dog areas, community gardens, and the swimming pool.
The Master Plan also describes special recreation facilities including Cubberley Community Center and the Lucie
Stern Center which offer a wide variety of programs. The new Mitchell Park Community Center also provides a
place for recreation based programs.
The Master Plan makes recommendations for facility improvements and/or expansion as described further in
this document.
Recreation Programs
The Master Plan describes the existing recreation programs and the mix of public, non-profit, and private
recreation program providers and presents goals and programs related to recreation programming.
2.9.2 Master Plan Description
The proposed Master Plan is the result of a rigorous analysis of the existing park system as well as an extensive
community engagement process involving: inventory of facilities and programs; analysis of needs and interests;
development of goals, policies, and programs; and identification of project opportunities. An overview of this
planning process is presented in Master Plan, Chapter 1. The Master Plan presents the vision for the next 20
years of Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open Space and recreation systems, through the establishment of
guiding principles and goals.
2.9.3 Principles and Goals
The Master Plan would direct the City’s efforts to maintain and improve the park and recreation system through
the adoption of guiding principles and goals which would be implemented through specific programs identified
under each listed goal.
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 11
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Principles
The Master Plan contains eight principles that represent the collective direction provided by hundreds of
participants from across the city as well as many local stakeholder groups. The City’s vision for the continuing
evolution of the park system is captured in the following eight principles:
• Playful: Inspires imagination and joy.
• Healthy: Supports the physical and mental health and wellbeing of individuals as well as the
connectedness and cohesion of the community.
• Sustainable: Stewards natural, economic and social resources for a system that endures for the long-
term.
• Inclusive: Responsive to the entire Palo Alto community, all ages, abilities, languages, cultures and levels
of income.
• Accessible: Easy for people of all abilities to use year-round and access by all modes of travel.
• Flexible: Supports multiple uses across time with adaptable spaces that can accommodate traditional,
emerging and future uses.
• Balanced: Is not dominated by any one type of experience or place, and includes both historic elements
and cutting edge features, highly manicured and more organic spaces, and self-directed and
programmed activities.
• Nature: Incorporates native species and habitat corridors, and creates opportunities to learn about and
interact with nature.
Goals
Six goals represent the community’s desired outcomes and provide an organizational structure for the policies,
programs, and projects that form the recommendations of the Master Plan.
• Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, inclusive, and distributed equitably across
Palo Alto.
• Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation, and open
space facilities and services.
• Create environments that encourage regular active and passive activities to support health, wellness,
and social connections.
• Preserve and integrate nature, natural systems, and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto.
• Develop innovative programs, services, and strategies for expanding the system.
• Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently, and sustainably utilizing quantitative and
qualitative measures.
The principles and goals will be achieved through the recommended programs described in Chapter 4 of the
Master Plan and presented in Appendix B of this Initial Study. The programs recommended in the Master Plan
provide specific direction on how to implement each guideline.
2.9.4 Needs
Five categories of park-related activities were identified during the community outreach process as being
important:
• Relax and enjoy the outdoors;
• Play areas for children;
• Large areas to throw/kick balls, frisbees and the like;
• Areas to exercise and do other fitness workouts; and
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 12
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Places to gather for picnics, social events, and group activities.
Relax and Enjoy Outdoors. Palo Altans place a high value on parks that provide a quiet and calm place to relax
and enjoy the outdoors. While most Palo Alto parks support this activity, some parks experience noise from
highway/road traffic or from heavy sports use. Comments made by the public on the online interactive map (and
confirmed by site visits) also identified parks without quiet areas.
Play for Children. Children and youth were regularly cited as one of the most important audiences for the park
system. Parks containing a playground, play area, or unique play feature (sculpture, nature play, etc.) best
support this audience.
Throw a Ball. This activity encompasses kicking, hitting, and throwing balls and other objects such as Frisbees,
including both self-directed and league-based play. Parks containing open turf areas, sports fields, or courts best
support this activity.
Exercise and Fitness. Health and wellness has been shown to be important to Palo Alto residents in this and other
planning processes. Parks with perimeter or looped paths support both walking and running, which are the top
recreation activities both in Palo Alto and in the country. Palo Alto’s Rinconada Pool also provides an exercise
option for swimmers.
Gathering. The Palo Alto park system provides important space for family, friends, and the larger community to
gather for picnics, social events, and group activities. Formal picnic areas, shelters, and features such as
amphitheaters facilitate this activity.
2.9.5 Programs and Policies
The Master Plan contains policies that are implemented through specific recommended programs. Table 1
contains Master Plan policies and programs with the potential for environmental impacts. Only programs that
could cause actual changes to the environment are listed in Table 1. Program actions related to planning, data
gathering, outreach programs, funding, materials upgrades, etc. are not included in Table 1 because they are
not considered to have the potential to create environmental impacts. A full list of goals, policies and programs
are included in Appendix B.
Table 1: Master Plan Policies and Programs with the Potential to Have Environmental Impacts
Policy Master Plan policies and programs intended to guide future decision making.
1.B Expand parkland inventory using the National Recreation and Park Association standard as a guide
for park development in Palo Alto’s Urban Service Area. New parkland should be added to meet
and maintain the standard of 4 acres/1,000 residents. Parkland should expand with population, be
well distributed across the community and of sufficient size to meet the varied needs of
neighborhoods and the broader community. Maximum service area should be one-half mile.
1.B.4 Examine City-owned rights-of-way (for example, streets, which make up the biggest portion
of publicly owned land) to identify temporary or permanent areas for improvements that connect
or add recreation activity space. (Examples: California Ave., Indianapolis Cultural Trail, Parklets).
1.B.9 Acquire and develop a new neighborhood park in each park search area, starting with the
most underserved areas and targeting a central and well-connected location to maximize access.
1.B.10 Develop a creek walk along Matadero Creek that links parks and creates open space and
habitat corridor.
1.B.11 Incorporate other underutilized City-owned outdoor spaces for park and recreational
programming.
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 13
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Policy Master Plan policies and programs intended to guide future decision making.
1.B.12 Identify and dedicate (as parkland) City-controlled spaces serving, or capable of serving,
park-like or recreational uses, where appropriate (e.g., Winter Lodge, Gamble Gardens, Rinconada
Community Gardens, GreenWaste Facility at the former PASCO site, former Los Altos Sewage
Treatment Plan, Kingsley Island).
1.D Adopt standard wayfinding signage for Palo Alto parks and provide standardized directory signs for
all large parks, preserves and athletic field complexes.
1.D.1 Create and implement a signage and wayfinding program that conveys the park system
identity, incorporates art, connects bike paths to parks and enhances the experience of park
visitors.
1.D.2 Install directional signs at parks that include the walking time to the next nearest park or
parks.
1.E Apply universal design principles as the preferred guidance for design solutions in parks, striving
to exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
1.E.2 Adopt a standard of universal park design for accessibility and/or upgrade play areas and
picnic facilities to meet or exceed the standard.
1.E.3 Upgrade Open Space trails to be more universally accessible where environmentally
appropriate.
1.G Encourage walking and biking as a way of getting to and from parks, supporting implementation of
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
1.G.2 Provide bike parking for cyclists as a standard feature at parks, open spaces, preserves and
community centers.
1.G.8 Improve trail connections to neighboring communities (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District, Stanford University, Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, East Palo Alto, etc.)
2.A Sustain the community’s investment in parks and recreation facilities.
2.A.6 Provide additional lighting to enhance park safety and expand park use to dusk while
minimizing impacts to wildlife.
2.D Actively pursue adding dedicated, fenced dog parks in multiple neighborhoods, equitably
distributed between north and south Palo Alto. The size of the dog parks will vary, but should strive
to be at least .25 acres. Dog parks should not be placed in Open Space Preserves.
2.D.1 The City will evaluate and select at least six dedicated, fenced dog parks, equitably distributed
across north and south Palo Alto, from the following list of potential locations:
• Eleanor Pardee Park (North)
• Bowden Park (North)
• Greer Park (Improve existing) (South)
• Peers Park (North)
• Hoover Park (Improve existing) (South)
• Robles Park (South)
• Mitchell Park (Expand existing) (South)
• Kingsley Island Park (North)
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 14
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Policy Master Plan policies and programs intended to guide future decision making.
• Werry Park (North)
• Juana Briones Park (South)
• Heritage Park (North)
2.E The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms in parks that are approximately two acres or
larger, have amenities that encourage visitors to stay in the park, have high level of use, and where
there are no nearby public restrooms available.
2.E.2 The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms at the
following potential locations:
• Bol Park
• Bowden Park
• Eleanor Pardee Park
• Johnson Park
• Ramos Park
• Robles Park
• Terman Park
2.F Develop additional community gardens focusing on underrepresented areas of the City, and
provide community engagement opportunities around gardens.
3.A Implement the Healthy City Healthy Community resolution with the community’s involvement.
3.A.5 Connect walking paths within and between parks to create loop options of varying length
that encourage walking and jogging.
3.A.6 Enhance seating areas to take advantage of quiet spaces or to create opportunities for social
interaction.
3.B Incorporate art into park design and recreation programming (consistent with the Public Art
Master Plan).
4.B Connect people to nature and the outdoors through education and recreation programming.
4.B.1 Expand access to nature through elements and interpretive features that explore ecological
processes, historical context, adjacent waterways, specific plant/animal species that can be
encountered onsite and elements tailored to be of interest to youth as well as multiple ages,
cultures and abilities.
4.B.2 Update or rebuild interpretive centers with modern interactive exhibits.
4.B.3 Improve and increase access to creeks for learning and stewardship experiences by designing
access points that minimize impact on the waterway.
4.C Connect natural areas, open spaces, creeks and vegetated areas in parks and on public land to
create wildlife, bird, pollinator and habitat corridors by planting with native oaks and other species
that support pollinators or provide high habitat values.
4.C.1 Develop a map that identifies locations for habitat corridors including the appropriate plant
palette for each corridor.
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 15
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Policy Master Plan policies and programs intended to guide future decision making.
4.C.2 Work with local environmental groups to grow native plant species and utilize their network
of volunteers to install and maintain planted areas.
4.C.3 Establish low-impact buffer zones with native plant species along creeks to enhance habitat
value.
4.D Promote, expand and protect habitat and natural areas in parks and open space.
4.D.1 Identify and pursue strategies and opportunities to expand native trees and planting areas
in urban parks.
4.D.2 Integrate and implement the Urban Forest Master Plan Policies and Programs as applicable
to parkland in Palo Alto.
4.D.3 Update the preferred planting palette and approved tree species list.
4.D.4 Collaborate with habitat restoration organizations such as Save the Bay, Canopy and
Grassroots Ecology (Acterra).
4.D.5 Replace low-use turf areas with native shrubs and grasses, incorporating educational
elements about native habitats.
5.A Identify and pursue strategies to activate underused parks and recreation facilities.
5.A.5 Create small (10-12 people) and medium-sized (20-25 people) group picnic areas that can be
used for both picnics and programming.
5.D Explore alternative uses for newly acquired parkland to optimize for long-term community benefit.
5.D.1 Determine optimal usage for Foothill Park’s 7.7 acres of parkland.
5.D.2 Evaluate optimal usage, including open space, for 10.5-acre land bank created by golf course
reconstruction in the Baylands.
5.D.3 Evaluate feasible uses for the south end of El Camino Park.
6.E Incorporate sustainable best practices in the maintenance, management, and development of
open spaces, parks, and recreation facilities where consistent with ecological best practices.
6.E.1 Increase energy efficiency in Palo Alto parks, including allocating funding to retrofit facilities
for energy efficiency with increased insulation, green or reflective roofs and low-emissive window
glass where applicable.
6.E.2 Conduct energy audits for all facilities, establish and energy baseline for operations,
benchmark energy performance against comparable facilities, and implement energy tracking and
management systems for all park facilities and operations.
6.E.3 Select Energy Star and equivalent energy-efficient products for Park equipment purchases.
6.E.4 Expand the collection and use of solar power (parking lots, roofs) and other renewable energy
sources at parks and facilities (e.g. pools).
6.E.5 Provide convenient and well-marked compost and recycling receptacles throughout the park
system, in recreation facilities and at special events.
6.E.9 Initiate composting of green waste within the park system.
6.E.10 Work with Public Works to replace the vehicle fleet with electric vehicles whenever
practical.
6.E.12 Enforce a “No Idle” program with vehicles and other gas-powered equipment.
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 16
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Policy Master Plan policies and programs intended to guide future decision making.
6.E.14 Install high-efficiency urinals, toilets, sinks and showers in all facilities.
6.E.15 Extend recycled water use to more park sites.
6.E.16 Explore stormwater runoff capture opportunities in parks for irrigation and recycling.
6.E.17 Ensure irrigation systems on public landscapes (including those expanding the use of
recycled water) are run by a smart controller and/or sensors and that staff are trained in
programming them.
6.E.18 Link all park facilities to a centralized irrigation management system to maximize water use
efficiency.
6.E.19 Promote urban greening by integrating storm water design into planting beds, reducing
irrigation and providing interpretative information about park contributions to city water quality.
6.E.20 Train City maintenance staff and include specific standards and expectations in maintenance
contracts for the care of low-water, naturalized landscapes, natural play environments and other
new types of features in the system.
6.E.21 Ensure project designs for new facilities and retrofits will be consistent with sustainable
design principles and practices. This includes evaluating all projects for opportunities to implement
Green Stormwater Infrastructure such as bioswales, stormwater planters, rain gardens, permeable
pavers and porous concrete and asphalt.
6.E.22 Identify locations and develop swales, detention basins and rain gardens to retain and treat
storm water.
6.G Strategically reduce maintenance requirements at parks, open spaces, natural preserves and
community centers while maintaining Palo Alto’s high quality standards.
6.G.1 Locate garbage and recycling receptacles in a single location that is easily accessible by
maintenance staff and vehicles.
6.G.2 Explore high capacity, compacting and smart garbage and recycling receptacles that can
reduce the frequency of regular collection.
6.H Coordinate with and/or use other relevant City plans to ensure consistency, including:
• Baylands Master Plan;
• Urban Forest Master Plan;
• Urban Water Master Plan and Recycled Water Strategic Plan;
• Long-term electric acquisition plan (LEAP);
• Water Reclamation Master Plan;
• Recycled Water Project;
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan;
• Comprehensive Plan;
• Public Art Master Plan; and
• Others adopted in the future.
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 17
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.9.6 Opportunities for the Park System:
Three concept maps (Figures 3, 4, and 5) illustrate opportunities to further create a multi-layered (available for
multiple types of uses) system of park lands and connections that serves both people and natural systems. The
maps can also serve as tools for supporting decisions on individual policies, programs and projects and the three
concepts are the basis for the Master Plan goals and programs.
Expand the System
Figure 3 Park Search Areas Map (Figure 8 of the Master Plan) identifies areas of Palo Alto where residents lack
access to parks and natural open spaces within ¼ mile of their homes. These “park search areas,” labeled A
through E for planning purposes, will help the City focus future park additions in neighborhoods with the greatest
need, for example those with the highest density and/or largest population. Meanwhile, public access to school
grounds that fall within park search areas (noted in purple) should be maintained and expanded to better
support neighborhood park uses and enhance their natural open space value. Other City-owned properties
(noted in brown) may represent future park opportunities, but nearly all of these lands fall outside of the park
search areas.
Connect the System
A selection of Palo Alto’s existing and planned bikeways and pedestrian routes can be leveraged to improve park
and recreation access. Figure 4 Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map (Figure 9 of the Master Plan) illustrates
this potential network of trails and enhanced roadways that connect neighborhoods to local and regional parks,
recreation facilities and natural open spaces. These routes are part of the City’s adopted Bicycle Pedestrian
Transportation Plan. Recommended enhanced routes, labeled 1 through 3 for planning purposes, provide main
north to south travel corridors between Palo Alto’s parks and into neighboring communities. Regional trails like
the Bay to Ridge and San Francisco Bay trails provide similar travel corridors from Foothills Park and Pearson-
Arastradero Preserve in the southwest to the Baylands Nature Preserve and other shoreline parks and natural
open spaces to the northeast. Recommended park connectors complete the network by linking the remaining
park sites.
Connect Natural Systems
Figure 5 Natural Systems Map (Figure 10 of the Master Plan) illustrates how the same corridors recommended
for bike and pedestrian enhancements can also provide connectivity for natural systems. Landscape design
features such as increased urban forest canopy, native species plantings, and storm water bioswales can create
safe paths of travel and provide habitat value for local wildlife. Creek and riparian enhancements, supported by
these “pollinator pathways,” would improve water quality and habitat connections between regionally
significant habitats in the hills and in the bay. New street and park trees would benefit areas that currently have
low tree canopy coverage, highlighted in tan.
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
Figure 3 Park Search Areas Map
Page 1 of 2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
Figure 3 Park Search Areas Map
Page 2 of 2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
Figure 4 Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map
Page 1 of 2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
Figure 4 Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map
Page 2 of 2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
Figure 5 Natural Systems Map
Page 1 of 2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
Figure 5 Natural Systems Map
Page 2 of 2
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 24
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.9.7 Unique Opportunity Sites
Three properties in Palo Alto represent unique opportunities:
• Cubberley Community Center: The City owns eight of the 35 acres of this former high school campus
and has managed leases within the buildings with a number of community organizations and businesses
while also scheduling the gym and field space. The City and the Palo Alto Unified School District, who
owns the remaining 27 acres, have agreed to jointly master plan the redevelopment of the site by 2020.
• Foothills Park Expansion: The City acquired 7.7 acres of land adjacent to Foothills Park and has dedicated
it as an expansion of the park. The expansion is cut off from the developed portion of the park by the
existing maintenance facility. Discussion of the future of this site is pending the results of the Buckeye
Creek hydrology study, which will be completed in Summer 2017.
• Baylands Athletic Center Expansion: As a result of the redesign of the Palo Alto Golf Course, 10.5 acres
of land was added to the adjacent Baylands Athletic Center site for future recreation opportunities.
Considerations for developing this site include its relative isolation from residences (and access through
a complicated and heavily impacted roadway exchange), its proximity to adjacent park sites, site
limitations due to wetlands, and its location below the mean projected high water line after three feet
of sea level rise, which could influence the type of recreation opportunities at the site.
The Master Plan does not contain specific recommendations or design plans for any of the three properties and
any future changes in use of these sites would be considered separate projects that would require separate
review under CEQA. This Initial Study does not analyze any changes in use or future development of these sites.
2.9.8 High Priority Projects
There are 34 projects and programs listed in Chapter 5 of the Master Plan that have been identified as high
priorities, based on feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission, City Council, stakeholders, the broader
community and City staff (see Table 2). These priorities are organized by projects and programs in order of
urgency of the project or program. Urgency was determined by the availability compared to: the need, time
sensitivity, and potential for missed opportunities and is discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of the Master Plan. The
following major high priority projects needing further study and strategic funding:
• Enhance existing sports fields (specific fields are identified in Table 2)
• Plan, design and construct 10.5-acre site in Baylands for park uses
• Plan, design and redevelop Cubberley Community Center
• Plan, design and construct a new public gymnasium
• Improve the Rinconada Pool Facility
• Incorporate 7.7-acre site into Foothills Park and plan use of site
• Acquire new parkland in high need areas
• Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course facility improvements
The following high priority projects may be can achieved in the short term because they primarily involve adding
facilities or making improvements within existing parks:
• Develop conservation plans for all open space preserves
• Maintain six dog parks (existing plus new) that are equitably distributed across north and south Palo
Alto. If feasible, add new dog parks to underrepresented areas (potential parks that can accommodate
a dog park are identified in Table 2).
• Construct new restrooms in parks (parks where restrooms are proposed are listed in Table 2)
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 25
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Incorporate sustainable practices in the maintenance and management of parks, open space and
recreation facilities
• Exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements in parks
• Improve trail connections and access
• Develop adult fitness areas in parks
• Integrate nature into urban parks
• Develop new community gardens in underserved areas
• Enhance seating areas in parks
• Create wayfinding signage of safe routes to parks
2.9.9 Plan Implementation
Over the next twenty years, implementation of the projects and programs recommended in the Master Plan will
be determined annually by City staff with guidance and leadership from the Parks and Recreation Commission,
as well as the City Council. Community advocates and partner organizations will also play an important role in
ensuring the proposed programs and projects align with the needs of the community.
Projects and programs were prioritized and will continue to be evaluated by the following five criteria:
• Fill Existing Gaps: Bring recreation opportunities (parkland, facilities, programs) to areas of the city and
to users where gaps were identified.
• Respond to Growth: Add features or programs and/or modify or expand components of the system to
prepare for and address increasing demand.
• Address Community Preferences: Target the highest priority types of projects and programs identified
through citywide outreach.
• Maximize Public Resources: Create the most benefit for each dollar of capital and operating expenditure
possible.
• Realize Multiple Benefits: Advance the principles of this Master Plan as well as the goals, projects and
directions of other adopted City efforts.
The complete set of projects and programs identified during the Master Plan process will be summarized in a
working document called the Action Plan. The Action Plan will be maintained separately from the Master Plan
and is designed to adapt and change with the completion of projects, passage of time, and shifts in funding
opportunities.
2.9.10 Scope of CEQA Review
The Master Plan is a long-range planning program that guides how existing parks, trails, open space, and
recreation programs should be improved and expanded. The Master Plan also directs the location and needs of
future park developments and new recreation facilities to meet the goals of the community. It establishes a
policy framework to govern decision-making that concerns the physical development of community parks and
open space preserves. The Master Plan contains many goals and programs that do not have the potential to
affect the environment as analyzed under CEQA and are not considered in detail in this document. This Initial
Study focuses on Master Plan goals and programs that have the potential to cause environmental impacts when
implemented.
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 26
Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 2: Existing Palo Alto Parks and Natural Open Spaces
Name Address/
Location Size in Acres Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan
Designation
Contains
Historic
Resource(s)
Existing
Facilities
Opportunities
and High
Priority
Projects
City Park
Baylands
Athletic Center
1900 Geng
Road
6 PF (D) P None BF, SF, SoF, L,
Bld, R,
Concessions
City has
acquired 10.5
acres next to
the Center.
Future
recreation
options TBD
(2019-2020)
Bol Park 3590 Laguna
Ave
13.8 PF P None YSoF, BC, T, PA,
un-channeled
creek
Add restroom,
enhance poor
quality fields
Boulware Park 410 Fernando
Avenue
1.5 PF P None BC, PA, T, PA
Bowden Park 2300 High
Street
2 PF P None PA, Art Consider Dog
Park, add
restroom
Bowling Green
Park
474
Embarcadero
Road
1.9 PF P None Bld, bowling
green
Consider Dog
Park
(Juana) Briones
Park
609 Maybell
Ave
4.1 PF P; MISP None SoF, BC, PA,
PicA, R
Enhance poor
quality fields
Cameron Park 2101 Wellesley
Street
1.1 PF P None PA, PicA Enhance poor
quality fields
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 27
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Name Address/
Location Size in Acres Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan
Designation
Contains
Historic
Resource(s)
Existing
Facilities
Opportunities
and High
Priority
Projects
Cogswell Plaza 264 Lytton
Avenue
0.5 PF CC; P None PicA
El Camino Park
(Stanford)
155 El Camino
Real
12.19 PF P Category 1;
California
Historic
Landmark; on
the NRHP
(Hostess
House)
SF, SoF, L, T,
PicA, R
Eleanor Pardee
Park
851 Center
Drive
9.6 PF P None YSoF, PA, Art,
PA, CG,
Consider Dog
Park, add
restroom
El Palo Alto
Park
117 Palo Alto
Ave
0.5 PF OS; SOS California
Historic
Landmark (El
Palo Alto tree)
Greer Park 1098 Amarillo
Street
22 PF P None BF, SF, SoF, BC,
PA, PicA, R, P,
Dog, skatepark
Improve Dog
Park, Improved
skate park
Heritage Park 300 Homer Ave 2.01 PF SOFA I CAP Category 2; On
the NRHP (Palo
Alto Medical
Clinic)
PA, PicA Consider Dog
Park
Hoover Park 2901 Cowper
Street
4.2 PF P None BF, YSoF, TC,
BC, PA, Art,
PicA, Dog,
handball ct
Improve Dog
Park
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 28
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Name Address/
Location Size in Acres Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan
Designation
Contains
Historic
Resource(s)
Existing
Facilities
Opportunities
and High
Priority
Projects
Hopkins
Creekside
Palo Alto
Avenue from
Emerson to
Marlowe
12.4 PF OS; SOS None
Johnson Park 251 Waverly
Street
2.5 PF P None YSoF, BC, PA, T,
PicA, CG, sand
volleyball ct
Add restroom
Kellogg Park Waverly at
Embarcadero
Road
0.25 PF P None
Lytton Plaza 200 University
Avenue
0.2 PF P None Art
Mayfield Park 2300 Wellesley
Street
1.1 PF P Category 4 Bld, R
Mitchell Park 600 East
Meadow
Avenue
21.4 PF P; MISP None YSoF, TC, PA,
Bld, PicA, R,
Dog, handball
ct, horseshoe,
concession
stand
Expand Dog
Park
Monroe Park 4305 Miller
Ave
0.55 PF P None PA, PicA, T
Peers Park 1899 Park
Boulevard
4.7 PF P None YSoF, TC, GS,
PA, Bld, PicA, R
Consider Dog
Park, enhance
poor quality
fields
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 29
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Name Address/
Location Size in Acres Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan
Designation
Contains
Historic
Resource(s)
Existing
Facilities
Opportunities
and High
Priority
Projects
Ramos Park 800 East
Meadow
Avenue
4.4 PF P None YSoF, PA, PicA,
T-ball field
Add restroom,
enhance poor
quality field
Rinconada Park 777
Embarcadero
Road
19 PF MISP; P None YSoF, TC, P, PA,
PicA, R
Enhance poor
quality fields
and pool
facility
Robles Park 4116 Park
Boulevard
4.7 PF P None BF, SoF, BC, PA,
T,
Consider Dog
Park, add
restroom,
enhance poor
quality fields
Scott Park 915 Scott
Street
0.4 PF SOFA I CAP None BC, PA, PicA
Seale Park 3100 Stockton
Place
4.3 PF P None YSoF, BC, PA, T,
PicA, R
Stanford - Palo
Alto Playing
Fields
2700 El Camino
Real
5.9 PF (AS3) MF None SB, SoB, L, Art,
Bld, PicA, R,
concession
Terman Park 655
Arastradero
Road
7.7 PF P None SB, SoB, TC, BC,
T
Add restroom
Sarah Wallis
Park
202 Ash Street 0.3 PF P None Bld
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 30
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Name Address/
Location Size in Acres Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan
Designation
Contains
Historic
Resource(s)
Existing
Facilities
Opportunities
and High
Priority
Projects
Weisshaar Park 2298
Dartmouth
Street
1.1 PF P None TC Enhance poor
quality fields
Williams Park
(Museum of
American
Heritage)
351 Homer Ave 0.7 PF SOFA I CAP Category 2
(Williams
House);
Museum of
American
History
(MOAH)
Museum of
American
Heritage
Werry Park 2100
Dartmouth
Street
1.1 PF P None YSoF, PA Consider Dog
Park, enhance
poor quality
fields
Subtotal
174.8
City Open Space/Conservation Lands
Baylands
Preserve
(including
Byxbee)
2775
Embarcadero
Road
1,986 PF (D) P; CL; MISP Category 1 (Sea
Scout Base) |
Category 2;
California Point
of Historical
Interest
(Ranger Station
aka Harbor
Master’s
Adobe)
Art, Bld, T,
PicA, R, nature
interpretive ctr
Develop
conservation
plan
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 31
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Name Address/
Location Size in Acres Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan
Designation
Contains
Historic
Resource(s)
Existing
Facilities
Opportunities
and High
Priority
Projects
Esther Clark
Preserve
Old Trace Road 22 PF P None Develop
conservation
plan
Foothills Park 3300 Page Mill
Road
1,400 PF P None Art, Bld, T,
PicA, R,
campground,
lake w dock,
nature
interpretive ctr
City acquired
7.7 acres for
expansion of
the park. Study
of future use
ongoing, to be
completed
(2019-2020).
Develop
conservation
plan
Pearson-
Arastradero
Preserve
1530
Arastradero
Road
622 PF (D) CL; SOS None Art, Bld, T,
PicA, R, nature
interpretive ctr
Develop
conservation
plan
Subtotal 4,030
Other Recreation Facilities in Palo Alto
Cubberley
Community
Center and
Fields (joining
PA and PAUSD)
4000
Middlefield
Road, T-2
PF (D) S None SF, SoF, TC, GS,
R, Theater
City owns 8
acres of former
high school
campus. Joint
master plan to
be developed
between
City/District
(2017-2021)
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 32
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Name Address/
Location Size in Acres Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan
Designation
Contains
Historic
Resource(s)
Existing
Facilities
Opportunities
and High
Priority
Projects
Design and
build a new
gymnasium.
King Plaza at
City Hall
250 Hamilton
Avenue
PF MISP None
Lucie Stern
Community
Center
1305
Middlefield
Road
PF MISP; P Category 1
(Lucie Stern;
Designation
does not apply
to Jr Museum,
Zoo, Pool, or
Pool facilities)
R, Theater
Mitchell Park
Community
Center
3700
Middlefield Rd
PF P; MISP None BC, Bld, newly
renovated
Junior Museum
and Zoo
(Rinconada)
1451
Middlefield
Road
PF MISP; PF R
Municipal Golf
Course
(Baylands)
1875
Embarcadero
Road
181 PF (D) P; CL; MISP None R Make
improvements
to golf course
facilities
Ventura
Community
Center
3990 Ventura
Court
PF S None YSoF, BC, PA
Subtotal 181
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 33
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Name Address/
Location Size in Acres Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan
Designation
Contains
Historic
Resource(s)
Existing
Facilities
Opportunities
and High
Priority
Projects
Palo Alto Unified School District Facilities
Barron Park
Elementary
School
800 Barron Ave PF S None YSoF, BC
Duveneck
Elementary
School
705 Alester
Ave
PF S None YSoF, BC
El Carmelo
Elementary
School
3024 Bryant
Street
PF S None YSoF, BC
Escondido
Elementary
School
890 Escondido
Road
YSoF Outside of Palo
Alto
jurisdiction, no
activities
planned
Fairmeadow
Elementary
School
500 East
Meadow Drive
PF S None YSoF, BC
Greendell Early
Childhood
Education
Center
4120
Middlefield Rd
PF (D); PF S None YSoF
Gunn High
School
780
Arastradero Rd
PF S None BF, SF, SoF, FF,
P
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 34
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Name Address/
Location Size in Acres Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan
Designation
Contains
Historic
Resource(s)
Existing
Facilities
Opportunities
and High
Priority
Projects
Hoover
Elementary
School
445 E.
Charleston
Road
PF S None YSoF, BC
JLS Middle
School
480 E. Meadow
Dr, Palo Alto
PF S None SF, SoF, YSoF,
TC, BC
Jordan Middle
School
750 N.
California Ave
PF S None YSoF, TC, BC
Juana Briones
Elementary
School
4100 Orme St PF S None YSoF, BC Consider Dog
Park
Lucille Nixon
Elementary
School
1711 Stanford
Ave
YSoF, BC Outside of Palo
Alto
jurisdiction, no
activities
planned
Ohlone
Elementary
School
950 Amarillo
Ave
PF S None YSoF, BC
Palo Verde
Elementary
School
3450 Louis Rd PF S None YSoF, BC
Palo Alto High
School (Paly)
50
Embarcadero
Rd
PF S Category 2 Palo
Alto High
School –
Designation
does not apply
to accessory
BF, SF, SoF, FF,
L, TC, BC
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 35
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Name Address/
Location Size in Acres Zoning
Comprehensive
Plan
Designation
Contains
Historic
Resource(s)
Existing
Facilities
Opportunities
and High
Priority
Projects
buildings (e.g.,
25 and 85
Churchill)
Terman Middle
School
655
Arastradero Rd
PF S None SoF, BC
Ventura
Community
Center
(building only)
3990 Ventura
Court
PF S None BC, Bd
Walter Hays
Elementary
School
1525
Middlefield
Road
PF S None YSoF, BC
Key to Facilities
BF: baseball field TC: tennis courts Bld: building
SF: softball field BC: basketball courts T: trail
SoF: soccer field GS: gym space PicA: picnic area
YSoF: youth soccer field P: pool R: restrooms
FF: football field PA: play area CG: community garden
L: lights Art: public art Dog: enclosed dog park
Source: Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. May 2017 Draft.
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 36
Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
While the Master Plan identifies specific types of park improvements contemplated it does not present project
level design plans for any specific improvement or project. In the absence of project level information, this Initial
Study identifies general areas of potential environmental impacts that could occur from the implementation of
the Master Plan, and identifies how existing City policies, programs, and procedures, as well as regulatory
standards and programmatic procedures, would reduce or avoid environmental impacts. The impact analysis
presents general mitigation measures that would be applied to future projects to reduce or prevent
environmental impacts (see Appendix A).
Adoption of the Master Plan would not authorize any specific development or the construction of improvements
contemplated in the Master Plan. Specific development or improvement projects recommended by the Master
Plan would require further evaluation under CEQA once design and implementation information becomes
available.
However, certain types of improvements or modifications contemplated under the Master Plan could be
implemented if they are found not to be a project under CEQA, or the City can document that these
improvements do not have potentially significant environmental impacts. If the City can document these
improvements do not have potentially significant impacts, they can be Categorically Exempt under CEQA. These
projects/improvements may include, but are not limited to:
• Routine maintenance and replacement of existing infrastructure facilities following Master Plan policies
• Construction of new restrooms in parks;
• Incorporation of sustainable practices in the maintenance and management of parks, open space and
recreation facilities;
• Improvements that may assist the City in exceeding Americans with Disabilities Act requirements in
parks;
• Improvement of trail connections and access;
• Development of adult fitness areas in parks;
• Integration of nature into urban parks;
• Development new community gardens in underserved areas;
• Enhancement of seating areas in parks;
• Enhancement of existing sports fields;
• Creation of wayfinding signage of safe routes to parks; and
• Improvements to the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course.
Once project-level information is developed for broader activities proposed pursuant to the goals and policies
of the Master Plan, the City would review the project under CEQA and determine the appropriate level of
environmental impact analysis. In the absence of even conceptual-level design and implementation information,
this Initial Study cannot evaluate the potential environmental impacts of many of the activities contemplated in
the Master Plan. Future review of these projects would focus on those site-specific and localized environmental
issues that could not be examined in sufficient detail as part of this IS/MND. Projects likely requiring subsequent
CEQA review include:
• Cubberley Community Center Master Plan
• Usage of the 7.7 acre Foothills Park extension
• Baylands Athletic Center expansion projects
• Acquire new parkland in high need areas
• Additional dog parks added to an existing park
• New trails
• Improve the Rinconada Pool Facility
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 37
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Construction of a new gym
2.10 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Palo Alto comprises 16,627 acres, or about 26 square miles. Approximately 40 percent of this area is in the 34
City parks and preserves and another 15 percent consists of agriculture or other open space uses. The remaining
area is nearly completely developed, with single family uses predominating this developed area. Palo Alto’s
portion of San Francisco Bay and western Coast Range Mountains offer extensive natural environments
immediately adjacent to urban areas and the opportunity to enjoy natural habitats.
Most of Palo Alto’s urban parks are developed with various recreation facilities, landscaped with typical urban
plant species, and are surrounded by urban development, typically single-family residential areas. For the parks
that do contain unique or sensitive biological, cultural, or historical resources, special consideration and
additional CEQA analysis will be required when planning new facilities. The park’s urban forest support typical
urban wildlife species, including birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department
of Fish and Wildlife regulations and bats, which are also protected by federal and state endangered species laws.
El Camino Park, El Palo Alto Park, and Hopkins Creek Side Park are all adjacent to San Francisquito Creek, and
special consideration of the sensitive creek resources would be needed for any maintenance activities or new
development within these parks. Adobe Creek flows through Mitchell Park but is channelized along most of its
extent in Palo Alto.
2.11 Other Public Agencies Approval Required
The City of Palo Alto is the primary authority having jurisdiction over adoption and implementation of the Master
Plan and certification of the CEQA document. During implementation for any physical improvements requiring
additional City review or permits, those processes shall be adhered to as applicable. The City does have partner
agencies that may have permit and/or approval authority over specific projects or programs recommended in
the Master Plan (such as Stanford University and the Palo Alto Unified School District); however, these won’t be
known until specific projects that involve these agencies come forward. Additionally, as specific projects come
forward, permits or authorizations may be required from other regulatory agencies (such as Caltrans, CDFW,
RWQCB) depending on the nature of the specific project and the environment in which it occurs.
Project Description
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 38
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
This document is designed for double-sided printing -
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 39
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3. Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Environmental Factors Potentially Impacted
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially impacted by the project. Complete this table after
the checklist is filled out and check the boxes for categories that are potentially significant with or without mitigation
incorporated.
Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Recreation
Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation/Traffic
Air Quality Land Use/Planning Utilities/Service Systems
Biological Resources Mineral Resources Energy
Cultural/Tribal Cultural
Resources
Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Geology/Soils Population/Housing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4) “(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than
Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-
referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 40
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Discussion of Impacts
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed
project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The
sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of
mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 41
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Sources
a) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the
area and its surroundings?
1, 26, 41, 45
b) Significantly alter public viewsheds
or view corridors or scenic resources
(such as trees, rocks, outcroppings
or historic buildings) along a scenic
highway?
1, 18, 20, 41
c) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
1, 41, 45
d) Substantially shadow public open
space (other than public streets and
adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September
21 to March 21?
1, 26, 41
Environmental Setting
The Palo Alto City boundary extends from San Francisco Bay on the east, to Skyline Ridge of the coastal mountains
on the west and affords both residents and visitors with expansive views of the bay and the coastal range mountains.
There are numerous and highly valued scenic vistas of the Baylands and the coast range mountains from within the
City. The aesthetic value of the combined foothills and Baylands open space areas is a singular attractive feature of
Palo Alto. Other natural features of Palo Alto, such as the El Palo Alto tree, the Oak Woodland along San Francisquito
Creek, and the many other notable trees/green spaces throughout the city are important in establishing the overall
attractiveness of Palo Alto.
The majority of Palo Alto’s urban parks are located within or near residential neighborhoods, west of Highway 101
and east of El Camino. Palo Alto’s urban parks are valued green space areas that contribute to the aesthetic quality
of the City’s neighborhoods. Most of the City’s urban parks are landscaped with common non-native landscaping
species and contain a variety of facilities including, but not limited to: playgrounds, ball fields, dog parks, paved
pathways, and bathrooms, which influence the aesthetic quality of each park. Palo Alto, to the best of its ability, has
integrated urban parks into the neighborhoods as an aesthetic asset to the community, and have maintained them
as such. In general, the urban parks do not contain noted scenic resources other than mature trees, nor are they part
of a scenic vista. Nevertheless, Palo Alto’s urban parks provide a high-quality aesthetic benefit to the City, and are
valued by the residents for their aesthetic contribution to local neighborhoods.
The City of Palo Alto’s Department of Parks and Recreation manages four natural open space preserves; the Baylands
Nature Preserve, Esther Clark Preserve, Foothills Park, and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. The Baylands Preserve,
located in the northeastern portion of the city, is one of the largest tracts of undisturbed marshland remaining in the
San Francisco Bay area. The Baylands Preserve is characterized by vast stretches of marsh shrubs, interrupted
occasionally by fingers of water making their way in from the bay. Esther Clark Preserve, in contrast is substantially
smaller than the Baylands and is generally comprised of grasslands with Oak trees intermittently spaced throughout
the preserve and along its perimeter. Foothills Park is located in the hilly southwestern portion of the city. As the
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 42
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
name might imply, this park features a rolling landscape filled with hiking trails, picnic areas, and a nature interpretive
center. The Pearson-Aratradero Preserve, located just to the north of Foothills Park, also can be described as a
landscape with undulating grasslands and a broadleaf evergreen forest. These open space preserves provide an
important outlet for community members may take advantage of when wishing to escape the highly-developed
nature of the peninsula. All the open space preserves provide numerous scenic vistas and are highly valued for their
scenic qualities.
Scenic Highways and Routes
The stretch of Highway 280 in Palo Alto is considered a State-eligible scenic highway, but has not yet been officially
designated by Caltrans as a Scenic Highway. Highway 280 affords views of foothills and open space areas in western
portions of the City. Although brief, the portion of Skyline Boulevard (State Route 35) that runs along the southern
border of the City is a State-designated scenic highway.
Scenic Routes identified in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan have a unique set of visual characteristics determined
by the City to be worthy of preservation. The City has identified three roadways as Scenic Routes: Arastradero Road,
Embarcadero Road, and Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard.
Regulatory Setting
The following state and local regulations would influence the design, construction and implementation of park
projects, and would act to eliminate or control potential visual impact of park projects.
California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program, maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),
protects scenic State highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to
the highways. Caltrans has designated Highway 280 within Palo Alto as a State-eligible scenic highway (although not
officially designated within Santa Clara County) and State Route 35 as an official State-designated scenic highway.
Although briefly passing through the southern-most border of the City, Skyline Boulevard (State Route 35) is officially
designated as a State scenic highway.
Local Regulations
The City has adopted numerous regulations, standards, and guidelines to ensure land use activities in Palo Alto
preserve and help define scenic vistas that enhance visual quality.
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code
Title 8, Trees and Vegetation:
Title 8 of the Municipal Code establishes the City’s regulations pertaining to Street Trees, Shrubs and Plants, Weed
Abatement, and Tree Preservation and Management. Title 8 includes measures to ensure trees throughout the City
are maintained and protected as development occurs. Chapter 8.10 is the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, which
protects trees in order to promote the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life for residents. Specifically, this section
of the Municipal Code regulates the removal or disfigurement of specific types of trees. The section requires review
and permitting by the City’s Planning or Public Works Department prior to any such action involving removal or
significant pruning. This provides a layer of insurance so adverse aesthetical impacts are reduced.
Title 18, Zoning:
Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code contains the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance establishes
regulations applicable to specific areas of the city, including provisions related to the visual quality of the developed
environment, and public and private spaces visible to passersby. These regulations include district-specific
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 43
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
development standards, such as height limits, setbacks, and other site restrictions, as well as provisions for residential
design review.
Together, the stipulations of the Zoning Ordinance are intended, among many other purposes, to preserve the visual
quality of urban design in Palo Alto. Specific aesthetic requirements for all development include:
• Shielding of interior and exterior light sources to prevent visibility from off-site and using low-intensity and
timed lighting in outdoor areas.
• Avoiding use of reflective surfaces that can create glare.
• Utilizing architectural features and landscaping to reduce apparent building mass and bulk.
The Zoning Ordinance also identifies specific requirements to reduce visual impacts on residential neighborhoods
from adjacent non-residential uses, including open space buffers, landscaping, and fences or walls.
Section 18.40.130. Landscaping:
Section 18.40.130 of the Municipal Code establishes landscaping regulations and performance criteria for all
development within the city. The purpose of Section 18.40.130 is to encourage creative and sustainable landscape
design that enhances structures, open space areas, streetscapes and parking areas in order to preserve native plant
species, and also to provide tree shading and landscape design. These designs can contribute to economic vitality
and public health, as well as enhance the character of Palo Alto.
Section 18.76.020. Architectural Review:
Section 18.76.020 establishes guidelines for the architectural review of major and minor projects. Projects must be
reviewed to carefully evaluate various aspects of their design and appearance, including their compatibility with the
immediate environment of the site; compatibility with the design character of the surrounding area; harmonious
transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; internal sense of order; amount
and arrangement of open space; integration of natural features; and appropriate materials, textures, colors and
details of construction and plant material, among other aspects.
Section 18.30(G). Site and Design (D) Review:
The site and design review is intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in
environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to
negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and
development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and
ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto comprehensive Plan.
Section 18.60.070. Alternative Development Standards for Stanford Lands:
Land use designations with the “(AS3)” suffix provides alternative development standards to the Mayfield Site in
order to implement the 2005 Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University adopted
by Ordinance No. 4870. These standards are intended to be optional, rather than mandatory.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design element contains policies and programs designed to
protect the scenic quality of Palo Alto’s open space and urban environments. The following policies and programs
from the Land Use and Community Design element would work to ensure future park improvement and
infrastructure projects are designed, constructed and implemented in such a manner as to avoid aesthetic impacts
on other park uses and on adjacent land uses, particularly residential neighborhoods:
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 44
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Policy L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of residential neighborhoods.
Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces.
Policy L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and
equestrians.
Policy L-79: Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots
to meet high quality urban design standards. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public
infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive. Capital
improvement projects represent substantial public investments. Areas of high pedestrian traffic, especially Centers,
should have priority for infrastructure repair. While the purpose of infrastructure is usually utilitarian or functional,
attention to design details can add beauty to the City or even remedy an urban design defect. For example, replacing
a sidewalk can provide an opportunity to create larger tree wells and provide new street trees.
Policy L-74: Use the work of artists, craftspeople, architects, and landscape architects in the design and improvement
of public spaces.
Discussion
Section 2.9 of the Project Description describes the types of projects and physical improvements which may occur
with implementation of the Master Plan goals, policies, and programs. In general, park projects would have the
potential to create aesthetic impacts if they result in construction of: new buildings or parking lots; intensive
recreation facilities; or large, visible park facilities. They also have the potential to create aesthetic impacts if they
dramatically change park vegetation (including tree removal), introduce new night lighting (light and glare), or if they
cause a shadow effect spilling over into adjacent residential parcels.
A list of high priority projects is presented in Section 2.9.8 of the Project Description, some of which have the potential
to create visual impacts. These high priority projects with the potential to create visual impacts include the
redevelopment of the Cubberley Community Center, construction of a 10.5-acre site in the Baylands for park uses,
construction of a new gymnasium, and facility improvements at Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course.
Other high priority projects are smaller in scale and scope and would be unlikely to have visual impacts. Examples of
these smaller projects include developing additional dog parks, constructing new restrooms or replacing existing
restrooms, ensuring American with Disability Act (ADA) requirements are implemented, improving trail connections
and access, developing adult fitness areas in parks, enhance seating in parks, and the placement of new wayfinding
signs of safe routes to parks.
a) Substantially Degrade Visual Character or Quality of Area
Adoption of the Master Plan would result in the implementation of numerous types of small projects at parks and
other recreational facilities throughout the urban area. These small projects include such activities as developing new
dog parks, constructing new bathrooms, implementing ADA improvements, improving trail connections and access,
developing adult fitness areas in parks, integrating nature into urban parks, establishing new community gardens,
enhancing seating areas in parks, and placing wayfinding signage for safe routes to parks. These small projects would
be implemented throughout the urban parks, and would be designed and constructed according to existing City
standards. The projects would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan policies listed above in
Regulatory Setting, which are designed to protect and enhance the visual quality of Palo Alto’s districts and
neighborhoods.
The minor improvements recommended by the Master Plan would be unlikely to change the visual character of
existing parks, and would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the area. Exterior improvements
to the parks and facilities would be subject to architectural review through Municipal Code Section 18.76.020, which
would ensure projects meeting the criteria for this level of review do not result in an adverse aesthetical impact to
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 45
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
the surrounding environment. As an added layer of review, the City, through Municipal Code Section 18.30(G), has
already identified land uses in its Comprehensive Plan that would require an additional review for any development
proposed on land uses having the suffix, “(D)” to protect established, sensitive community areas from negative
aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions. Section 18.30(G) also ensures new
development would be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity and compatible with environmental and
ecological objectives. Any landscaping within the parks would be designed in accordance with Section 18.40.130
which encourages creative and sustainable landscape design that enhances structures, open space areas,
streetscapes and parking areas in order to preserve native plant species, and also to provide tree shading and
landscape design.
Removal of mature trees within City parks would be done in accordance with the requirements of the City’s
preservation ordinance (Title 8 of the Municipal Code). Conformance with the tree protection ordinance
requirements would ensure tree removal within City parks do not cause a significant change in the visual
characteristic of the area.
Larger projects contemplated in the Master Plan including enhancement of existing sports fields, construction of a
10.5-acre site in the Baylands for park uses, acquisition of new parkland in high need areas, redevelopment of the
Cubberley Community Center, construction a new gymnasium, and improvements of the Rinconada Park Pool facility
would require additional CEQA review once project design plans become available.
The Master Plan encompasses the four natural open space preserves the City owns and maintains but does not
recommend specific development projects within them. As described in Project Description, it is the City’s intent that
the Master Plan’s goals and policies will direct routine maintenance activities and the improvement or replacement
of facilities in already developed areas of the open space preserves. However, the City will develop individual
comprehensive conservation plans for each of the preserves which will direct the management of the open space
areas and ensure protection of sensitive or unique biological resources. Thus, implementation of the Master Plan
would not adversely impact the many scenic resources and vistas offered within each of the preserves.
The Master Plan contains several policies that would act to enhance the visual quality of the City’s park system.
Policy 1.B recommends expanding parkland in underserved areas of the City. New parks within the urban area of
Palo Alto would create green space and enhance the aesthetic quality of the local neighborhood. Policy 3.B
encourages the incorporation of art into park design and recreation programming consistent with the Public Art
Master Plan. Integration of public art into existing or future parks would add visual enrichment and benefit the
overall aesthetic quality of the park system. Policy 4.D encourages the promotion, expansion and protection of
habitat and natural areas in parks and open space. Enhancing and protecting natural areas, including native plant
communities, brings nature into the City and provides variation from the typical landscape species heavily used in
various areas throughout the parks. These policies would generally result in a beneficial effect to the visual
character of City parks and public views throughout the City.
Overall, the aesthetic impacts implementation of Master Plan goals and policies would not degrade the visual
quality or character of parks or surrounding neighborhoods and would be less than significant.
b) Alter Public Viewsheds/Corridors or Scenic Resources along a Scenic Highway
The stretch of Highway 280 that runs from the Santa Clara County line to the San Bruno city limit is considered to
be a State-eligible Scenic Highway. There are no City parks immediately adjacent to Highway 280 or visible from the
highway’s viewshed. Views from Highway 280 to the western hills may include portions of Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve and Foothills Park. Although Master Plan Program 4.B.9 indicates the City’s desire to develop a trail
interpretive guide for Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and the Baylands Nature Preserve, implementation of these
improvements would not negatively impact scenic views from Highway 280.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 46
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Caltrans has designated the portion of Skyline Boulevard (State Route 35) that runs along the southern most side of
the City as an official State-designated scenic highway. This portion of Skyline Boulevard separates the Monte
Bellow Open Space Preserve and Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve, both of which are managed by Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space. Future development contemplated in the Master Plan would not be visible from State Route
35. Adoption the Master Plan would not result in the future development of projects altering the view shed of an
official State-designated Scenic Highway.
The Master Plan goals and policies encourage certain types of physical development in existing urban parks, none
of which are visible from Highway 280 or State Route 35 (see Figure 2 for map of park locations). Adoption and
implementation of the Master Plan would not adversely impact an official State-designated or State-eligible scenic
highway.
The City has designated Arastradero Road, Embarcadero Road, and Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard
as Scenic Routes that have visual characteristics worthy of preservation. A number of parks are located along these
roadways. Rinconada, Bowling Green, and Kellogg Parks are located along Embarcadero Road, and Briones Park is
located along Arastradero Road. There are no parks along Foothill Expressway in the City’s boundaries. New park
facilities or physical improvements to these parks would be visible from the roadway. Many of the smaller projects
recommended under the Master Plan would not alter the visual quality of an existing park and would not adversely
impact City designated Scenic Routes. With the exception of the Rinconada pool improvements, the larger park
projects described above are not proposed for parks adjacent to a City designated Scenic Route. Additionally, larger
park projects would undergo additional CEQA review at the time project plans became available.
c) Light and Glare
Implementation of the Master Plan could introduce new lighting into neighborhoods as new parks are developed or
older parks improved. Any lighting installed would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code requirements for
control of light and glare, as well as the Comprehensive Plan policies intended to control the aesthetic quality and
value of the City’s neighborhoods. Any elevated lighting would be shielded to prevent light spillage. Per Palo Alto
Municipal Code, exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-
site.
Lighting improvements for safety and wayfinding would not have light and glare impacts if designed and installed
according to adopted City regulations. New construction projects as listed in Table 1 and Section 2.9 in Project
Description would require additional environmental review and impacts from lighting would be evaluated at that
time based upon project design features.
d) Substantially Shadow Public Open Space
Implementation of the Master Plan may result in additional trees being planted, or new buildings being constructed,
some of which could potentially shadow public open spaces during the winter months when the sun is lower in the
skyline for longer periods of time. Any proposed structures would be evaluated under project and site specific design
review requirements, as described above, to assure appropriate site planning and land use development would
minimize concerns regarding shadowing to a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 47
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
Project and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adapted by the California
Air Resources Board.
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Sources
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
14, 15
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
14, 15, 26, 34
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land2,
timberland3, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production4?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
1, 26, 32
26, 32
e) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
1, 32
f) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use?
1, 14, 15, 26
2 As defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)
3 As defined by Public Resources Code section 4526
4 As defined by Government Code section 51104(g)
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 48
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Setting
The City of Palo Alto is primarily urbanized with the exception of open space and wildland parks along the Bayshore
and in the foothills west of Highway 280.
Discussion
a & b) Farmland and Agricultural Use
The City of Palo Alto does not contain any area designated as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or
agriculturally zoned land as determined by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps. The California
Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program for
Santa Clara County, accessed on January 18, 2017, shows two small areas of unique farmland. The first is near the
southern border of Palo Alto, east of Highway 280, and the second parcel is located in the foothill area of the City.
In 2016 there were approximately 23 properties totaling 364 acres of land that have Williamson Act (California Land
Conservation Act of 1965) contracts with the City aimed at preserving agricultural and compatible open-space uses
These small parcels are a combination of parcels owned by Stanford University, Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space
District and private individuals living in the foothills of Palo Alto. These parcels are considered Williamson Act – Non-
Prime Agricultural Land or Williamson Act – Non-Renewal lands.
None of the City parks are designated as Prime Farmland or zoned for agricultural use or adjacent to farmland.
Adoption and implementation of the Master Plan would not result in any conversion of Farmland or agricultural lands
to non-agricultural uses and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
Therefore, implementation of the Master Plan would not result in adverse impacts to agricultural resources.
c, d & e) Forest Land
Public Resources Code section 12220(g) defines “forest land” as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover
of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allow for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public
benefits. Public Resources Code section 4526 defines “timber land” as land which is available for, and capable of,
growing a crop of trees of a commercial species for lumber or other forest products, including Christmas trees. The
City of Palo Alto does not contain any land zoned for forestry or timberland and thus adoption and implementation
of the Master Plan would not impact forestry resources.
f) Changes in the Environment
As the City of Palo Alto does not contain any area designated as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance,
or agriculturally zoned land, the project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 49
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Sources
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan (such as the 2010 Clean
Air Plan or the 2001 Ozone
Attainment Plan)?
4, 5, 6
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
4, 5, 6
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
4, 6
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
1
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
1
Environmental Setting
The project area is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is comprised of the following nine
counties: all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin, Napa, and the southern portions
of Solano and Sonoma. The SFBAAB is generally characterized by a Mediterranean climate with warm, dry summers
and cool, damp winters. During the summer daytime, high temperatures near the coast are primarily in the mid-60s,
whereas areas farther inland are typically in the high-80s to low-90s. Nighttime low temperatures on average are in
the mid-40s along the coast and low- to mid-30s inland.
Federal, state, and local governments control air quality through the implementation of laws, ordinances,
regulations, and standards. The federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for
“criteria” pollutants considered harmful to the environment and public health. National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) have been established for carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3),
fine particulate matter (particles 2.5 microns in diameter and smaller, or PM2.5), inhalable coarse particulate matter
(particles between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter, or PM2.5 and PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). California Ambient
Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are more stringent than the national standards for the pollutants listed above and
include the following additional pollutants: hydrogen sulfide (H2S), sulfates (SOX), and vinyl chloride. In addition to
these criteria pollutants, the federal and state governments have classified certain pollutants as hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) or toxic air contaminants (TACs), such as asbestos and diesel particulate matter (DPM).
The SFBAAB is currently designated as non-attainment for both the 1-hour and 8-hour state ozone standards, and
the national 24-hour fine particulate patter (PM2.5) standard.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 50
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regulatory Setting
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for maintaining air quality and regulating
emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants within the SFBAAB. The BAAQMD carries out this responsibility by
preparing, adopting, and implementing plans, regulations, and rules designed to achieve attainment of state and
national air quality standards. On September 15, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted the 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP). This
plan updates the District’s 2005 Ozone Strategy and addresses particulate matter (PM), TACs, and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions in a single, integrated document that contains 55 control strategies describing specific measures
and actions the BAAQMD and its partners will implement to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect
the climate. These measures focus on stationary and area sources, mobile sources, transportation control measures,
land use, and energy and climate measures. The BAAQMD is in the process of updating the CAP, and on January 12,
2017, the Draft 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Save the Climate was released for public review.
The BAAQMD has developed CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which indicate a proposed project would be determined
to be consistent with the BAAQMD CAP if the project:
1. Supports the primary goals of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The primary goals of the plan are to (1) attain air
quality standards; (2) reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and (3) reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and protect the climate.
2. Includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan.
3. Does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any Clean Air Plan control measures.
The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also include thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants, health risks
associated with exposure to toxic air contaminants, and GHGs. These thresholds of significance developed by the
BAAQMD have been scientifically designed to assist the SFBAAB in attaining the air quality standards established by
the State and federal government, as well as protect public health. Table 3 below shows the thresholds of significance
established for criteria air pollutants.
Table 3: BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
BAAQMD Project-Level Threshold of Significance
Construction Emissions Operational Emissions
Daily Emissions (lb/day) Daily Emissions (lb/day) Annual Emissions
(tons/year)
Reactive Organic Gases
(ROG) 54 54 10
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 54 54 10
Exhaust PM10 82 82 15
Exhaust PM2.5 54 54 10
Fugitive Dust
PM10/PM2.5
Best Management
Practices None
Local CO None 9.0 ppm (8-hr. avg.)
20.0 ppm (1-hr. avg.)
Source: 5
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 51
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Discussion
Future implementation of park development and improvement projects envisioned in the Master Plan would result
in air quality emissions during the construction and operation of new facilities/amenities. In general, the projects and
actions contemplated in the Master Plan are minor in nature and future implementation of said
projects/improvements would not have a substantial adverse effect on air quality. As discussed in greater detail
below, Goals 1, 3, and 5 in the Master Plan may assist in providing cleaner, long-term air quality for the residents of
Palo Alto.
a) Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan
As described below, the Master Plan would not conflict with the BAAQMD’s CAP5.
First Primary Goal of the CAP: Attainment of Air Quality Standards
Implementation of the Master Plan would be consistent with the first primary goal of the CAP, that is to attain air
quality standards. The CAP is based on regional population and employment projections in the Bay Area, which were
compiled by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The Master Plan does not propose any new housing, and any
increase in job opportunities resulting from future construction of projects/improvements identified in the Master
Plan are anticipated to be served by the existing, local population. Thus, adoption of the Master Plan would not
conflict with the approach used by the BAAQMD when developing their thresholds of significance (see Table 3). The
BAAQMD thresholds of significance were scientifically designed to assist the SFBAAB in attaining the air quality
standards established by the State and federal government. Although subsequent construction and operation of
projects and improvements identified in the Master Plan would generate criteria air pollutants, they would not be at
levels substantial enough to obstruct implementation of the CAP. A general discussion of construction and
operational emissions that may result from adoption of the Master Plan, as well as applicable guidance on addressing
air quality impacts related to actions contemplated in the Master Plan, is presented below.
Adoption of the Master Plan would not automatically approve the construction or implementation of any projects or
improvements identified in the Master Plan’s goals, policies, or programs. As funding and designs become available,
specific air quality impacts related to projects and improvements identified in the Master Plan would be evaluated
based on project-specific conditions. Construction-related emissions, and operational-related emissions, would
result from implementation of new projects in the future; however, until such projects are designed, any analysis of
project-specific impacts would be premature. Existing parks, recreational facilities, and open space preserves are
currently serviced and maintained by the City. Typical activities associated with the maintenance and upkeep of
existing facilities may include, but are not limited to: vehicle trips taken by City employees to such facilities and
landscape maintenance activities (mowing the lawn, planting new vegetation, tree trimming, etc.), trail maintenance,
and maintenance of paved areas and buildings. These activities (and emissions associated with them) would continue
to occur regardless if the Master Plan is approved or not, and would not constitute a change to the physical
environment.
It is worth noting that a majority of the projects and improvements envisioned in the Master Plan (e.g., new
restrooms, improving trail connections, development of adult fitness areas in parks, development of new community
gardens, enhancing existing sports fields, improvement of interpretive centers, etc.) are minor, would not result in
substantial adverse effects to the environment in terms of air quality, and therefore, would not inhibit the BAAQMD’s
first primary goal of the CAP that is to attain air quality standards. Larger projects identified in the Master Plan, such
as expanding parkland, development of the Cubberley Community Center Master Plan, and the expansion of the
Baylands Athletic Center, would undergo additional environmental review under CEQA. As with the other facilities,
normal maintenance and upkeep of existing improvements within the open space preserves are included in the
5 Impacts related to GHG emissions and consistency with the CAP is discussed in section "G. Greenhouse Gases" of this document.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 52
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
background conditions since they area already occurring. Any new physical improvements or development within
the preserves would be proposed under the conservation plans, not the Master Plan, and the associated air quality
impacts would be analyzed during the subsequent CEQA review conducted for the conservation plans.
The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain screening criteria to provide lead agencies with a conservative
indication of whether a proposed project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts when compared to
the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. Consistent with the BAAQMD’s guidance, if a
project meets all of the screening criteria, then the project would emit criteria pollutants (including PM, ROG, and
NOx) at levels below the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. One of the land use types presented in Table 3-1 of the
BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for screening is a City Park. Table 4 below presents the BAAQMD’s
construction and operational air quality screening sizes for a City Park land use type.
Table 4: BAAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Screening Size
Land Use Type Operational Criteria Pollutant
Screening Size
Construction Criteria Pollutant
Screening Size
City Park 2613 Acres 67 Acres
These operational and construction criteria pollutant screening sizes presented in Table 4 may be used in the
evaluation of future park projects or improvements identified in the Master Plan. So long as the following
conditions are met, a park project or improvement would be considered to have a less than significant impact on
criteria air pollution emissions:
1. The Project is below the construction (2613 acres) and operational screening size (67 acres).
2. The Project design and implementation includes all BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures.
3. Demolition activities (if there are any) are consistent with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos
Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing.
4. Construction does not include simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g.,
grading, paving and building construction would not occur simultaneously).
5. Construction does not include simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., the project
does not involve commercial and recreational land uses in the same project).
6. Construction does not require extensive site preparation (maximum daily grading would not exceed 0.6
acres).
7. Construction does not require extensive material transport and considerable haul truck activity (greater
than 10,000 cubic yards).
Based on the thresholds of significance presented in Table 3, fugitive dust emissions are potentially significant
without the application of the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures identified in condition “2.” above.
As such, Mitigation Measure AIR-1, which consists of the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as
presented at the end of this section, would be applied to all projects involving construction activities (e.g. site
preparation, grading, etc.). Implementation of these measures during future construction projects would ensure the
project would produce less than significant levels of fugitive dust emissions.
A majority of the projects and improvements identified in the Master Plan would be able to utilize the BAAQMD
construction and operational screening thresholds for a City Park land use to demonstrate the project would not
have a significant effect on attaining air quality standards based on the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance (see
Table 3). Those projects not meeting the BAAQMD’s screening criteria would be further evaluated under CEQA as
part of the project-level review, and a more detailed air quality analysis would be performed to address that project’s
significance in relation to air quality.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 53
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
It is anticipated that subsequent review and approval of projects/improvements identified in the Master Plan would
not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants, and therefore, would not hinder the
first primary goal of the CAP that is to attain air quality standards.
Second Primary Goal of the CAP: Reduce Population Exposure and Protect Public Health
Implementation of the Master Plan would support the second primary goal of the CAP, which is to reduce population
exposure to air contaminants and protect public health. The Master Plan identifies plans to improve and/or utilize
numerous pedestrian and bicycle facilities that would help to reduce both visitor and resident vehicle trips to
recreational amenities. A key goal of the Master Plan is to create and strengthen connections to and around: parks,
recreation facilities, and community destinations. The following discussion highlights the goals, policies, and
programs that would assist in improving local air quality and protecting public health.
One of the main focuses of the Master Plan is to encourage community members to walk, bike, or run to recreational
facilities as opposed to taking motorized vehicles (e.g. automobiles, trucks, etc.) when heading to a urban/regional
park or recreational facility (see Table 1, Programs 1.B.10, 1.D.1, 1.D.2, 1.G.2, 1.G.8, and 3.A.5). In doing so,
implementation of the Master Plan could indirectly reduce vehicular travel and associated criteria air pollutant
emissions from mobile sources. These actions would improve local air quality and assist in the protection of public
health. Additionally, the Master Plan aims to provide more recreational opportunities to its residents through the
construction of additional parks and recreational facilities (see Table 1, Programs 1.B.4, 1.B.9, 1.B.10, 5.D.1, 5.D.2,
and 5.D.3). The Master Plan specifically identifies the need for additional parks and recreational spaces in areas that
are currently underserved (i.e. areas that do not have parks/facilities within a quarter-mile of residences). Members
of the community would be more likely to take advantage of recreational amenities near where they live, reducing
reduce long-term mobile source emissions within the City of Palo Alto.
The Master Plan states that all projects envisioned in the Master Plan would be designed and implemented consistent
with existing City policies, which would include: Comprehensive Plan policies related to traffic congestion and
neighborhood impacts, the Safe Routes to School Plan that encourages walking and biking to school, and the Climate
Action Plan. Park projects designed and implemented consistent with these adopted policies would assist the City in
reducing traffic congestion and associated vehicle emissions.
Clean Air Plan Control Measures
Adoption and implementation of the Master Plan would not disrupt or otherwise interfere with the control measures
identified in the BAAQMD’s CAP, and would support the implementation of following control measures. Table 5
below presents the applicable control measures from the CAP.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 54
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 5: Applicable Control Measures of the 2010 Clean Air Plan
Control Measure Applicability
Energy & Climate Measure (ECM)-3, Urban Heat
Island Mitigation
The Master Plan identifies the desire to develop more
parks in certain underserved neighborhoods, and for
more vegetation in Palo Alto Parks. Increasing
parkland and adding vegetation to existing parks
would reduce the urban heat island phenomenon.
ECM-4, Tree-Planting
Implementation of the Master Plan, in concert with
the City’s Urban Forest Master Plan, includes the
planning of low-VOC emitting shade trees to reduce
urban heat island effects, save energy, and absorb
CO2 and other air pollutants.
Transportation Control Measure (TCM) D-1, Improve
Bicycle Access and Facilities
The Master Plan seeks to improve bicycle access at
and around Parks.
TCM D-2, Improve Pedestrian Access and Facilities The Master Plan seeks to improve pedestrian access
at and around Parks.
Given the information presented above, the Master Plan would be consistent with the CAP and would not violate air
quality standards.
b) Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation
As described above in “Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan,” adoption of the
Master Plan would not automatically approve any project or improvement identified in the Master Plan. When design
information is available, the City would review each project for its potential to create air quality impacts. As described
above, many of the projects/improvements that may be approved in the future are minor in nature and would be far
below the BAAQMD screening criteria for urban park projects (see Table 3). Furthermore, Mitigation Measure AIR-1
would be applied to all construction projects to reduce potentially significant fugitive dust emissions. In developing
its thresholds of significance, the BAAQMD scientifically designed the thresholds in a way such that they would to
assist the SFBAAB in attaining the air quality standards established by the State and federal government. These
projects and improvements would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation. Projects that are not consistent with the conditions 1 – 7 of the screening criteria
would undergo additional environmental review to determine the level of air emissions associated with the project
and whether further CEQA review would be necessary.
c) Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant
In developing its CEQA significance thresholds, the BAAQMD considered the emission levels at which a project’s
individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The BAAQMD has designed its CEQA thresholds of
significance for criteria air pollutants in such a way that if a project’s emissions are individually considerable (i.e. the
emissions are greater than the thresholds established by the BAAQMD), the project would also be cumulatively
considerable and significant. If a project does not generate emissions that are individually considerable, then its
emissions are not considered cumulatively considerable or significant.
The Master Plan provides a framework and general guidance for future planning and implementation efforts, and
does not itself mandate or approve any project or improvement identified in the goals, policies, and programs of the
Master Plan. Future development and improvement projects recommended by the Master Plan would be evaluated
under CEQA when more specific information can be ascertained and prior to approval. However, at this time, it is
anticipated all projects identified in the Master Plan, except for the three unique properties (Cubberley Community
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 55
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Center, Foothills Park Expansion and Baylands Athletic Center expansion), would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds
of significance for criteria air pollutants; but, as stated in section 2.9.10, these projects are outside the scope of this
Initial Study and will undergo additional CEQA review when changes in use or future development of these sites are
proposed. Thus, projects identified in the Master Plan that are within the scope of this Initial Study would not
generate air quality emissions that are cumulatively considerable. Subsequent review of these
projects/improvements prior to project approval would ensure construction and operation of those project-specific
emissions would not result in cumulatively considerable net increases in any criteria air pollutant.
d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Pollutants
As discussed above, most projects identified in the Master Plan are relatively minor in nature. Construction activities
related to park projects and/or improvements would emit PM2.5 from equipment exhaust. Nearly all the projects'
PM2.5 emissions from construction equipment’s exhaust would be diesel particulate matter, a toxic air contaminant.
Although construction of these projects would emit criteria and hazardous air pollutants, these emissions would not
be at substantial concentrations due to the fact most projects envisioned in the Master Plan are relatively small in
nature, and construction activities would be short in duration.
e) Odors
Construction of projects would generate typical odors associated with construction activities, such as fuel and oil
odors and asphalt paving odors. The odors generated would be intermittent, localized in nature, and would disperse
quickly. Therefore, implementation of the Master Plan would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people.
Mitigation Measures:
Impact AIR-1: Future implementation of projects and improvements identified in the Master Plan have the
potential to emit fugitive dust during ground disturbing construction activities.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: To reduce potential fugitive dust that may be generated by project construction
activities, the City of Palo Alto shall implement the following BAAQMD basic construction measures when ground
disturbing activities have the potential to generate fugitive dust (BAAQMD Guidelines pg. 8-3, Table 8-1):
• Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads during
construction as necessary and adequately wet demolition surfaces to limit visible dust emissions.
• Cover all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose materials off the project site.
• Use a wet power vacuum street sweeper as necessary to remove all visible mud or dirt track-out onto
adjacent public roads (dry power sweeping is prohibited) during construction of the proposed project.
• Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads/areas shall not exceed 15 miles per hour.
• Complete all areas to be paved as soon as possible and lay building pads as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Minimize idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to five minutes and post signs reminding
workers of this idling restriction at access points and equipment staging areas during construction of the
proposed project.
• Maintain and properly tune all construction equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications
and have a CARB-certified visible emissions evaluator check equipment prior to use at the site.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the name and telephone number of the construction contractor and Cal
Water staff person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 56
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
action within 48 hours. The publicly visible sign shall also include the contact phone number for the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 57
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Sources
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 16, 26, 28,
41, 49, 55
b) Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
1, 26, 41, 49
c) Have a substantial adverse effect
on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
1, 41, 58
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
1, 41, 49
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by
the City of Palo Alto’s Tree
Preservation Ordinance (Municipal
Code Section 8.10)?
1,22
f) Conflict with the provisions of any
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
1, 41, 55
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 58
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Setting
The biological resources analysis focuses on the Master Plan policies as they relate primarily to the City of Palo Alto’s
urban parks and recreational facilities (listed in Table 2 of the Project Description). While the Master Plan covers the
four open space preserves in the City of Palo Alto, no new development in the preserves is proposed by the Master
Plan; the City will apply policies of the Master Plan to routine maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities. Each of
the preserves will have stand-alone comprehensive conservation plans (Program 4.A.1) developed under the
umbrella of the Master Plan. Any new development would be proposed and considered in the conservation plans
rather than this Master Plan. In addition, specific projects such as new park acquisition, trails or dog parks will likely
require separate project-specific CEQA review (see Section 2.9.10). Thus, the environmental setting discussion
focuses on the biological resources found within the City’s urban parks and recreational facilities.
The urban city parks and recreational facilities addressed in the Master Plan are generally small (approximately 20
acres or less, with the exception of the Municipal Golf Course) and are occupied by sports or recreational facilities.
Vegetation in the parks and recreational facilities typically consists of: grassy fields or lawns; ornamental landscaped
shrubs; and trees such as fruit trees, maples (Acer spp.), liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua), eucalyptus
(Eucalyptus spp.), acacias (Acacia spp.), pine trees (Pinus spp.), camphors (Cinnamomum camphora), ash trees
(Fraxinus spp.), as well as many others. Native trees such as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens) are also present in some of the parks. Wildlife in the parks likely consists of species adapted
to urban areas. These may include birds such as Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), black phoebe (Sayornis
nigricans), California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin
(Turdus migratorius), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and others; mammals such as eastern fox squirrel
(Sciurus niger), native and non-native mice and rats, Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis); and reptiles or amphibians such
as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea), and California slender
salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus).
Special-status Species
A special-status species is defined as a species meeting one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed, proposed for listing, or candidate for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA, 50 CFR §17.12);
• Listed or candidate for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA, Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.);
• Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code §1900 et seq.);
• Listed as a Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code §§3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515);
• Listed as a California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW); or
• Plant species considered by California Native Plant Society (CNPS) and CDFW to be “rare, threatened, or
endangered in California” (Ranks 1A, 1B, and 2).
Based on records from California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), information in the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Chapter (City of Palo Alto, 2011), and the Stanford University Habitat
Conservation Plan (Stanford University, 2013), 17 special-status plants and 27 special-status animals have been
documented within the City of Palo Alto. These species and their listing status and habitat requirements are listed
in Appendix C. Additional species that have not been documented within in the City may have the potential to
occur as well based on the presence of suitable habitat and nearby occurrences outside of the City limits. However,
the majority of the species listed in Appendix C, as well as any other special-status species that have the potential
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 59
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
to occur, are restricted to the Palo Alto Baylands and the Palo Alto foothills, generally within or near the City’s open
space preserves. The only area in the urban part of Palo Alto that could support special-status plant species is the
natural riparian zone along San Francisquito Creek.
In addition to individual plant species of concern, the CNDDB identifies plant communities that are of concern due to
declining distribution. Palo Alto contains serpentine bunchgrass, arroyo willow riparian, and wetland plant
communities that are on the CNDDB list. Serpentine bunchgrass occurs in small patches in the Pearson- Arastradero
Preserve. Arroyo willow riparian occurs along Los Trancos Creek, Arastradero Creek, Matadero Creek, and San
Francisquito Creek. Wetland occurs in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, at Boronda Lake in Foothills Park, and in the
Baylands.
No special-status species are expected to occur in the City’s urban parks and recreational facilities, which are
generally small landscaped areas that lack natural habitats required to support special-status species. However,
creeks and associated riparian habitats adjacent to several of the City’s urban parks and recreational facilities do
support a number of special-status species. San Francisquito Creek and Matadero Creek are known to support
California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens).
The San Francisquito Creek also supports steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) and western pond turtle
(Actinemys marmorata). Riparian habitat adjacent to the creeks may also support yellow warbler (Setophaga
petechia). The Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park, El Palo Alto Park, Hopkins Creekside Park, and the Municipal
Golf Course are adjacent to San Francisquito Creek; and Bol Park, Boulware Park, Hoover Park, and Seale Park are
adjacent to Matadero Creek. Mitchell Park and Terman Park are adjacent to Adobe Creek; and Ventura Community
Center is adjacent to Barron Creek. Although no special-status species have been documented in Adobe or Barron
creeks, and portions of these creeks are channelized, they could support one or more of the above-mentioned
species.
As the Master Plan does not propose any new construction within the open space preserves, and only routine
maintenance of existing facilities would occur until conservation plans specific to the preserves are adopted, the
discussion below focuses on special-status species which are known to occur in habitat adjacent to the City’s urban
parks, as described below.
Central California Coast steelhead is listed as threatened under the FESA; and is a CSSC. Central California Coast
steelhead distinct population segment, or DPS, includes naturally spawned anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead)
originating below natural and manmade impassable barriers from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their
tributaries; but excludes such fish originating from San Francisco and San Pablo Bays and their tributaries. This DPS
does include steelhead from two artificial propagation programs: the Coleman National Fish Hatchery Program and
the Feather River Fish Hatchery Program. Steelhead is an anadromous fish that is native to coastal streams from Baja
California to Alaska and parts of Asia. Adult steelhead migrate from the ocean into streams in the late fall, winter, or
early spring seeking out deep pools within fast moving streams to rest prior to spawning. Steelhead spawn in shallow
water gravel beds and the young typically spend the first one to two years of their lives as residents of their natal
stream. Central California Coast steelhead are known to occur in San Francisquito and Los Trancos Creeks.
California red-legged frog (CRF) is listed as threatened under FESA and is a CSSC. CRF occurs in grassland, riparian
woodland, oak woodland, and coniferous forest but requires quiet freshwater pools, slow-flowing streams, and
freshwater marshes with heavily vegetated shores for breeding. These frogs typically stay near the shore hidden in
vegetation rather than in open water. Red-legged frogs frequently occupy seasonal bodies of water, and in some
areas these habitats may be critical for persistence. It is speculated that CRF may lie dormant during dry periods of
the year or during drought, utilizing animal burrows to estivate. CRF are thought to disperse widely during autumn,
winter, and spring rains. Juveniles use the wet periods to expand outward from their pond of origin and adults may
move between aquatic areas from summering habitat to breeding locations. Frogs disperse through many types of
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 60
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
upland vegetation and use a broader range of habitats outside of the breeding season. CRF occurs in San Francisquito
Creek west of I-280, and Matadero, and Deer Creeks primarily on Stanford lands.
Western pond turtle (WPT), a CSSC, ranges in size from 3.5 to 7 inches and is the only freshwater turtle native to the
San Francisco Bay Area. It occurs in ponds, small lakes, marshes, streams and irrigation ditches with abundant
vegetation. It is also found in marshes, streams, rivers, reservoirs and occasionally brackish water. Females deposit
their eggs in nests in banks or in the case of foothill streams, in upland areas away from the stream. Nests have been
observed in many soil types, from sandy to very hard, and have been found up to 400 meters (1300 feet) from the
water (City of Palo Alto, 2014). Certain fish species, bullfrogs, garter snakes, wading birds and some mammals prey
on hatchlings and juveniles. Creeks and ponds in the city, as well as adjacent upland areas, provide habitat for western
pond turtle. WPT occurs in San Francisquito Creek between Highway 280 and El Camino Real, and in Searsville
Reservoir (in Stanford land west of Palo Alto), Felt Reservoir (in the western hills of Palo Alto), and potentially in lakes
and ponds in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Park.
Yellow Warbler. The yellow warbler is a CSSC and frequents the tops of willow and cottonwood trees along streams
and ponds throughout California. This warbler is most abundant in early succession riparian habitats that possess
dense thickets of young willow trees. The male has distinctive reddish streaking on his chest with a bright yellow face.
Insects, other arthropods and occasionally wild fruits make up the diet of the yellow warbler. This species is a
common brown-headed cowbird host and is one of the few species documented as rejecting the nest parasitism by
building a new nest bottom over the existing clutch, thus creating a multi-tiered nest. Yellow warbler has been
documented in the City of Palo Alto according to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and it may occur in the riparian
vegetation adjacent to some of the City’s creekside parks and recreational facilities. There is riparian vegetation
adjacent to Bol Park, El Camino Park, El Palo Alto Park, Hopkins Creekside Park, and Terman Park and in Pearson-
Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Park.
San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (SFDW), a CSSC, is one of eleven subspecies of the dusky-footed woodrat that
live throughout California and the arid west. The range of the SFDW extends from the Golden Gate south through
the Santa Cruz Mountains into the north end of Santa Cruz County, and east to the Diablo Range roughly between
Walnut Creek and Niles Canyon. Although the SFDW is generally considered common throughout its range, their
complex social structure makes them sensitive to disturbance. The SFDW, a nocturnal mammal, occurs in a variety
of brushy and wooded areas that provide cover from aerial and ground predators. Suitable SFDW habitat within the
Santa Cruz Mountains includes forests that contain douglas-fir, manzanita, tan oak, coast redwood, and willow
species. They are typically not found within open habitats such as grassland, but will traverse through such habitat
for mating or range expansion even at the expense of temporary vulnerability to predators. The SFDW occurs in the
Palo Alto foothills and along riparian corridors, including San Francisquito Creek, Matadero Creek, Los Trancos Creek,
Arastradero Creek and Deer Creek. There is riparian vegetation adjacent to Bol Park, El Camino Park, El Palo Alto Park,
Hopkins Creekside Park, and Terman Park and in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Park.
Regulatory Setting
Federal, state and local laws and regulations governing biological resources are discussed below. Violation of these
laws and regulations would constitute a significant biological impact.
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)
FESA establishes a broad public and federal interest in identifying, protecting, and providing for the recovery of
threatened or endangered species. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce are designated in
the FESA as responsible for identifying endangered and threatened species and their critical habitat, carrying out
programs for the conservation of these species, and rendering opinions regarding the impact of proposed federal
actions on listed species. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are charged with implementing and
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 61
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
enforcing the FESA. The USFWS has authority over terrestrial and continental aquatic species, and NMFS has
authority over species that spend all or part of their life cycle at sea, such as salmonids.
Section 9 of FESA prohibits the unlawful “take” of any listed fish or wildlife species. Take, as defined by FESA, means
“to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
action.” The USFWS’s regulations define harm to mean “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife.” Such an act
“may include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering” (50 CFR § 17.3). Take can be
permitted under FESA pursuant to sections 7 and 10. Section 7 provides a process for take permits for federal projects
or projects subject to a federal permit, and Section 10 provides a process for incidental take permits for projects
without a federal nexus. FESA does not extend the take prohibition to federally listed plants on private land, other
than prohibiting the removal, damage, or destruction of such species in violation of state law.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA)
Under the MBTA, it is unlawful to “pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer
to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received any
migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not.” In short, under the MBTA it is illegal to disturb a
nest that is in active use, since this could result in killing a bird or destroying an egg. The USFWS oversees
implementation of the MBTA.
Federal Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act is the primary federal law regulating water quality. The implementation of the Clean
Water Act is the responsibility of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That agency depends on other
agencies, such as the individual states and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), to assist in implementing the
Act. The objective of the Clean Water Act is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation’s waters.” Sections 404 and 401 apply to project activities that would impact “waters of the United
States (lakes, ponds, creeks, streams, wetlands, etc.).” As part of its mandate under the Clean Water Act, the USACE
regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Act.
The USACE enforces Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the California State Water Resources Control Board
enforces section 401. “Waters of the United States" include territorial seas, tidal waters, and non-tidal waters in
addition to wetlands and drainages that support wetland vegetation, exhibit ponding or scouring, show obvious signs
of channeling, or have discernible banks and high water marks.
The EPA also regulates excavation and changes in drainage. The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States is prohibited under the Clean Water Act except when it is in compliance with Section 404 of the
Act. Enforcement authority for Section 404 was given to the USACE, which it accomplishes under its regulatory
branch.
Any applicant for a federal permit to impact waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
including Nationwide Permits where pre-construction notification is required, must also provide to the USACE a
certification from the State of California. The “401 Certification” is provided by the State Water Resources Control
Board through the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
Provisions of CESA protect state-listed threatened and endangered species. The CDFW is charged with establishing a
list of endangered and threatened species. CDFW regulates activities that may result in “take” of individuals (i.e.,
“hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”). Habitat degradation or
modification is not expressly included in the definition of “take” under the California Fish and Game Code, but CDFW
has interpreted “take” to include the killing of a member of a species which is the proximate result of habitat
modification.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 62
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
California Fish and Game Code
CDFW is authorized under the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 1600-1607 to develop mitigation measures
and enter into Streambed Alteration Agreements with applicants who propose projects that would obstruct the flow
of, or alter the bed, channel, or bank of a river or stream in which there is a fish or wildlife resource, including
intermittent and ephemeral streams.
Sections 3500-3516, 4700, 5050, and 5515 address Fully Protected species. Prior to the passage of CESA, the
classification of Fully Protected was the State’s initial effort to identify and provide additional protection to those
animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Subsequently, many Fully Protected species have been listed
under the State and/or federal endangered species acts. The only exceptions are golden eagle, white-tailed kite,
trumpeter swan, northern elephant seal, and ringtail. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any
time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific
research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.
Nesting birds, including raptors, are protected by the California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which reads, “It is
unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this
code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” In addition, under Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5, “it is unlawful
to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess,
or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted
pursuant thereto”. Passerines and non-passerine land birds are further protected under the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. As such, the CDFW typically recommends surveys for nesting birds that could potentially be directly (actual
removal of trees/vegetation) or indirectly (noise disturbance) impacted by project-related activities. Disturbance
during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest
abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking”
by the CDFW.
California Fish and Game Code Section 4150 states, “all mammals occurring naturally in California which are not game
mammals, fully protected mammals, or fur-bearing mammals, are nongame mammals. Nongame mammals or parts
thereof may not be taken or possessed except as provided in this code or in accordance with regulations adopted by
the commission.” The non-game mammals that may be taken or possessed are primarily those that cause crop
damage.
California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 prohibits importation of rare and endangered plants into California,
“taking” of rare and endangered plants, and sale of rare and endangered plants. CESA defers to the California Native
Plant Protection Act, which ensures that State-listed plant species are protected when State agencies are involved in
projects subject to CEQA. In this case, plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act are not
protected under CESA but rather under CEQA.
California Species of Special Concern
California Species of Special Concern are broadly defined as animals not listed under the FESA or CESA, but which are
nonetheless of concern to the CDFW. This is because they are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or because
they historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. This designation is
intended to result in special consideration for these animals by the CDFW, land managers, consulting biologists, and
others, and is intended to focus attention on the species to help avert the need for costly listing under FESA and
CESA, as well as cumbersome recovery efforts that might ultimately be required. This designation also is intended to
stimulate collection of additional information on the biology, distribution, and status of poorly known at-risk species,
and focus research and management attention on them. Although these species generally have no special legal
status, they are given special consideration under the CEQA during project review.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 63
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policies
The following goals, policies and programs from the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5 Natural Environment,
relate to the protection of biological resources.
Goal N-1: A Citywide Open Space System that Protects and Conserves Palo Alto’s Natural Resources and Provides a
Source of Beauty and Enjoyment for Palo Alto Residents.
Policy N-1: Manage existing public open space areas and encourage the management of private open space areas
in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs.
Policy N-2: Support regional and sub-regional efforts to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain an open space
system extending from Skyline Ridge to San Francisco Bay.
Policy N-3: Protect sensitive plant species resources from the impacts of development.
Policy N-4: Preserve the foothill area as predominantly open space.
Policy N-8: Preserve and protect the Bay, marshlands, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and other natural water or
wetland areas as open space.
Goal N-2: Conservation of Creeks and Riparian Areas as Open Space Amenities, Natural Habitat Areas, and Elements
of Community Design.
Policy N-11: Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors.
Program N-7: Adopt a setback along natural creeks that prohibits the siting of buildings and other structures,
impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and ornamental landscaped areas within 100 feet of the top of
a creek bank. Allow passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle
pathways where there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian environment. Within the setback
area, provide a border of native riparian vegetation at least 25 feet along the creek bank.
Exceptions to the 100-foot setback are as follows:
• Single family property is exempt from the 100-foot setback, except that undeveloped parcels
southwest of Highway 280 are not exempt. A creek ordinance and guidelines will be prepared
addressing appropriate setbacks and creek conservation measures.
• Existing development within the 100-foot setback will be considered legal and nonconforming. With
the 100-foot setback as a goal where feasible, redevelopment of such sites must be designed
consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and make a significant net improvement in the
condition of the creek.
Policy N-12: Preserve the habitat value of creek corridors through the preservation of native plants and the
replacement of invasive, non-native plants with native plants.
Policy N-13: Discourage creek bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding by minimizing
site disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks and carefully reviewing grading and drainage plans
for development near creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks.
Goal N-3: A Thriving “Urban Forest” That Provides Ecological, Economic, and Aesthetic Benefits for Palo Alto.
Policy N-14: Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest through public education, sensitive
regulation, and a long-term financial commitment that is adequate to protect this resource.
Program N-16: Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development,
and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is impractical to locate them
onsite.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 64
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Program N-17: Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, irrigation, and replacement of trees in parks,
parking lots, and City rights-of-way.
Program N-19: Establish one or more tree planting programs that seek to achieve the following objectives:
• a 50 percent tree canopy for streets, parks, and parking lots; and
• the annual tree planting goals recommended by the Tree Task Force and adopted by the City Council.
Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and
private property.
Palo Alto Tree Protection Ordinance
There are three broad categories of trees that are regulated and protected by the City of Palo Alto (Title 8, Trees and
Vegetation) and include the following:
Public/Street Trees: Trees growing within the street right-of-way, on public property such as parks, and outside
private property.
Protected Trees: Trees of specific species or distinctive character, public or private. Individual species of trees that
are protected are all Coast Live Oaks, Valley Oaks (greater than 11.5 inches in diameter), and Coast Redwood (greater
than 16 inches in diameter). Heritage trees, which are also protected, are individual trees of any size or species or
historical significance that are deemed as such by City Council.
Designated Trees: All trees (public and private), when associated with a development project, that are specifically
designated by the City to be saved and protected on public and private property which is subject to discretionary
development review.
Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan
Stanford University prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to address protection and management of five
federally listed, and one special-status, species that occur/potentially occur on Stanford lands. These species are the
California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, San Francisco garter snake, steelhead, and western pond
turtle. They are also known as the Covered Species. The HCP includes measures to minimize the impacts of University
activities on federally protected species and protect and enhance habitat on Stanford lands. The HCP was a required
element for the University’s application to the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries for Incidental Take Permits (ITPs) under
the federal ESA. The ITPs authorize take of federally listed species caused by otherwise lawful activities, such as those
associated with normal operation of the University. These are also known as the Covered Activities, and they are
specifically described in the HCP.
Discussion
Section 2.9 of the Project Description describes the types of activities and projects that could be implemented under
the Master Plan. Any project that affects existing vegetation, including earthmoving activities such as grading or
excavation, or involves the use of heavy construction equipment, particularly next to a creek, could impact biological
resources. Potential impacts to special-status species, nesting birds and roosting bats; sensitive habitats or wetlands;
wildlife movement and nursery sites; and potential conflicts with regulations protecting biological resources or a
habitat conservation plan that may result from future implementation of projects/improvements envisioned the
Master Plan are discussed below.
a) Special-status Species, Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats
The four open space preserves contain a number of sensitive plant communities and contain habitat for special-
status species (see Appendix C). The Master Plan policies would be applied to routine maintenance of existing
infrastructure within the preserves (as appropriate) and would be incorporated as relevant into the preserve
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 65
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
conservation plans the City will develop for each preserve. The Master Plan does not recommend any new
development or activities within any of the four preserves that would cause impacts to the sensitive biological
resources. Policy 5.D.1 states the City will determine the optimal usage of 7.7 acres of land that will be added to
Foothills Park. The City will undertake a separate planning process to determine how the 7.7 acres will be integrated
into Foothills Park and the planning effort would be considered a separate project under CEQA and would undergo
separate CEQA review. Implementation of the Master Plan would not adversely impact special-status species or
sensitive plant communities or habitats.
As stated in the Environmental Setting, no special-status species are expected to occur in the City’s urban parks and
recreational facilities; however, creeks and associated riparian habitats adjacent to several of the City’s urban parks
and recreational facilities do support a number of special-status species. These include California Central Coast
steelhead, CRF, WPT, SFDW, and yellow warbler (see Environmental Setting for a description of these species and
where in the City they occur).
The following goals and policies from the Master Plan would help to protect and enhance habitat for wildlife in the
City’s urban parks and recreation facilities, and would help to protect special-status species in the creeks and riparian
habitats adjacent to some of the parks:
Goal 4: Protect natural habitat and integrate nature, natural ecosystems and ecological principles throughout Palo
Alto.
Policy 4.A. In Natural Open Space, ensure activities, projects and programs are compatible with the protection of
nature.
Program 4.A.2 Continue to work with partnership organizations to remove invasive weeds and plant native
plants and trees in riparian and natural open space areas.
Policy 4.C. Connect natural areas, open spaces, creeks and vegetated areas in parks and on public land to create
wildlife, bird, pollinator and habitat corridors by planting with native oaks and other species that support
pollinators or provide high habitat values.
Program 4.C.1. Develop a map that identifies locations for habitat corridors including the appropriate plant
palette for each corridor.
Program 4.C.2. Work with local environmental groups to grow native plant species and utilize their network
of volunteers to install and maintain planted areas.
Program 4.C.3. Establish low-impact buffer zones with native plant species along creeks to enhance habitat
value.
Policy 4.D. Promote, expand and protect habitat and natural areas in parks and open space.
Program 4.D.1. Identify and pursue strategies and opportunities to expand native trees and planting areas in
urban parks.
Program 4.D.2. Integrate and implement the Urban Forest Master Plan Policies and Programs as applicable
to parkland in Palo Alto.
Program 4.D.3. Update the preferred planting palette and approved tree species list.
Program 4.D.4. Collaborate with habitat restoration organizations such as Save the Bay, Canopy and
Grassroots Ecology (Acterra).
Program 4.D.5. Replace low-use turf areas with native shrubs and grasses, incorporating educational
elements about native habitats.
Program 4.D.6. Support regional efforts that focus on enhancing and protecting significant natural resources.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 66
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Program 4.D.7. Utilizing volunteers, expand programs to remove invasive species, and to plant native
vegetation in open space, parks, and creek corridors.
Program 4.D.8. Collaborate with regional partners to control the spread of invasive species and plant
pathogens.
Goal 6: Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and
qualitative measures.
Policy 6.E. Incorporate sustainable best practices in the maintenance, management, and development of open
spaces, parks, and recreation facilities where consistent with ecological best practices.
Program 6.E.6. Ensure that trash, recycling, and compost receptacles have covers to prevent wildlife access
to human food sources.
Policy 6.F. Strengthen the Integrated Pest Management (“IPM”) policy as written. While some parks may be
managed as “pesticide free” on a demonstration basis, IPM should continue to be Palo Alto’s approach, grounded
in the best available science on pest prevention and management.
Program 6.F.1. Periodically review and update the IPM policy based on best available data and technology.
In addition, all Master Plan activities would adhere to the City’s Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance
(Municipal Code Chapter 16.28) and all federal and state regulations for the protection of water quality (See Section
“I. Hydrology and Water Quality” for more information), which will help to protect wildlife habitat in and adjacent to
the creeks.
Nevertheless, Master Plan activities involving earthmoving activities or removal of trees or other vegetation could
still impact special-status species in the parks adjacent to creeks and/or riparian vegetation. Mitigation Measure BIO-
1a, BIO-1b and BIO-1c would prevent potentially significant impacts to special-status species that may occur in the
creeks or riparian habitats adjacent to some of the City’s urban parks and recreational facilities.
The City’s urban parks and recreational facilities contain trees and other vegetation that could support nesting birds
or roosting bats. All native birds and their nests are protected by the federal MBTA and CDFW Code Section 3503,
and roosting bats are protected by the CDFW Code Section 4150 as nongame mammals. Some Master Plan activities
may involve the removal of trees, shrubs or structures that could directly impact bird nests or bat roosts, or result in
construction which could disturb nesting birds. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2a, BIO-2b and BIO-3
would ensure that Master Plan activities do not adversely impact nesting birds or roosting bats.
b & c) Sensitive Natural Communities or Wetlands
Sensitive natural communities are those that are considered rare in the region, support special-status plant or wildlife
species, or receive regulatory protection (i.e., §404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act, §1600 et seq. of the CDFW,
and/or the Porter-Cologne Act). In addition, the CNDDB has designated a number of plant communities as rare.
Sensitive natural communities found within Palo Alto are described in the Environmental Setting section of this
chapter.
CNDDB-listed natural communities in the City of Palo Alto include northern coastal salt marsh, serpentine bunchgrass,
and valley oak woodland which are found in the open space preserves None of these natural communities occur in
the City’s urban parks and recreational facilities, but valley oak woodland may occur in riparian corridors adjacent to
some of the City’s creekside parks and recreational facilities.
Habitats in the City that receive regulatory protection include the City’s lakes, marshes and other wetlands, as well
as the City’s creeks and associated riparian habitat. There are no wetlands in or adjacent to the City’s urban parks or
recreational facilities, but twelve of the City’s parks and recreational facilities are adjacent to creeks which have
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 67
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
associated riparian habitat in some cases and the open space preserves all contain creeks and riparian habitat or
wetland habitats.
The same Master Plan goals and policies listed under Special-Status Species, and Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats
above, would help protect and enhance sensitive habitat in the open space preserves or adjacent to the City’s urban
parks and recreational facilities.
Nevertheless, Master Plan activities involving earthmoving activities or removal of trees or other vegetation could
still adversely impact the creeks and/or associated riparian habitat, including CNDDB-listed valley oak woodland.
Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, BIO-1b, and BIO-1c would ensure that Master Plan activities do not significantly impact
the City’s creeks or associated riparian habitat.
d) Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites
The City’s urban parks and recreational facilities are generally small (approximately 20 acres or less) and surrounded
by roads and buildings. However, twelve of the City’s urban parks and recreational facilities are adjacent to a creek,
including five adjacent to San Francisquito Creek, four adjacent to Matadero Creek, two adjacent to Adobe Creek,
and one adjacent to Barron Creek. These creeks could provide movement corridors and/or nursery sites for aquatic
wildlife, although the creeks are channelized in some locations and sedimentation or other urban disturbances could
limit movement and/or habitat quality for nursery sites at least to some degree. Riparian vegetation is present along
some portions of the creeks and could provide nursery sites or movement corridors to birds or small mammals. Aside
from the creek corridors, the urban parks and recreational facilities are not generally near open space, with the
exception of the Baylands Athletic Center and the Municipal Golf Course, which are near the Baylands Preserve (but
are still separated by several hundred feet of development). Thus, the City’s urban parks and recreational facilities
do not generally provide wildlife movement opportunities or nursery sites, although some species may use the
vegetation at the creekside parks and recreational facilities as an extension of the riparian corridor.
The four open space preserves do provide wildlife movement opportunities through the extent of each of the
preserves.
Master Plan activities covered by this Initial Study are primarily modifications to existing urban parks and recreational
facilities within their current footprint, all of which are already developed with landscaped vegetation and sports and
recreational facilities. These activities are not expected to adversely impact existing wildlife movement corridors or
nursery sites, or to create new barriers to wildlife movement. No mitigation is required.
The Master Plan does not recommend any new projects or development in any of the open space preserves. In the
open space preserves, the Master Plan policies would be implemented through routine maintenance activities.
Continued routine maintenance activities would not create a barrier to wildlife movement in the open space
preserves and impacts to wildlife movement would be less than significant.
Implementation of the Master Plan policies related to controlling invasive species, planting native species to
encourage pollinators, and using integrated pest management would benefit wildlife by improving habitat values in
the urban parks. Master Plan Policy 4.C would have a beneficial effect on wildlife corridors throughout the City (listed
under Special-status Species, Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats above). Vegetation management activities within the
preserves would be done under the conservation plans the City will draft for each of the preserves.
e) Conflict with local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources
Master Plan activities have the potential to result in the removal of or damage to protected trees in the City’s urban
parks and recreational facilities. The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10 Tree Preservation and
Management Regulations protects specific species of trees of a certain size and all Heritage Trees (see Regulatory
Setting). Park projects carried out under the Master Plan would be designed and implemented consistent with the
Trees Preservation and Management Regulations, and any impacts would be mitigated as specified by the Municipal
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 68
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Code Chapter 8.10 requirements. Any tree removal required in the developed areas of the open space preserves
would also be carried out consistent with Chapter 8.10 Tree Preservation and Management Regulations. Tree
removal in the undeveloped areas of the open space preserves would not be conducted under the Master Plan.
The Master Plan is not expected to conflict with any goals, policies or programs protecting biological resources in the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (listed in the Regulatory Setting). Implementation of the biological resources
mitigation measures contained in this document would ensure future implementation of projects envisioned in the
Master Plan’s policies and programs would not result in a significant impact. Master Plan Goals 4 and 6 contain a
number of specific actions (listed above under Special-status Species, Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats) that would
promote park projects compatible with the protection of nature. In doing so, these goals are also consistent with
adopted City goals, policies and programs for the protection of biological resources. Additionally, implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a would specifically ensure compliance with policies in the City’s Comprehensive Plan that
protect creeks and riparian habitat.
f) Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
El Camino Park and the Stanford-Palo Alto Playing Fields are within the area covered by the 2013 Stanford University
Habitat Conservation Plan (Stanford HCP). Any Master Plan activities within these two parks that involve ground
disturbance have the potential to conflict with the Stanford HCP. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would prevent potential
conflicts with the Stanford HCP for Master Plan activities within these two parks. None of the other City parks and
recreational facilities are within the area covered by a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan.
Mitigation Measures:
The biological resources mitigation measures that apply to each of the City’s parks and recreational facilities are
shown in Table 6. All of the mitigation measures only apply to Master Plan activities involving ground disturbance
and/or vegetation removal; activities that cause little or no ground disturbance and involve no or minimal physical
changes to the parks or facilities are exempt from the measures below. Many of the measures apply not only just in
certain parks and recreational facilities, but also only to certain activities such as tree removal, or only during a certain
time of year. The conditions in which each measure applies are described in the footnotes to the table. The impact(s)
that each mitigation measure addresses are described in the sections above.
Impact BIO-1: Master Plan implementation may lead to construction resulting in impacts to special-status species
and/or sensitive creek or riparian habitats.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: All activities associated with the Master Plan shall comply with all relevant goals, policies
and programs protecting creeks and riparian habitat in the City’s Comprehensive Plan (2011) or any approved update
to the current Comprehensive Plan, including Goal N-2; Policies N-11, N-12 and N-13; and Program N-7. Specifically,
all new buildings and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and ornamental landscaped areas
constructed under with the Master Plan shall maintain a 100-foot setback from the top of bank of any natural creek,
with the exception of existing development which will be considered legal and nonconforming (Program N-7).
Native vegetation along creek banks shall be preserved, and any vegetation along creek banks that is removed should
be replaced with native species (Policy N-12). Site disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks shall be
minimized through careful review of grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in the
watersheds of creeks (Policy N-13). This measure shall apply to the Baylands Preserve, Baylands Athletic Center, El
Camino Park, El Palo Alto Park, Hopkins Creekside Park and the Municipal Golf Course which are adjacent to San
Francisquito Creek; Bol Park, Boulware Park, Hoover Park, and Seale Park which are adjacent to Matadero Creek;
Mitchell Park and Terman Park which are adjacent to Adobe Creek; the Ventura Community Center which is adjacent
to Barron Creek; and Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve which contain multiple drainages.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 69
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 6: Applicability of Biological Resources Mitigation by City Park or Recreational Facility
Park or Recreational Facility BIO-1a & 1b BIO-1ca BIO-2a & 2bb BIO-3c BIO-4
Baylands Preserve X X X X
Baylands Athletic Center X X X X
Bol Park X X X X
Boulware Park X X X X
Bowden Park X X
(Juana) Briones Park X X
Cameron Park X X
Cogswell Plaza X X
Cubberley Community Center X X
El Camino Park (Stanford) X X X X X
Eleanor Pardee Park X X
El Palo Alto Park X X X X
Foothills Park X X X X
Foothills Park Expansion X X X X
Greer Park X X
Heritage Park X X
Hoover Park X X X X
Hopkins Creekside X X X X
Johnson Park X X
Kellogg Park X X
Lytton Plaza X X
Mayfield Park X X
Mitchell Park X X X
Monroe Park X X
Pearson-Arastradero Preserve X X X X
Peers Park X X
Ramos Park X X
Rinconada Park X X
Robles Park X X
Scott Park X X
Seale Park X X X X
Stanford- Palo Alto Playing Fields X X X
Terman Park X X X X
Wallis Park X X
Weisshaar Park X X
Williams Park X X
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 70
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Park or Recreational Facility BIO-1a & 1b BIO-1ca BIO-2a & 2bb BIO-3c BIO-4
Werry Park X X
Cubberley Community Center and Fields X X
King Plaza at City Hall X X
Lucie Stern Community Center X X
Mitchell Park Community Center X X
Junior Museum and Zoo X X
Municipal Golf Course X X X X
Ventura Community Center X X X X
a Applies only to Master Plan activities within 100 feet of a creek or that impact riparian vegetation.
b Only applies during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31.
c Applies only to Master Plan activities involving the removal of trees or structures.
If ground disturbance within 100 feet of a creek or impacts to riparian vegetation are unavoidable, then Mitigation
Measure BIO-1c shall apply.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Master Plan activities involving grading, excavation or other ground disturbance in any
of the City parks, natural preserves, or recreational facilities that either drain directly to a creek, or are within 100
feet of a creek, shall be restricted to the dry season if possible, between April 15 and October 31. If this is not possible,
measures shall be taken, as appropriate to protect water quality and wildlife in the creek during storm events. These
measures may include, but are not limited to the installation of silt fencing and/or straw wattles between the work
area and the creek to prevent storm water runoff from the work site entering the creek. To protect wildlife in the
creek corridor, no plastic monofilament shall be used in the water quality protection/ erosion control devices because
it can entrap wildlife. This measure shall apply to the Baylands Preserve, Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park, El
Palo Alto Park, Hopkins Creekside Park and the Municipal Golf Course which are adjacent to San Francisquito Creek;
Bol Park, Boulware Park, Hoover Park, and Seale Park which are adjacent to Matadero Creek; Mitchell Park and
Terman Park which are adjacent to Adobe Creek; the Ventura Community Center which is adjacent to Barron Creek;
and Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve which contain multiple drainages.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: All Master Plan activities requiring ground disturbance within 100 feet of a creek or
involving impacts to riparian vegetation, shall implement the following mitigation measures to protect special-status
species. These measures shall not apply to parks adjacent to concrete channelized segments of creeks that lack
riparian vegetation.
• A qualified biologist shall perform a preconstruction survey for any special-status species that may occur in
the creek or riparian habitat where Master Plan activities are proposed. If any special-status species are
found, work shall not begin until the biologist has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
as appropriate depending on the species, regarding appropriate protection measures to be implemented
during and prior to construction.
• If a special-status species is encountered after work has begun, all work shall be halted until appropriate
protection measures are determined in consultation with the appropriate state and federal resource
agencies (USFWS, NMFS and/or CDFW).
• A worker education program shall be prepared and implemented for all construction crews that will work
within the creek setback or riparian zone. The education program shall include a description of special-status
species that may occur, and a list of measures for the workers to follow to minimize impacts to the species
and their habitats and to protect water quality in the creek.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 71
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Impact BIO-2: Master Plan implementation may lead to construction resulting in impacts to nesting birds protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: To avoid impacts to nesting birds and violation of state and federal laws pertaining to
birds, all Master Plan activities which could disturb nesting birds (including but not limited to: equipment mobilization
and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, excavation, and grading) should occur outside the
avian nesting season (that is, prior to February 1 or after August 31), if possible. If construction and construction
noise occurs within the avian nesting season (from February 1 to August 31), all suitable nesting habitats located
within the project’s area of disturbance including staging and storage areas plus a 250-foot (passerines) and 1,000-
foot (raptor nests) buffer around these areas shall be thoroughly surveyed, as feasible, for the presence of active
nests by a qualified biologist no more than five days before the commencement of any site disturbance activities and
equipment mobilization. The survey buffer can be reduced in urban environments at the discretion of the qualified
biologist performing the survey. If project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird
survey shall be performed. Active nesting is present if a bird is sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults
are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the surveys shall be documented by the qualified biologist and
submitted to the City of Palo Alto Division of Open Space, Parks and Golf prior to initiation of project construction.
If it is determined that birds are actively nesting within the survey area, Mitigation Measure BIO-2b shall apply.
Conversely, if the survey area is found to be absent of nesting birds, Mitigation Measure BIO-2b shall not be required.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: If pre-construction nesting bird surveys reveal locations of active nesting at the project
site, no site disturbance and/or mobilization of heavy equipment (including but not limited to: equipment staging,
fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading), shall take
place within 250 feet of non-raptor nests and 1,000 feet of raptor nests, or as determined by a qualified biologist in
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) until the chicks have fledged. The nest buffer
can be reduced in urban environments at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW.
Monitoring shall be required to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant CDFW Code
requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be documented and provided to the City of Palo Alto Division of
Open Space, Parks and Golf.
Impact BIO-3: Master Plan implementation may lead to construction resulting in impacts to roosting bats which are
protected by California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: A qualified biologist shall visually inspect trees or structures proposed for removal as part
of subsequently approved Master Plan activities for bat roosts within 7 days prior to their removal. The biologist shall
look for signs of bats, including sightings of live or dead bats, bat calls or squeaking, the smell of bats, bat droppings,
grease stains or urine stains around openings in trees or structures, or flies around such openings. Trees with multiple
hollows, crevices, forked branches, woodpecker holes or loose and flaking bark have the highest chance of
occupation and should be inspected the most carefully. If signs of bats are detected, the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife shall be contacted for guidance on how to proceed. Echo-location surveys may be needed to verify
the presence of bats, or an exclusion zone around the occupied tree or structure may be recommended until bats
leave the roost. Due to restrictions of the California Health Department, direct contact by workers with any bat is not
allowed. The qualified biologist shall be contacted immediately if a bat roost is discovered during project
construction.
Impact BIO-4: Master Plan implementation may lead to potential conflicts with the Stanford Habitat Conservation
Plan.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 72
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: To ensure compliance with the Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan (2013), the
City shall contact the Conservation Program Manager (Alan Eugene Launer, 650-714-4807,
AELAUNER@stanford.edu) from the Stanford Land Use and Environmental Planning Department to determine
whether additional avoidance measures are required prior to initiation of Master Plan activities involving ground
disturbance at El Camino Park and the Stanford - Palo Alto Playing Fields. The City shall document the
communications with the Conservation Program Manager. This measure applies only to the area covered by the
Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan. This measure is reflected in Policy 4.D of the Master Plan.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 73
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
E. CULTURAL TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or
eligible for listing on the National and/or
California Register, or listed on the City’s
Historic Inventory?
1, 21, 26, 37, 41,
50, 51
b) Eliminate important examples of major
periods of California history or prehistory?
1, 21, 37, 50, 51
c) Cause damage to an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
1, 37, 50
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
1, 37, 50
e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
1, 37, 50
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
g) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either:
1) a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native
American Tribe, that is listed or
eligible for listing on the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or on a local register
of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
2) a resource determined by a
lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
according to the historical
register criteria in Public
Resources Code section 5024.1
(c), and considering the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American
tribe?
1, 21, 37, 50, 51
1, 37, 50
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 74
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Setting
Prehistoric
Prehistoric exploitation of the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) occurred around 3000-6000 BC, possibly earlier. The
environment at the time would have been an ideal location for prehistoric peoples to utilize the area for hunting,
fishing, and other activities. Over time the slow establishment of permanent settlements throughout the Bay Area
enabled the local peoples to use the local resources more efficiently, farm, store food and establish trade networks.
The City lies in the northern territory of the Ohlone Native American peoples, whom are sometimes also known as
Costanoan. The Ohlone consisted of several ethnic groups based around a common language and territory. They
inhabited fixed villages, although would move around temporarily to take advantage of seasonal foodstuffs, such as
acorns, waterfowl, and salmon. Despite inhabiting fixed villages, the Ohlone subsisted primarily as hunter-gathers.
However, they would burn old growth chaparral to ensure a good harvest of seeds and to provide large grazing areas
for prey animals
Historic
The Spanish arrived in the Menlo Park area around 1770 and colonization began on the peninsula in 1776 with the
construction of the missions. The earliest recorded history of Palo Alto dates to this first arrival of the Spanish. This
earliest recorded history was written by the founder and first governor of Alta California, Gaspar de Portola, whose
written record mentions the presence of an Ohlone settlement near the bay. The city itself received its name from a
coastal redwood tree, El Palo Alto, which still stands today and is a California Historical Landmark. In the 1830s, much
of the land that makes up modern day Palo Alto was formed into large Ranchos by the Mexican government. In 1876
Governor Leland Stanford bought a swathe of land spanning 8,800 acres. By 1885, Leland Stanford had founded
Stanford University. Construction in Palo Alto continued and the city expanded. This wave of development dating
from the 1890s to the 1930s primarily occurred in what is now referred to as the Professorville Historic District, which
was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1979. Another wave of development occurred in 1925 with
the construction of buildings in the modern-day Ramona Street Architectural District and the annexation of the
neighboring township of Mayfield. Many notable personages have been born in Palo Alto throughout its history, and
a number of buildings are recognized landmarks due to their connection with notable people.
Modern
The project area is entirely within the City of Palo Alto, which keeps its own local register of places of historic interest.
This local register is in addition to resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California
Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Palo Alto contains four historic districts: Professorville, Ramona Street
Architectural District, Green Gables, and Greenmeadow; all which are all listed in the NRHP.
A number of the parks and recreational facilities contain historic resources listed in one or more of the above registers
(see Table 2 in Project Description). Additionally, some parks contain structures or features which have the potential
to be considered historic resources under CEQA due to their age and historic significance.
The following parks, open spaces and recreation facilities contain Historic Resources (also see Table 2):
• Baylands Nature Preserve;
• El Camino Park;
• El Palo Alto Park;
• Heritage Park;
• Lucie-Stern Community Center;
• Mayfield Park and;
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 75
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Williams Park.
Although there are no parks or recreation facilities within the historic district of Professorville, two conjoined parks
do border it; the Bowling Green Park and the Kellogs Park. Lytton Plaza is diagonally adjacent to Ramona Street
Architectural District, and within the same city block. Additionally, the whole of El Camino, which passes through the
City, is a State Landmark. Two parks are adjacent to El Camino; El Camino Park and Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields.
Numerous other parks, trails and open spaces vary in degrees of proximity to other historic resources throughout
the City.
Regulatory Setting
Historical Resources
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a) the term “historical resources” includes the following:
• A resource listed, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) for listing,
in the CRHR (PRC §5024.1, 14 CCR, §4850 et seq.).
• A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1 (k) or identified
as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1 (g), shall be presumed historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such
resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or
culturally significant.
• Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be
historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural,
educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical
resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole
record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the
resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, §4852) including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
• The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a
local register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC §5020.1(k)), or identified in a historical resources survey
(meeting the criteria in PRC §5024.1(g)) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource
may be a historical resource as defined by PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or
landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in
the CRHR, are presumed to be “historical resources” for the purposes of CEQA unless an abundance of evidence
indicates otherwise (PRC Section 5024.1; CCR, Title 14, Section 4850).
Unique Archaeological Resources
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21083.2(g), a unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact,
object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of
knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
a) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a
demonstrable public interest in that information
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 76
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
b) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its
type
c) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person
The resource must also be at least 100 years old, possess “substantial stratigraphic integrity” (i.e., is substantially
undisturbed); and the resource involves “important research questions that historical research has shown can be
answered only with archaeological methods.”
To the extent that unique archaeological resources are not preserved in place or not left in an undisturbed state,
mitigation measures shall be required (PRC §21083.2(c)). If it is proven that an archaeological resource is neither a
unique archaeological nor an historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered
a significant effect on the environment, and no further CEQA review is required (14 CCR §15064.5(d)).
Unique Paleontological Resources
CEQA does not currently define a unique paleontological resource or site; however, using the criteria from the
“Unique Archaeological Resource” above, paleontological resources can be shown to fulfill requirements to be
considered important archaeological resources, even if they themselves are not explicitly defined under CEQA.
Assembly Bill 52 / Cultural Tribal Resources
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, approved in September 2014, creates a formal role for California Native American tribes by
creating a formal consultation process and establishing that a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource
has a significant effect on the environment. Tribal cultural resources are defined as:
a) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe that are either of the following:
i. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR
ii. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1 (c). In applying the criteria set forth in PRC
Section 5024.1 (c) the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
A cultural landscape that meets the criteria above is also a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. In addition, a historical resource described in
PRC Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g), or a “non-unique
archaeological resource” as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(h) may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms
with above criteria.
AB 52 requires a lead agency, prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or
environmental impact report for a project, to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if: (1) the California Native
American tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal
notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe,
and (2) the California Native American tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification,
and requests the consultation. AB 52 states: “To expedite the requirements of this section, the Native American
Heritage Commission shall assist the lead agency in identifying the California Native American tribes that are
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area.”
The requirements of AB 52 apply only to a project that has a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration
or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 77
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
National Register of Historic Places Criteria
The criteria for determining whether a property is eligible for listing in the NRHP are found in Title 36 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Section 60.4 and are reproduced below:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in
districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history; or
b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
c) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent
the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinctions; or
d) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
For a property to qualify for the NRHP, it must meet at least one of the above National Register Criteria for Evaluation
by being associated with an important context and retaining historic integrity of those features necessary to convey
its significance.
California Register of Historical Resources
The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) administers the California Register of Historical Resources CRHR, which was
established in 1992 though amendments to the Public Resources Code (PRC), as an authoritative guide to be used by
state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what
properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change. The CRHR includes resources that have been
formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the NRHP, State Historical Landmark Number 770 or higher, Points of
Historical Interest recommended for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, resources nominated for
listing and determined eligible in accordance with criteria and procedures adopted by the State Historical Resources
Commission, and resources and districts designated as city or county landmarks when the designation criteria are
consistent with CRHR criteria.
A resource also has to be at least 50 years old and must possess several of the seven aspects of integrity to be eligible
for listing in the NRHP and/or the CRHR. Integrity is defined as “…the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical
identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance”. The
seven levels of integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Resources
that are listed in the NRHP are automatically eligible for the CRHR (PRC §5024.1(c)).
Both NRHP and CRHR evaluations must be made within an appropriate historic context. A historic context includes
three components: a time period, place, and event. A historic context is developed through one or more research
themes to help identify the resources’ significance at the local, state, or national level. A resources’ integrity is based
on its ability to convey its significance through data requirements. Data requirements can best be described as
evidence found within the archaeological record that conveys the resources’ historical significance. If the appropriate
data requirements are lacking, the resource arguably lacks significance and is therefore not an eligible resource.
Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
PRC Section 5097.5 states, “it is illegal for any person to knowingly and willfully excavate or remove, destroy, injure,
or deface cultural resources.” Furthermore, the crime is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $10,000
and/or county jail time for up to one year. In addition to a fine and/or jail time, the court can order restitution, and
restitution will be granted of the commercial and archaeological value of the property.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 78
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
California Health and Safety Code
HSC Section 7050.5 regulates procedures in the event of human remains discovery. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98,
in the event of human remains discovery, no further disturbance is allowed until the County Coroner has made the
necessary findings regarding the origin and disposition of the remains. If the remains are determined to be Native
American, the County Coroner is required to contact the NAHC. The NAHC is responsible for contacting the most
likely Native American descendent, who would consult with the local agency regarding how to proceed with the
remains.
Local Regulations
Palo Alto has taken important steps to recognize and preserve the historical resources that exist in the city. The
Historic Resources Board, Historic Preservation ordinance, and the Historic Inventory and other provisions of the
Municipal Code are the principal local tools for the protection and enhancement of historical resources.
Historic Resources Board (Chapter 2.27)
Chapter 2.27 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code establishes a Historic Resources Board (HRB), charged with advising
property owners of historic residences who apply for alterations to their properties to understand and incorporate
the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as well as recommends conditions of project approval for
those projects subject to discretionary review. Additionally, the HRB is in place to inform the Architectural Review
Board of the significance of properties which are under review, as well as to provide recommendations to the
Architectural Review Board regarding proposed alterations to historic structures. Another important duty of the
board is to advise the City Council on the designation of buildings and structures to the City’s inventory of historic
structures and sites. The City Council has the authority to delegate additional functions to the HRB from time to time.
The HRB is composed of seven members, at least one of whom must be the owner or occupant of an historic
structure, three of whom must be architects, or design professionals, and at least one of whom must possess
academic education or practical experience in history or a related field.
Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 16.49)
In 1980, the City adopted the Historic Preservation Ordinance to protect and enhance structures, districts, and
neighborhoods of historical and architectural significance located in Palo Alto for the cultural and aesthetic benefit
to the community. The ordinance serves to protect historic resources by providing for the creation and maintenance
of an historic resources inventory, as well as establishing regulations pertaining to the alteration, maintenance, and
destruction of designated resources listed on the inventory. As described above, the HRB makes recommendations
to the City Council on buildings and districts to be included on the inventory. The ordinance also contains criteria to
be used for designation of a building or district on the historic resources inventory. The criteria are as follows:
• The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state,
or nation;
• The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city,
state, or nation;
• The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare;
• The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare;
• The architect or building was important;
• The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail,
materials, or craftsmanship.
In addition to the criteria for designation, the definitions of historic categories and districts, as defined in the
ordinance, shall be used for designation of properties to the inventory. The definitions are as follows:
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 79
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Category 1: An "Exceptional Building" of pre-eminent national or State importance. These buildings are
meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific architectural style, or illustrate
stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These buildings have had either no exterior
modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character.
• Category 2: A "Major Building" of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best
architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture
in the State or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is
retained.
• Categories 3 or 4: A "Contributing Building" which is a good local example of an architectural style and relates
to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion, or other factors. A contributing
building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate
additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.
Historical Resources Review and Preservation Incentives
The Municipal Code contains special provisions to encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of historic structures
for the following residential districts:
• Chapter 18.10 for Residential Estate (RE), Two Family Residential District (R2), and Two Unit Multiple-Family
Residential District (RMD); and
• Chapter 18.12, which pertains to the Single-Family Residence District (R-1); and
• Chapter 18.13 for Low Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM15), Medium Density Multiple-Family
Residence District (RM-30), and High Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM-40).
The provisions, found in Municipal Code Sections 18.10.140, 18.12.140, and 18.13.140, relate to the subdivision of
parcels where at least one of the structures on the parcel is designated as historic. In order to make use of
preservation development incentives, such as smaller minimum lot sizes of resultant lots, owners agree to a covenant
to be recorded, which would run with the land in perpetuity assuring that the historic residences would be preserved
and maintained consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The covenant must
stipulate that HRB review is required for all major projects on the site, including significant changes to any non-
historic residence. The Municipal Code also contains special provisions that allow floor area bonuses in the
Downtown zone districts: Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C), Downtown Commercial-Neighborhood (CD-N),
and Downtown Commercial Service (CD-S) as found in Section 18.18.070. The intent of these provisions is to
encourage rehabilitation of existing Downtown structures that are designated in Seismic Categories I, II, or III and/or
have a Category 1 or 2 historic designations. A property owner of a building within either (or both) of these
designations may, upon successful rehabilitation(s) in accordance with the requirements and regulations, be awarded
bonus floor area of 2,500 square feet or 25 percent of the floor area of the existing building, whichever is greater. A
property owner undertaking a seismic and historic rehabilitation may be granted bonuses for each type of
rehabilitation, subject to Council approval. As an additional incentive, the bonus floor area received as part of the
rehabilitation(s) may be transferred to an off-site location in the Downtown area, subject to the regulation and
requirements described in Transfer Development Rights (TDR) (PAMC 18.18.080). The TDR program is an incentive
program that is also available to properties within the SOFA II area and to City properties.
Comprehensive Plan
Policies from the existing Comprehensive Plan that relate to the proposed Master Plan include:
Policy L-53: Actively seek state and federal funding for the preservation of buildings of historical merit and
consider public/private partnerships for capital and program improvements.
Policy L-54: Support the goals and objectives of the Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for
California.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 80
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Policy L-60: Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources.
Discussion
Section 2.9 of the Project Description describes the types of projects and physical improvements which may occur
with implementation of the Master Plan goals and policies. A list of high priority projects is presented in Section
2.9.8., some of which have the potential to create impacts to cultural resources for projects that involve significant
ground moving activities (e.g. the construction of a new public gymnasium). However, projects that would require
significant ground moving activities would require separate CEQA review, and would be considered on an individual
basis. Many of the projects covered under the proposed Master Plan would have little likelihood of disturbing
undiscovered cultural resources as they would not disturb native soils below the surface topsoil. Examples of such
projects include the development of adult fitness areas in parks, enhancing seating in parks, and the placement of
new wayfinding signs of safe routes to parks and preserves.
Two proposed Master Plan goals and associated policies and programs address, or could potentially affect, cultural
elements.
Goal 2 addresses the need to enhance and improve park capacity, the quality of services offered and increase the
variety of uses at existing parks. Specifically, Policy 2.E and Program 2.E.2. highlight the City’s vision for adding
restrooms to selected parks approximately two acres or larger. Future implementation of Goal 2 also has the
potential to affect buried, unknown, cultural tribal resources, archaeological resources and/or human remains with
the implementation of program 2.E.2 and the earthmoving activities associated with construction of park restrooms
(trenching for electrical and water/sewage utilities, construction of foundations, etc.).
Goal 4 addresses the protection of natural habitat and the integration of nature, natural ecosystems, and ecological
principles throughout Palo Alto. Specifically, Policy 4.B and Program 4.B.1 set out to increase education and
awareness in historical context, as well as ecology, and other natural elements. Goal 4’s associated policies and
programs would generally result in beneficial impacts to historic and cultural resources throughout the City, by
providing education of history in a local context.
In general, implementation of the Master Plan is unlikely to cause impacts to cultural resources and would not conflict
with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Where there is a possibility of impact from projects that require ground
moving activities in native soils, mitigation measures presented below would be implemented to safeguard
unanticipated cultural, tribal, and paleontological resources. Individual projects would have to consider effects to
existing sites, buildings, or structures on a case-by-case basis, determining if a structure which meets the age or other
criteria to be considered a historic resource under the CRHR, NRHP, or City of Palo Alto’s regulations.
a) Adversely Affect Historic Resources
Implementation of the proposed Master Plan is unlikely to directly affect any of the listed historic resources within
the parks on either the City’s inventory lists, nor it is anticipated it would affect the State or Federal historic resources
lists (see Table 2 for a listing of which parks include historic resources). By following both CEQA and local regulations
as outlined in the Regulatory Setting above, impacts to listed resources would be minimal. All future projects with
potential impacts to listed historic resources would require separate analysis under CEQA. Implementation of
projects and improvements identified in the Master Plan would include mitigation measures to such an effect,
safeguarding historic resources. It is also possible that other buildings, structures, or features within a City park are
eligible for listing on a historic register. It is not the intention of this document to provide a list of potentially
significant historic features or ascertain the eligibility of features as historic resources but rather to note the potential
for future CEQA documents to impact eligible resources.
Any structure or significant feature within the city park and open space preserve system that is approaching 50 years
old or over would have to be considered under CEQA to have the potential of being classified as a historic resource.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 81
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The design, typology, historic significance and construction of the feature would have to be analyzed for eligibility
for listing in the CRHR, NRHP, or be included in a local historic register by the City. By following local and state
regulations and ordinances listed in Regulatory Setting above, and then applying them to any structure that would
be affected by the proposed Master Plan, other unlisted resources potentially eligible for listing would also be
protected.
b) Eliminate Examples of Important History or Prehistory
As described in Historic Resources, above, no known historic resource would be affected by the implementation of
the proposed Master Plan. As there are no known examples of prehistory that would be affected by the Master Plan,
there would be no impact from future implementation of projects/improvements identified in the proposed Master
Plan. If a buried resource was to be encountered, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would be enacted to safeguard a
potential resource in the event it was an important example of history or prehistory (see Archaeological Resources,
below).
c) Archaeological Resources
There have been around 50 archaeological surveys within the City of Palo Alto. Resources discovered include human
remains, Native American shell middens, and other associated tribal resources.
The City does not keep a database or complete records of archaeological investigations/finds within the city. Without
this information, it is not possible to state without a complete California Historical Records Inventory System (CHRIS)
search across the whole city (near each park) that specific parks, preserves, or recreation areas contain or do not
contain archaeological resources. However, in the Comprehensive Plan, the City has designated areas as having
extreme, moderate or low sensitivity in terms of archaeological impact. The following parks are in, or are partially in
the extreme sensitivity area.
• Bol Park
• Bowden Park
• Cogswell Plaza
• El Camino Park
• El Palo Alto Park
• Hopkins Creekside Park
• Lytton Plaza
• Mitchell Park
• Monroe Park
• Terman Park
• Mitchell Park Community Center
Other parks are predominately within the moderate sensitivity area, which is the majority of the rest of the north-
eastern portion of Palo Alto. None of the four open space preserves are in the extreme sensitivity area, and are
mostly within the low sensitivity areas. This broad cataloging can be used as an indicator for the potential of impact
on buried resources. In general, the implementation of the proposed Master Plan would be unlikely to affect those
resources, as many of the programs and policies have no ground disturbance associated with them. However,
projects that would have ground disturbance beyond topsoil must take into consideration the areas of moderate and
extreme sensitivity and account for those conditions appropriately. Projects with the potential for ground
disturbance and will require subsequent analysis and potentially additional CEQA review to address these potential
impacts to archaeological resources.
In the event archaeological resources are discovered during an unmitigated project, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would
be enacted in order to safeguard archaeological resources (see Mitigation Measure CUL-1 below).
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 82
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
d) Human Remains
There are no known cemeteries or burial grounds in the areas that would be affected by the implementation of the
proposed Master Plan. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would be enacted in the case of unanticipated discovery of buried
human remains (see Mitigation Measure CUL-2 below).
e) Unique Paleontological Resources and Geological Feature
Most of the paleontological remains in the Palo Alto Area consist of small marine fossils, such as clams and snails.
Their presence is a likely indicator that there could be undiscovered paleontological resources within the city. It is
unlikely, however, that the proposed Master Plan would impact unknown paleontological resources, due to the
minimal earth moving activities proposed under its goals and policies, as well as the limited depth of excavation that
is anticipated for most projects. In the unlikely event a paleontological resource is discovered, Mitigation Measure
CUL-3 will be enacted to safeguard unknown paleontological resources (see Mitigation Measure CUL-3 below).
Geological features in Palo Alto consist of old quarries, creek beds, cut slopes and rock outcroppings, which are of
geological interest and educational value. Arastradero Road contains good examples of exposed rock formations. The
parks and trails that are detailed in the proposed Master Plan have not been evaluated for significant geological
features, however, it is unlikely that any of the programs or policies would affect geological resources under CEQA.
In the event a geological feature was identified in an area that would be affected by the proposed Master Plan, it’s
effect would be analyzed in a separate CEQA document.
f) Local Cultural Resources
As mentioned in the “Adversely Affect Historic Resources” section, presented above, implementation of the
proposed Master Plan is unlikely to directly affect any listed historic resources within the parks. None of the goals
and policies as laid out in the proposed Master Plan suggest impacts to listed local historic resources. By preparing
subsequent CEQA analysis on projects once plans become available, and following City regulations, impacts to listed
resources would be limited. All future projects with potential impacts to listed historic resources would require
separate analysis under CEQA. Any structure or significant feature with historic or local significance has the potential
to be included on a local historic register by the City, even if it does not fulfill the requirements for inclusion on the
CRHR or NRHP. By following local and state regulations and ordinances listed in Regulatory Setting above, and
applying them to any potentially historically significant structure that would be affected by the proposed Master
Plan, other unlisted resources potentially eligible for listing would also be protected.
g) Tribal Cultural Resources
As with Archaeological Resources, presented above, there is known evidence of Native American activity throughout
Palo Alto. It is highly likely therefore that there also exist further undiscovered tribal cultural resources throughout
the city. Although, as discussed above, there is no single data source for known archaeological finds, features or sites,
the City has designated areas as having extreme, moderate or low sensitivity in terms of archaeological impact (see
Archaeological Resources, above, for a list of the parks that are in the extreme sensitivity area. Other parks are within
the moderate sensitivity area, which is the majority of the rest of the north-eastern portion of Palo Alto). This broad
cataloging can be used as an indicator for the potential of impact on buried tribal resources. Generally speaking,
implementation of the proposed Master Plan would be unlikely to affect those resources, as many of the programs
and policies would involve no ground disturbance associated with them. However, projects that would have ground
disturbance beyond topsoil must take into consideration the areas of moderate and extreme sensitivity, and prepare
project specific investigations to determine potential impacts to tribal resources. In the event that tribal cultural
resources are discovered during an unmitigated project, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would be enacted.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 83
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Summary of Impacts: Implementation of the Master Plan would result in ground disturbing activities being
conducted within City parkland, and the potential of unanticipated discovery of unknown buried resources cannot
be discounted. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 during all earthmoving
activities at a depth greater than topsoil, impacts of the Master Plan related to cultural, archaeological,
paleontological resources, and buried human remains would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Impact CUL-1: Master Plan implementation may lead to potential impacts to unrecorded cultural or archaeological
resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing
activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find
can be evaluated.
A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed
to continue until a qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area
of the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area.
All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional
archaeologist, whom meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. In
anticipation of additional discoveries during the completion of construction, Archaeological Sensitivity Training will
be carried out by a qualified archaeologist for all personnel who engage in ground moving activities at the site.
Should newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be
contacted and consulted and Native American construction monitoring shall be initiated. The City shall coordinate
with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include
implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with
subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.
If appropriate, the archaeologist may introduce archaeological monitoring on all or part of the site. An archaeological
report will be written detailing all archaeological finds and submitted to the City and CHRIS North West Inventory
Center (NWIC).
Impact CUL-2: Master Plan implementation may lead to potential impacts to unrecorded human remains.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the proposed project, the City
shall comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County
Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin
and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98.
If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely
Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the
landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary
objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the
project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC.
If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner
rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if
invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized
representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with
appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 84
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Impact CUL-3: Master Plan implementation may lead to potential impacts to paleontological resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: In the event paleontological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities,
all ground-disturbing activities shall be halted so the find can be evaluated. Construction activities shall not be
allowed to continue until a qualified paleontologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated
the area of the find.
All paleontological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified
professional paleontologist who meets the qualifications set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.
In anticipation of additional discoveries during the completion of construction, Paleontological Sensitivity Training
will be carried out by a qualified archaeologist for all personnel who will engage in ground moving activities on the
site. The City shall coordinate with the paleontologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources.
The plan may include implementation of paleontological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the
resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.
If appropriate, the paleontologist may introduce paleontological monitoring on all or part of the site. A
paleontological report will be written detailing all paleontological finds and shall be submitted to the City and
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP).
Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 85
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Expose people or structures to substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
1, 3, 13, 46, 47,
57, 59
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication
42.
1, 46, 47
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1, 3, 46
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
1, 3, 46, 57, 59
iv) Landslides?
v) expansive soils?
1, 3, 46, 47, 57,59
1, 47, 57
b) Expose people or property to major geologic
hazards that cannot be mitigated through the
use of standard engineering design and
seismic safety techniques?
1, 26, 44
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
1, 3, 26, 46, 47,
57, 59
d) Cause substantial soil erosion or siltation? 1, 26, 47
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
1
Environmental Setting
The City of Palo Alto’s location on the San Francisco Peninsula places it in an active geological region. The City has a
high likelihood of being subject to severe seismic activity in the future. The southern portion of the City crosses the
Monte Vista-Shannon fault zone, and is very close to the San Andreas fault zone. The entire project area has at least
a moderate risk of earthquake induced liquefaction. Areas throughout the City, particularly those surrounding San
Francisquito Creek and close to the bay, have a high risk of earthquake induced liquefaction. Several recreation areas
are situated within these areas, particularly the Baylands Athletic Center and Nature Preserve, Byxbee Park, El
Camino Park, El Palo Alto Park, and Hopkins Creekside Park. Additionally, the north-eastern area of Palo Alto has the
greatest chance of liquefaction, where the majority of the City’s parks are situated.
The entirety of the City is listed as being between an 8 and 9 (very strong and violent, respectively) on the modified
Mercalli Intensity Scale for earthquake induced shaking. However, these conditions are typical for the Bay Area,
and are not specific to the City as a whole.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 86
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regulatory Setting
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to
structures for human occupancy. This state law was a direct result of the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, which was
associated with extensive surface fault ruptures that damaged numerous homes, commercial buildings, and other
structures. The law requires the State Geologist establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones6)
around surface traces of active faults and issue appropriate maps accordingly. These maps are distributed to all
affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction.
Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones identified in the maps.
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) is a part of Title 24 in the California Code of Regulations, also known as the
California Building Standards Code. The CBC incorporates the International Building Code, a model building code
adopted across the United States. These codes provide minimum standards to protect property and public safety by
regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other
building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. They also regulate grading
activities, including drainage and erosion control.
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code
The City of Palo Alto has adopted the current CBC as the basis for the City’s Building Regulations, a part of the City’s
Municipal Code. The provisions of the City’s Building Regulations are set forth in Chapter 16.04 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. Several additional building-related requirements relevant to geology, soils, and seismicity were put
in place as the CBC was adopted by the City. For example, Section 16.04.330 of the Municipal Code includes additional
provisions for the seismic evaluation of earthquake-damaged structures and related design procedures for their
repair. Depending on the project scope or location, certain proposed construction projects subject to the City’s
Municipal Code must perform a detailed soils investigation prior to project approval, to identify potentially unsuitable
soil conditions such as expansive, corrosive, or compressible soils. In these instances, the soil investigation report
must include recommendations for foundation type/design, and these recommendations are required be
incorporated in the construction design. Chapter 16.28 of the City’s Municipal Code includes detailed requirements
for construction-related grading and erosion and sediment control. The main goal of these requirements is to,
“provide for safe grading operations, to safeguard life, limb and property, and to preserve and enhance the natural
environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, by regulating clearing and grading on private property.”
Through their excavation and grading permit program, the City’s Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, requires the submittal of a detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as an important part of the permit
application. Section 16.28.150 requires detailed engineering geology reports in areas of suspected geological hazards.
City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance, Title 18 of the Municipal Code, Section 18.40.120, Hazardous Conditions, contains
provisions for more stringent permitting and soil/geotechnical evaluations in areas that have been identified as
having moderate or high risk due to seismic or other geologic hazards. In such areas, the City may require detailed,
site-specific geologic, soils, and engineering evaluations as part of the building permitting process. Accordingly, these
requirements would have to be satisfied before construction can commence. The aforementioned evaluations are
intended to identify potential hazards, and to the maximum extent feasible, develop construction measures to
mitigate those hazards.
6 "Earthquake Fault Zones" were called "Special Studies Zones" prior to January 1, 1994.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 87
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Discussion
Under the recently-decided California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District case
(CBIA v. BAAQMD 2015), the California Supreme Court held that, “CEQA does not require an agency to consider the
impact of existing conditions on future project users,” unless the project risks exacerbating existing environmental
hazards or conditions, and except in specific circumstances related to certain airport, school, and housing
construction projects, which are not applicable to the Master Plan project.
Consistent with this court ruling, the impact discussion presented below focuses on the project’s effect on geology
and soils rather than the effect of geologic hazards and site conditions upon the proposed park infrastructure
projects. The project is evaluated to determine whether it would create or exacerbate soil or geologic conditions
identified in each of the above significance threshold criteria.
a) Expose People or Structures to Adverse Effects
The likelihood of park or open space preserve projects to potentially exacerbate existing geologic conditions is
anticipated to be minimal and are not anticipated to adversely affect existing geological conditions. It should,
however, be noted that there are unstable, erosive, and expansive soils underlying some areas of the City and other
areas in the eastern part of the City could be subject to liquefaction and/or landslides. As mentioned in Environmental
Setting, the southern portion of the City crosses the Monte Vista-Shannon fault zone; this is situated under the south-
western edge of Foothills Park, roughly running along the coast range ridge line and highway 35. No other parks or
open space discussed in the Master Plan are in the fault zone. The next nearest area is Pearson-Arastradero Preserve
which at the closest point is approximately 0.8 miles away.
Given that that the usage of the 7.7-acre expansion of Foothills Park (in addition to the implementation of new trails)
is out of the scope of this document (see Section 2.9.10), there is not any significant ground disturbing work
anticipated from the implementation of the proposed Master Plan over a fault zone, and implementation of the
Master Plan would have no impact on existing earthquake faults.
Protections extended to people and property are in place from existing regulations, such as the CBC and Palo Alto
Municipal Code, as described above in the Regulatory Setting.
The proposed Master Plan would be unlikely to have an impact on existing geological conditions. Ground moving
activity is anticipated to be minimal and not have a significant impact under CEQA. Projects that would not have
geological impacts include, but are not limited to, installation of signs and park benches, development of dog parks,
improving trail connections, and construction of adult fitness areas in parks. Some individual projects however, do
have the potential to exacerbate existing geological conditions. These include the redevelopment of the Cubberley
Community Center, construction of a new public gymnasium, and improvements to the Rinconada Pool Facility. These
projects suggested by the Master Plan are likely to require separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to
their approval and ultimately, their initiation. If other projects were to require invasive ground moving activities that
could potentially impact those soils or geological units, then they too would also require additional analysis under
CEQA.
b) Expose People or Structures to Geological Hazards
The activities proposed in the Master Plan (see Section 2.9 of the Project Description) would not expose people or
property to major geological hazards. The majority of projects proposed by the Master Plan do not involve
construction of structures or facilities, and consist of improving trail connections and access, developing adult fitness
areas in parks, enhance seating in parks, placement of new wayfinding signs of safe routes to parks, etc. Construction
of facilities or improvements that could expose people or structures to geological hazards would be subject to
additional environmental review where those geologic hazards would be taken into consideration.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 88
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
c) Located on Unstable Soils
As noted above, there are unstable soils underlying some parts of the City. If individual projects were to require the
construction of a building or invasive ground moving activities that could potentially exacerbate existing geologic
conditions, then separate CEQA documentation would be prepared to support those future projects.
d) Cause Soil Erosion
Some projects envisioned in the Master Plan will include grading or new impervious surface area that could cause
soil disturbance, alter drainage patterns and/or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff and/or cause erosion.
Projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area would be subject to Provision
C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit and would have to include appropriate source control, site design, and storm
water treatment measures for low impact development. With implementation of the policies and programs in the
Master Plan, implementation of the Master Plan would not significantly impact erosion.
e) Septic Tanks
The proposed Master Plan does not include septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems for consideration
under CEQA.
Summary of Impacts: Generally, there would be no impact to geology and soils from the implementation of the
proposed Master Plan. While some projects proposed by the Master Plan could have impacts to geology and/or soils,
it would be necessary to consider those as individual projects, and require separate CEQA documents to fully
understand and analyze their impact.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 89
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
1, 4, 5, 7, 12
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas?
1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12,
23, 38, 42
Environmental Setting
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and affect regulation of the Earth’s temperature are known as greenhouse
gases (GHGs). GHGs that contribute to climate regulation are a different type of pollutant than criteria or hazardous
air pollutants because climate regulation is global in scale, both in terms of causes and effects. Some GHGs are
emitted to the atmosphere naturally by biological and geological processes, such as evaporation (water vapor),
aerobic respiration (carbon dioxide), and off-gassing from low oxygen environments including swamps or exposed
permafrost (methane); however, GHG emissions from human activities, such as fuel combustion (carbon dioxide) and
refrigerants (hydrofluorocarbons), are primarily responsible for the significant contribution to overall GHG
concentrations in the atmosphere, climate regulation, and global climate change.
Current operation of parks and other recreational facilities managed by the City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation
generate GHG emissions through a number of pathways including, but not limited to: automobile operation,
maintenance activities (e.g. lawn mowers, leaf blowers, etc.), water transport, and waste disposal activities.
Regulatory Setting
State
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to
reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The ARB identified 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2e) as the total statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and adopted this level as the 2020 GHG emissions limit.
ARB estimates 2020 GHG emission levels will reach approximately 600 MMTCO2e if no actions are taken under a
“business-as-usual” scenario. To achieve the necessary GHG reductions, ARB approved the Climate Change Scoping
Plan on December 11, 2008, which identifies the measures (i.e., mandatory rules and regulations and voluntary
measures) that will achieve at least 174 MMTCO2e of reductions and reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020. Executive Order B-30-15, or the 2030 Carbon Target and Adaptation, issued by Governor Brown in April
2015, sets a target of reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels in 2030.
By directing state agencies to take measures consistent with their existing authority to reduce GHG emissions, this
order establishes coherence between the 2020 and 2050 GHG reduction goals set by AB 32 and seeks to align
California with the scientifically established GHG emissions levels needed to limit global warming below two degrees
Celsius.
To reinforce the goals established through Executive Order B-30-15, Governor Brown went on to sign Senate Bill 32
(SB 32) and Assembly Bill 197 (AB 197) on September 8, 2016. SB 32 made the GHG reduction target to reduce GHG
emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 a requirement as opposed to a goal. AB 197 gives the Legislature
additional authority over CARB to ensure the most successful strategies for lowering emissions are implemented,
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 90
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
and requires CARB to, “protect the state’s most impacted and disadvantaged communities …[and] consider the social
costs of the emissions of greenhouse gases.”
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Regionally, the BAAQMD has adopted regulations and guidelines to track and reduce GHG emissions from industrial
and stationary GHG emission sources. The BAAQMD’s CAP is a multi-pollutant plan that includes specific measures
and actions that the BAAQMD and its partners will implement to improve air quality, protect public health, and
protect our climate. The CAP includes a focus on managing Bay Area emissions of the six Kyoto GHGs: carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NOx), hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), perflourocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6). The BAAQMD is in the process of updating the CAP, and on January 12, 2017, the Draft 2017 Clean
Air Plan: Spare the Air, Save the Climate was released for public review.
The BAAQMD has not established thresholds of significance for construction GHG emissions; however, lead agencies
often elect to use a threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e for non-stationary source project-level emissions, which is also the
BAAQMD operational-related threshold for non-stationary sources. Construction activities are short term and cease
to emit greenhouse gases upon completion, unlike operational emissions that are continuous year after year until
operation of the use ceases. Because of this difference, most lead agencies amortize construction emissions over a
30-year operational lifetime. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational
emissions in order to generate a precise project-based GHG inventory.
City of Palo Alto
In 2007, the City of Palo Alto adopted its Climate Protection Plan (CPP), which set GHG reduction goals for short-term,
medium-term, and long-term time frames. The long-term goal of the CPP was to reduce the amount of GHG emissions
generated by the city and community by 5% from 2005 emissions (equal to 119,140 MTCO2e) by 2020. The City’s
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) initiative launched in August of 2014 expands upon the goals set forth
in the CPP. On April 18, 2016, the Palo Alto City Council unanimously approved the primary goal of the S/CAP, which
is achieving an 80% reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2030. Based on data obtained by the City from
2015, GHG emissions declined in 2015 to an estimated 36 percent below 1990 levels, compared to 35 percent in
2014. It should be noted that although there is an estimated change of one percent in GHG emissions, due to the
precision of the methodology used to calculate this estimate, there was effectively no change between the two years.
Discussion
Adoption of the Master Plan would not automatically authorize the construction or implementation of
projects/improvements envisioned in the Master Plan; however, future construction and operation of additional
recreational facilities (or improvements to existing facilities) have the potential to release GHG emissions (e.g.
Programs 1.B.9, 1.B.10, see Table 1). The Master Plan does however set forth a number of goals, policies, and
programs that have the potential to reduce operational GHG emissions from current operations; specifically, Goal 6
focuses on sustainable measures that can be incorporated into park and recreational facility design. These goals,
policies, and programs, as well as a discussion of the environmental effects they may have, are presented below.
a) Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions Either Directly or Indirectly
Although the Master Plan recommends a range of projects that would result in the construction of new park facilities
or upgrades/enhancements to existing facilities with the addition of amenities, landscaping, or minor improvements
(see Table 1), adoption of the Master Plan does not automatically authorize the construction or implementation of
these projects/improvements. Once design and construction information becomes available, these
projects/improvements identified in the goals, policies and programs would be subject to review prior to
implementation. Thus, actual construction of project-specific GHG emissions would be premature, and project-
specific emissions would be evaluated once design plans are available for the specific project/improvement. For this
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 91
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
reason, the following discussion generally describes the effects implementation of projects and improvements
identified in the Master Plan may have on GHG emissions, as well as applicable guidance on addressing GHG impacts
related to these actions contemplated in the Master Plan.
Existing parks, recreational facilities, and open space preserves are currently serviced and maintained by the City.
Typical activities associated with the maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities may include, but are not limited
to: vehicle trips taken by City employees to such facilities and yard maintenance activities (mowing the lawn, tree
trimming, etc.). These activities (and emissions associated with them) would continue to occur regardless of the
Master Plan, and would not constitute a change to the physical environment.
As discussed under “C. Air Quality,” the BAAQMD has developed screening criteria based on the size of a project to
determine whether or not detailed modeling to estimate GHG emissions is necessary. Table 7 below presents (for
informational purposes) the GHG screening size for a City Park land use, as identified in Table 3-1 of the BAAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
Table 7: BAAQMD Operational GHG Screening Size
Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size
City Park 600 Acres
Many of the projects proposed in the Master Plan are minor in nature and would not generate substantial GHG
emissions. Future implementation of the projects and improvements identified in the Master Plan may increase GHG
emissions during construction and operation of said projects/improvements; however, many of the goals, policies,
and programs identified in the Master Plan strive for an overall reduction in GHG emissions related to City parks and
recreation facilities. Explanations for how these goals, policies, and programs aim to reduce GHG emissions from
mobile sources, non-renewable energy sources, landfills, and water transport, are presented below.
Vehicles that use gasoline, diesel, or natural gas for fuel are known as mobile sources. These mobile sources, such as
cars, trucks, and other vehicles, operate through the combustion of fossil fuels, which produces (among other things)
CO2, the largest GHG constituent found in the atmosphere. In the most recent data available, both the BAAQMD and
the City of Palo Alto have identified mobile sources as the greatest contributor to GHG emissions in Santa Clara
County and the City, respectfully.
The Master Plan seeks to reduce the amount of mobile source GHG emissions by encouraging the community to
walk, bike, or run to recreational facilities, as well as limit the number of trips required by waste management to
collect trash, recycling, and composting at parks and other recreational locations (see Table 1, Programs 1.B.10, 1.D.1,
1.D.2, 1.G.2, 1.G.8, 3.A.5). Additionally, the Master Plan aims to provide more recreational opportunities to its
residents through the construction of additional parks and recreational facilities (see Table 1, Programs 1.B.4, 1.B.9,
1.B.10, 5.A.1, 5.D.2, and 5.D.3). The Master Plan specifically presents the need for additional parks and recreational
spaces in areas that are currently underserved (i.e. areas that do not have parks/facilities within a quarter-mile of
residences). Members of the community would be more likely to take advantage of recreational amenities near
where they live. If the number of vehicles traveling to parks or other recreation locations decreases, GHG emissions
would also be reduced.
The Master Plan calls out various goals, policies, and programs related to conserving energy or sourcing it from
renewable sources (see Table 1, Programs 6.E.1, 6.E.2, 6.E.3, 6.E.4, 6.E.10, and 6.E.12). Implementation of
programs/improvements related to the installation of green/reflective roofs and low emissive window glass, as well
as improving the insolation on buildings would lead to an overall reduction in the amount of energy needed to heat
or cool the building. Another way in which the City would reduce energy consumption is through the purchase and
installation of Energy Star (or equivalent) appliances and solar panels on roofs. These goals, policies, and programs
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 92
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
align with the City’s Carbon Neutral Plan objective of having operation of its electricity utility infrastructure be 100%
carbon neutral7.
The City of Palo Alto strives to reach a goal of zero waste. In other words, the City seeks to eliminate waste when
possible, and promotes the community’s participation in recycling and composting activities. The Master Plan sets
forth a number of goals, policies, and programs designed to reinforce this goal of zero waste, with an emphasis on
composting and landscaping with native vegetation, which may produce less organic material than typical
landscaping species (see Table 1, Programs 6.E.5, 6.E.9, 6.G.1, and 6.G.2). In March 2016, the ARB released guidance
for estimating GHG emission reduction from the diversion of organic waste from landfills to compost facilities. This
guidance document indicates the compost emission reduction factors (in terms of MTCO2e/ton of feedstock) for (wet
weight) food waste, yard trimmings, and mixed organics, are 0.62, 0.44, and 0.56, respectively. Thus, by diverting the
amount of organic waste either buried or burned at landfills, less GHG emissions would be released through this
potential pathway.
One of the final ways in which the Master Plan seeks to reduce GHG emissions through its goals, policies, and
programs, is by reducing the amount of water and waste water transported to and from park facilities (see Table 1,
Programs 6.E.14, 6.E.15, 6.E.16, 6.E.17, 6.E.18, 6.E.19, 6.E.20, 6.E.21, and 6.E.22). Water used for drinking fountains,
restrooms, irrigation, etc. all require the use to electricity to pump the potable water to its desired location. Waste
water also requires electricity for transportation, but beyond the demand for potable water, waste water also
requires energy to process and treat the soiled water. Some of the goals, policies, and programs identified in the
Master Plan focus on increasing the amount of recycled water used at park sites, exploring water capture
opportunities (which would later be used for irrigation), implementing green storm water infrastructure (such as
swales, detention basins, and rain gardens to retain and treat storm water), and installing high efficiency urinals,
toilets, sinks, and showers.
b) Conflict with a Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing GHG Emissions
Third Primary Goal of the CAP: Reduce GHG Emissions and Protect the Climate
As discussed in “C. Air Quality,” the BAAQMD has developed CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which indicate that for a
proposed project to be consistent with the BAAQMD CAP, the project must:
1. Support the primary goals of the CAP – Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate;
2. Include applicable control measures from the CAP; and
3. Not disrupt or hinder implementation of any CAP control measures.
As described above, the Master Plan would assist in the reduction of GHG emissions, and would help protect the
climate. The Master Plan would not disrupt or otherwise interfere with the implementation of control measures,
and would support the measures presented in Table 8 below.
Many of the projects/improvement identified in the Master Plan are minor in nature, and would not have a
substantial impact on local, regional, and global GHG emissions. Furthermore, the Master Plan identifies numerous
goals, policies, and programs designed to reduce the overall GHG emissions related to city park and recreational
facility operation.
Larger projects such as the Cubberley Community Center Master Plan, Baylands Athletic Center Expansion, and
enhancement of the Rinconada Park Pool Facility, would require further analysis under CEQA once project plans
became available.
7 Carbon neutral means that there is no net release of CO2 to the atmosphere. This can typically be achieved through utilization of renewable energy, and through
offsetting emissions by planting trees.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 93
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 8: Applicable Control Measures from the 2010 Clean Air Plan
Control Measure Applicability
ECM-1, Energy Efficiency
The Master Plan identifies numerous energy saving
improvements and programs, including
green/reflective roofs, improved insulation, low
emissive window glass, and the desire to install
Energy Star (or equivalent) appliances. Additionally,
the proposed project would reduce the amount of
energy needed to transport energy though
implementation and construction of recycled water
systems, green storm water infrastructure, and high
efficiency urinals, toilets, sinks, and showers.
ECM 2, Renewable Energy
The Master Plan indicates in Program 6.E.4 a desire to
invest in additional solar panels and other sources of
renewable energy for parks and facilities.
ECM-4, Tree-Planting
Implementation of the Master Plan, in concert with
the City’s Urban Forest Master Plan (Policy 6.H),
includes the planning of low-VOC emitting shade
trees to reduce urban heat island effects, save
energy, and absorb CO2 and other air pollutants.
MSM A-2, Zero Emission Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrids
Program 6.E.10 in the Master Plan indicates the
Department of Planning and Community Environment
would work with Public Works to replace the vehicle
fleet with electric vehicles whenever practical.
TCM D-1, Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities The Master Plan seeks to improve bicycle access at
and around Parks.
TCM D-2, Improve Pedestrian Access and Facilities The Master Plan seeks to improve pedestrian access
at and around Parks.
Climate Protection Plan and Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
The Master Plan would be subject to the goals set forth in the City’s CPP and S/CAP, both of which are consistent
with the AB 32 scoping plan and state goals. Therefore, since the project would be consistent with the City’s GHG
reduction goals, it would also be consistent with the State’s GHG reduction goals. The Master Plan would not
generate significant greenhouse gas emissions directly or indirectly, and would not conflict with any applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas. This impact would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 94
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment as a result of the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1, 26, 41
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
1, 26, 31, 41
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
1, 26
d) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment from existing hazardous
materials contamination by exposing future
occupants or users of the site to
contamination either in excess of ground soil
and groundwater cleanup goals developed for
the site or from location on listed hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5?
17, 19, 36, 56
e) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires?
1, 8, 9, 25, 26, 40,
41, 52
f) Result in a safety hazard from a public airport
for people residing or working within the
project area?
1, 26
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
1, 26, 53
h) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1, 26, 40
Environmental Setting
The Master Plan includes over 60 parks, schools, buildings, and other recreational facilities located throughout the
City. Hazardous materials refer generally to hazardous substances that exhibit corrosive, poisonous, flammable,
and/or reactive properties and have the potential to harm human health and/or the environment. Hazardous
materials are used in products (e.g., household cleaners, industrial solvents, paint, pesticides) and in the
manufacturing of products (e.g., electronics, newspapers, plastic products). Hazardous materials can include
petroleum, natural gas, synthetic gas, acutely toxic chemicals, and other toxic chemicals that are used in agriculture,
industrial uses, businesses, hospitals, and households.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 95
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The term “hazardous materials,” as used in this chapter, includes all materials defined in the California Health and
Safety Code (H&SC): A material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics,
poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the
workplace or the environment. “Hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances,
hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the unified program agency has a reasonable basis for believing
that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the
workplace or the environment.
This analysis summarizes the environmental and regulatory settings for the hazards and hazardous materials section
contained in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR (2016).
Existing Conditions
Hazardous Materials Sites
California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires CalEPA to compile, maintain, and update specified lists of
hazardous material release sites. CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code Section 21092.6) require the
lead agency to consult the lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 to determine whether a
proposed project and any alternatives are listed. DTSC’s EnviroStor Database and the SWRCB’s GeoTracker databases
were searched on 1/11/2017 for listed occurrences on Master Plan properties. See response, below, under “Hazard
from Existing Hazardous Materials Contamination” for details on the results of this search.
Regulatory Setting
Hazardous materials and wastes can pose a significant actual or potential hazard to human health and the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Many federal, State,
and local programs that regulate the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste
are in place to prevent these unwanted consequences. These regulatory programs are designed to reduce the danger
that hazardous substances may pose to people and businesses under normal daily circumstances and as a result of
emergencies and disasters.
Federal Regulations
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA is the primary federal agency that regulates hazardous materials and waste. In general, the EPA works to
develop and enforce regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. The agency is responsible
for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs and delegates to states and
Native American tribes the responsibility for issuing permits and for monitoring and enforcing compliance. EPA
programs promote handling hazardous wastes safely, cleaning up contaminated land, and reducing waste volumes
through such strategies as recycling. California falls under the jurisdiction of EPA Region 9. Under the authority of
RCRA, and in cooperation with State and tribal partners, the EPA Region 9 Waste Management and Superfund
Divisions manage programs for site environmental assessment and cleanup, hazardous and solid waste management,
and underground storage tanks.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversees administration of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, which requires: specific training for hazardous materials handlers; provision of information to employees
who may be exposed to hazardous materials; and acquisition of material safety data sheets (MSDS) from materials
manufacturers. Material safety data sheets describe the risks, as well as proper handling and procedures, related to
particular hazardous materials. Employee training must include response and remediation procedures for hazardous
materials releases and exposures.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 96
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
State Regulations
California Environmental Protection Agency
CalEPA was created in 1991 by Governor Executive Order W-5-91. Several State regulatory boards, departments, and
offices were placed under the CalEPA umbrella to create a cabinet-level voice for the protection of human health and
the environment and to assure the coordinated deployment of State resources. Among those responsible for
hazardous materials and waste management are the DTSC, Department of Pesticide Regulation, and Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). CalEPA also oversees the unified hazardous waste and hazardous
materials management regulatory program
(Unified Program), which consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the following six programs:
• Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans)
• Underground Storage Tank Program
• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Act
• Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs
• California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous Material Management Plans and Inventory Statements
• CalARP
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
The California DTSC, which is a department of CalEPA, is authorized to carry out the federal RCRA hazardous waste
program in California to protect people from exposure to hazardous wastes. The department regulates hazardous
waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to control and reduce the hazardous waste produced in
California, primarily under the authority of RCRA and in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law
(California H&SC Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (Title 22, California Code of
Regulations (CCR), Divisions 4 and 4.5). Permitting, inspection, compliance, and corrective action programs ensure
that people who manage hazardous waste follow federal and State requirements and other laws that affect
hazardous waste specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and
emergency planning.
State Water Resources Control Board
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is authorized by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) to enforce provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969. This act gives
the San Francisco RWQCB authority to require groundwater investigations when the quality of groundwater or
surface waters of the State is threatened and to require remediation actions, if necessary.
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Like OSHA at the federal level, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA) is the responsible
State-level agency for ensuring workplace safety. Cal OSHA assumes primary responsibility for the adoption and
enforcement of standards regarding workplace safety and safety practices. In the event that a site is contaminated,
a Site Safety Plan must be crafted and implemented to protect the safety of workers. Site Safety Plans establish
policies, practices, and procedures to prevent the exposure of workers and members of the public to hazardous
materials originating from the contaminated site or building.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped fire threat potential throughout
California. CAL FIRE ranks fire threat based on the availability of fuel and the likelihood of an area burning (based on
topography, fire history, and climate). The rankings include no fire threat and moderate, high, and very high fire
threat. Additionally, CAL FIRE produced a 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California that contains goals, objectives, and
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 97
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
policies to prepare for and mitigate the effects of fire on California’s natural and built environments. CAL FIRE’s Office
of the State Fire Marshal provides oversight of enforcement of the California Fire Code as well as overseeing
hazardous liquid pipeline safety.
California Health and Safety Code
California H&SC, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2729, set out
the minimum requirements for business emergency plans and chemical inventory reporting. These regulations
require businesses to provide emergency response plans and procedures, training program information, and a
hazardous material chemical inventory disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or handled on site. A business
which uses hazardous materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials must establish and implement a
business plan if the hazardous material is handled in certain quantities.
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR), also known as the California Building Standards) Code. The 2013 California Building Code (CBC), is
Part 2 of Title 24. The 2013 CBC is based on the 2012 International Building Code, but has been modified for California
conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on
local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local City and County building officials for
compliance with the CBC Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in all new
high-rise buildings and residential buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building
material; and particular types of construction.
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) is Part 9 of Title 24. Updated every three years, the CFC includes provisions and
standards for emergency planning and preparedness, fire service features, fire protection systems, hazardous
materials, fire flow requirements, fire hydrant locations and distribution, and the clearance of debris and vegetation
within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildlife hazard areas. The Palo Alto Fire Department
provides fire protection services for the City and, as such, implements and enforces the CFC in Palo Alto.
Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM) Regulations
State-level agencies, in conjunction with the federal EPA and OSHA, regulate removal, abatement, and transport
procedures for asbestos-containing materials (ACM). Releases of asbestos from industrial, demolition, or
construction activities are prohibited by these regulations and medical evaluation and monitoring is required for
employees performing activities that could expose them to asbestos. Additionally, the regulations include warnings
that must be heeded and practices that must be followed to reduce the risk for asbestos emissions and exposure.
Finally, federal, State, and local agencies must be notified prior to the onset of demolition or construction activities
with the potential to release asbestos.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
The United States EPA prohibited the use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the majority of new electrical
equipment starting in 1979, and initiated a phase-out for much of the existing PCB-containing equipment. The
inclusion of PCBs in electrical equipment and the handling of those PCBs are regulated by the provisions of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), United States Code Title 15, Section 2601 et seq. Relevant regulations include labeling
and periodic inspection requirements for certain types of PCB-containing equipment and outline highly specific safety
procedures for their disposal. Likewise, the State of California regulates PCB-laden electrical equipment and materials
contaminated above a certain threshold as hazardous waste. These regulations require that such materials be
treated, transported, and disposed accordingly. At lower concentrations for non-liquids, RWQCBs may exercise
discretion over the classification of such wastes.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 98
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lead-Based Paint
Cal OSHA’s Lead in Construction Standard is contained in Title 8 CCR, Section 1532.1. The regulations address all of
the following areas: permissible exposure limits (PELs); exposure assessment; compliance methods; respiratory
protection; protective clothing and equipment; housekeeping; medical surveillance; medical removal protection
(MRP); employee information, training, and certification; signage; record keeping; monitoring; and agency
notification. The Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Acts (CLPPA) of 1986 and 1989 with Subsequent Legislative
Revisions (California H&SC, Division 106, Sections 124125 to 124165) declared childhood lead exposure as the most
significant childhood environmental health problem in the state. The CLPPA established the Childhood Lead
Poisoning Prevention Program and instructed it to continue to take steps necessary to reduce the incidence of
childhood lead exposure in California.
Local Regulations
Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan
Pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act, the Santa Clara County’s Office of Emergency Services prepared an annex to
the 2010 ABAG Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to serve as Santa Clara County’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The LHMP emerged from a collaborative planning effort that involved the assembly of a Local Planning Team (LPT)
comprised of representatives from County departments, private sector businesses, stakeholders, and 13 of the 15
incorporated cities in Santa Clara County, including Palo Alto. The LHMP identifies and prioritizes potential and
existing hazards across jurisdictional borders, including hazards that may be further amplified by climate change. In
an effort to guide the County’s ongoing hazard mitigation efforts, through the life of the LHMP, the following priority
mitigation objectives were identified:
• Collaborate as a County and create a county-wide Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP).
• Reduce number of unreinforced masonry/soft-story buildings through demolition or seismic retrofitting.
• Implement a combination of financial incentives and regulated mandates in order to mitigate the clear and
present danger of soft-story buildings pervading Santa Clara County.
• Engage infrastructure providers in a cooperative partnership with County government to develop a
responsible middle ground sharing the most critical infrastructure information with those stakeholders that
have a need to know.
• Collaborate as a County and verify or create the plan for replacing and/or upgrading localized flooding pump
systems, including the generation of alternate power to operate these systems.
• Establish a siren system targeted specifically for catastrophic dam failure to provide a complete public
warning system in Santa Clara County.
In order to meet these priority mitigation objectives, the LHMP further identifies and prioritizes specific actions for
each objective. In addition, the responsible departments, potential funding sources, and target completion date are
identified for each mitigation action with the highest priority, in order to guide their implementation.
Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Assembly Bill 2776, which went into effect January 1, 2004, defines an “airport influence area” as the area where
airport-related factors “may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as determined by
an airport land use commission (ALUC).” The California Public Utilities Code establishes airport land use commissions
in every county to provide for the orderly development of air transportation and ensure compatible land uses around
airports that are open to public use. According to the State Division of Aeronautics, the airport influence area is
usually the planning area designated by an airport land use commission for each airport.
The Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) was adopted in November 2008 by the Santa Clara County
ALUC and provides guidance related to the placement of land uses near the Palo Alto Airport. On June 1, 2009, Palo
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 99
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Alto adopted a Resolution 8935 incorporating the County CLUP into the Comprehensive Plan and adding policies the
Land Use Element. Specifically, the CLUP seeks to protect the public from adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure
that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no
structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace.
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code
The Palo Alto Municipal Code contains requirements that pertain to hazards and hazardous materials. For example,
the purpose of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is the protection of health, life, resources, and property through
prevention and control of unauthorized discharges of hazardous materials. Chapter 17.08 addresses materials
regulated and those that are excluded. Chapter 17.10 discusses underground storage tank requirements, including
fees, permitting and inspection procedures, and monitoring requirements. Chapter 17.12 includes containment
standards for new and existing storage facilities. Chapters 17.16 and 17.20 discuss hazardous materials management
plans and hazardous materials inventories, respectively. Reporting responsibilities, inspections, and records are
discussed in Chapters 17.24 and 17.28. Hazardous materials storage permits are discussed in Chapter 17.32. Section
2.12.050 establishes that the Director of Emergency Services is accountable to the City Manager. Additionally, this
section lays out the official duties of the Director of Emergency Services, which includes being responsible for the
request for City Council to proclaim a local emergency, to control and direct the City's emergency organization (Palo
Alto Municipal Code Section 2.12.070), and to represent the City in all dealings with public or private agencies on
matters pertaining to emergencies and disasters.
City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance, Title 18, Chapters 18.64.010 to 18.64.060, Special Regulations for Hazardous Waste
Facilities, contains provisions for new or expanded hazardous waste facilities to comply with certain siting criteria,
contained in the Santa Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, in order to assure compatibility with
neighboring land uses, adequate mitigation for any identified environmental impacts, and consistency with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and zoning and the county hazardous waste management plan.
The City is currently considering changes to the Zoning Ordinance related to hazardous materials in industrial districts
and compatibility with sensitive receptors. The changes would define three tiers of facilities, with requirements for
each; define “sensitive receptors;” establish distances between facilities and sensitive receptors; and establish an
amortization schedule and process for non-conforming uses. Along with these changes, the City would make
conforming changes to the Fire Code.
Palo Alto Fire Department
The Palo Alto Fire Department, pursuant to Titles 15 and 17 of the City’s Municipal Code, administers the following
programs through the Fire Prevention Bureau:
• California Fire Code (with local amendments)
• Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance
• Toxic Gas Ordinance
In addition, as a Participating Agency (PA), the Department also administers the following hazardous materials
programs:
• Hazardous Materials Business Plans (California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95)
• Aboveground Storage Tanks (California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.67)
Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services
The Mission of the Office of Emergency Services (Palo Alto OES) is to coordinate the unified and efficient use of City
resources, outside agencies (mutual aid), and community resources to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 100
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
from all hazards. OES is responsible for planning, training, and exercises to maintain and improve our operational
readiness. OES manages the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the new Mobile Emergency Operations Center
(MEOC), in collaboration with the Public Safety Answering Point (911 Communications Dispatch Center) for Palo Alto
and Stanford University.
Integrated Pest Management Policy
The City adopted in October 2001 an Integrated Pest Management Policy to reduce or eliminate chemicals to the
maximum extent.8 The policy states that the City will carry out its pest management activities using low-risk
integrated pest management techniques, with chemicals used only as a last resort. The policy also states that the
City will actively pilot non-toxic alternatives using the most recent technology, best management practices, and least
toxic methods available. Lastly, the policy states that the City will educate staff and the public about its integrated
pest management commitment.
Discussion
a, b, & c) Routine Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials, Reasonably Foreseeable Upset Conditions
and Hazardous Emissions Near Schools
Implementation of the Master Plan would not result in any routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
reasonably foreseeable accidental release of hazardous materials or hazardous emissions. Small amounts of fuels,
oils, lubricants, pesticides, paints and cleaning agents are currently used within City parks for routine maintenance;
however, the use of these chemicals does not present a significant hazard to the public or the environment because
of the small quantities involved and the City’s adherence to federal, state and local regulations pertaining to the use,
transport and storage of hazardous materials.
A number of parks are near or immediately adjacent to public schools. The types of chemicals used in the parks for
routine maintenance would not pose a hazard to the school population because of the low level of toxicity (vehicle
fuels, fluids, fertilizers, paints, etc.) and because of the small quantities in use and the City’s compliance with relevant
regulations. There are numerous regulations in place for the safe management of such materials that the City must
comply with. The Master Plan policies do not affect existing materials handling and storage practices, therefore there
would be no change from existing conditions. Except for the chemicals needed to maintain the pool at Rinconada
Park, the City’s park facilities do not produce hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or hazardous waste. Any chemicals, including chlorine used or stored at the Rinconada Park
pool would be done so in accordance with State Department of Toxic and Substances Control and County Fire
Marshall and local City requirements.
d) Hazard from Existing Hazardous Materials Contamination
Although several City Park and Recreation Master Plan properties are included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, these instances involved leaking underground fuel tanks
which were remediated and the cases are now closed with the RWQCB, see Table 9, below. Therefore, previous
contamination within parks would not expose park users to contamination in excess of applicable regulatory limits.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 101
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 9: Closed Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) Cases
Park / Facility Address ID #
Potential
Contaminant of
Concern
Potential Media
Affected
Case Closure
Date
Foothills Park 3300 Page Mill
Road T0608500635 Diesel Soil 10/2/1955
King Plaza at
City Hall
250 Hamilton
Ave T0608501023 Diesel Soil 1/23/1993
Palo Alto
Unified School
District
85 Churchill
Ave T0608502230
Waste oil/ motor/
hydraulics/
lubricant
Soil 10/30/1995
Palo Alto High
School Shop
85 Churchill
Ave T0608501029 Diesel
Other groundwater
(water other than
for drinking)
2/22/2005
Palo Alto High
School Shop,
900
50
Embarcadero
Road
T10000002860
Waste oil/ motor/
hydraulics/
lubricant
Soil 7/5/2011
Source: 56
Known contamination sites that are outside parks are shown in Figure 6 EnviroStor Cleanup Program Sites) and Figure
7 GeoTracker Sites) which are from the Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR. Two Master Plan sites, the Stanford-
Palo Alto Playing Fields and Gunn High School are adjacent to properties undergoing clean up under oversight from
the EPA and RWQCB for groundwater contamination (Hewlett-Packard 640-650 Page Mill Road, former Varian facility
at 601 California Avenue and 4001 Miranda Avenue). These sites which are under active remediation have not posed
a hazard to existing park users and are not know to pose a hazard to future park activities or users. Future projects
proposed at the Stanford-Palo Alto Playing Fields would undergo additional CEQA review and would be evaluated for
the potential to expose park uses to known contamination, based on the nature of the proposed project.
e) Risk from Wildland Fires
The foothills portion of the City, including Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, is defined as having high
or medium risk for wildland fires. Wildfires started within these open space preserves could spread to adjacent rural
residential areas and threaten homes and public infrastructure (water tanks, roads, etc.). The City currently
implements a fire management plan for these parks which includes vegetation management in key areas of the park.
Implementation of the Master Plan would be subject to Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 which establishes
development criteria in the foothill portion of the Planning Area, and in part states, “…landscaping should be native
species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as
a fire prevention technique.” Master Plan projects would also be subject to the City’s Foothills Fire Management Plan
Update and the Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan. With the implementation of this policy and the fire
management and hazard mitigation plans, impacts of the Master Plan with respect to wildland fires would be less
than significant.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!!
!!
!
FOOT
H
I
L
L
E
X
P
Y
FA
B
I
A
N
W
A
Y
SAND
H
I
L
L
R
D
AL
M
A
S
T
SEAL
E
A
V
E
SAN
A
N
T
O
N
I
O
R
D
OREG
O
N
E
X
P
Y
QUA
R
R
Y
R
D
LOMA
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
ARA
S
T
R
A
D
E
R
O
R
D
E CH
A
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
EMBARCA
D
E
R
O
W
A
Y
PASTEU
R
D
R
CALI
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
E
LI
N
C
O
L
N
A
V
E
UNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
JUN
I
P
E
R
O
S
E
R
R
A
B
L
V
D
PA
G
E
M
I
L
L
R
D
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
§¨¦280
|ÿ82
£¤101
Los Altos Hills
Railroads
Highways
Park/Open Space
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
!Cleanup Sites
!Tiered Permit Sites
!Hazardous Waste Facilities
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
Figure 6 EnviroStor Cleanup Program Sites
Sources: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; Department of Toxic Substance Control, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2015; MIG, 2017.
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
FOOT
H
I
L
L
E
X
P
Y
FA
B
I
A
N
W
A
Y
SAND
H
I
L
L
R
D
AL
M
A
S
T
SEAL
E
A
V
E
SAN
A
N
T
O
N
I
O
R
D
OREG
O
N
E
X
P
Y
QUA
R
R
Y
R
D
LOMA
V
E
R
D
E
A
V
E
ARA
S
T
R
A
D
E
R
O
R
D
E CHA
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
R
D
EMBARCAD
E
R
O
W
A
Y
PASTEU
R
D
R
CAL
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
E
LIN
C
O
L
N
A
V
E
UNIV
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
JUNI
P
E
R
O
S
E
R
R
A
B
L
V
D
PAG
E
M
I
L
L
R
D
Mountain View
East
Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Menlo Park
S A N
F R A N C I S C O
B A Y
Los Altos
§¨¦280
|ÿ82
£¤101
Atherton
Los Altos Hills
!Caltrain Stations
Railroads
Highways
Park/Open Space
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
!Permitted Underground Storage Tank Sites
!Ongoing Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites
!Closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites
!Ongoing Cleanup Program Sites
!Closed Cleanup Program Sites
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
Figure 7 GeoTracker Sites
Sources: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD, 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; Department of Toxic Substance Control, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2015; MIG, 2017.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 104
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
f & g) Airport Hazard
Nearby public airports include Moffett Federal Airfield (approximately 5 miles east of the City), San Carlos Airport
(approximately 5 miles northwest of the City), and San Jose International Airport (approximately 13 miles southeast
of the City)8. The Palo Alto Airport, a small public airport, is located in the northeastern portion of the City by the
Baylands. The Master Plan could result in a significant impact if future development allowed under the Master Plan
would be located within an existing airport land use plan for the Palo Alto Airport and was not designed according to
policies of the airport land use plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Palo Alto Airport was adopted
in November 2008 by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. The CLUP includes policies intended to
safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and ensure that new surrounding
uses do not affect the airport’s continued safe operation. The Palo Alto Airport CLUP safety zones and building height
restrictions are shown below in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively.
Parks located east of Highway 101 are in close proximity to the Palo Alto Airport and Moffett Airfield. These parks
include the Baylands Preserve, the Palo Alto Golf Course, and the Bayland Athletic Center. The Golf Course, Baylands
Athletic Center, and parts of the Baylands Preserve are in the Airport Influence Area identified in the Palo Airport
CLUP. Although the Master Plan may result in an intensification of use at the Baylands, the Master Plan does not
contemplate an alteration of land use designation within the CLUP jurisdictional area or the Airport Influence Area
of the Palo Alto Airport. All future park projects and activities proposed in the Airport Influence Area would need to
be consistent with the public safety requirements of the CLUP and City requirements (e.g., the land use noise
compatibility guidelines presented in L. Noise, Table 10, and Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, presented
in J. Land Use and Planning). The proposed Master Plan, therefore, would not interfere with any airport land use plan
or otherwise create an airport-related safety hazard, and risk to people using Baylands Preserve would be less than
significant.
h) Interfere with an Emergency Response Plan
The Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), adopted by the City in 2007, establishes the policies and structures
for City government management of emergencies and disasters. The EOP prescribes four phases of emergencies and
disasters: preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation/prevention. The EOP is an all-hazard plan and assigns
responsibilities for actions and tasks the City will take to help protect the safety and welfare of its citizens against the
threats of natural, technological, and national security emergencies, as well as disasters. Emergency operations for
the City of Palo Alto are consistent with California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the
federal National Incident Management System (NIMS).
Implementation of the Master Plan would not interfere with the City’s adopted EOP because the park projects
proposed in the Master Plan would not create barriers to evacuation plans, or adversely impact the transportation
system.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
8 All distances are measured from the City’s closest boundary to the airport.
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
Figure 8 Palo Alto Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Safety Zones
Source: Santa Clara County Planning Office, 2008; Placeworks 2008; MIG 2017
0
Scale (Feet)
2,000
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
Figure 9 Building Height Restriction Contours
Source: This map created by Santa Clara Planning Department, 2008; Walter B. Windus, PE, 2008; MIG 2017
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 107
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
1, 36
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
1, 36
c) Substantially increase the rate, volume, or
flow duration of storm water runoff or alter
the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including altering the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site,
including increase in-stream erosion?
1, 36
d) Result in stream bank instability? 1, 36
e) Significantly increase the rate, volume, or
flow duration of storm water runoff in a
manner which would result in new or
increased flooding on-or off-site?
1, 36
f) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
1, 36
g) Provide substantial additional sources of
pollutants associated with urban runoff or
otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
1, 36
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
30, 36, 48
i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
30, 36, 48
j) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding by
placing housing or other development within
a 100-year flood hazard area or a levee or
dam failure inundation area?
30, 36, 48
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2, 30, 36, 48
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 108
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Setting
The City of Palo Alto contains many hydrologic resources including creeks, streams, reservoirs, and frontage along
San Francisco Bay. This analysis summarizes the environmental and regulatory settings for the hydrology and water
quality section contained in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR (2016).
Hydrology and Surface Water Drainage
The City of Palo Alto lies within the Santa Clara Basin watershed, which can be divided into four smaller watersheds:
1) San Francisquito Creek watershed, 2) Matadero Creek watershed, 3) Barron Creek watershed, and 4) Adobe Creek
watershed. Tributary creeks include Arastradero Creek, Deer Creek, Los Trancos Creek and Buckeye Creek. There are
also several surface water bodies in and around Palo Alto including Searsville Lake, Felt Lake, Lagunita Reservoir,
Boronda Lake and Arastradero Lake. The City’s storm water drainage system includes over 107 miles of underground
pipelines, 2,750 catch basins, 800 manholes, and six pump stations. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is
responsible for maintenance and improvements in the creeks and flood control channels.
Groundwater
The City of Palo Alto lies within the Santa Clara Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. Aquifer depth
ranges from about 10 to 30 feet below ground surface, and aquifer thickness ranges from approximately 150 feet to
more than 1,500 feet. Groundwater recharge primarily occurs in areas high permeability materials, such as sands and
gravels, and within SCVWD managed recharge areas. There are no SCVWD recharge ponds or facilities within the city
limits; however, the most southern portion of the City is considered a natural recharge area.
Water Quality
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Basin Plan lists numerous beneficial uses for
surface water in the City of Palo Alto, including:
• Industrial service supply (IND);
• Commercial and sport fishing (COMM);
• Shellfish harvesting (SHELL), estuarine habitat (EST);
• Fish migration (MIGR);
• Preservation of rare and endangered species (RARE);
• Fish spawning (SPWN);
• Wildlife habitat (WILD);
• Water contact recreation (REC-1);
• Non-contact water recreation (REC-2);
• Cold freshwater habitat (COLD);
• Warm freshwater habitat (WARM);
• Municipal and domestic supply (MUN);
• Industrial process supply (PROC); and
• Agricultural supply (AGR).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has classified San Francisquito Creek and Matadero Creeks as
303(d)-listed impaired water body due to high levels of Diazonon (both creeks), sedimentation/silt (San Francisquito
Creek only) and trash (both creeks). San Francisco Bay South is also classified as a 303(d)-listed impaired water body
due to high levels of numerous contaminants, trash, and invasive species. The main source for these pollutants is
storm water runoff. Storm water runoff pollutants vary with land use, topography, amount of impervious surface, as
well as the amount and frequency of rainfall and irrigation practices. Runoff in developed areas typically contains oil,
grease, litter, and metals that are accumulated in streets, driveways, parking lots, and rooftops, as well as pesticides,
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 109
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
herbicides, particulate matter, nutrients, animal waste, and other oxygen-demanding substances from landscaped
areas. The highest pollutant concentrations usually occur at the beginning of the wet season during the “first flush.”
The Basin Plan also contains water quality criteria for groundwater. Groundwater quality in the Santa Clara Subbasin
is generally considered to be good and water quality objectives are met in at least 95 percent of the Santa Clara
County water supply wells without the use of treatment methods.
Flooding
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares maps of the 100-year flood hazard area of United
States communities. Areas within the 100-year flood hazard area are subject to 100-year floods, which means that in
any given year, the risk of flooding in the designated area is one percent. Maps are also available for 500-year floods,
which means that in any given year, the risk of flooding in the designated area is 0.2 percent. Areas within the 100-
year flood hazard area are subject to federal requirements, which include mandatory flood insurance purchase for
all federally-backed real estate loans and minimum building standards to reduce flood damage.
Most of the city is within an “X” zone, which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) describes as an
area either lying outside the 100-year flood limit and inside the 500-year flood limit, or as lying within the 100-year
flood limit but shallow enough not to represent a special hazard. The remainder of the City lies within Special Flood
Hazard Areas (SFHA), which is considered within the 100-year flood zone. SFHAs present within the City include Zone
A (areas where no base flood elevations are determined), Zone AE (areas where base flood elevations are
determined); Zone AO (flood depths of one to three feet, usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); or Zone AH (flood
depths of one to three feet, usually ponding).
The largest AE zone in Palo Alto encompasses areas that are predicted to be flooded by extraordinary bay tides
overtopping the levees around the Baylands and reaching heights to nearly 10.50 feet North America Vertical Datum
(NAVD) The AE zone covers a large area generally from Middlefield Road to the Bay. Some properties within this area
could result in floodwaters to a depth of about six feet.
The largest AH zone is along a wide strip from west of Middlefield Road from San Francisquito Creek to Hamilton
Avenue and extending down to the Embarcadero Road/Bayshore interchange and between Channing Avenue and
Hamilton Avenue. This area is subject to flooding from overflow of San Francisquito Creek; major flooding occurred
in this area in February 1998 and December 1955.
San Francisquito Creek has caused major flooding in Palo Alto in the past, most recently in 2005, 2006 and 2008. The
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA), in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
SCVWD, are implementing improvements to provide 100-year flood protection for flood zone reaches of the San
Francisquito Creek both upstream and downstream from US 101. Former SFHAs attributed to overflows from
Matadero, Barron, and Adobe Creeks have been eliminated as result of extensive flood management projects
implemented by the SCVWD during the late 1980s though early 2000s.
Sea Level Rise
California Executive Order S-13-2008 states that all State agencies planning construction projects in areas vulnerable
to sea level rise must consider a range of sea level rise scenarios for the years 2050 and 2100 to assess project
vulnerability and to the extent feasible, reduce expected risks to sea level rise. The Governor of California’s Delta
Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force adopted a sea level rise of 55 inches by 2100 for planning purposes. The Bay
Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) in the latest amendment to the Bay Plan (October 2011), added new
climate change findings and policies and has revised the 2100 sea level rise from 55 inches to up to 69 inches.
However, BCDC uses the 55-inch sea level rise scenario in the Bay Plan when assessing long-term impacts. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has produced a sea level rise scenario map for long range
planning which shows much of the area north of Middlefield Road is vulnerable to a projected sea level rise of 55
inches.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 110
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regulatory Setting
The following section summarizes key federal, State, and local regulations, policies, and programs that pertain to
hydrology and water quality in Palo Alto.
Federal Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal legislation governing water quality and forms the basis for several
state and local laws throughout the nation. The objective of the CWA is, “to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Important and applicable sections of the Act include:
• Section 404 authorizes the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to regulate the discharge of dredged
or fill material to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The USACE issues individual site-specific or general
(Nationwide) permits for such discharges.
• Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. The State implements Section
303 through the State Water Resources Control Board and RWQCB, as discussed below. Section 304 requires the
U.S. EPA to publish water quality criteria that accurately reflects the latest scientific knowledge on the kind of
effects and extent of effects that pollutants in water may have on health and welfare. Section 304 also provides
guidance to the State in adopting water quality standards.
• Section 401 requires an applicant for any Federal permit that proposes an activity that may result in a discharge
to “waters of the U.S.” to obtain certification from the State that the discharge will comply with other provisions
of the CWA. In California, a Water Quality Certification is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board
and/or RWQCB.
• Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is a permitting
system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredge or fill material) into waters of the U.S. In California,
this permit program is administered by the RWQCBs, and is discussed in detail below.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The CWA has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from any point source since
1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added Section 402(p), which established a framework for regulating
nonpoint source storm water discharges under the Non-Point Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES
General Construction Permit requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as
excavation. Construction activities on one or more acres are subject to a series of permitting requirements contained
in the NPDES General Construction Permit. This permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes Best Management Practices to be implemented during project
construction. The project sponsor is also required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources
Control Board Division of Water Quality. The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities
that would occur on the site.
The City of Palo Alto is subject to the waste discharge requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit
(Order No. R2-2015-0049) and NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, that was issued on November 19, 2015 and went into
effect starting on January 1, 2016. Santa Clara County, the SCVWD, and eleven cities and two towns, including Palo
Alto, are co-permittees within Santa Clara County under the Permit, which covers a total of 76 co-permittees in the
Bay Area. Under Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), the co-permittees use their
planning authorities to include appropriate source control, site design, and storm water treatment measures in new
development and redevelopment projects. The measures address both soluble and insoluble storm water runoff
pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows, primarily through the implementation of low impact
development (LID) techniques.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 111
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, as revised in December 2007 (California Water Code Sections
13000-14290), provides for protection of the quality of all waters in the State of California for use and enjoyment by
the people of California. It further provides that all activities that may affect the quality of waters of the state shall
be regulated to obtain the highest water quality that is reasonable, considering all demands being made and to be
made on those waters. The Act also establishes provisions for a statewide program for the control of water quality,
recognizing that waters of the state are increasingly influenced by interbasin water development projects and other
statewide considerations, and that factors such as precipitation, topography, population, recreation, agriculture,
industry, and economic development vary regionally within the State. The statewide program for water quality
control is, therefore, administered most effectively on a local level with statewide oversight. Within this framework,
the Act authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board and RWQCBs to oversee the coordination and control
of water quality within California.
State Water Resources Control Board
Created by the California State Legislature in 1967, the State Water Resources Control Board holds authority over
water resources allocation and water quality protection within the State. The five-member State Water Resources
Control Board allocates water rights, adjudicates water right disputes, develops statewide water protection plans,
establishes water quality standards, and guides the nine RWQCBs. The mission of the State Water Resources Control
Board is to, “preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s water resources, and ensure their proper
allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations.”
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
The City of Palo Alto is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Master Plan activities that disturb one
or more acres of soil (including all construction disturbance) are required to obtain coverage under the General
Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-
DWQ). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as
stockpiling or excavation, but does not include regular park maintenance activities. The Construction General Permit
requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP must list BMPs the discharger will use to
protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Furthermore, the SWPPP must contain a visual
monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for "non-visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a
failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d)
list for sediment. Section A of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be contained in a
SWPPP.
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
The San Francisquito Creek JPA is a governmental organization with a board of directors made up of elected officials
from the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto, as well as the San Mateo County Flood Control District
and SCVWD. The agency was formed in 1999 with the objective of protecting properties along San Francisquito Creek
from 100-year floods, stabilizing creek banks, and enhancing the natural habitat. The San Francisquito Creek JPA and
COE are planning for large-scale, comprehensive flood risk reduction. The San Francisquito Creek JPA is responsible
for planning, designing, and implementing projects, which include increasing channel capacity through dredging,
reducing flood risk by building levees and floodwalls, and reconnecting the creek to 14 acres of Baylands in Palo Alto
city limit to serve as creek floodplain. The San Francisquito Creek JPA’s projects are typically funded by local, State,
and federal partners.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 112
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
The SCVWD is a water resources agency responsible for balancing flood protection needs with the protection of
natural water courses and habitat in the Santa Clara Valley. SCVWD serves 16 cities and 1.8 million residents;
providing wholesale water supply, operating three water treatment plants, and providing flood protection along the
creeks and rivers within the county. The SCVWD reviews plans for development projects near streams to ensure that
the proposed storm drain systems and wastewater disposal systems will not adversely impact water quality in the
streams. In addition, the SCVWD reviews projects for conformance to SCVWD flood control design criteria, stream
maintenance and protection plans, and groundwater protection programs.
On October 24, 2006, the SCVWD adopted the Water Resources Protection Ordinance (Ordinance 06-1). This
ordinance established the policy through which, beginning on February 28, 2007, the SCVWD issues permits for
modifications, entry, use, or access to SCVWD facilities or easements. This ordinance was adopted following the
creation of the guidelines and standards for land use near streams by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources
Protection Collaborative (Collaborative). The Collaborative was formed in 2003 and includes the SCVWD and
representatives from the County of Santa Clara, the cities within the county (including the City of Palo Alto), the
Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, and representatives of various
community interests.19 The Collaborative members share the water and watershed resources protection goals of
flood management, drinking water quality and adequate quantity, surface and groundwater quality and quantity,
and habitat protection and enhancement throughout the county.
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) is an association of thirteen Cities
and Towns in the Santa Clara Valley, together with the County of Santa Clara and the SCVWD. The RWQCB has
permitted Bay Area municipalities, including the member agencies of SCVURPPP, to implement storm water
regulations. SCVURPPP incorporates regulatory, monitoring, and outreach measures aimed at improving the water
quality of South San Francisco Bay and the streams of the Santa Clara Valley to reduce pollution in urban runoff to
the “maximum extent practicable.” SCVURPPP promotes storm water pollution prevention within that context.
Participating agencies (including the City of Palo Alto) must meet the provisions of the Municipal Regional
Stormwater Permit by ensuring that new development and redevelopment mitigate water quality impacts to storm
water runoff both during the construction and operation of projects. In addition, other provisions of the Municipal
Regional Stormwater Permit include construction site control, water quality monitoring program, pollutants of
concern control programs (including litter, PCBs, mercury, pesticides, and copper), watershed management, illicit
discharge detection and elimination, industrial and commercial site controls, municipal operations, and public
information/participation.
The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit also requires development of a Hydromodification Management Plan
(HMP) to manage increased peak runoff flows and volumes and avoid erosion of stream channels and degradation
of water quality caused by new and redevelopment projects. The permit was issued to cover “surface runoff
generated from various land uses in all the hydrologic sub basins in the basin which discharge into watercourses,
which in turn flow into South San Francisco Bay.” Projects in susceptible areas, as defined by the HMP Applicability
Map for Palo Alto, are subject to hydromodification management (HM) requirements.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
The following goals, policies and programs from the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5. Natural Environment
relate to water quality, hydrology and flooding:
Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities,
and Protect Public Health and Safety.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 113
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Policy N-22: Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development or public improvement projects to
reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks, and San Francisco Bay.
Program N-29: Actively participate in programs such as the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program to improve the quality of stormwater runoff.
Program N-34: Evaluate the use of permeable paving materials that allow for natural percolation and site
drainage.
Goal N-10: Protection of Life and Property from Natural Hazards, Including Earthquake, Landslide, Flooding, and Fire.
Policy N-49: Focus efforts to reduce exposure to natural hazards on those areas where the greatest risks exist.
Policy N-52: Minimize exposure to flood hazards by adequately reviewing proposed development in flood prone
areas.
Program N-75: Establish a standardized process for evaluating the impacts of development on the storm
drainage system.
Program N-76: Implement the requirements of FEMA relating to construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas
as illustrated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Palo Alto Municipal Code
The following chapters of the City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code contain directives pertaining to hydrology and water
quality issues, as explained in the following paragraphs:
Sewer Use Ordinance – Chapter 16.09
The Sewer Use Ordinance is designed to reduce the amount of pollutants that enter the sanitary sewer, the storm
drain system, or surface waters that would obstruct or damage the sanitary sewer or storm drain system or interfere
with, inhibit or disrupt the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan or its treatment processes. The intent of
the ordinance is to provide a program for protection of the storm drain system and pretreatment of industrial wastes
which is approved by federal and State regulatory agencies.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention – Chapter 16.11
This chapter provides the storm water requirements for projects conducted within the City of Palo Alto and is
consistent with the requirements of the San Francisco RWQCB’s Municipal Regional Permit.
Recycled Water – Chapter 16.12
This chapter requires new or redevelopment projects within the boundaries of a recycled water project area use
treated non-potable water for construction, toilet and urinal flushing, and irrigation, resulting in an increase in the
amount of potable water available for other uses in the city. Recycled water reduces potable water consumption and
is not subject to rationing during drought.
Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance – Chapter 16.14
The City of Palo Alto has adopted a Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance consistent with the State’s landscape
ordinance. These provisions are incorporated into the City’s new Green Building Ordinance and also can be found in
Sections 16.14.140 – Landscape Design, 16.14.200 – Low-Water Consumption Irrigation System, 16.14.310 –
Irrigation Efficiency, and 16.14.340 – Potable Water Reduction.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 114
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
California Green Building Standards Code – Chapter 16.14
This chapter incorporates the Title 24 requirements of the 2013 California Green Building Standards. One section
references local storm water pollution prevention (Section 16.14.150) and the other references irrigation efficiency
standards (Section 16.14.200).
Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control – Chapter 16.28
This chapter requires projects to obtain a grading and excavation permit and requires submittal of an interim erosion
and sediment control and storm water pollution prevention plan (Section 16.28.120) that describes the surface runoff
and erosion control measures that will be implemented during construction of the project. Section 16.28.200
contains the provisions for the final erosion and sediment control and storm water pollution prevention plan that
describes permanent control measures to improve the quality of storm water runoff from the site.
Flood Hazard Regulations Ordinance – Chapter 16.52
The Flood Hazard Regulations Ordinance is designed to minimize loss of life, damage to private land development,
public facilities and utilities, the need for rescue and relief efforts, business interruptions, and future blighted areas
caused by flooding. The ordinance also ensures that construction of new and substantially improved buildings in the
100-year floodplain is in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program’s goals to protect life and property.
Stream Corridor Protection – Section 18.40.140 and Storm Water Quality Protection – Section 18.40.150
These sections of the City’s Zoning Code include requirements and guidelines that protect the integrity of stream
corridors and storm water quality consistent with the principles contained in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources
Protection Collaborative.
Discussion
The Master Plan would implement the following programs that are relevant to hydrology and water quality: acquiring
and developing new neighborhood parks (Program 1.B.9); developing a creek walk along Matadero Creek (Program
1.B.10); create dog parks (Program 2.D.1); add park restrooms (Program 2.E.2); improve and increase access to creeks
for learning and stewardship experiences (Program 4.A.3); establish low-impact buffer zones with native plants
species along creeks to enhance habitat value (Program 4.C.3); implement water conservation measures (Programs
6.E.13 through 6.E.18); and implement storm water design and management features (Programs 6.E.19 through
6.E.22). The full text of these programs is listed in Project Description, Section 2.9.5, Table 1. A list of high priority
projects and physical improvements is presented in Project Description, Section 2.9.8. The construction projects
undertaken to implement the Master Plan could impact water quality and hydrologic resources through soil erosion.
a) Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
The following goals, policies and programs from the Master Plan would help to protect water quality in the City’s
urban parks and recreational facilities:
Goal 6: Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and
qualitative measures.
Policy 6.E: Incorporate sustainable best practices in the maintenance, management, and development of open
spaces, parks, and recreation facilities where consistent with ecological best practices.
Program 6.E.19: Promote urban greening by integrating storm water design into planting beds, reducing
irrigation and providing interpretive information about park contributions to city water quality.
Program 6.E.21: Ensure project designs for new facilities and retrofits will be consistent with sustainable
design principles and practices. This includes evaluating all projects for opportunities to implement Green
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 115
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Stormwater Infrastructure such as bioswales, storm water planters, rain gardens, permeable pavers and
porous concrete and asphalt.
Program 6.E.22: Identify locations and develop swales, detention basins and rain gardens to retain and treat
storm water.
Policy 6.F: Strengthen the Integrated Pest Management (“IPM”) policy as written. While some parks may be
managed as “pesticide free” on a demonstration basis, IPM should continue to be Palo Alto’s approach, grounded
in the best available science on pest prevention and management.
Program 6.F.1: Periodically review and update the IPM policy based on best available data and technology.
Nevertheless, implementation of Master Plan programs could result in projects which cause disturbances to the
ground surface from earthwork, including removal of vegetation and trees, grading and trenching. These activities
could potentially increase the amount of sediment runoff from the site that flow into the City’s storm drains or natural
drainage channels. Increased sediment could negatively impact water quality of runoff flowing from the site.
Construction of park facilities could also involve the use of hazardous materials that are potentially harmful to water
quality, such as vehicle fuels, fluids, paints, thinners, and other chemicals. Accidents or improper use of these
materials could release contaminants to the environment. Additionally, oil and other petroleum products used to
maintain and operate construction equipment could be accidentally released. Standard water quality measures
implemented as Grading Permit requirements would be adequately address the potential water quality pollutants
from project construction.
The City would implement BMPs to protect water quality and prevent sedimentation during specific project
construction activities per city Grading Ordinance requirements. Projects involving disturbance of more than one
acre would also be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP which requires BMPs to protect water quality and
an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. With implementation of the BMPs in the SWPPP and the Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan required for the Grading Permit, construction of park improvement projects would not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Park project would be subject to the Comprehensive Plan policies
and Municipal Code requirements listed above under Regulatory Setting.
Projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area would also be subject to
Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit and would have to include appropriate source control, site design,
and storm water treatment measures for low impact development.
Implementation of park projects in conformance with existing regulatory requirements for the protection of water
resources and water quality would ensure impacts to water resources would be less than significant.
b) Deplete Groundwater Supplies
Implementation of the Master Plan would not result in activities which increase the demand of groundwater supplies
or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level. Furthermore, there are no substantial recharge areas that would be affected by the
Master Plan. The goals, policies and programs within the Master Plan including Goals 4 and 6, Policies 4.D and 6.E,
and Programs 4.D.2 and 6.E.13-20 address water conservation issues.
c & d) Increase Storm Water Runoff, Alter Existing Drainage Patterns or Create Erosion, Stream Bank Instability
Some Master Plan projects may include new impervious surface area that could alter drainage patterns and/or
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff and/or cause erosion or siltation. Programs 6.E.19, 6.E.21, and 6.E.22,
listed above under Water Quality Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements, include the integration of storm
water detention and treatment areas into project design. As previously stated, projects that create or replace 10,000
square feet or more of impervious surface area would be subject to Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 116
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
and would have to include appropriate source control, site design, and storm water treatment measures for low
impact development. Park projects would be designed, implemented and operated in accordance with federal, state
and local policy as described above and would not result in steam bank instability.
With implementation of the policies and programs in the Master Plan and compliance with applicable water quality
and hydrology regulations, implementation of the Master Plan would not significantly impact drainage patterns or
increase storm water runoff in a manner that causes erosion or siltation.
e & f) Storm Drainage Flooding and Drainage System Capacity
Implementation of the Master Plan would not substantially alter any existing drainage patterns, streams or rivers,
and would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that could cause increased
flooding. It would also not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems.
g) Urban Runoff Pollutants or Degrade Water Quality
Implementation of the Master Plan would not introduce new sources of pollutants to storm water or otherwise
substantially degrade water quality. Implementation of the Master Plan would likely improve existing conditions,
including any drainage issues through improvements to park infrastructure or in implementation of new control
policies through the application of Master Plan goals, policies, and programs. Master Plan Goals 4 and 6, Policies 4.A,
4.C, 4.D, and 6.E, and Programs 1.B.10, 2.C.1-3, 4.A.1-2, 4.C.2-3, 4.D.1-7, and 6.E.21-22 seek to improve waterways
and creek health, limit storm water and potential pollutant runoff, and conserve water usage.
h, i, & j) Flood Hazard and Dam Inundation
Adoption of the Master Plan would not result in the placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. Parts
of the City are within a 100-year flood zone, or are in areas subject to sea level rise, or in areas that could be impacted
by dam failure. Several reservoirs in Palo Alto present the remote risk of downstream inundation in the event of a
dam failure as the result of an earthquake or other catastrophic event. Dams that pose an inundation threat include
Searsville Reservoir, Felt Lake and Lagunita Reservoir. The potential inundation zone is mainly in the western portion
of Palo Alto, west of the Oregon Expressway.
The Master Plan primarily seeks to upgrade and improve existing parkland and recreational facilities within the City
of Palo Alto. The smaller park projects described in Section 2.9 of the Project Description would not expose people
or structures to flooding. Larger projects identified in the Project Description would be subject to additional analysis
and CEQA review. Flood hazards would be investigated once the location and design features of these larger projects
are known. These projects would be reviewed to ensure that proposed structures did not impede or redirect flood
flows and that the project did not expose people or structures to significant risk from flooding.
As a result, adoption of the Master Plan would not place people or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area.
k) Seiche, Tsunami and Mudflow
A tsunami is a series of traveling ocean waves generated by a rare, catastrophic event, including earthquakes,
submarine landslides, and volcanic eruptions. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Tsunami
Inundation Map, only the Baylands area of Palo Alto is located within the tsunami inundation zone. Implementation
of the Master Plan would not increase risk of exposing people to tsunami risk as the Master Plan does not propose
any new development in the Baylands Preserve.
A seiche is an oscillation wave generated in a closed or partially closed body of water, which can be compared to the
back-and-forth sloshing in a bath tub. Seiches can be caused by winds, changes in atmospheric pressure, underwater
earthquakes, tsunamis, or landslides into the water body. Bodies of water such as bays, harbors, reservoirs, ponds,
and swimming ponds can experience seiche waves up to several feet in height during a strong earthquake. A seiche
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 117
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
could, theoretically, occur in the Bay as the result of an earthquake or other disturbance, but the threat of flooding
would be no greater than the threat of tsunami inundation in the tsunami inundation zone. Therefore, seiches could
occur in the Baylands area but the potential impact would be minimal.
Mud and debris flows are mass movements of dirt and debris that occur after intense rainfall, earthquakes, and
severe wildfires. The speed of a slide depends on the amount of precipitation, steepness of the slope, and alternate
freezing and thawing of the ground. According to the ABAG map of rainfall-induced landslides, there are several
small, isolated areas in the southern, mountainous portion of Palo Alto that have been subject to rainfall-induced
landslides in the past. ABAG also provides maps that show debris flow source areas. The source areas are all in the
western foothills area of Palo Alto which is maintained as open space. The Master Plan does not propose any new
development in the preserves located in the foothills of Palo Alto and would not increase the risk of mud or debris
flows.
Adoption and implementation of the Master Plan would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 118
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 41, 25
b) Conflict with any applicable City land use
plan, policy, or regulation (including but not
limited to the Comprehensive Plan, CAP, or
the City’s Zoning Ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
41, 26, 36, 44, 53,
32
i) Substantially adversely change the type
or intensity of existing or planned land
use patterns in the area?
ii) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses
or with the general character of the
surrounding area, including density and
building height?
iii) Conflict with established residential,
recreational, educational, religious, or
scientific uses of an area?
c) Conflict with an applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1
1
41, 55
1, 55
Environmental Setting
This analysis summarizes the environmental and regulatory setting information for land use contained in the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR.
Palo Alto has a total land area of 25.79 square miles, of which approximately 59 percent is protected open space.
Development in the City is concentrated within the Urban Service Area, which has a land area of 13.95 square miles.
Open space preserves in the southern foothills and the Baylands make up a large portion of land within the city limit.
The urbanized portion of Palo Alto is largely built out, and as such, Comprehensive Plan land use designations are
generally consistent with existing uses and land use boundaries usually follow property lines. In general, the Palo
Alto’s open space and single-family neighborhoods together make up over 80 percent of the City’s existing land uses.
Other land uses making up the remaining 20 percent include business and industrial (7.4 percent), public institutional
(4.4 percent), multi-family residential (3.5 percent), commercial land uses (2.7 percent), and mixed-use (0.2 percent).
Figure 10 below, originally presented in the Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR, provides an overview of land use
designations and their distribution throughout the City.
Residential Land Uses
Residential land uses make up approximately 27 percent of the total land area within the city limit (with single-family
land uses representing 23.3 percent and multi-family land uses representing 3.5 percent). The majority of residential
uses are located in the urbanized portion of the City, between El Camino Real and Highway 101, although there are
several residential neighborhoods west of El Camino Real and south of the Stanford University campus. These are
primarily single-family residences. Additionally, there are single-family residential neighborhoods on larger parcels in
Palo Alto, west of Highway 280, bordering the Town of Los Altos Hills.
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan IS/MND
Figure 10 Current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations
!
!
FOOT
H
I
L
L
E
X
P
Y
FA
B
I
A
N
W
A
Y
SAND
H
I
L
L
R
D
AL
MA S
T
SEALE
A
V
E
SAN A
N
T
O
N
I
O RD
ORE
G
O
N
EXPYEL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
QU
A
R
R
Y
R
D
LOM
A
V
E
R
D E AVE
ARA
S
TRAD
E
RO
RD
E CHA
R
L
E
S
T
O
N RD
EM BARCADERO WAY
PASTEU
R DR
CALI
F
O
RNIA
A
VE
LIN
C
O
L
N
A
V
E
UNIVER
S
I
T
Y
A
V
E
§¨¦280
ÿ|82
£[101
Mountain View
East Palo Alto
Stanford
University
Los Altos Hills
Menlo Park
SAN
FRANCISCO
BAY
Los Altos
Arastradero Preserve
Baylands
Preserve
Byxbee
Park
SOFA II CAP
SOFA I CAP
Baylands Master Plan
East Charleston Road
SAN FRANCISCO
BAY
Residential
Single Family Res
Multi-Family Res
Multi-Family Res (w/Hotel Overlay)
MIUL/Campus Multiple Family
Mixed Use
MIUL/Campus Single Family
Commercial
Hotel Commercial
Service Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Regional/Community Commercial
Business/Industrial
Other
Light Industrial
Research/Office Park
SOFA II CAP
SOFA I CAP
School District Land
Major Institution/Special Facility
MIUL/Campus Educational Facility
Streamside Open Space
Public Park
Open Space/Controlled Development
MIUL/Academic Reserve and Open Space
Public Conservation Land
!Caltrain Stations
Railroads
Urban Service Area
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations
Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; The PlaceWorks, 2014; MIG 2017
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 120
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Commercial Land Uses
Commercial uses make up 2.7 percent of the land area within the City limit. The largest commercial area in the City
is the approximately 1.4 million-square-foot Stanford Shopping Center, which is a regional shopping center hosting a
variety of department stores and luxury retailers. The shopping center is surrounded to the south and east by
residential neighborhoods and to the west by the Stanford University campus. To the north of the shopping center,
there are residential neighborhoods, some of which are within the City limit of Menlo Park.
The second largest cluster of commercial land uses is located along El Camino Real, to the south of the Stanford
University campus. The Downtown/University Avenue and California Avenue business districts are the other
commercial hubs in the City.
Business and Industrial Land Uses
Research, office, and light industrial uses make up a combined total of 7.4 percent of the land area within the City
limit. In part, as a result of the proximity to Stanford University, the largest business park in Palo Alto is the 10 million-
square-foot Stanford Research Park. This area, south of the Stanford Campus and to the west of El Camino Real, is
home to the headquarters of major technology companies including Hewlett Packard, which was founded in Palo
Alto.
In addition to the Stanford Research Park, there is an area of light industrial development along the southern border
of Palo Alto, just west of Highway 101. East of Highway 101 along East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road is
another area of mixed one- to two-story office and light industrial businesses.
Public and Institutional Uses
Public and institutional uses occupy a total of 4.4 percent of the land area in the City. This category includes schools,
churches, medical facilities, fire stations, police stations, and other municipal facilities, including City Hall and other
supporting structures.
Open Space Uses
Open space uses include publicly owned conservation land, public parks, streamside open spaces, and open space
land where controlled development is permitted, as in the Baylands near Palo Alto Airport. The majority of these
uses are located in the southwestern portion of the City and adjacent to San Francisco Bay in the Baylands Master
Plan Area, although Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Park in the western hills of the City are significant
open space areas. Some of these areas contain forestry resources as shown on maps prepared by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Public parks and streamside open spaces are found
throughout the Urban Service Area. In total, open space uses account for nearly 59 percent of the land area within
the City limit.
Regulatory Setting
Land use regulations relevant to the impact analysis of each of the environmental disciplines in the Environmental
Checklist are presented and discussed in the specific impact analysis section. For example, the Stanford University
Habitat Conservation Plan is discussed in “D. Biology” and the Municipal Noise Ordinance is discussed in “I. Noise.”
The land use policies and regulations described below are those that are focused on land use planning and urban
design.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains the City’s official policies on land use and community design,
transportation, housing, natural environment, business and economics, and community services. Its policies apply to
both public and private properties, and it focuses is on the physical form of the City.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 121
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Plan is used by the City Council and Planning Commission to evaluate land use changes and to make funding and
budget decisions. It is used by City Staff to regulate building and development and to make recommendations on
projects. It is used by citizens and neighborhood groups to understand the City’s long-range plans and proposals for
different geographic areas. The Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and the foundation
for its capital improvements program.
The Comprehensive Plan is a legal document that must meet specific State requirements for content. State law
establishes the topics that must be addressed, as well as the maps and diagrams the Plan must contain. The Plan
must be comprehensive, long-range, and internally consistent. Its policies apply to all properties within Palo Alto’s
“sphere of influence,” a boundary that includes all land within the City limits, Stanford University, and other property
in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Although the County is not obligated to comply with the Plan in the
unincorporated area, mutual cooperation provides benefits to the City, County, and University.
State law requires that local plans contain seven mandatory sections, or “elements,” although the State allows
considerable flexibility in how these elements are organized. The required elements consist of: 1) Land Use, 2)
Circulation, 3) Housing, 4) Open Space, 5) Conservation, 6) Safety, and 7) Noise.
Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan departs from the structure suggested by the State in a number of ways. The scope
of the Land Use Element has been broadened to address community design. The Natural Environment Element
incorporates open space, conservation, public safety and noise. The Plan also includes a Business and Economics
Element and a Community Services and Facilities Element. Although these two elements address topics that are not
required by State law, the issues they address are fundamental to the future quality of life in Palo Alto. Once adopted,
the optional elements have the same legal status as the mandatory elements. No single element or subject
supersedes any other. Each element includes goals, policies, and programs that are the essence of the Plan and are
to be consulted to guide decisions on a wide range of issues. To be consistent with the Plan, a project must not only
be permitted on the Land Use and Circulation Map, it must also meet the intent of the Plan’s policies.
Relevant Land Use Policies and Programs
Policy L-1: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within
the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth
boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with
allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area.
Retain undeveloped Baylands northeast of Highway 101 as open space.
Program L-2B: City staff will review development proposals within the Airport Influence Area to ensure
consistency with the guidelines of the Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and when
appropriate, will refer development proposals to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission for
review and comment.
Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable
due to their size and scale. Scale is the relationship of various parts of the environment to each other, to people,
and to the limits of perception. It is what establishes some neighborhoods or streets as pedestrian oriented and
others as automobile-oriented. In older portions of Palo Alto, the grid of City terns and building placement are
oriented primarily to the automobile user. In the newer commercial areas, buildings are usually set behind
parking lots located along the street, and landscaping sometimes provides a visual buffer for the motorist.
Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential
areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions
between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever
possible.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 122
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Goal L-3: Safe, Attractive Residential Neighborhoods, Each with Its Own Distinct Character and Within Walking
Distance of Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public Gathering Places.
Program L-41: Support bicycle and pedestrian trail improvements along a restored Matadero Creek within
Hoover Park.
Program L-69: Enhance all entrances to Mitchell Park Community Center so that they are more inviting and
facilitate public gatherings.
Program L-70: Study the potential for landscaping or park furniture that would promote neighborhood parks
as outdoor gathering places and centers of neighborhood activity.
Policy L-62: Provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art adjacent to library and
community center entrances.
Policy L-68: Integrate creeks and green spaces with the street and pedestrian/bicycle path system.
Land Use and Circulation Map
The Land Use and Circulation Map shows the intent of the Comprehensive Plan with regard to development,
redevelopment, and preservation of public and private properties in the Palo Alto Planning Area. It expresses the
Plan’s goals, policies, and programs in map format. The “Planning Area” covered by the map includes all land within
the City limits, as well as some adjacent areas of Santa Clara County (including Stanford University and several parcels
in the foothills) and two City-owned parcels in San Mateo County. Because Palo Alto is a built-out city, proposed land
uses are generally consistent with existing uses and land use boundaries usually follow property lines. However, it is
important to keep in mind that the Land Use and Circulation Map is not the same as the Zoning Map. For each land
use category shown on the diagram, there will be at least one zoning designation and usually more.
The Land Use Map shows parkland and open space as “Publicly Owned Conservation Land,” “Streamside /Open
Space,” and “Public Parks.”
Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Palo Alto Airport (2008, as amended) is intended to safeguard the
general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of Palo Alto Airport and ensure that new surrounding uses do
not affect the airports continued safe operation. Specifically, the CLUP seeks to protect the public from the adverse
effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft
accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. Within these safety
zones, the safety policies of the CLUP restrict land uses such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and other uses in
which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or disabled; amphitheaters, sports stadiums and other
very high concentrations of people; and storage of fuel or other hazardous materials. Policy G-6 of the CLUP states:
“Any proposed uses that may cause a hazard to aircraft in flight are not permitted within the AIA [Airport Influence
Area]. Such uses include electrical interference, high intensity lighting, attraction of birds (certain agricultural uses,
sanitary landfills), and activities that may produce smoke, dust, or glare.”
Policy H-1 also addressed land use: “Any structure or object that penetrates the Federal Aviation Regulations Part
77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, (FAR Part 77) surfaces, as presented in Table 3-3 and illustrated on Figure
6 will be considered an incompatible land use.” The FAR Part 77 surfaces in Figure 6 of the CLUP limit the heights of
structures to 154 feet or less in the immediate vicinity of the airport ( Figure 9 in Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
Palo Alto Municipal Code
The sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code that are most relevant to land use and planning are summarized below.
Many other sections of the code that deal with specific technical issues will also affect land use and development.
These sections are summarized where relevant in other section of the Initial Study. For example, Chapter 16.49,
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 123
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
which deals with historic preservation, is described in Section E, Cultural Resources. The Noise Ordinance (Chapter
9.10) is discussed in Section L, Noise.
Title 18, Zoning: Palo Alto’s Zoning Ordinance serves to implement the proposed Plan land use designations by
establishing comprehensive zoning regulations for the City. The Zoning Ordinance includes the zoning map, which
establishes and delineates various districts within the incorporated territory of the city, and zoning regulations that
apply development standards to the different zones delineated on the zoning map. The purpose of the Zoning
Ordinance is to promote the general welfare of the people of Palo Alto; accomplish objectives, policies and programs
from the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; and prevent land use conflicts. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance contains
the procedures that apply to the review of development projects in the City, including the Planning Commission’s
role in that process.
Section 18.76.020: This section of the Zoning Ordinance establishes Architectural Review procedures for “major” and
“minor” projects in Palo Alto, excluding single-family and two-family homes. Through the architectural review
process, projects are evaluated for their compatibility with their surroundings, harmonious transitions in scale and
character between different land uses, safe and convenient access, integration of natural features, appropriate
construction materials, and other aspects.
Baylands Master Plan
The Baylands Master Plan was originally adopted in 1978 and later amended in 1987/1988. The current edition of
the Baylands Master Plan, adopted in 2008, includes the history, environmental setting, and adopted planning goals
and policies for the Baylands area. Policy implementation and City Council actions from 1988 through 2007 are
described within the document. The Baylands Master Plan itself contains a thorough account of the conditions on
the site, broken down by the different areas within the Baylands Master Plan Area, which include the Municipal Golf
Course, landfill area, harbor area, duck pond and lagoon, and the natural unit. Other chapters in the Baylands Master
Plan include Access and Circulation, Flood Protection, and Land Use Designations in the Baylands, and Comprehensive
Plan relationship.
The Baylands Master Plan’s planning area covers the majority of the portion of the city east of Highway 101. The Plan
contains policies aimed at the protection of overall environmental quality, including historic buildings, and design
guidelines.
Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) was adopted in July 2012. The BPTP contains the policy
vision, design guidance, and specific recommendations to increase walking and biking rates to address the impacts
of regional growth while maintaining mobility.
Urban Forest Master Plan
The Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP), adopted in 2015, establishes long-term management goals and strategies to
foster a sustainable urban forest in Palo Alto. The UFMP addresses topics such as the state of Palo Alto's tree canopy,
BMPs, interdepartmental coordination, and tree-related City regulations. The UFMP affects various aspects of land
use, development, sustainability, human health programs, and vegetative environmental services benefits.
Additionally, the UFMP advises that potential land use changes outside City lands should maximize tree canopy
benefits.
Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan
On November 23, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA Fisheries) published the Final Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), analyzing the potential effects of issuing incidental take permits under the
HCP. USFWS issued Stanford an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) on August 13, 2013 that covers 4,372 acres within Santa
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 124
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Clara County and the city of Palo Alto. The areas covered by this HCP within the city limits of Palo Alto include the
Stanford Research Park, the Stanford University Medical Center, and the Stanford Shopping Center. The ITP allows a
landowner to “take” species protected under the Endangered Species Act in the course of conducting the activities
covered by the permit. In exchange for a permit, landowners agree to pursue specific management protections for
endangered and threatened species. The HCP is discussed in more detail in D, Biological Resources.
Discussion
a) Physically Divide a Community
As described in Section 2.9 of the Project Description, many of the projects identified in the Master Plan are smaller
projects related to the maintenance and improvement of existing parks. These smaller projects would not change
roadway patterns, nor would they construct barriers inhibiting pedestrian or bicycle movement. Master Plan Policy
1.G would benefit circulation within the community as it encourages walking and biking as a way of getting to and
from parks and specific programs under this policy support the implementation of the BPTP.
Master Plan Policy 1.B encourages the expansion of the parkland inventory and the establishment of new parks within
the underserved areas of the City (see Figure 3 in Project Description) and programs under Policy 1.B identify possible
ways to accomplishing this, including acquiring new parcels as they become available, investigating the potential use
of existing easements and City-owned right-of-ways, or using other underutilized City-owned outdoor space for park
and recreation programming. The Master Plan would be implemented slowly, over time, and as opportunities and
funding become available. Any new park or outdoor public space included in the City park system would be planned,
designed and managed consistent with existing land use plan designations for the parcel, and in conformance with
Comprehensive Plan policies related to land use and urban design (Policies L-5, L-6, and Goal L-3).
Implementation of the Master Plan would not physically divide a community.
b) Conflict with City Plans, Policies or Regulations
The Master Plan was prepared to be consistent with existing City plans, policies and regulations particularly for those
having been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Table 2 in Project Description
lists the zoning designation and the land use designation for each park. Policy 6.H of the Master Plan specifically
states the City shall coordinate park projects with other relevant City plans to ensure consistency.
As actual improvements/enhancements/expansions related to the Master Plan are proposed, a design and review
process would be followed to ensure actions taken to complete the project would not conflict with the parks land
use and zoning designations and applicable City standards. These standards include the Comprehensive Plan, the
Municipal Code, water quality management plans, urban water management plan, air quality plans, and local, state,
and federal regulations that protect biological resources, any of the plans specifically listed in Master Plan Policy 6.H,
and the land use plans presented in the Regulatory Setting discussion of this section. Therefore, impacts of the Master
Plan with respect to conflicts with applicable plans, policies and regulations would be less than significant. This design
process would ensure that the projects carried out under the Master Plan would not propose any land use changes
that would alter the type or intensity of existing or planned land use for the area or conflict with the existing land use
designation for the park.
Larger projects identified in the Master Plan (see Section 2.9 of the Project Description) would be pursued in a manner
that would ensure the project would not be incompatible with adjacent land uses, the character of the surrounding
area, or conflict with established uses in the area. Each project would go through its own planning and design process
to ensure consistency with adopted City ordinances, plans and policies, and to ensure potential environmental
impacts are identified and addressed. Projects carried out under the Master Plan would undergo additional CEQA
review to identify and mitigate potential environmental impacts when design plans become available. Specifically,
the Cubberley Community Center Master Plan would be planned, designed, and constructed consistent with
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 125
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Comprehensive Plan policies for land use planning, urban design, protection of adjacent neighborhoods, and would
go through the Architectural Review process (City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 18.76.020).
Since the Baylands Athletic Center is located within the Palo Alto Airport’s Airport Influence Area, development
projects must be evaluated by local agencies to determine how the Airport CLUP may impact the proposed
development. This evaluation is to determine that the development meets the conditions specific conditions
specified for height restriction (i.e., less than 154 feet), and noise and safety protection to the public. Development
of the Baylands Athletic Center would be planned and designed so the new sports complex would be in conformance
with requirements in the Palo Alto Airport CLUP, Baylands Master Plan, and all other applicable City ordinances and
policies.
Any new parks would be targeted for development in underserved areas and would be designed under the principles
of the Master Plan to ensure they are appropriate for the neighborhoods in which they are proposed. Any new or
enhanced/expanded park facilities would be designed to be compatible with adjacent land uses and/or with the
general character of the surrounding area. Any changes to, or additions of, Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open
space and recreation system would incorporate existing City park rules and regulations, landscape regulation, and
design guidelines and standards (Policy 6.D). Finally, the Master Plan would not conflict with established residential,
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area.
c) Conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan
Two city parks, El Camino Park and the Stanford-Palo Alto Playing Fields, are within the area covered by the 2013
Stanford University HCP. Any Master Plan activities within these two parks that involve ground disturbance have the
potential to conflict with the Stanford HCP. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would prevent potential conflicts with the
Stanford HCP for Master Plan activities within these two parks. See “D. Biology” for further discussion.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-4 addresses potential impacts related to the Stanford University HCP.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 126
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
1, 26
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
1, 26
Discussion
a) Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource of Value to the Region and Residents of the State
The City of Palo Alto’s currently adopted Comprehensive Plan states: “Palo Alto does not contain any mineral deposits
of regional significance.” Adoption of the Master Plan would not create any loss of availability of a known mineral
resource of value to the region and residents of the State. No impact would occur to mineral resources from the
adoption and implementation of the Master Plan.
b) Loss of Availability of a Locally-Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan does not identify any locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the
City. Therefore, the Master Plan would not result in any adverse impacts to locally important mineral resources. No
impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 127
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
L. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
1
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or the municipal code,
state standards, or applicable standards of
other agencies, including but not limited to:
1, 24, 27, 33, 53
i) Result in indoor noise levels for
residential development to exceed an
Ldn of 45 dB?
1
ii) Result in instantaneous noise levels of
50dB or more in a bedroom or 55 dB or
more measured from other rooms inside
a house?
1
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project,
including:
1, 24
i) Cause the average 24-hour noise level
(Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or
more in an existing residential area, even
if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB?
1
ii) Cause the Ldn to increase by three dB
or more in an existing residential area,
thereby causing the Ldn in the area to
exceed 60dB?
1
iii) Cause an increase of three dB or more
in an existing residential area where the
Ldn currently exceeds 60dB?
1
d) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
1, 53
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1
Environmental Setting
Noise may be defined as loud, unpleasant, or unwanted sound. The frequency (pitch), amplitude (intensity or
loudness), and duration of noise all contribute to the effect on a listener, or receptor, and whether or not the receptor
perceives the noise as objectionable, disturbing, or annoying.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 128
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Decibel Scale
The decibel scale (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. Sound levels in dB
are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a tenfold increase in acoustic energy, while 20
dBs is 100 times more intense, 30 dBs is 1,000 more intense, and so on. In general, there is a relationship between
the subjective noisiness, or loudness of a sound, and its amplitude, or intensity, with each 10 dB increase in sound
level perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness.
Sound Characterization
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common method is the “A-weighted sound level,” or
dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is typically most sensitive.
Thus, most environmental measurements are reported in dBA, meaning decibels on the A-scale.
Human hearing matches the logarithmic A-weighted scale, so that a sound of 60 dBA is perceived as twice as loud as
a sound of 50 dBA. In a quiet environment, an increase of 3 dB is usually perceptible, however, in a complex noise
environment such as a long a busy street, a noise increase of less than 3 dB is usually not perceptible, and an increase
of 5 dB is usually perceptible. Normal human speech is in the range from 50 to 65 dBA. Generally, as environmental
noise exceeds 50 dBA, it becomes intrusive and above 65 dBA noise becomes excessive. Nighttime activities, including
sleep, are more sensitive to noise and are considered affected over a range of 40 to 55 dBA.
Existing Noise Setting
Typical noises associated with park and recreational facilities vary from location to location and are dependent on
the types of amenities present at the particular recreational location. For example, the types of noises generated at
a dog park are different that those generated at sports fields, playgrounds, or other recreational areas in an urban
park setting. Furthermore, the sounds generated at the previously mentioned locations are considerably different
than those at an open space preserve; while the Baylands Preserve has several loud noise generators nearby (Palo
Airport, Highway 101, etc.) the western foothills preserves don’t experience typical urban noise. The one common
denominator in terms of noise sources across all recreational facilities identified in the Master Plan, is the operation
of motor vehicles. Locations throughout Palo Alto that provide recreational opportunities for the community are
mostly situated in residential areas, and away from substantial sources of noise (such as industrial areas, or freeways),
although several parks experience high volumes of traffic noise. Generally speaking, typical noises emanating from
park facilities include, but are not limited to: children laughing, dogs barking, brief whistles from activities related to
sports games, and the standard operation of motor vehicles. General noises experienced at open space preserves
are sounds of the environment, although airplane over flights do contribute to the noise environment at the
preserves and traffic noise is audible in certain locations.
Regulatory Setting
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 9.10 the City’s Municipal Code establishes limits on the generation of noise on different land uses to prevent
excessive noise impacts on adjacent properties. For public properties, a violation of the ordinance would occur if a
machine or device produced a noise level more than 15 dB above the local ambient noise level at a distance of 25
feet, unless an exception applied. Section 9.10.060(b) of the City’s Municipal Code exempts from this prohibition
construction noise from the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on
Saturdays, so long as the following conditions are met:
1. No individual piece of equipment produces a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet;
2. The noise level at any point outside the property plane of the project does not exceed 110 dBA; and
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 129
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3. The holder of a valid construction permit for a construction project in a non-residential zone shall post a sign
at all entrance to the construction site upon commencement of construction, which informs all contractors,
subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of the basic requirements in Chapter 9.10 of the municipal code.
The sign referenced in condition “3.” above, should be posted at least five feet above ground level, have a white
background with black lettering, and read:
“CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
(Includes Any and All Deliveries)
MONDAY-FRIDAY........8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
SATURDAY.........9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
SUNDAY/HOLIDAYS........Construction prohibited.”
Operation of parks, recreational facilities, and other public properties are subject to Section 9.10.50 of the Municipal
Code, Public Property Noise Limits. This section states:
a) No person shall produce suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of
same, on public property, a noise level of more than fifteen dB above the local ambient at a distance of
twenty-five feet or more, unless otherwise provided in this Chapter [Chapter 9.10].
b) Sound performance and special events not exceeding eighty dBA measured at a distance of fifty feet are
exempt from this chapter when approval therefor has been obtained for the appropriate governmental
entity, except as provided in Section 22.04.180 of this code.
c) Vehicle horns or other devices primarily intended to create a loud noise for warning purposes, shall not be
used when the vehicle is at rest, or when a situation endangering life, health or property is not imminent.
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Element includes a number of policies related to
noise generation and standards. The following policies from the Natural Environment Element would work to ensure
future park improvement and infrastructure projects are designed, constructed, and implemented in such a manner
as to avoid noise impacts on other park uses and on adjacent land uses, particularly residential neighborhoods. In
addition to the policies listed below, Table 10 presents the City’s land use compatibility guidelines for noise
(referenced in Policy N-39).
Policy N-39: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in
the table “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” to determine compatibility.
Policy N-41: When a proposed project is subject to CEQA, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land
uses should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact,
regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an
increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. A project should be considered to cause a
significant degradation of the noise environment if it meets any of the following criteria:
• The project would cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 dB or more in an existing
residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB;
• The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in existing residential area, thereby causing
the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB;
• The project would cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently
exceeds 60 dB.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 130
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 10: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment
Relevant Land Use Category Community Noise Exposure Level (CNEL)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential, Hotel, and Motels
Outdoor Sports and Recreation,
Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds
Schools, Libraries, Museums, Hospitals,
Personal Care, Meeting Halls, Churches
Office Buildings, Business Commercial, and
Professional
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, & Amphitheaters
Office, Business, Retail, Commercial
Key:
Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based on the assumption that any building involved are of normal
construction, without and special noise insulation requirement.
Conditionally Acceptable – New construction should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed
windows and fresh air supply systems will usually suffice.
Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally not be undertaken because mitigation is usually not feasible
to comply with noise element policies.
Source: 24
Policy N-42: The City may require proposals to reduce noise impacts of development on adjacent properties through
appropriate means including, but not limited to, the following:
• Construct noise walls when compatible with aesthetic concerns.
• Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment.
• Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings.
• Whenever possible, retain fences, walls, or landscaping that serve as noise buffers although design, safety
and other impacts must be addressed.
• Use soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows.
• Control the hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 131
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Discussion
All improvements, projects, and facilities identified in the Master Plan, as well as construction activities associated
with such future development, would be subject to the City’s noise policies and standards. The Master Plan
recommends projects and improvements; however, adoption of the Master Plan would not automatically authorize
any specific development or the construction of improvements contemplated in the Master Plan. Specific
development or improvement projects recommended by the Master Plan would be evaluated under CEQA once
funding and designs become available. When design information becomes available, specific noise impacts could be
evaluated based on project conditions. Until such projects are designed, any analysis of specific impacts would be
premature. For this reason, the following discussion generally describes the effects future implementation of projects
and improvements identified in the Master Plan may have on sound levels in Palo Alto.
Construction activities including vegetation removal and planting, trail construction, building construction, and other
minor facility construction would generate typical construction sounds from equipment activity. Construction noise
would vary depending on the type of equipment and tools needed for construction. Most parks and open space
preserves would not experience an increase in operational noise as a result of implementation of minor
improvements envisioned in the Master Plan. However, larger projects, including but not limited to, the Cubberley
Community Master Plan, the Baylands Athletic Center Expansion, the remodeling of the Rinconada Pool Facility, and
the construction of a new gym would all require further CEQA review to determine potential noise impacts.
a) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibrations or Groundborne Noise Levels
All projects and improvements identified in the Master Plan, as well as any construction activities associated with
such future development would be subject to the City’s noise policies and standards. Generally, park and recreational
facilities are located within existing neighborhoods. Future implementation of projects and improvements identified
in the Master Plan would typically be minor in nature (e.g. construction of restrooms, implementation of signs, etc.),
located away from residences, and would not require the use of heavy-duty construction equipment (e.g. pile drivers)
that have the potential to create excessive groundborne vibration. Subsequent review of these
projects/improvements prior to their implementation would ensure people would not be exposed to excessive
groundborne vibration. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Exposure Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Established Standards
Adoption of the Master Plan would not expose people or generate noise levels in excess of the noise standards
established by the City or State. Future implementation of projects and improvements identified in the Master Plan
would typically be minor in nature (e.g. restrooms, signs, etc.), and construction activities would be short in duration.
Typical operation of a neighborhood park is not a substantial source of noise. Section 9.10.50 of the City’s Municipal
Code sets forth limitations on the types and the level of noise that can be generated at parks, recreational facilities,
and other public properties. These stipulations are codified to ensure residents and those enjoying recreational
facilities are not exposed to excessive and unwanted noise.
One of the main focuses of the Master Plan is to encourage community members to walk, bike, or run to recreational
facilities, as opposed to taking motorized vehicles when heading to a community/regional park or recreational facility.
The Master Plan aims to achieve this through the future implementation of programs such as increased signage, as
well as the amount of recreational opportunities within any given area of Palo Alto (see Table 1, Programs 1.B.4,
1.B.9, 1.B.10, 1.D.1, 1.D.2, 1.G.2, 1.G.8, 3.A.5, 5.D.1, 5.D.2, and 5.D.3.). Based on the information presented in the
current Comprehensive Plan, reducing the amount of traffic on roadways would assist in an overall slight reduction
of local roadway noise, the largest source of noise in the City.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 132
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
c) Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Construction
Construction noise is temporary, intermittent, and noise levels vary based on the number and type of construction
equipment used at any given time. In general, construction equipment can generate noise levels between 70 and 90
dB at a distance of 50 feet during operation. In the City of Palo Alto, construction noise is exempt from the hours of
8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays, so long as conditions identified
in Section 9.10.060(b) of the City’s Municipal Code are met. Compliance with the provisions set forth in the Municipal
Code would ensure construction noise is limited to the daytime, when many people are away at work or school;
construction activities would not continue into the evenings or nighttime when people are most likely to be adversely
impacted.
Furthermore, the construction or designation of additional parks in areas currently underserved could reduce the
amount of travel required by community members to reach parks or open spaces. This reduction in trip length may
encourage the public to walk, bike, run, etc. as opposed to driving the park/recreational space.
Operation
New parks and/or new park facilities may result in new or additional recreational activities being conducted at any
given park, which could result in temporary or periodic noise. Noise generated by recreational activities would not
be considered substantial because it would be consistent with the land use compatibility guidelines, and be limited
to the hours the park or recreational facility is open. Many park amenities people tend to congregate around while
at parks are situated away from residences, thereby reducing the potential for temporary or periodic undesirable
noise exposure at adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, most of the facilities identified in the Master Plan
are existing areas for recreation. These areas have existing noise sources associated with them related to
maintenance activities conducted by the City or its contractors; adoption of the Master Plan would not substantially
alter the existing noise generated through these activities.
d & e) Airport Noise
Nearby public airports include Moffett Federal Airfield (approximately 5 miles east of the City), San Carlos Airport
(approximately 5 miles northwest of the City), and San Jose International Airport (approximately 13 miles southeast
of the City)9. The Palo Alto Airport, a small public airport, is located in the northeastern portion of the City by the
Baylands. Although the Master Plan may result in an intensification of use at the Baylands, the Master Plan does not
contemplate an alteration of land use designation within the CLUP jurisdictional area or the Airport Influence Area
of the Palo Alto Airport. Furthermore, all future park projects and activities proposed in the Palo Alto Airport
Influence Area would need to be consistent with the public safety requirements of the CLUP and City requirements
(e.g., land use noise compatibility guidelines, see Table 10). New development, such as the Baylands Athletic Center
Expansion, would be required to comply with these plans and policies, thus eliminating the potential for a significant
impact to occur. There are no private airports in the vicinity of the City or planning area; no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
9 All distances are measured from the City’s closest boundary to the airport.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 133
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
1
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1
d) Create a substantial imbalance between
employed residents and jobs?
1
Discussion
The City of Palo Alto can be described as a suburban residential community located in the heart of the Silicon Valley.
As of 2015, the City had a population 66,853 residents. Over the last five years, the City has grown faster than
projected estimates, and forecasts indicate the population could increase by anywhere from 10% - 15% over the next
13 years. Approximately 60 percent of Palo Alto’s residents live in single-family detached homes, and another third
live in multifamily units. See pages 26 and 27 of the Master Plan for a summary of key demographic information and
trends considered in the Master Plan.
a) Induce Substantial Population Growth
No residential development is proposed in the Master Plan. Implementation of the Master Plan would not induce
substantial population growth either directly or indirectly. While some projects/improvements may increase some
additional service jobs, they would not result in a new substantial increase in population growth. The project would
not impact population growth.
b & c) Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing Housing or People
The Master Plan serves as a guide to expand, preserve, and enhance the City’s parkland and recreational facilities.
No residential development is proposed in the Master Plan, and the Master Plan does not propose to demolish any
residential units. No impact would occur.
d) Create a Substantial Imbalance Between Employed Residents and Jobs
Adoption of the Master Plan would not create an imbalance between employed residents and jobs. While some
projects/improvements may increase some additional service jobs, they would be the type filled by local residents
and would not be at a rate creating an imbalance between jobs and employed residents. Additionally, adoption of
the Master Plan would not remove jobs. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 134
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional school facilities in
order to maintain acceptable performance
standards?
1, 35, 36, 43
b) Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional fire protection
facilities in order to maintain acceptable
performance standards?
1, 35, 36, 43
c) Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional police protection
facilities in order to maintain acceptable
performance standards?
1, 35, 36, 43
d) Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional parks and
recreation facilities in order to maintain
acceptable performance standards?
1, 35, 36, 43
e) Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional library facilities in
order to maintain acceptable performance
standards?
1, 35, 36, 43
Environmental Setting
The City of Palo Alto is a full-service city with police and fire departments, park and recreation divisions, library and
cultural arts programs, medical facilities, educational institutions, as well as youth, senior and childcare services.
Schools
Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) serves more than 12,000 students within the areas of Palo Alto, portions of
the Town of Los Altos, portions of Portola Valley, and the Stanford University campus. PAUSD contains 13 elementary
schools, three middle schools, and two high schools. In addition, special populations are serviced through a
preschool, Young Fivers program, Adult School, and the Hospital School at Stanford’s Lucille Packard Children’s
Hospital. The City also contains, or is serviced through, a larger district including: a variety of private school facilities,
charter schools, specialty and technical schools, community colleges, two small private four-year institutions, and
Stanford University.
Fire Protection
Fire protection services are provided by the Palo Alto Fire Department employing 121 year-round personnel and
additional seasonal professionals during the summer months as needed for the heightened wildfire danger. The Palo
Alto Fire Department also provides Emergency Management Services for both the City and Stanford University
campus.
Law Enforcement
Law enforcement services are provided by the Palo Alto Police Department. In 2015, police responded to 58,243 calls
for service; a 2.6 percent decrease from 59,773 calls in 2014 and an 11.6 percent decrease from 65,861 calls in 2013.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 135
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Parks
The City of Palo Alto currently owns and operates 31 parks and four open space preserves. In addition to these urban
parks and open space preserves, the City requires private development to provide access easements, public plazas,
private parks and pedestrian and cyclist connections based on City conditions of approval and standards including
CEQA review. The City also offers numerous programs through the Recreation Services Division, including youth and
adult sports, teen and middle school activities, after school programs, and special events. Parklands and related
recreational facilities and programs are discussed further in the Project Description, as well as the “O. Recreation.”
The Project Description includes Figure 2, which maps Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Spaces, and Table 2,
which lists details of existing Palo Alto Parks and Natural Open Spaces.
The Master Plan Policy 1.B establishes an increase in parkland standards from 3 to 4 parkland acres per 1000 residents
in response to growth. The Master Plan programs under this policy suggest opportunities to create parklands through
public-private partnerships, development of design standards and potential project conditions of approval. Seeking
opportunities and implementation to increase parklands including will require individual CEQA review.
Libraries
The City of Palo Alto governs five community libraries at several locations throughout the City, each containing a
collection of books, internet access, and a variety of online materials, including audio and video collections. The City
also maintains an eBranch of the library, which allows the public to access to books, music, and videos online.
Discussion
The Master Plan, developed in response to community needs, identifies a range of projects that would be considered
improvements to existing parks and recreational facilities through enhancements, such as the addition of amenities,
landscaping or minor improvements, and the potential expansion of parklands or facilities to accommodate City
growth and address the issue of underserved areas in the City. Many of the Master Plan’s goals, policies, and
programs identify the City’s vision for the improvement and expansion of programs and services at City parks,
recreational facilities, and open space preserves. These goals, policies, and programs related to public services
offered by the City are discussed below in greater detail.
a & e) Construction of Additional Schools and Libraries
The Master Plan does not propose additional residential or other population inducing development that would
contribute to the need for the construction of additional schools and/or library facilities to maintain acceptable
performance standards. Implementation of the Master Plan would not result in adverse impacts with respect to
schools or library facilities within the City. No impact would occur. Enhancing partnerships and recreation activity
such as implementing a joint-use school sites for recreation and unstructured play after school hours will require
individual CEQA review.
b & c) Construction of Additional Fire Protection Facilities and Police Facilities
The Master Plan does not propose additional residential or other population inducing development that would
contribute to the need for the construction of additional facilities to maintain acceptable performance standards for
fire protection or police facilities. Many of projects and actions contemplated in the Master Plan are minor in nature,
and would involve improving existing facilities (see Table 1, Programs 2.A.6, 2.B.9, 2.D.1, 2.E.2, 4.B.2, 4.D.1, 4.D.3,
and 5.A.5). These minor projects would not substantially alter the accessibility or response time of emergency
personnel to these sites. Other developments envisioned in the Master Plan, such as the Cubberley Community
Center Master Plan, Baylands Athletic Center Expansion, enhancement of the Rinconada Park Pool Facility, and other
new park development would require further analysis under CEQA when project plans became available (see Table
1, Policies 1.B, 2.D, and 5.D). This subsequent level of review for projects and improvements would ensure future
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 136
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
development would create the demand for additional fire protection or police facilities. No impacts to police or fire
department facilities or performance standards would occur.
d) Construction of Additional Parks and Recreational Facilities
Implementation of the Master Plan may result in changes to City-owned parks and open space through the
development of the Master Plan policies and programs; particularly Policy 1.B, which outlines the development of
new parks (see Table 1). These parks would be developed as opportunities for acquisition presented themselves and
as funding allowed. Many of the improvements would be considered an upgrade or enhancement to an existing
facility with addition of amenities, landscaping, or minor improvements. The Master Plan as a whole was designed
to maintain acceptable performance standards for parks and recreational activities within the City of Palo Alto. Each
proposed new park would be considered, designed and constructed consistent with adopted City policy, including
but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan, the Municipal Code, and this Master Plan. Each new park proposal would
undergo separate CEQA review to ensure adverse physical impacts from the construction of additional parks and
recreation facilities would not significantly impact the physical environment. This IS/MND has included general
mitigation measures that would be applied to all future projects under the Master Plan for air quality, biology, and
cultural resources that mitigate potentially significant impacts to those resource areas to less than significant.
Therefore, adoption of the Master Plan would not result in any significant impacts, including cumulative impacts,
with respect to the construction or improvement of parks, recreational facilities, and open space preserves.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures AIR-1, BIO-1a through BIO-4, and CUL-1 through CUL-3 address potential
impacts from the construction of recreational projects.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 137
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
O. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
1, 41
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
1, 41
Discussion
The City of Palo Alto is currently served by 31 urban parks, which include a number of recreational amenities. These
amenities include, but are not limited to: play areas for children, open spaces to relax or exercise in (e.g. frisbee,
kickball, etc.), picnic areas, and sports fields for organized games. In addition to these urban parks, the City also owns
and operates four natural open spaces totaling more than 4,000 acres, and a number of other recreational facilities
such as the Rinconada Pool Facility.
Most of Palo Alto’s park sites are set in an urban context, within neighborhoods connected by city streets. However,
the largest portion of the land in the system is held in natural open space preserves. An expanding network of trails
and bikeways supplements the sidewalks and streets that connect these assets together. Most Palo Alto residents
have access to a city park within a ¼ to ½ mile of their residences. Gaps exist north of Oregon Expressway near
Highway 101 and along Sand Hill Road near commercial and institutional land uses.
The majority of the parks in Palo Alto are neighborhood parks, primarily designed to support the everyday activities
of local residents. Several parks also feature unique facilities such as community gardens and dog parks. There are
several parks that draw visitors from across the City and from neighboring communities. These parks typically have
a higher concentration of facilities, including high quality sports fields. Some of these parks are designed for a specific
use and do not serve immediate neighbors (e.g., Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park and Stanford Palo Alto
Playing Fields), while others, like Greer, Mitchell, and Rinconada Parks, which considered regional parks, also function
as neighborhood parks.
City parks are diverse in size and amenities, but many are older and/or have aging facilities. Palo Alto’s urban parks
are highly developed with maintained landscapes across their entire acreage. Due to the era when they were built,
some parks are not flexible enough to allow different uses within the same space. Rather, they provide a collection
of spaces designed for a single activity.
In contrast to the city parks and recreational facilities primarily located in the northern portion of the City, the open
space preserves offer a different set of recreational opportunities. The Baylands Preserve is characterized by vast
stretches of marsh shrubs, interrupted occasionally by fingers of water making their way in from the bay. It is not
uncommon for residents and other community members to be found kayaking, bird watching, or hiking/biking on
the trails in this area. Foothills Park offers a vast network of trails, as well as picnic sites and fishing opportunities.
The Pearson-Arastradero Preserve is somewhat similar to Foothills park, but unlike its southern counterpart, the
Baylands Preserve, also offers trails that accommodate horseback riding on them as well. The Esther Clark Preserve
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 138
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
is the smallest open space preserve managed by the City, and due to its undeveloped nature, is an ideal getaway for
meditation or other quiet, peaceful activities.
The following discussion will address the CEQA checklist questions related to Recreation, while at the same time
highlighting some of the most notable features programs slated for future implementation, should the Master Plan
be approved and adopted by the City.
a) Increase the Use of Existing Neighborhood and Regional Parks or Other Recreational Facilities
The Master Plan is a long-range planning document that guides how existing parks, trails, open space and recreation
programs should be improved and expanded. It directs the location and needs of future parks and recreation facilities
as well as improvements to existing parks to meet the goals of the community. A number of Master Plan goals,
policies, and programs illustrate the City’s vision for expansion of recreational opportunities, whether it be through
the improvement of existing facilities (e.g. incorporation of bicycle parking or the construction of bathrooms; see
Table 1, Programs 1.G.2 and 2.E.2), or the creation of new ones (e.g. the construction of urban parks and dog parks;
see Table 1, Policies 1.B and 2.D). In addition to enhancing existing facilities or creating new ones, the Master Plan
also envisions improvements that would connect the parks through the incorporation of signage, and
development/enhancement of trails (see Table 1, Policies 1.D, 1.G, 2.B.9, 3.A, and 4.B). For a full list of goals, policies,
and programs that may have an environmental effect, see Table 1. In general, enhancing and improving existing
facilities is intended to increase the use of these facilities.
As part of the enhancement process, new operations and maintenance needs would be considered to prevent
deterioration of the enhanced/improved facilities. In particular, the Master Plan encourages the incorporation of
sustainable BMPs in the maintenance and management of parks, open space, and recreation facilities (Policy 6.E.).
Thus, implementation of the Master Plan would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities in a way such that substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be
accelerated. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Include Recreational Facilities or Require the Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities
As discussed in the prior response, the Master Plan envisions the construction and expansion of recreational facilities
to serve the members of the community in Palo Alto; however, adoption of the Master Plan itself would not
automatically authorize any specific development or the construction of improvements contemplated in the Master
Plan that could have an adverse effect. Specific development or improvement projects recommended by the Master
Plan would be evaluated individually under CEQA. Some smaller projects, such as adding a restroom, integrating
nature into park, construction trail linkages, placing wayfinding signs, or otherwise modifying existing developed
areas may be exempt from CEQA. Other larger project would require expanded CEQA review once project-level
designs have been prepared. Projects likely requiring subsequent CEQA review include: the Cubberley Community
Center, the 7.7 acre Foothills Park extension, expansion of the Baylands Athletic Center, and acquiring and developing
new parks and trails. This IS/MND has included general mitigation measures for air quality, biology, and cultural
resources to mitigate potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Therefore, adoption of the Master Plan
would not result in any significant impacts, including cumulative impacts, with respect to the construction, expansion,
or improvement of parks/recreational facilities/open space preserves.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures AIR 1, BIO-1a through BIO-4, and CUL-1 through CUL-3 address potential
impacts from the construction of recreational projects.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 139
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Cause an intersection to drop below its
level of service standard, or if it is already
operating at a substandard level of service,
deteriorate by more than a specified
amount?
1, 38
b) Cause a roadway segment to drop below its
level of service standard, or deteriorate
operations that already operate at a
substandard level of service?
1, 38
c) Cause a freeway segment or ramp to
operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in
excess of 1 percent of segment capacity to
a freeway segment or ramp already
operating at LOS F?
1, 38
d) Impede the development or function of
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
1, 28, 38
e) Increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle
facilities that cannot be met by current or
planned services?
1, 28, 38
f) Impede the operation of a transit system as
a result of congestion or otherwise
decrease the performance of safety of such
facilities?
1, 53
g) Create demand for transit services that
cannot be met by current or planned
services?
1
h) Create the potential demand for through
traffic to use local residential streets?
i) Cause any change in traffic that would
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
1
i) Create an operational safety hazard? 1
j) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1
k) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
1,53
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 140
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
l) Cause queuing impacts based on a
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue
storage capacity? Queuing impacts
include, but are not limited to, spillback
queues at project access locations; queues
at turn lanes at intersections that block
through traffic; queues at lane drops;
queues at one intersection that extend
back to impact other intersections, and
spillback queues on ramps?
1
The analysis for this section utilizes information contained in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants for the Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR. Information included in the Transportation
and Traffic section of the Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR (including the findings of the TIA) are summarized
below. For a detailed discussion of traffic conditions within the City, please see the original traffic impact report
prepared by Hexagon.
Environmental Setting
Motor Vehicle Circulation
The City of Palo Alto is a busy, metropolitan area which contains established downtown and suburban areas, as well
as Stanford University. Regional motor vehicular access to Palo Alto is provided by two freeways and one State
Highway. Highway 280 passes through the City to the west of the Urban Service Area, proving connections north to
San Francisco and south to San Jose. Highway 101 runs along the eastern perimeter of the City, also providing a north-
south freeway connection between San Francisco and San Jose. Additionally, State Route 82 (El Camino Real) passes
through the heart of Palo Alto on a north-south axis. Local travel throughout Palo Alto is provided through a series
of local, collector, arterial, and residential arterial roadways. In addition to identifying parks and recreational facilities
in the City, Figure 2, presented in the Project Description, also provides the location of Highway 101, Highway 280,
State Route 82, as well as other major arterial roads in the City, such as Embarcadero Road, Oregon Expressway,
Arastradero Road, and Alma Street.
The TIA presents a detailed discussion of existing traffic conditions within the City including:
• Level of Service Analysis (LOS) at 14 intersections throughout the City. Eleven of the study intersections are
included in the County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP), which means that they are intersections
of Countywide importance.
• Roadway Segment Motor Vehicle Level of Service. The TIA evaluated existing traffic conditions along 13
selected roadway segments.
• Freeway Segments and Freeway Ramps Analysis. The TIA looked at six freeway interchanges and the freeway
segments north and south of them.
• Motor Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). For purposes of looking at additional characteristics of trip making,
VMT by trip orientation was analyzed. VMT is a statistic that is used in noise and air quality analyses because
it provides an indication of the overall performance of the automobile and truck transportation system
within the City. A greater number of VMT generally means more noise and more air pollution.
• Transit systems serving the City including Caltrain train service, Valley Transportation Authority and
SamTrans bus systems, and local shuttle systems.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian circulation.
The TIA describes significant traffic congestion within the City both on freeways and local roadways.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 141
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The parks, facilities, and open space preserves addressed by the Master Plan are typically in an urban setting, mostly
surrounded by roads in business or residential areas. Traffic densities around the parks vary by location and time.
However, it is possible to consider the parks in a general sense as small recreational settings within a highly-urbanized
environment.
Bicycle Circulation
The City of Palo Alto has approximately 65miles of existing bikeways (see Figure 4), which include Class I, II, and III
Bikeways, as defined by Caltrans, and defined below:
Class I bikeways are referred to as multi-use or shared-use paths that are physically separated from a roadway
by either at least five feet of landscape or other form of barrier. Class I bikeways provide exclusive use for non-
motorized modes of transportation and must contain a paved path with a minimum width of either feet and two-
foot-wide graded shoulders. Palo Alto has approximately 15.3 miles of Class I paths.
Class II bikeways are striped lanes on roadways that provide for one-way bicycle travel. Class II bike lanes that
are located on streets without parking, are required to be a minimum of four feet in width, including any concrete
gutter, with a minimum of three feet of asphalt. Bike lanes on streets with parallel parking must be at minimum
five feet wide; however, it is important to note that many communities have adopted wider minimum width
standards to reduce potential conflict with the “door zone” to provide additional safety. There are approximately
30 miles of Class II bike lanes in the city.
Class III bikeways are signed bike routes where bicyclists share travel lanes with motorists. Class III lanes are
typically routes where roadways cannot provide for Class II bike lanes, but still have a bicycle demand. Palo Alto
has approximately eight miles of Class III routes, most of which are signed routes only and do not contain shared
lane markings.
Class III bicycle boulevards provide for shared use, integrating traffic calming and crossing improvements to
prioritize bicycle travel on low-volume, low-speed local streets.
Although the City already has a vast bicycle network throughout the City, there are areas identified in the Palo Alto
Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan for improvements that would add a total of approximately 60 miles of
enhanced or new routes to the existing bicycle roadway network. These improvements could include street markings,
curb extensions, and signalized changes at approximately 40 different intersections throughout the City, including
along major roadways such as El Camino Real, Arastradero Road, Embarcadero Road, Oregon Expressway, and others.
Pedestrian Circulation
Pedestrian circulation throughout the City is provided via dedicated facilities and shared facilities. Dedicated facilities,
such as sidewalks, unpaved trails and private paths, courtyards, pedestrian alleys, pass-throughs, and parks differ
from shared facilities in the aspect that they are separated from motor vehicle traffic. Examples of shared facilities
include shared-use paths and barrier crossings, streets without sidewalks, and service alleys/public parking lots.
In general, pedestrians have access to a network of sidewalks within the City, with the exception of southwest Palo
Alto and several other corridors where there is a low demand from residents and feasibility is limited. Other areas
are in need of improvement/repair, such as El Camino Real. While unpaved trails and private paths are typically
located in the more rural regions of the City (e.g., regional open space areas) courtyards, pedestrian alleys, and parks
are generally located at the interior of city blocks and provided dedicated space for pedestrian activity.
Although less common than their counterparts, the City does feature some streets without sidewalks. These streets
are primarily located in the Barron Park and Monroe Park neighborhoods where a lack of sidewalks helps maintain
the rural character of those areas. In some locations, there is a soft shoulder provided; however, most of these streets
lack sufficient width for continuous facilities.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 142
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Regulatory Setting
California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358)
Originally passed in 2008, California’s Complete Streets Act was implemented in 2011 and requires local jurisdictions
to plan for land use transportation policies that reflect a “complete streets” approach to mobility. Complete streets
comprise a suite of policies and street design guidelines that provide for the needs of all road users, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit operators and riders, children, the elderly, and the disabled. From 2011 onward, any
local jurisdiction—county or city—that undertakes a substantive update of the circulation element of its general plan
must consider “complete streets” and incorporate corresponding policies and programs. Palo Alto has incorporated
complete streets policies into the Comprehensive Plan addressing this issue.
Valley Transportation Plan 2040
The Valley Transportation Plan 2040 (VTP) provides a long-term planning and policy framework for developing and
delivering future transportation projects. Location-specific improvements for all modes of travel are covered in three
major program areas: Highways, Local System, and Transit. The Highways Program includes major freeway
improvements, local freeway interchanges, and express lanes. The Local System Program includes local roadway
improvements, expressway improvements, pedestrian and bicycle projects, and technology-related projects. The
Transit Program includes projects related to transit efficiency and new transit improvements. Additional program
areas that do not include specific projects: Pavement Management and the Community Design and Transportation
Program. The VTP also identifies transportation needs through a systematic approach based on input from local
jurisdictions, elected officials and the community.
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 10 Vehicles and Traffic
Title 10 regulates vehicle and traffic operations within the City, including traffic-control devices, pedestrian safety,
bicycling safety and routes, and general vehicle and traffic safety. Chapter 10.32 establishes pedestrian safety
regulations, such as the establishment of crosswalks. Chapter 10.36 addresses general parking regulations, such as
where parking is permitted.
Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The BPTP builds on existing goal statements from the City’s existing Comprehensive Plan to provide direction and
accountability for the Comprehensive Plan’s implementation.
Comprehensive Plan
Policies from the existing Comprehensive Plan that relate to the proposed Master Plan include:
Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use
Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at
both local and regional levels
Policy T-4: Provide local transit in Palo Alto.
Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities,
schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations.
Policy T-19: Improve and add attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including
multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, in private developments, and at other community
destinations.
Policy T-20: Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 143
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Policy T-22: Improve amenities such as seating, lighting, bicycle parking, street trees, and interpretive stations
along bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks to encourage walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of
safety
Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking,
public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details.
Discussion
Section 2.9 of the Project Description describes the types of projects and physical improvements that may occur with
implementation of the Master Plan goals and policies. A list of high priority projects is presented in Section 2.9.8,
some of which may have the potential to create traffic with projects involving major improvements to park and public
facilities, such as the construction of a new public gymnasium and the creation of a Cubberley Community Center
Master Plan. It is worth noting many of these large-scale projects that are anticipated to increase traffic in the area
have been excluded from the scope of this Initial Study in Section 2.9.10.
The proposed Master Plan recommends projects and improvements; however, it would not automatically authorize
any specific development or the construction of improvements contemplated in the Master Plan. Specific
development or improvement projects recommended by the Master Plan would need to be evaluated under CEQA
once funding and designs become available. Some of these improvements, such as the construction of restrooms and
trail connections, the placement of wayfinding signs, and vegetation management at existing park locations would
result in little to no increases in vehicular traffic. Once funding and designs become available, potential traffic impacts
would be evaluated based upon project-specific conditions.
Larger scale projects like the Cubberley Community Center or the 7.7 acre Foothills Park Extension would subject to
the City’s Municipal Code, Chapters 18.28 (Special Purpose [PF, OS and AC] Districts), 18.40 (General Standards and
Exceptions), and 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses), which set forth parking requirements. Compliance with these
sections of the Municipal Code would ensure projects identified under the Master Plan would not result in a shortage
of parking.
The discussion below addresses potential long-term impacts to general traffic operations. Short-term impacts to
traffic could potentially occur during the construction of individual projects that would be built during as a result of
the proposed Master Plan.
Two proposed Master Plan goals and associated policies and programs address, or could potentially affect, traffic
elements. Goal 1 provides high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, affordable, inclusive and distributed
equitably across Palo Alto. Specifically, Policies 1.B, 1.D and 1.G and their relevant programs address the expansion
and creation of neighborhood parks, development of creek walks, installation of signage, connection of bike trails to
parks, improvements to trail connections and encouragement of the community to walk and cycle to parks instead
of driving. Goal 2 create environments that encourage active and passive activities to support health, wellness and
social connections. Specifically, Policy 3.A sets out to connect walking paths within and between parks to encourage
walking and jogging.
a, b, & c) Intersection Service Standard, Roadway Segment Service Standard, Freeway/Ramp Level of Service
Implementation of the proposed Master Plan is not anticipated to have an impact on intersection level of service,
roadway segment operation, or freeway/ramp level of service. Park projects implemented under the Master Plan
would primarily be focused within existing parks and would not generate additional traffic (see Section 2.9.8 of the
Project Description). However, larger projects identified in the Master Plan such as the Cubberley Community Master
Plan, the Baylands Athletic Complex, establishment of new parks and other larger projects developing new recreation
facilities could generate new traffic and may have the potential to draw large numbers of people to the new facilities,
resulting in impacts to the transportation system. These projects would undergo additional CEQA review once project
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 144
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
plans became available and traffic impacts associated with the project would be addressed so the project mitigated
potentially significant traffic impact. The projects would be designed to be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code,
as well as the Comprehensive Plan policies and strive to minimize traffic impacts as a whole. Additionally, the goal of
creating additional neighborhood parks would reduce the need for additional travel to parks that are situated further
away, thus not adding to traffic at local intersections or on neighborhood streets.
d) Impede Development of Planned Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities
The proposed Master Plan would not impede the development of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. The Master
Plan policies and programs would, in fact, promote the development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Policy 1.G
encourages walking and biking as a way of getting to and from parks, and supports the implementation of the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. No impact would occur.
e) Increase Demand for Planned Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities
It is anticipated that implementation of the proposed Master Plan will increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle
facilities with improvements to the existing infrastructure; however, the anticipated increase in use of these facilities
by residents is not expected to exceed their design capacity. Additionally, the implementation of Policies such as 1.D,
1.G and 3.A would encourage users to travel between parks and recreational areas using bicycles or walkways.
Implementation of the improvements proposed in the Master Plan, such as developing new walking trails, improving
trail connections, and implementing signage between parks would not result in a significant impact under CEQA.
f) Impede Operation of a Transit System
The proposed Master Plan would not impede the operation of existing transport systems. Due to the implementation
of connector trails and pathways between parks, the additional anticipated cyclists would not have an impact on
road and other transit systems. Implementation of projects recommended by the Master Plan is not anticipated to
draw people from distant places whom would travel to the City using mass transit. It is possible that Palo Alto
residents may use a local service to travel to and from certain park facilities. This level of use by residents of the exist
shuttle system would not be substantial, and would not constitute a significant impact.
g) Create Demand for Transit Services
Existing transit services are not expected to be impacted by implementation of the proposed Master Plan. The Master
Plan’s goals encourage walking and cycling to parks and recreation areas, which would not place a strain on existing
transit services. Additionally, the goal of creating additional neighborhood parks would further reduce the need for
additional travel to parks that are situated further away.
h) Potential Demand for Through Traffic
As described above, additional traffic is not anticipated from the implementation of the proposed Master Plan due
to the goals promoting walking and cycling, and improvements and expansions to trails and cycling facilities.
i) Operational Safety Hazard
Due to the lack of additional traffic or demands on transit systems, no additional traffic hazards would be created
from the implementation of the proposed Master Plan.
j) Inadequate Emergency Access
No project or program in the proposed Master Plan would impede existing emergency access for vehicles. There is
no impact to emergency access under CEQA.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 145
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
k) Change in Air Traffic Patterns
None of the existing recreational facilities or planned park areas (with the exception of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf
Course and Baylands Athletic Center Expansion) are located in airport land use planning areas/airport influence areas,
runway protection zones, or the Palo Alto Airport’s noise contours. Improvements to the Golf Course and the
development of the Baylands Athletic Center Expansion would be required to comply with applicable policies,
including the provisions set forth in the Palo Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The proposed Master Plan would
not have an effect on airports, aircraft, flight patterns, or otherwise cause an impact under CEQA to air traffic
patterns.
l) Queuing Impacts
See response to Intersection Service Standard, Roadway Segment Service Standard, Freeway/Ramp Level of Service
question, above.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 146
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Need new or expanded entitlements to water
supply?
1, 36
b) Result in adverse physical impacts from new or
expanded utility facilities due to increase use
as a result of the project?
1, 36
c) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of
a utility facility due to increased use as a result
of the project?
1, 36
d) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
1, 36
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
1, 36
f) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
1, 36
g) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
1, 36
h) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
1, 36
i) Result in a substantial increase in natural gas
and electrical service demands that would
require the new construction of energy supply
facilities and distribution infrastructure or
capacity enhancing alterations to existing
facilities?
1, 36
Environmental Setting
The City of Palo Alto runs its own community-owned utilities, including electricity, natural gas, fiber optic, water, and
wastewater.
Wastewater
The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) oversees a wastewater collection system consisting of over 217 miles of sewer
lines. Wastewater effluent is routed to the Palo Alto Reginal Water Quality Control Plant, managed by the City’s Public
Works Departments, where it is treated prior to being discharged into the San Francisco Bay.
Water Supply – Potable Water
The City of Palo Alto Water Utility serves approximately 16,000 residential customers (meters) and approximately
3,500 non-residential customers. The local distribution system includes 236 miles of water piping. The City purchases
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 147
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
all of its potable water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). This water is delivered from the
City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System, operated by the SFPUC.
Storm Water
The City owns and maintains a municipal storm drain system consisting of approximately 107 miles of pipelines, 2,750
catch basins, 800 manholes, and six pump stations. These improvements are located within Palo Alto public road
right-of-way.
Solid Waste
The City contracts with locally-based and privately-owned GreenWaste of Palo Alto for the collection and
transportation of municipal solid waste, commercial organics, residential yard trimmings, and mixed recycling. All
municipal solid waste is processed at the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station, which recovers
approximately 18 percent of organic or recyclable material that would have otherwise been landfilled. Any remaining
trash is landfilled primarily at the Kirby Canyon Landfill in San Jose. Kirby Canyon has a remaining capacity of
approximately 21.6 million tons of a total project capacity of approximately 29 million tons.
Electricity and Natural Gas
The City of Palo Alto serves 29,500 electric customers over an area of approximately 26 square miles. A natural gas
distribution system has been owned and operated by the City since 1917. The system receives natural gas from
PG&E’s regional transmission system through four gate stations. As of 2015-16, the system had 24,860 meters
(customers), 211 miles of gas mains (two to 12 inches), and 17,439 services lines (half to six inches).
Discussion
Adoption of the Master Plan would not automatically authorize specific development or construction of
improvements, rather it would provide a larger framework of goals and policies that assist in identifying and
prioritizing the various projects. Specific development or improvement projects recommended by the Master Plan
would be evaluated under CEQA, unless the improvement is found to be not a project under CEQA or is categorically
exempt.
Adoption of the Master Plan would not create adverse physical impacts from new or expanded utility facilities due
to increased use or substantial physical deterioration of a utility facility due to increased use as a result of
implementation of the Master Plan. A number of goals, policies, and programs identified in the Master Plan illustrate
the City’s vision for expansion of recreational opportunities, whether it be though the improvement of existing
facilities (e.g. construction of bathrooms; see Table 1, Programs 2.E.2), or the creation of new ones (e.g. construction
of urban parks and dog parks; see Table 1, Policies 1.B and 2.D). All projects/improvements would be evaluated for
their potential to adversely affect utilities and their service systems prior to approval and initiation. Furthermore,
Policy 6.E highlights a number sustainable best management practices, such as utilization of recycled water and
exploration of grey water systems, which may reduce the demand on utility services from current conditions.
a) New or Expanded Entitlements to Water
Adoption of the Master Plan would not authorize specific development or construction of improvements, rather it
would provide a larger framework of goals and policies that assist in identifying and prioritizing various projects and
to guide their design and implementation. Many of the goals, policies, and programs contained in the Master Plan
seek to improve existing facilities. These facilities are currently served by adequate water utility infrastructure. Future
development or improvement projects recommended by the Master Plan would be evaluated prior to their approval
and execution. Some improvements may be found to be not a project under CEQA, and some projects, as defined
under CEQA, may be categorically exempt. Projects identified in the Master Plan are typically minor in nature, and
would not create new or expanded entitlements to water supply. Additionally, as identified in Table 1, Programs
6.E.13-22 seek to promote water efficiency though a number of means, including the conservation of water and
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 148
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
utilization of grey water systems. These programs could lead to an overall decrease in water demand from off-site
sources. This impact would be less than significant.
b & c) Adverse Physical Impacts from New or Expanded Utility Facilities Due to an Increase in Use and Deterioration
of Facilities
Many of the projects and improvements in the Master Plan would be minor in nature, and would not require
additional utility facilities to accommodate the future development. Future development or improvement projects
recommended by the Master Plan would be evaluated under CEQA. Some improvements may be found to be not a
project under CEQA, and some projects, as defined under CEQA, may be categorically exempt. Subsequent review of
improvements identified in the Master Plan would ensure future implementation of these projects/improvements
would not create significant impacts on utility facilities. This impact would be less than significant.
d & e) Wastewater
Implementation of the Master Plan could potentially result in an increased generation of wastewater, possible
construction of new storm water drainage facilities, and expansion of existing facilities from implementation of the
Master Plan; however, the Master Plan would not result in substantial or adverse effects because it is not inducing
growth. Rather, the goal of the Master Plan is to provide improved recreational facilities and services for the existing
and projected population of Palo Alto. In particular, implementation of the Master Plan would not exceed wastewater
treatment requirements as determined by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, or result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project (discussed
in more detail in “I. Hydrology and Water Quality”). This impact would be less than significant.
f) Construction of New Storm Water Drainage Facilities or Expansion of Existing Facilities
As stated in Programs 6.E.13-22 (see Table 1), practices to promote water efficiency, including storm water
management, would be priorities for any new landscaping or facilities recommended in the Master Plan. Although
future development or improvements recommended in the Master Plan may involve the construction or alteration
of storm water drainage facilities these improvements would be evaluated under CEQA, unless the improvement is
not defined as a project under CEQA. This subsequent review would ensure developments would not have a
significant environmental impact related to storm water drainage facilities. This impact would be less than significant.
g & h) Solid Waste
Implementation of the projects/improvements identified in the Master Plan could potentially create an increase in
solid waste generation; however, the increase would not be substantial because the Master Plan is not inducing
growth, rather its goal is to provide improved recreational facilities and services for the existing and projected
population of Palo Alto. Programs 6.E.5-9 aim to reduce overall waste and divert recycled and composted material
from landfills. Thus, although adoption of the Master Plan could potentially increase solid waste generation due to
increased uses of recreational facilities for activities, such as barbeques, it would not be in substantial amounts, and
the Master Plan reinforces the City’s commitment to sustainability. This impact would be less than significant.
Implementation of future projects and improvements envisioned in the Master Plan would be required to comply
with federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to solid waste. No impact would occur.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 149
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
i) Natural Gas and Electrical Service Demands
Implementation of the Master Plan may create an increased demand for natural gas and electrical service; however,
this increase would not be substantial (discussed in more detail in the “R. Energy Conservation”). Programs 6.E.1-5
of the Master Plan state the importance of energy efficiency in implementation of any future upgrades and
improvements to parklands and recreational facilities. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 150
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
R. ENERGY CONSERVATION
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Have an energy impact? Energy impacts may
include:
1, 36
i) impacts resulting from amount and fuel type
used for each stage of the project.
1, 36
ii) impacts on local and regional energy
supplies and on requirements for
additional capacity.
1, 36
iii) impacts on peak and base period demands
for electricity and other forms of energy
1, 36
iv) impacts to energy resources. 1, 36
v) impacts resulting from the project’s
projected transportation energy use
requirements.
1, 36
Environmental Setting
The City of Palo Alto provides electricity, natural gas, and fiber optic services to its residents. The City serves 29,500
electric customers over an area of approximately 26 square miles. The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) purchases
electric power from hydroelectric resources, including those managed by the Western Area Power Administration
(WAPA) and the Calaveras Hydroelectric Project, owned and operated by the Northern California Power Agency
(NCPA). Power from these hydroelectric supplies is supplemented with energy from other renewable suppliers and
supplies from the market in order to meet the customer demand. A natural gas distribution system has been owned
and operated by the City since 1917. As of 2015-16, the system had 24,860 meters (customers), 211 miles of gas
mains (two to 12 inches in diameter), and 17,439 services lines (half and inch to six inches in diameter).
Regulatory Setting
In March 2013, the City Council of Palo Alto approved a Carbon Neutral Plan, which committed Palo Alto to using
carbon neutral electric sources from that point forward. The Carbon Neutral Plan focuses on energy efficiency and
increasing the number of contracts for energy from solar, wind, and landfill gas capture sources. The City continues
to ramp up its purchase of renewable energy, and, through efficiency measures, reduce its total consumption of
energy.
Discussion
a.i) Amount and Fuel Type Used
Adoption of the Master Plan would not authorize specific development or construction of improvements, rather it
would provide a larger framework of goals and policies that assist in identifying and prioritizing the various projects.
Future developments or improvements recommended in the Master Plan would be evaluated under CEQA, unless
the improvement is not defined as a project under CEQA. Fuel consumption would result from implementation of
new projects in the future; however, until such projects are designed and approved by the City of Palo Alto, any
analysis of specific project-specific impacts would be premature. It is worth noting that a majority of the projects and
improvements envisioned in the Master Plan (e.g., new restrooms, improving trail connections, development of adult
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 151
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
fitness areas in parks, development of new community gardens, enhancing existing sports fields, etc.) are minor in
nature, would not result in substantial consumption of fuel.
Upon completion of developments envisioned in the Master Plan, there would still be the potential for fuel to be
consumed in the form of automobiles traveling to and from recreational spaces; however, the Master Plan as a whole
does not encourage this mode of transportation. The Master Plan specifically identifies the need for additional parks
and recreational spaces in areas that are currently underserved (i.e. areas that do not have parks/facilities within a
quarter-mile of residences). Members of the community would be more likely to take advantage of recreational
amenities near where they live, reducing long-term gasoline/diesel consumption within the City of Palo Alto. Policy
1.B aims to have a park within one-half mile of City residents, while Policies 1.D and 1.G emphasize the desire to
expand and connect pedestrian walkways and bike paths (detailed in “P. Transportation and Traffic”). The adoption
of the Master Plan would not result in a substantial increase in transportation energy. This impact would be less than
significant.
a.ii) Local and Regional Energy Supplies
As stated in Goal 6, Policy 6.E. and Programs 6.E.1-4, the Master Plan prioritizes energy efficiency and conservation.
Parkland and recreational facility improvements, as recommended in the Master Plan, would employ energy efficient
policies and programs when possible, thereby reducing the impacts on energy sources and supplies, including local
and regional sources. Additionally, adoption of the Master Plan would not authorize specific development or
construction of improvements; specific development or improvement projects recommended by the Master Plan
would be evaluated under CEQA, unless the improvement is found to not be a project under CEQA. This impact would
be less than significant.
a.iii) Peak and Base Period Demands for Electricity and Other Forms of Energy
Energy use has steadily decreased since 2008 and is expected to decline at an average rate of 0.2 percent per year
until 2018. Energy needs, as recommended in the Master Plan, would not impact energy supplies, nor would they
substantially demand additional capacity. Electric demand in the City has been stable over the past decade, and
Master Plan impacts to peak and base period demands for electricity, as well as other forms of energy, would not
destabilize this trend. This impact would be less than significant.
a.iv) Energy Resources
The Master Plan calls out various goals, policies, and programs related to conserving energy or sourcing it from
renewable sources (see Table 1, Programs 6.E.1, 6.E.2, 6.E.3, 6.E.4, 6.E.10, and 6.E.12). Implementation of
programs/improvements related to the installation of green/reflective roofs and low emissive window glass, as well
as improving the insulation on buildings would lead to an overall reduction in the amount of energy needed to heat
or cool the building. Another way in which the City would reduce energy consumption is through the purchase and
installation of Energy Star (or equivalent) appliances and solar panels on roofs. These goals, policies, and programs
align and support the City’s commitment for its electricity consumption to be obtained from 100% carbon neutral
sources (e.g. hydroelectric power).10
a.v) Projected Transportation Energy Use Requirements
As stated previously, adoption of the Master Plan would not authorize specific development or construction of
improvements, rather it would provide a larger framework of goals and policies that assist in identifying and
prioritizing the various projects. Although it is unknown exactly how much transportation energy would be required
during future implementation of projects and improvements identified in the Master Plan, it is known that gasoline,
10 Carbon neutral means that there is no net release of CO2 to the atmosphere. This can typically be achieved through utilization of renewable energy, and by
offsetting emissions through planting trees.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 152
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
diesel, and electricity would all be required during subsequent construction and operation of park facilities. Many of
the larger pieces of construction equipment (e.g. bulldozers, backhoes, pavers, etc.) would need to be brought to
various project sites. In order to do so, larger trucks, such as semi-trucks, would need to be utilized. The operation of
these larger vehicles would result in the consumption of gasoline or diesel fuels. During construction, diesel would
be required to power the on-site equipment, and upon completion it is anticipated some members of the community
would operate motor vehicles that consume either gasoline or electricity (e.g. hybrid vehicles or electric vehicles) to
arrive at the recreational destination. Although all these activities would consume some sort of fuel for
transportation, the Master Plan envisions a future where more Palo Alto community members would be inclined to
take alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking, or running to a community/regional park or
recreational facility (see Table 1, Programs 1.B.10, 1.D.1, 1.D.2, 1.G.2, 1.G.8, and 3.A.5). Adoption of the Master Plan
is not anticipated to substantially increase the demand for transportation energy whether it be gasoline, diesel, or
electricity. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 153
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
S. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Sources
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
1
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
1
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
1
Discussion
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
The adoption and implementation of the proposed Master Plan would not substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory.
The four open space preserves contain a number of sensitive plant communities and habitats for special-status
species; however, the Master Plan does not propose any projects or improvements that would affect protected flora
or fauna. No special-status species are expected to occur in the City’s urban parks. With this being said, creeks and
their associated riparian habitats adjacent to several City urban parks do support several special-status species,
including the California red-legged frog, California Coast steelhead, Western pond turtle, yellow warbler and the San
Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. Additionally, construction projects have the potential to adversely impact creeks
through disturbance of riparian vegetation or siltation of stormwater runoff and the disturbance of nesting birds and
rooting bats. Mitigation Measures BIO-1a through BIO-4 have been incorporated into the project to ensure sensitive
biological resources are not impacted during implementation of Master Plan projects. Implementation of these
measures would reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 154
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Additionally, Mitigation Measures have been included into the project for both air quality, as well as cultural
resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would limit the amount of fugitive dust released during
construction due to ground disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is promulgated by the BAAQMD as the
actions that need to be undertaken for fugitive dust emissions to remain less than significant. The cultural resources
mitigation measures would be implemented in the event unanticipated cultural, tribal, and/or archaeological
resources are discovered during construction. These mitigation measures would reduce any impacts to cultural
resources to less than significant levels.
Impact: Projects carried out under the Master Plan could have potentially significant impacts to fugitive dust
emissions, archeological resources, tribal cultural resources, paleontological resources, sensitive species and/or their
habitats, creek and riparian resources, nesting birds protected under the Migratory Treaty Act, and roosting bats
protected by CDFW regulations.
Mitigation: The proposed project would have potentially significant impacts for air quality, biological resources, and
cultural resources. As such, Mitigation Measures AIR-1, BIO-1a through BIO 4, and CUL-1 though CUL-3 are
incorporated into the project to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
Significance after Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the
efforts of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Park projects implemented under the Master Plan would not contribute to cumulative impacts in connection with
past projects nor with the effects of other current projects or probable future projects. As described in Section 2.9.8
of the Project Description, many of the park projects and improvements are small in nature, limited in scope, and
would not contribute to cumulative impacts. Large projects identified in Section 2.9.8 could contribute to cumulative
impacts, particularly cumulative traffic impacts. These larger projects which have been identified throughout this
document will undergo additional CEQA review and cumulative impacts of these project would be analyzed then.
Impact: The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on cumulative impacts.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Individual projects carried out under the Master Plan would be planned, designed, constructed and operated in
conformance with relevant federal and state regulations, as well as adopted City regulations and policy and plans.
Relevant regulations and policies are described throughout this document and would work to ensure park projects
would not have substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly. For example, conformance with
BAAQMD air quality regulations would ensure construction equipment and dust emissions don’t cause air quality
impacts. Conformance with federal, state and local regulations related to air quality, traffic management and energy
use would ensure greenhouse gas emission impacts do not occur. Conformance with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance
would ensure construction noise does not cause significant noise impacts. Park projects that are designed in
conformance with Comprehensive Plan policies and meet Architectural Review Board standards would not have an
aesthetic impact on local neighborhoods.
Impact: The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Mitigation: None required.
Significance after Mitigation: N/A
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 155
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SOURCE REFERENCES
1 Project Planner’s and CEQA consultant’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2015, Interactive Tsunami Inundation Map,
<http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=tsunamifloodzones.asp> accessed on February 14, 2017
3 Association of Bay Area Governments 2017, Earthquake Shaking Hazard Maps,
<http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes/> accessed January 27
4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. 2010 Clean Air Plan. BAAQMD, Planning Rules, and Research
Division, Plans. June 15, 2015. <http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans>
accessed February 1, 2017
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality
Guidelines. San Francisco, CA. May 2011
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2015. Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and
Manufacturing
7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2015. Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report: Greenhouse
Gases Base Year 2011. BAAQMD, Exposure Assessment and Emissions Inventory Section. Updated January 2015.
<http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/emission-inventory/by2011_ghgsummary.pdf>
8 Cal Fire, 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map.
<http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/statewide/fhszs_map.pdf> accessed April 19, 2017
9 Cal Fire, 2010. Strategic Fire Plan for California.
<http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/pub/fireplan/fpupload/fpppdf668.pdf> accessed April 19, 2017
10 California Air Resources Board, 2007. Staff Report California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020
Emissions Limit. Sacramento, CA <http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf>
accessed February 1, 2017
11 California Air Resources Board, 2009. Appendix A to the Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions (17 CCR §95100-95133). January 1, 2009.
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ghg2007/frofinoal.pdf> accessed February 1, 2017
12 California Air Resources Board. 2016. Method for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from
Diversion of Organic Waste from Landfills to Compost Facilities. California Air Resources Board, Industrial Strategies
Division & Transportation and Toxics Division. March 2016. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/waste/cerffinal.pdf
13 California Building Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Dec 17, 2015) 62 Cal.4th 369
14 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP), 2015. The California Land
Conservation Act 2014 Status Report. Santa Clara County Williamson Act. March 2015.
15 California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP) 2015. Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program. GIS data for Santa Clara County, 2014 <ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/>
accessed January 18, 2017.
16 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2017. California Natural Diversity Database. RareFind 5.
Accessed January 25, 2017.
17 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2017. EnviroStor Database,
<http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/> accessed February 11, 2017
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 156
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
18 California Department of Transportation, 2017 California Scenic Highways Program,
<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm> accessed on February 6, 2017.
19 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2017. Cortese Lists,
<http://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/CurrentList.pdf> and
<http://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/SectionA.htm#Facilities> Accessed January 30, 2017
20 California Scenic Highway Mapping System, 2017.
<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/> accessed on 2/9/2017
21 California State Parks, 2017. Office of Historic Preservation, <http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/> accessed January 25,
2017
22 City of Palo Alto, 1999. Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10: Tree Preservation and Management Regulations,
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.
htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca, accessed January 27, 2017.
23 City of Palo Alto. 2007. Climate Protection Plan. City of Palo Alto. December 3, 2007.
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/9986>
24 City of Palo Alto. 2007. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 5 – Natural Environment. Palo Alto, CA. Revised
July 17, 2017. <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8176> accessed January 20, 2017
25 City of Palo Alto, 2009. Foothills Fire Management Plan Update,
<http://www.wildfirelessons.net/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=289fefa7-
3a3a-4961-8ab2-aeb09daa6530> accessed January 11, 2017
26 City of Palo Alto, 2011. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Revised March 11, 2011,
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp> accessed February 1, 2017
27 City of Palo Alto, 2011. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Designation Map. Revised March 11, 2011.
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp> accessed February 8, 2017
28 City of Palo Alto, 2012. Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31928> accessed February 14, 2017
29 City of Palo Alto, 2014. Comprehensive Plan Update Biological Resources Draft Existing Conditions Report,
http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/ExistingConditions/3/Chapter_3.html#p=1, accessed January 30. 2017.
30 City of Palo Alto, 2015. Flood Zone Lookup, updated September 2, 2015,
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=699&TargetID=175> accessed January 31, 2017
31 City of Palo Alto, 2015. Presentation to the Hazardous Materials Zoning Changes Neighborhood Meeting
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49720> accessed April 19, 2017
32 City of Palo Alto, 2015. Urban Forest Master Plan IS/MND, February 2015
33 City of Palo Alto, 2016. American Legal Publishing Corporation. Palo Alto Municipal Code. City of Palo Alto. Palo
Alto, CA. September 29, 2016.
<http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=defaul
t.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca> accessed January 25, 2017
34 City of Palo Alto, 2016. City Council Staff Report. Annual Williamson Act Contract Renewal Memo. October 17,
2016
35 City of Palo Alto, 2016. Crime Statistics, <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/info/stats.asp> accessed
January 20, 2017
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 157
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
36 City of Palo Alto, 2016. Draft Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR,
<http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/eir/> accessed February 14, 2017
37 City of Palo Alto. 2016. Draft Palo Alto Draft Comprehensive Plan, Appendix D, Historical Index,
<http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/eir/> accessed January 25, 2017
38 City of Palo Alto. 2016. Draft Palo Alto Draft Comprehensive Plan, Appendix G, Transport Impact Analysis,
<http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/AppendixG_TIA.pdf> accessed February 14,
2017
39 City of Palo Alto, 2016. Earth Day Report 2016 (EDR16). City of Palo Alto, City Manager. April 18, 2016.
<https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54308> accessed January 11, 2017
40 City of Palo Alto, 2016. Emergency Operations Plan; Basic Plan,
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/34121> accessed January 11, 2017
41 City of Palo Alto, 2017 Draft Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan
42 City of Palo Alto, 2016. Report Type: Action Items: Sustainability/Climate Action Plan and Annual Earth Day
Report (contains the S/CAP as Attachment A). City of Palo Alto, City Council Staff Report. April 18, 2016.
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51856> accessed January 20, 2017
43 City of Palo Alto, 2017. City of Palo Alto Fire Department.
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/fir/default.asp> accessed January 30, 2017
44 City of Palo Alto, 2017. Municipal Code,
<http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=defaul
t.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca> accessed February 8, 2017
45 City of Palo Alto, 2017. Zoning Ordinances,
<http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=defaul
t.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca> accessed January 20, 2017
46 Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2017. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
<http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps> accessed January
27, 2017
47 Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2017. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Palo Alto
7.5 Minute Quadrangle, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California,
<http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps> accessed January
27, 2017
48 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2017.
<http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?KEY=77897649&IFIT=1> accessed January 30, 2017
49 GoogleEarth, 2017. Aerial imagery of Palo Alto parks and recreational facilities and surroundings.
50 National Park Service, 2017. Register of Historic Places, < https://www.nps.gov/nR/index.htm> accessed January
25, 2017
51 Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, 2017. <http://www.pastheritage.org > accessed January 25, 2017
52 Santa Clara County, 2012. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan; Palo Alto Annex. May 1.
<http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wp-content/documents/2010LHMP/PaloAlto-Annex-2011.pdf> accessed January 30,
2017
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 158
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
53 Santa Clara County, 2015. Valley Transit Authority, VTP 20 Long Range Transportation Plan for Santa Clara
County, <http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/VTP2040_final_hi%20res_030315.pdf>
Accessed February 14, 2017
54 Santa Clara County, 2016. Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Palo Alto
Airport. Amended November 16, 2016.
<https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/ALUC_PAO_CLUP.pdf> accessed January 30, 2017
55 Stanford University, 2013. Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan. Available at:
<http://hcp.stanford.edu/documents.html>, accessed January 26, 2017
56 State Water Resources Control Board, 2015. GeoTracker Database. Available at:
<http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov>
57 United States Department of Agriculture, 2017. Web Soils Survey,
<https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx> accessed January 27, 2017
58 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/, accessed January 30, 2017
59 United States Geological Survey, 2017, Liquefaction Hazard Maps,
<https://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/qmap/> accessed January 27, 2017
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan Page 160
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
- This document is designed for double-sided printing -
Appendix A
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan City of Palo Alto
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM
PROJECT NAME Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space,
and Recreation Master Plan
APPLICATION NUMBER #########
APPLICANT
AGREEMENT DATE 5/8/2017
APPROVED BY
APPLICANT/OWNER City of Palo Alto, Department of Public
Works; Peter Jensen
The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation
Master Plan identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the
project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a
public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required
mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code,
“... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of
project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.”
Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that
specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part
of adopting an MND.
The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the
project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which
identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure.
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 2
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance Oversight of Implementation
AIR QUALITY
Impact AIR-1: Future
implementation of
projects and
improvements identified
in the Master Plan have
the potential to emit
fugitive dust during
construction activities.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: To reduce potential fugitive
dust that may be generated by project construction
activities, the City of Palo Alto shall implement the
following BAAQMD basic construction measures when
they are appropriate (BAAQMD Guidelines pg. 8-3, Table
8-1):
• Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., staging areas, soil
piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads during
construction as necessary and adequately wet
demolition surfaces to limit visible dust emissions.
• Cover all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other
loose materials off the project site.
• Use a wet power vacuum street sweeper as
necessary to remove all visible mud or dirt track-out
onto adjacent public roads (dry power sweeping is
prohibited) during construction of the proposed
project.
• Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads/areas shall not
exceed 15 miles per hour.
• Complete all areas to be paved as soon as possible
and lay building pads as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Minimize idling time of diesel powered construction
equipment to five minutes and post signs reminding
workers of this idling restriction at access points and
equipment staging areas during construction of the
proposed project.
• Maintain and properly tune all construction
equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s
specifications and have a CARB-certified visible
emissions evaluator check equipment prior to use at
the site.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the name and
telephone number of the construction contractor and
City staff person to contact regarding dust
complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The publicly visible
sign shall also include the contact phone number for
The City shall
include these
measures on all
appropriate bid,
contract, and
engineering and
site plan (e.g.,
building, grading,
and improvement
plans) documents.
During
construction
activities.
The City Department of Public
Works shall review all appropriate
bid, contract, and engineering and
site plan documents for inclusion
of dust control measures.
For each project requiring
implementation of this measure,
the City shall document
verification of this measure and
attach the verification to this
MMRP.
Director of Public Works
Director of Planning
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 3
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance Oversight of Implementation
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: Master
Plan implementation
may lead to construction
resulting in impacts to
special-status species
and/or sensitive creek or
riparian habitats.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: All activities associated with
the Master Plan shall comply with all relevant goals,
policies and programs protecting creeks and riparian
habitat in the City’s Comprehensive Plan (2011) or any
approved update to the current Comprehensive Plan,
including Goal N-2; Policies N-11, N-12 and N-13; and
Program N-7.
Specifically, all new buildings and other structures,
impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and
ornamental landscaped areas constructed under the
Master Plan shall maintain a 100-foot setback from the
top of bank of any natural creek, with the exception of
existing development which will be considered legal and
nonconforming (Program N-7).
Native vegetation along creek banks shall be preserved,
and any vegetation along creek banks that is removed
should be replaced with native species (Policy N-12).
Site disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks
shall be minimized through careful review of grading and
drainage plans for development near creeks and
elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks (Policy N-13).
This measure shall apply to the Baylands Preserve,
Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park, El Palo Alto Park,
Hopkins Creekside Park and the Municipal Golf Course
which are adjacent to San Francisquito Creek; Bol Park,
Boulware Park, Hoover Park, and Seale Park which are
adjacent to Matadero Creek; Mitchell Park and Terman
Park which are adjacent to Adobe Creek; the Ventura
Community Center which is adjacent to Barron Creek; and
Foothills Park and Pearson Arastradero Preserve which
contain numerous drainages.
If ground disturbance within 100 feet of a creek or impacts
to riparian vegetation are unavoidable, then Mitigation
Measure BIO-1c shall apply.
The City or its
contractor.
During
project
design to
ensure
design of
project is
consistent
with policy
and new
development
is not placed
with 100 ft.
of a natural
creek and
during
construction
to ensure
creek
resources
are not
impacted by
construction
activities and
after
construction
for
vegetation
restoration.
The City shall review design
documents to ensure design plans
reflect policy and new
development is not within 100 feet
of a natural creek.
The City shall review all
appropriate bid, contract, and
engineering and site plan
documents for inclusion of these
applicable policies and programs
during and immediately after
construction.
Copies of all documentation shall
be kept on file at the Public Works
Department.
For each project requiring
implementation of this measure,
the City shall document
verification of implementation and
attach the verification to this
MMRP.
Director of Public Works
Director of Planning
Impact BIO-1: Master
Plan implementation
may lead to construction
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Master Plan activities
involving grading, excavation or other ground disturbance
in any of the City parks, natural preserves, or recreational
The City or its
contractor.
Prior to the
start of, and
during
The City shall review all
appropriate bid, contract, and
engineering and site plan
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 4
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance Oversight of Implementation
resulting in impacts to
special-status species
and/or sensitive creek or
riparian habitats.
facilities that either drain directly to a creek, or are within
100 feet of a creek, shall be restricted to the dry season if
possible, between April 15 and October 31. If this is not
possible, measures shall be taken, as appropriate to
protect water quality and wildlife in the creek during
storm events. These measures may include, but are not
limited to the installation of silt fencing and/or straw
wattles between the work area and the creek to prevent
storm water runoff from the work site entering the creek.
To protect wildlife in the creek corridor, no plastic
monofilament shall be used in the water quality
protection/ erosion control devices because it can entrap
wildlife.
This measure shall apply to the Baylands Preserve,
Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park, El Palo Alto Park,
Hopkins Creekside Park and the Municipal Golf Course
which are adjacent to San Francisquito Creek; Bol Park,
Boulware Park, Hoover Park, and Seale Park which are
adjacent to Matadero Creek; Mitchell Park and Terman
Park which are adjacent to Adobe Creek; the Ventura
Community Center which is adjacent to Barron Creek; and
Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve which
contain numerous drainages..
construction
activities.
documents for inclusion of these
storm water protection measures.
Copies of all documentation shall
be kept on file at City Hall.
For each project requiring
implementation of this measure,
the City shall document
verification of this measure and
attach the verification to this
MMRP.
Director of Public Works
Director of Planning
Impact BIO-1: Master
Plan implementation
may lead to construction
resulting in impacts to
special-status species
and/or sensitive creek or
riparian habitats.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: All Master Plan activities
requiring ground disturbance within 100 feet of a creek or
involving impacts to riparian vegetation, shall implement
the following mitigation measures to protect special-
status species. These measures shall not apply to parks
adjacent to concrete channelized segments of creeks that
lack riparian vegetation.
• A qualified biologist shall perform a preconstruction
survey for any special-status species that may occur
in the creek or riparian habitat where Master Plan
activities are proposed. If any special-status species
are found, work shall not begin until the biologist has
consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), and/or the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW), as appropriate depending on the
species, regarding appropriate protection measures
to be implemented during and prior to construction.
The City or its
contractor.
Prior to the
start of, and
during
construction
activities.
The City shall review all
appropriate bid, contract, and
engineering and site plan
documents for inclusion of these
applicable policies and programs.
Copies of all documentation shall
be kept on file at City Hall.
For each project requiring
implementation of this measure,
the City shall document
verification of this measure and
attach the verification to this
MMRP.
Director of Public Works
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 5
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance Oversight of Implementation
• If a special-status species is encountered after work
has begun, all work shall be halted until appropriate
protection measures are determined in consultation
with the appropriate state and federal resource
agencies (USFWS, NMFS and/or CDFW).
• A worker education program shall be prepared and
implemented for all construction crews that will work
within the creek setback or riparian zone. The
education program shall include a description of
special-status species that may occur, and a list of
measures for the workers to follow to minimize
impacts to the species and their habitats and to
protect water quality in the creek.
Director of Planning
Impact BIO-2: Master
Plan implementation
may lead to construction
resulting in impacts to
nesting birds protected
under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: To avoid impacts to nesting
birds and violation of state and federal laws pertaining to
birds, all Master Plan activities which could disturb nesting
birds (including but not limited to: equipment mobilization
and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal,
demolition, excavation, and grading) should occur outside
the avian nesting season (that is, prior to February 1 or
after August 31), if possible.
If construction and construction noise occurs within the
avian nesting season (from February 1 to August 31), all
suitable nesting habitats located within the project’s area
of disturbance including staging and storage areas, plus a
250-foot (passerines) and 1,000-foot (raptor nests) buffer
around these areas, shall be thoroughly surveyed, as
feasible, for the presence of active nests by a qualified
biologist no more than five days before the
commencement of any site disturbance activities and
equipment mobilization.
The survey buffer can be reduced in urban environments
at the discretion of the qualified biologist performing the
survey.
If project activities are delayed by more than five days, an
additional nesting bird survey shall be performed.
Active nesting is present if a bird is sitting in a nest, a nest
has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying
food to the nest.
The results of the surveys shall be documented by the
The City or its
contractor.
February 1st
through
August 31st,
no more
than 7 days
in advance
of the start
of project
construction.
The biologist shall prepare a
written record of survey results
and implementation of any
avoidance and minimization
measures.
The biologist shall monitor any
active nests to determine when
young have matured sufficiently to
have fledged.
The preconstruction survey report
and any reports prepared to
document nest monitoring shall be
submitted to the City Department
of Public Works.
Copies of all documentation shall
be kept on file at the Department
of Public Works.
For each project requiring
implementation of this measure,
the City shall document
verification of this measure and
attach the verification to this
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 6
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance Oversight of Implementation
qualified biologist and submitted to the City of Palo Alto
Division of Open Space, Parks and Golf prior to initiation of
project construction.
If it is determined that birds are actively nesting within the
survey area, Mitigation Measure BIO-2b shall apply.
Conversely, if the survey area is found to be absent of
nesting birds, Mitigation Measure BIO-2b shall not be
required.
MMRP.
Director of Public Works
Director of Planning
Impact BIO-2: Master
Plan implementation
may lead to construction
resulting in impacts to
nesting birds protected
under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: If pre-construction nesting
bird surveys reveal locations of active nesting at the
project site, no site disturbance and/or mobilization of
heavy equipment (including but not limited to: equipment
staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation
removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading), shall
take place within 250 feet of non-raptor nests and 1,000
feet of raptor nests, or as determined by a qualified
biologist in consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) until the chicks have fledged. The
nest buffer can be reduced in urban environments at the
discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with
CDFW. Monitoring shall be required to ensure compliance
with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and relevant CDFW
Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be
documented and provided to the City of Palo Alto Division
of Open Space, Parks and Golf.
The City or its
contractor.
Prior to the
start of, and
during
construction
activities.
The City shall review all
appropriate bid, contract, and
engineering and site plan
documents for inclusion of this
measure.
Monitoring reports shall be
submitted to the City Department
of Public Works.
Copies of all documentation shall
be kept on file at Department of
Public Works.
For each project requiring
implementation of this measure,
the City shall document
verification of this measure and
attach the verification to this
MMRP.
Director of Public Works
Director of Planning
Impact BIO-3: Master
Plan implementation
may lead to construction
resulting in impacts to
roosting bats protected
by California Department
of Fish and Wildlife
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: A qualified biologist shall
visually inspect trees or structures which are proposed for
removal as part of subsequently approved Master Plan
activities for bat roosts within 7 days prior to their
removal. The biologist shall look for signs of bats, including
sightings of live or dead bats, bat calls or squeaking, the
smell of bats, bat droppings, grease stains or urine stains
The City or its
contractor.
Year-round,
no more
than 7 days
in advance
of the start
of project
The biological survey report shall
be submitted to the City prior to
the start of construction.
Copies of all documentation shall
be kept on file at the Department
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 7
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance Oversight of Implementation
regulations. around openings in trees or structures, or flies around
such openings. Trees with multiple hollows, crevices,
forked branches, woodpecker holes or loose and flaking
bark have the highest chance of occupation and should be
inspected the most carefully.
If signs of bats are detected, the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife should be contacted for guidance on how
to proceed. Echo-location surveys may be needed to verify
the presence of bats, or an exclusion zone around the
occupied tree or structure may be recommended until
bats leave the roost.
Due to restrictions of the California Health Department,
direct contact by workers with any bat is not allowed. The
qualified biologist shall be contacted immediately if a bat
roost is discovered during project construction.
construction. of Public Works.
For each project requiring
implementation of this measure,
the City shall document
verification of this measure and
attach the verification to this
MMRP.
Director of Public Works
Director of Planning
Impact BIO-4: Master
Plan implementation
may lead to potential
conflicts with the
Stanford Habitat
Conservation Plan.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: To ensure compliance with the
Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan (2013), the
City shall contact the Conservation Program Manager
(Alan Eugene Launer, 650-714-4807,
AELAUNER@stanford.edu) from the Stanford Land Use
and Environmental Planning Department to determine
whether additional avoidance measures are required prior
to initiation of Master Plan activities involving ground
disturbance at El Camino Park and the Stanford- Palo Alto
Playing Fields. The City shall document the
communications with the Conservation Program Manager.
This measure applies only to the area covered by the
Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan. This measure is
reflected in Policy 4.D of the Master Plan.
The City or its
contractor.
Prior to the
start of
construction
activities.
The City and Stanford
Conservation Program Manager
shall review all appropriate bid,
contract, and engineering and site
plan documents for consistency
with HCP requirements
Copies of all documentation shall
be kept on file at the Department
of Public Works.
For each project requiring
implementation of this measure,
the City shall document
verification of this measure and
attach the verification to this
MMRP.
City Approval
Initials:_______
Date:_________
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 8
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance Oversight of Implementation
Stanford Approval
Initials:_______
Date:_________
Director of Public Works
Director of Planning
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-1: Master
Plan implementation
may lead to potential
impacts to unrecorded
cultural or
archaeological
resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: In the event that
archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-
disturbing activities, ground-disturbing activities shall be
halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so
that the find can be evaluated.
A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established
around the find where construction activities shall not be
allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist has
examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has
evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to
continue outside of the buffer area.
All archaeological resources unearthed by project
construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified
professional archaeologist, whom meets the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and
Standards. In anticipation of additional discoveries during
the completion of construction, Archaeological Sensitivity
Training will be carried out by a qualified archaeologist for
all personnel who engage in ground moving activities at
the site.
The City or its
contractor.
During
construction
in native
soils.
The City shall review all
appropriate bid, contract, and
engineering and site plan
documents for inclusion of this
measure
If necessary, the archaeologist
shall prepare a written record of
monitoring results, including a
summary of any resources
encountered and avoidance
measures implemented with the
City’s review.
Copies of all documentation shall
be kept on file at City Hall.
Director of Public Works
Director of Planning
Impact CUL-2: Master
Plan implementation
may lead to potential
impacts to unrecorded
human remains.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If human remains are
unearthed during implementation of the proposed
project, the City shall comply with State Health and Safety
Code (HSC) Section 7050.5. The City shall immediately
notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall
occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC
Section 5097.98.
The City or its
contractor.
During
construction
in native
soils.
The City shall review all
appropriate bid, contract, and
engineering and site plan
documents for inclusion of these
applicable policies and programs.
Copies of all documentation shall
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 9
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance Oversight of Implementation
If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall
then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely
Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the
remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to
the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any
associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the
human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial
with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a
record of the reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC.
If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD
identified fails to make a recommendation, or the
landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and
the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section
5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable
to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized
representative shall inter the human remains and items
associated with Native American human remains with
appropriate dignity on the property in a location not
subject to further and future subsurface disturbance.
be kept on file at the Department
of Public Works.
Copies of all documentation shall
be kept on file at City Hall.
Director of Public Works
Director of Planning
Impact CUL-3: Master
Plan implementation
may lead to potential
impacts to
paleontological
resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: In the event paleontological
resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing
activities, all ground-disturbing activities shall be halted so
the find can be evaluated. Construction activities shall not
be allowed to continue until a qualified paleontologist has
examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has
evaluated the area of the find.
All paleontological resources unearthed by project
construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified
professional paleontologist who meets the qualifications
set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. In
anticipation of additional discoveries during the
completion of construction, Paleontological Sensitivity
Training will be carried out by a qualified archaeologist for
all personnel who will engage in ground moving activities
on the site. The City shall coordinate with the
paleontologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan
for the resources. The plan may include implementation of
paleontological data recovery excavations to address
treatment of the resource along with subsequent
The City or its
contractor.
During
construction
activities in
native soils.
The City shall review all
appropriate bid, contract, and
engineering and site plan
documents for inclusion of this
measure.
If necessary, the paleontologist
shall prepare a written record of
monitoring results, including a
summary of any resources
encountered and measures
implemented to avoid impacts to
the resource with the City’s
review.
Copies of all documentation shall
be kept on file at the Department
of Public Works.
City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 10
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance Oversight of Implementation
laboratory processing and analysis.
If appropriate, the paleontologist may introduce
paleontological monitoring on all or part of the site. A
paleontological report will be written detailing all
paleontological finds and shall be submitted to the City
and University of California Museum of Paleontology
(UCMP).
Director of Public Works
Director of Planning
Appendix B
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan City of Palo Alto
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix B
Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Chapter 4: Goals, Policies, Programs
CHAPTER 4
THROUGH THE MASTER PLAN PROCESS, THE PALO ALTO
COMMUNITY HAS DEFINED A FUTURE FOR PARKS, TRAILS,
NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION. Distilled community input and themes from the analysis process result in principles, goals and system-wide concepts that describe the community’s long-term vision for the future system.
The principles and goals will be realized through the recommended programs described in this chapter. The recommendations were developed through an assessment of community input and an analysis of needs and opportunities. These recommendations reflect both changing needs and evolving demands for parks, trails, natural open space and recreation. They are organized within the framework of the eight principles and six goals, with policies and programs following each goal.
OUR FUTURE: PRINCIPLES, GOALS,POLICIES, PROGRAMS & PROJECTS
50
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
A MULTI-LAYERED SYSTEM OF PARKLANDS AND CONNECTIONS THAT SERVE BOTH PEOPLE AND NATURAL SYSTEMS.
5150
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Principles
Building on our assets, our vision for the continuing evolution of the
park system is encapsulated in the following eight principles:
• Playful: Inspires imagination and joy.
• Healthy: Supports the physical and mental health and
well-being of individuals as well as the connectedness
and cohesion of the community.
• Sustainable: Stewards natural, economic and social
resources for a system that endures for the long term.
• Inclusive: Responsive to the entire Palo Alto community:
all ages, abilities, languages, cultures and levels of
income.
• Accessible: Easy for people of all abilities to use year-
round and to get to by all modes of travel.
• Flexible: Supports multiple uses across time with
adaptable spaces that can accommodate traditional,
emerging and future uses.
• Balanced: Is not dominated by any one type of
experience or place and includes both historic elements
and cutting-edge features, highly manicured and more
organic spaces and self-directed and programmed
activities.
• Nature: Incorporates native species and habitat
corridors, and creates opportunities to learn about and
interact with nature.
Together, these principles provide the foundation for the Master
Plan.
Master Plan Goals
The input from the community, including all twelve areas of focus,
form the long-term direction for the City’s park and recreation
system. The following six goals state the outcomes and provide an
organizational structure for the policies, programs and projects that
form the recommendations of this plan:
1. Provide high-quality facilities and services that are
accessible, inclusive and distributed equitably across
Palo Alto.
52
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
2. Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the
existing system of parks, recreation and open space
facilities and services.
3. Create environments that encourage regular active and
passive activities to support health, wellness and social
connections.
4. Preserve and integrate nature, natural systems and
ecological principles throughout Palo Alto.
5. Develop innovative programs, services and strategies
for expanding the system.
6. Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively,
efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and
qualitative measures.
Recommended Programs
The goals, policies and programs are intended to be a guide for
decision making. Choices will need to be made annually through the
City budget process, recognizing that the City has limited resources,
multiple priorities and competing resource needs. The goals, polices
and programs that follow represent a path to a preferred future.
It is aspirational, while also tangible, providing a specific menu of
potential investment and resource allocation opportunities for the
parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system. Chapter
5 provides tools and recommendations on how the community
and City can effectively evaluate options and make sound and
reliable choices to improve the parks, trails, natural open space and
recreation system.
Each goal is numbered, and under each goal a list of related
policies is provided. The policies are numbered according to goal
and ordered by letter for easy reference (1.A, 1.B, 1.C, 2.A, 2.B,
etc.). Most policies are followed by a list of programs, which have
complementary numbering (1.A.1, 1.A.2, 2.A.1, etc.). The numbering
is for reference only. Prioritization is covered in Chapter 5.
5352
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 1: Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, affordable, inclusive and distributed equitably across Palo Alto.
Policy
1.A Emphasize equity and affordability in the provision
of programs and services and the facilitation of
partnerships, to create recreation opportunities that:
• Advance skills, build community and improve the quality
of life among participants, especially Palo Alto youth,
teens and seniors; and
• Are available at a wide range of facilities, at an increased
number of locations that are well distributed throughout
the City.
PROGRAMS
1.A.1 Periodically evaluate the use and effectiveness of the Fee
Reduction Program for low-income and disabled residents.
1.A.2 Develop free or low-cost teen programs that develop
life skills and developmental assets, such as leadership,
community service and health.
1.A.3 Develop a teen advisory committee to provide feedback on
newly proposed parks, recreation and open space projects
and programs.
1.A.4 Partner with local recreation providers to relocate existing
programs or offer new programs in Palo Alto parks.
1.A.5 Recruit or develop programs for additional and alternative
sports that can take place in existing parks and make use
of existing outdoor recreation facilities. Examples include
cross country running, track and field, rugby and pickleball.
1.A.6 Expand offerings of preserves’ interpretive facilities to area
schools through curriculum packages (backpacks, crates,
etc.) that can be brought into the field or the classroom.
1.A.7 Evaluate the geographic distribution of program offerings
and make adjustments to equally offer programs
throughout the City.
e
San Francisquito Creek
Matadero Creek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
MountainView
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayeldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Page
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcardero
R
d
Mid
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Alm
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Alm
a
S
t
Charlesto
n
R
d
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Sant
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Palo Alto Airport
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Stanford
FoothillsPark
Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
Park Search Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Space
Other City Property
Trails
Trails
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access)
Private Recreation
?»E
%&j(
?»E
IÆ
IÆ
°0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
Park Search Areas
Priority School Sites
A
Park Search Area B: Lowest population and lowest population density
Park Search Area D:
Highest population
Park Search Area E: Highest population density
A
B
C
D
E
AddisonElementary School
AddisonElementary School
DuveneckElementary School
DuveneckElementary School
El Carmelo Elementary School
El Carmelo Elementary School
Ohlone Elementary Ohlone Elementary
Jordan Middle School
Jordan Middle School
Palo Verde Elementary School
Palo Verde Elementary School
Map showing geographic distribution of program offerings
54
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
1.B Expand parkland inventory using the National
Recreation and Park Association standard as a
guide (see sidebar) for park development in Palo
Alto’s Urban Service Area. New parkland should
be added to meet and maintain the standard of 4
acres/1,000 residents. Parkland should expand with
population, be well distributed across the community
and be of sufficient size to meet the varied needs
of neighborhoods and the broader community.
Maximum service area should be 1/2 mile.
PROGRAMS
1.B.1 Develop design standards for privately owned public open
spaces that clearly set the expectation for public access,
recreation activities and natural elements. .
1.B.2 Establish a system in the City’s real estate office that
identifies land being sold and reviews it for park potential,
prioritizing review of land within park search areas. (See
Figure 8: Park Search Areas Map).
1.B.3 Review all City-owned land and easements (starting in
park search areas) for potential parkland development or
connection locations. (See Figure 8: Park Search Areas Map
and Figure 9: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map).
1.B.4 Examine City-owned rights-of-way (for example, streets,
which make up the biggest portion of publicly owned
land) to identify temporary or permanent areas for
improvements that connect or add recreation activity
space. (Examples: California Ave., Indianapolis Cultural Trail,
parklets).
1.B.5 Identify and approach community organizations and
institutions that own land in park search areas to create
long-term agreements and improvements for public park
space. (Examples: Friendship Sportsplex in Charlotte, N.C.,
New Riverside Park in Boston.)
1.B.6 Create usable park space, or other recreational
opportunities, on top of utilities, parking or other
infrastructure uses. (Examples: Anaheim Utility Park, UC
Berkeley Underhill Parking Structure, Portland’s Director
Park, Stanford University Wilbur Field Garage.)
Privately-Owned Public Open Spaces are built and managed by private entities and are required to allow public access.
PARKLAND STANDARDS
The Palo Alto
Comprehensive plan
references (Policy C-28)
National Recreation and Park
Association standards:
• Two acres of neighborhood
parkland should be
provided for each 1,000
people; and
• Two acres of district
parkland should be
provided for each 1,000
people.
5554
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
1.B.7 Monitor properties adjacent to parks that are smaller than
the minimum recommended size for potential acquisition
to expand existing parks.
1.B.8 Increase collections through revised or alternative park
impact fee structures that are sufficient to expand
inventory. Develop a system to reserve funds for parkland
acquisition and proactively pursue strategic opportunities
for expansion.
1.B.9 Acquire and develop a new neighborhood park in each park
search area, starting with the most underserved areas
and targeting a central and well-connected location to
maximize access.
1.B.10 Develop a creek walk along Matadero Creek that links
parks and creates open space and a habitat corridor.
1.B.11 Incorporate other underutilized City-owned outdoor
spaces for park and recreational programming.
1.B.12 Identify and dedicate (as parkland) City-controlled spaces
serving, or capable of serving, park-like or recreational
uses, where appropriate (e.g., Winter Lodge, Gamble
Gardens, Rinconada Community Gardens, GreenWaste
Facility at the former PASCO site, former Los Altos Sewage
Treatment Plan, Kingsley Island).
Policy
1.C Ensure the maximum distance between residents’
homes and the nearest public park or preserve is 1/2
mile, 1/4 mile preferred, that is evaluated using a
walkshed methodology based on how people travel.
PROGRAMS
1.C.1 Maintain the City’s digital map developed during this
Master Plan process, updating for new activities and
access points.
1.C.2 Establish a review step in the Planning and Community
Environment Department for any major redevelopment or
the purchase/sale of any City land in the park search areas.
Palo Alto Airport
Date: October 2016Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS andSanta Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails,
Natural Open Space
and Recreation
Master Plan
Enhanced Bikeway Features
Recommended Enhanced Bicycle
and Pedestrian Routes
Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail)
Recommended Park Connectors
1
Stanford
FoothillsPark
Pearson-ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandPreserve
Santa ClaraCounty
San MateoCounty
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los AltosLos AltosHills
Atherton
Cupertino
PortolaValley
East Palo Alto
UpperStevensCreek Stevens CreekCounty Park
RanchoSan AntonioOpen SpacePreserve
Base Map Features
City of Palo Alto
Major Highways and Freeways
Streets
Creeks and Channels
Water Bodies
Schools
Palo Alto Existing Parks and Open Space (2016)
City Park
City Natural Open Space
Other City Property
Trails
Trails
Stanford Perimeter Trail (Private Trail withPublic Access)
Private Recreation
?»E
%&j(
?»E
IÆ
IÆ
°0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet
2
2
1
1
3
3 e
San Francisquito Creek
Matade ro Cr eek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Stanford
MountainView
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Los AltosHills
EastPalo Alto
Atherton
San Mateo County
PortolaValley
San Francisco Bay
Stanford
Santa Clara County
Baylands Preserve
BaylandsAthleticCenter
GreerPark
BolPark
MitchellPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
El CaminoPark
TermanPark
HooverPark
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
SealePark
RoblesPark
RamosPark
Briones Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
JohnsonPark
BowdenPark
Stanford-Palo AltoPlayingFields
Heritage Park
BowlingGreenPark
El PaloAlto Park
WerryPark BoulwarePark
CameronPark
WeisshaarPark
MonroePark
RinconadaPark
WilliamsPark
Cogswell Plaza
LyttonPlaza
Sarah WallisPark
HopkinsCreekside Park
Palo AltoGolf Course
Scott Park
MayeldPark
VenturaCommunity Center
Pearson-ArastraderoPreserve
KelloggPark
Foothills Park
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
R
d
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
y
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcarde
r
o
R
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
fi
e
l
d
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
d
Al
m
a
S
t
Charlest
o
n
R
d
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Sand
H
i
l
l
R
d
Sant
a
C
r
u
z
A
v
e
Inventory of well-distributed parkland
56
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
1.D Adopt standard wayfinding signage for Palo Alto
parks and provide standardized directory signs for all
large parks, preserves and athletic field complexes.
PROGRAMS
1.D.1 Create and implement a signage and wayfinding program
that conveys the park system identity, incorporates art,
connects bike paths to parks and enhances the experience
of park visitors.
1.D.2 Install directional signs at parks that include the walking
time to the next nearest park or parks.
Policy
1.E Apply universal design principles as the preferred
guidance for design solutions in parks, striving to
exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
PROGRAMS
1.E.1 Create a process to address adaptive program requests for
individuals with cognitive, sensory and physical disabilities
(to be coordinated with upcoming ADA Transition Plan).
1.E.2 Adopt a standard of universal park design for accessibility
and/or upgrade play areas and picnic facilities to meet or
exceed the standard.
1.E.3 Upgrade open space trails to be more universally
accessible where environmentally appropriate.
Policy
1.F Maintain a Field and Tennis Court Brokering and Use
Policy as well as the Gymnasium Use Policy (as well
as any subsequent updates) to guide the allocation of
these recreation facilities with a preference for youth
and Palo Alto residents.
PROGRAMS
1.F.1 Periodically review the existing Field and Tennis Court
Brokering and Use Policy and Gymnasium Policy and
update as needed.
1.F.2 Develop an annual field usage statistics report, including
Magical Bridge Playground: Universally accessible children’s park facilities
5756
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
the number of prime timeslots that were unused due to
field condition/resting and the number of requests for field
space that were unfilled due to lack of capacity.
Policy
1.G Encourage walking and biking as a way of getting to
and from parks, supporting implementation of the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
PROGRAMS
1.G.1 Select parks as destinations along routes for “Ciclovia” or
“Sunday Streets” type events where streets are closed
to traffic and opened up for citizens of all ages to interact
with each other through exercise, entertainment and fun.
1.G.2 Provide bike parking for cyclists as a standard feature at
parks, open spaces, preserves and community centers.
1.G.3 Provide, identify and mark “Safe Routes to Parks” from
locations such as schools, shopping centers, libraries,
after-school programs, community centers and residential
neighborhoods.
1.G.4 Educate residents about the city’s Bike Boulevards –
streets prioritized for bicycles – to promote greater use,
and plan new Bike Boulevard projects that connect parks,
open spaces and recreation facilities.
1.G.5 Identify gaps in the walking and cycling network to
improve access to parks, open spaces, preserves and
community centers, including sidewalk repairs, easements,
trail improvements/repair and improved pedestrian
visibility.
1.G.6 Collaborate with school communities to enhance routes to
schools, especially where they pass through parks.
1.G.7 Develop a regular bicycle and walking tour of Palo Alto
parks and preserves as a new recreation program. Develop
online materials for self-guided tours.
1.G.8 Improve trail connections to neighboring communities
(Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Stanford
University, Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View,
East Palo Alto, etc.)
58
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
1.H Incorporate cultural diversity in projects and
programs to encourage and enhance citizen
participation.
PROGRAMS
1.H.1 Conduct a survey at least every two years of cultural
groups to identify gaps, barriers to access, preferred
design and awareness in recreation programming.
1.H.2 Provide multi-cultural and multi-lingual recreation
programs, signage and educational information.
1.H.3 Encourage and provide opportunities for civic engagement
by directly connecting with cultural groups.
Policy
1.I Increase stewardship and volunteerism by creating
and promoting opportunities for youth and adults to
participate in parks, recreation, open space events,
projects and programs.
PROGRAMS
1.I.1 Create a robust volunteer recruitment and management
program.
1.I.2 Continue to offer volunteer habitat and landscape
improvement projects and support partnership
organizations that offer volunteer programs in Parks and
Open Space areas.
Volunteers assisting with maintenance of a natural area
5958
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 2: Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services.
Policy
2.A Sustain the community’s investment in parks and
recreation facilities.
PROGRAMS
2.A.1 Collaborate with Palo Alto Unified School District to
develop and implement a vision and master plan for the
future of the Cubberley Community Center.
2.A.2 Continue to program and prioritize projects for existing
facilities as identified in the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon
Commission report, and plan the upkeep of new facilities
as they come on line, recognizing their expected lifespan
and revising based on real-world experience.
2.A.3 Research best practices to design park and recreational
facilities that can be maintained with existing or lower
budgets.
2.A.4 Encourage residents to organize and participate in park
maintenance and cleanup events to foster a sense of
ownership, establish social connections and reduce
maintenance costs.
2.A.5 Develop a proactive Asset Management Program to
maintain existing park and recreation infrastructure.
2.A.6 Provide additional lighting to enhance park safety and
expand park use to dusk while minimizing impacts to
wildlife.
2.A.7 Find ways to mitigate conflicts between different trail user
groups, particularly in the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve,
where bicyclists, equestrians and hikers share trails.
60
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
2.B Provide opportunities for creative expression in park
and recreation facilities and programs.
PROGRAMS
2.B.1 Incorporate artists and art into youth recreation
programming, particularly day camps, utilizing the
expertise of the Arts and Sciences Division.
2.B.2 Create outdoor studios and program spaces for creating
art in parks (coordinated with the Public Art Master Plan).
2.B.3 Encourage the community to participate in more
expressive projects led by the department, such as
community mural projects in facilities, pop-up open mics
or chalk art programs in parks.
2.B.4 Continue to provide “maker” space to Palo Alto teens to
encourage creative thinking and expression.
Policy
2.C Design and maintain high-quality natural and
synthetic turf fields to support maximum use in parks
by multiple local organized sports and casual users
with areas large enough for practice or play.
PROGRAMS
2.C.1 Conduct an athletic field condition and maintenance
assessment of the City’s natural turf fields, and upgrade
fields at select parks to high-quality natural turf
standards including irrigation system upgrades, drainage
improvements, etc. The field assessment report should
include analysis and recommendations regarding the soil
profile, agronomy, irrigation systems, field slope, drainage,
field-use demand and maintenance.
2.C.2 Actively monitor and track industry developments and
the latest reputable scientific studies regarding synthetic
turf to understand the environmental and human safety
impacts of our existing synthetic turf fields.
2.C.3 Assess the type of turf (new synthetic turf product or
natural turf) that should be used when replacing an
existing synthetic turf field that is due for replacement.
Natural and sythetic turf fields
6160
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
2.C.4 Stripe synthetic turf fields for multiple sports to maximize
use. Whenever possible, synthetic turf playing fields should
have lights in order to maximize use of the field.
2.C.5 Collaborate with Palo Alto Unified School District to
develop and implement a design and maintenance plan for
high-quality natural and synthetic turf fields.
Policy
2.D Actively pursue adding dedicated, fenced dog parks
in multiple neighborhoods, equitably distributed
between north and south Palo Alto. The size of the
dog parks will vary but should strive to be at least 1/4
acres. Dog parks should not be placed in open space
preserves.
PROGRAMS
2.D.1 The City will evaluate and select at least six* dedicated,
fenced dog parks, equitably distributed across north
and south Palo Alto, from the following list of potential
locations:
• Eleanor Pardee Park (North, .41 Acres)
• Bowden Park (North, .37 Acres)
• Greer Park (Improve existing) (South, .87 Acres)
• Peers Park (North, .73 Acres)
• Hoover Park (Improve existing) (South, 1 Acre)
• Robles Park (South, .47 Acres)
• Mitchell Park (Expand existing) (South, 1.2 Acres)
• Kingsley Island Park (North, .27 Acres)
• Werry Park (North, .31 Acres)
• Juana Briones Park (South, .47 Acres)
• Heritage Park (North, .27 Acres)
2.D.2 Develop rules and regulations specific to dog parks
focusing on safety and limits of use.
*It is acknowledged that Hoover and Greer’s current dog parks are inadequate in
terms of size, and they should not be counted in their current configuration toward
the minimum of six dog parks recommended in this program.
Dedicated dog park spaces
62
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
2.E The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms
in parks that are approximately 2 acres or larger,
have amenities that encourage visitors to stay in the
park, have a high level of use and have no nearby
restrooms.
PROGRAMS
2.E.1 Develop a restroom standard, in collaboration with the
Architectural Review Board, for neighborhood parks.
2.E.2 The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms at the
following potential locations:
• Bol Park
• Bowden Park
• Eleanor Pardee Park
• Johnson Park
• Ramos Park
• Robles Park
• Terman Park
Policy
2.F Develop additional community gardens focusing
on underrepresented areas of the City and provide
community engagement opportunities around
gardens.
Policy
2.G At least every five years, quantitatively evaluate
demand and capacity of major recreation facilities
including pools, gyms, tennis courts and teen
centers with appropriate attention to geographical
distribution in the city. Adjust plans as appropriate
to accommodate significant demographic or demand
changes.
Community gardens
6362
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 3: Create environments that encourage active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social connections.
Policy
3.A Implement the Healthy City/Healthy Community
resolution with the community’s involvement.
PROGRAMS
3.A.1 Convene and lead a Healthy City/Healthy Community
stakeholder work group consisting of other agencies,
nonprofit organizations and citizens that supports building
a healthy community.
3.A.2 Develop an annual plan that supports implementation of
the resolution.
3.A.3 Achieve designation as an Age-Friendly Community.
3.A.4 Add drop-in programs (free or BOOST!) focused on physical
and mental health in settings that are near home/work
and maximize the health benefits of being outside and
surrounded by nature.
3.A.5 Connect walking paths within and between parks to create
loop options of varying length that encourage walking and
jogging.
3.A.6 Enhance seating areas to take advantage of quiet spaces
or to create opportunities for social interaction.
3.A.7 Promote and enforce the ban on smoking in Palo Alto’s
parks through a marketing campaign and signage program.
3.A.8 Upgrade or add drinking fountains with water bottle filling
and water for dogs.
3.A.9 Develop adult fitness areas in parks including exercise
areas for the exclusive use of older adults (seniors).
Policy
3.B Incorporate art into park design and recreation
programming (consistent with the Public Art Master
Plan).
HEALTHY CITY /
HEALTHY COMMUNITY
In 2015, the City Council
adopted a resolution
recognizing its role and
responsibility to promote
and support a Healthy City/
Healthy Community. Four
areas of action are identified
in this resolution:
• Healthy Culture
• Healthy Environment
• Healthy Food Access
• Healthy Workplace
Bicycling and walking path promoting outdoor fitness
64
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
3.B.1 Promote temporary public art installations in local parks.
3.B.2 Promote interactive public art features that also serve as
play features (i.e. climbable sculptural elements integrated
into the natural environment that invite touch and
exploration).
3.B.3 Update park design policies to incorporate artistic
elements consistent with the Public Art Master Plan.
3.B.4 Commission artwork that interprets local history, events
and significant individuals or represents City core values of
sustainability, youth well-being, health and innovation.
3.B.5 Bring in performance-based work, social practice,
temporary art and community art.
3.B.6 Explore suitable art for preserves and natural areas.
3.B.7 Incorporate public art in the earliest stages of the design of
parks and facilities that may utilize wind direction, sunlight
and ambient sound (coordinated with the Public Art Master
Plan).
3.B.8 Install permanent and temporary installations and exhibits
in well-trafficked parks and plazas, following the guidance
of the Public Art Master Plan.
3.B.9 Integrate functional public art into play areas, seatwalls
and other built features in parks across the system.
3.B.10 Integrate art and nature into bike lanes, routes and paths
as appropriate.
Policy
3.C Require that proposed privately owned public spaces
that are provided through the Parkland Dedication
Ordinance meet Palo Alto design guidelines and
standards for publicly owned parks, allow public
access, and be designed to support recreation,
incorporate natural ecosystem elements and comply
with the policies of the Urban Forest Master Plan.
PROGRAMS
3.C.1 Develop and apply clear expectations and definitions of
public access (hours, rules) for privately owned public
spaces.
Public art in Palo Alto
6564
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 4: Protect natural habitat and integrate nature, natural ecosystems and ecological principles throughout
Palo Alto.
Policy
4.A In natural open space, ensure activities, projects
and programs are compatible with the protection of
nature.
PROGRAMS
4.A.1 Develop comprehensive conservation plans for Baylands
Preserve, Foothills Park, Esther Clark Park and Pearson-
Arastradero Preserve to identify strategies to balance
ecosystem preservation, passive recreation and
environmental education.
4.A.2 Continue to work with partner organizations to remove
invasive weeds and plant native plants and trees in riparian
and natural open space areas.
4.A.3 Update the Arastradero Preserve Trail Management Plan
(March 2001) and the Foothills Park Trail Maintenance
Plan (January 2002), and incorporate into in the Foothills
Park, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and Esther Clark Park
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Project.
Policy
4.B Connect people to nature and the outdoors through
education and recreation programming.
PROGRAMS
4.B.1 Expand access to nature through elements and
interpretive features that explore ecological processes,
historical context, adjacent waterways and specific plant/
animal species that can be encountered onsite and have
elements tailored to be of interest to youth as well as
multiple ages, cultures and abilities.
4.B.2 Update or rebuild interpretive centers with modern
interactive exhibits.
4.B.3 Improve and increase access to creeks for learning and
stewardship experiences by designing access points that
minimize impact on the waterway.
Natural open space
66
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
4.B.4 Expand programs such as Foothills camps to connect
youth with parks year-round.
4.B.5 Partner with boys/girls scouting organizations for outdoor
education programs and/or the Junior Rangers program.
4.B.6 Expand and increase events that educate and promote
native plants, species and wildlife.
4.B.7 Provide shade for play areas, using shade trees as the
preferred solution.
4.B.8 Update and improve the Toyon Trail Interpretive Guide to
make it more engaging and educational.
4.B.9 Develop a Trail Interpretive Guide for Pearson-Arastradero
Preserve and the Baylands Nature Preserve.
Policy
4.C Connect natural areas, open space, creeks and
vegetated areas in parks and on public land to create
wildlife, bird, pollinator and habitat corridors by
planting with native oaks and other species that
support pollinators or provide high habitat values.
PROGRAMS
4.C.1 Develop a map that identifies locations for habitat
corridors, including the appropriate plant palette for each
corridor.
4.C.2 Work with local environmental groups to grow native plant
species and utilize their network of volunteers to install
and maintain planted areas.
4.C.3 Establish low-impact buffer zones with native plant
species along creeks to enhance habitat value.
Nature education programming
6766
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
4.D Promote, expand and protect habitat and natural
areas in parks and open space.
PROGRAMS
4.D.1 Identify and pursue strategies and opportunities to expand
native trees and planting areas in urban parks.
4.D.2 Integrate and implement the Urban Forest Master Plan
Policies and Programs as applicable to parkland in Palo
Alto.
4.D.3 Update the preferred plant palette and approved tree
species list.
4.D.4 Collaborate with habitat restoration organizations such as
Save the Bay, Canopy and Grassroots Ecology (Acterra).
4.D.5 Replace low-use turf areas with native shrubs and
grasses, incorporating educational elements about native
habitats.
4.D.6 Support regional efforts that focus on enhancing and
protecting significant natural resources.
4.D.7 Utilizing volunteers, expand programs to remove invasive
species and to plant native vegetation in open space, parks
and creek corridors.
4.D.8 Collaborate with regional partners to control the spread of
invasive species and plant pathogens.
4.D.9 Contact partner entity (such as Stanford University)
conservation program manager before planning projects
that disturb the ground on properties they own (including
the Stanford-Palo Alto Playing Fields and El Camino Park)
to allow review of their habitat conservation requirements.
68
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 5: Develop innovative programs, services and
strategies for expanding the park and recreation system.
Policy
5.A Identify and pursue strategies to activate underused
parks and recreation facilities
PROGRAMS
5.A.1 Implement short-term placemaking improvements
(flexible, small scale interventions such as seating, art,
programming or planters that have minimal capital cost) to
attract users and experiment with potential longer-term
options.
5.A.2 Emphasize flexibility and layering uses (allowing for
different uses at different times of day, week, etc.) in
parks over installing fixed-use equipment and single-use
facilities.
5.A.3 Expand day camp program opportunities, utilizing all
preserves and more local park sites and additional topic
areas, to meet excess demand.
5.A.4 Leverage social media and develop marketing materials
to encourage “pop-up” recreational activities in rotating
parks.
5.A.5 Create small (10-12 people) and medium-sized (20-25
people) group picnic areas that can be used for both picnics
and programming.
5.A.6 Assess high-demand park features and identify those that
can be added or relocated to low-use parks.
Policy
5.B Support innovation in recreation programming and
park features and amenities.
PROGRAMS
5.B.1 Review program data based on clearly communicated
objectives for reach, impact, attendance and financial
performance.
5.B.2 Retire, end or refresh programs that require staff, facility
and financial resources but do not achieve program
objectives, thereby freeing up resources for new programs.
Examples of placemaking improvements
6968
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
5.B.3 Actively develop a small number of pilot programs each
year to test new ideas, locations and target audiences.
5.B.4 Build on partnership with Avenidas to expand
intergenerational programming as well as additional older
adult programming.
5.B.5 Expand BOOST!, the pay-per-use exercise class system to
cover fees for any drop-in classes or facility use (lap swim,
drop-in gym time, new programs in parks).
5.B.6 Set a goal of 10% new program offerings each season; new
programs should be offered based on needs assessment,
industry trends and/or class evaluation data.
5.B.7 Create a robust marketing and outreach program to
highlight new and innovative programs to community.
5.B.8 Develop short-term recreation access strategies (such
as temporary use agreements for vacant or park-like
property) and seek long-term or permanent park and
recreation space in each park search area. Actively
recruit property and facility owners to participate in the
development of the short- and long-term strategies.
5.B.9 Explore addition of intramural sports for middle and high
school students through a partnership with Palo Alto
Unified School District.
5.B.10 Provide opportunities for “pickup” or non-league sports
activities at City parks and recreation facilities.
Policy
5.C Expand the overall parks and recreation system
through repurposing public land, partnering with
other organizations for shared land, incorporating
public park spaces on parking decks and rooftops, if
appropriate and using other creative means to help
address shortages of available land.
PROGRAMS
5.C.1 Explore a process to utilize and reserve select public and
private lands for “park-like” functions that allows for more
flexibility than formal park dedication.
Underhill Parking Garage at UC Berkeley includes a full size soccer field built over a 1,000 space, four-level parking facility
70
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
5.D Explore alternative uses for newly acquired parkland
to optimize for long-term community benefit.
PROGRAMS
5.D.1 Determine optimal usage for Foothill Park’s 7.7 acres of
parkland.
5.D.2 Evaluate optimal usage, including open space, for 10.5-
acre land bank created by golf course reconstruction in the
Baylands.
5.D.3 Evaluate feasible uses for the south end of El Camino Park.
Policy
5.E Explore and experiment with parklets and other
temporary park spaces for both long- and short-term
uses.
Policy
5.F Enhance partnerships and collaborations with Palo
Alto Unified School District and Stanford University
to support access and joint use of facilities, where
appropriate, for effective delivery of services and
programs.
PROGRAMS
5.F.1 Partner with PAUSD to open middle and high school
recreation facilities for community use (basketball,
badminton, indoor soccer, swimming pools, tennis courts)
during the evening, weekend and summer hours.
5.F.2 Develop a steering committee that consists of key
officials from the City, PAUSD and Stanford to explore
partnership agreements and connect facility managers and
programmers.
5.F.3 Increase access to PAUSD public schools (outside of school
hours) to increase the availability of recreation activity
spaces. Target school sites that are within or adjacent to
“park search areas.”
PARKLET:
An inexpensive infrastructure
investment that creates a
public gathering space or
small park from on-street
parking spaces.
Parklet on Noriega Street in San Francisco
7170
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
5.F.4 Explore partnerships with Stanford to create or increase
access to athletic facilities and other recreational facilities
for Palo Alto residents.
5.F.5 Develop a common reservation system for community
access to shared facilities.
Policy
5.G Pursue other/private funding sources for recreation
programming, capital improvement projects and
facility maintenance.
PROGRAMS
5.G.1 Encourage foundations to assist with soliciting
sponsorships and grants.
5.G.2 Create a more formalized annual or one-time sponsorship
program that provides the donor with marketing and
promotional opportunities.
5.G.3 Contract or add job responsibilities for managing
fundraising and developing donors for the park system to
pursue funding opportunities and sponsorships.
5.G.4 Engage non-profit friends groups to seek donor funding,
including foundation grants, corporate giving and small and
major philanthropic gifts by individuals, for priority projects
and programs.
Policy
5.H Partner with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District and other land conservation groups to expand
access to open space through new acquisitions and
improved connections.
Fitness program
72
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 6: Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures.
Policy
6.A At least every five years actively review demographic
trends and interests of the City population by
segment for critical drivers of facility usage including
schoolchildren, teens, seniors and ethnic groups, and
adjust programs and plans accordingly.
PROGRAMS
6.A.1 Create pilot recreation programs to test the public’s
interest in new types of classes, events and activities
utilizing an evaluation process.
6.A.2 Initiate a community-wide focus group on an annual basis
to provide feedback on programs, facilities and long-term
roadmaps.
6.A.3 Create a streamlined and effective quarterly survey system
that solicits feedback from customers, including program
participants, facility renters and the general community.
Policy
6.B Continue to implement the Cost Recovery Policy for
recreation programs, refining the cost and fees using
the most current information available.
PROGRAMS
6.B.1 Periodically benchmark the City’s Cost Recovery Policy
against other cities’ cost recovery models.
6.B.2 Invest in and market city facilities to increase revenue for
cost recovery.
Policy
6.C Limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks (booking an
entire park site) for events by outside organizations
that are closed to the general public.
7372
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
6.C.1 No exclusive use of parks by private parties is permitted
on peak days (e.g., weekends, holidays) or peak times (e.g.,
evening hours on weekdays, 10 am – 6 pm on weekends)
as defined by Community Services staff unless approved in
advance by the Director of Community Services. Exclusive
use of certain sites and facilities within parks, such as
reservable spaces like picnic areas, is generally permitted
during peak days and times.
6.C.2 Exclusive use of parks for locally focused events that allow
registration by the general public (e.g., races, obstacle
course events, triathlons, etc.) may be considered by staff
if consistent with this Master Plan.
6.C.3 Private events that are closed to the general public (e.g.,
corporate events, private weddings) and are intended
to use an entire park (rather than a reservable space in
excess of capacities as defined in the Special Event Permit
procedures) may only be considered outside of peak
days and times as defined by Community Services staff.
These events should recover 100% of all associated costs,
including wear and tear on public parks and facilities.
6.C.4 Events that allow public access are permitted, in
accordance with Special Event Permit procedures.
Policy
6.D Periodically review and update existing guidance for
development, operations and maintenance of Palo
Alto’s parks, trails, natural open space and recreation
system based on the best practices in the industry
and this Master Plan, including:
• Park Rules and Regulations;
• Open Space Policy & Procedure Handbook;
• City of Palo Alto Landscape Standards;
• City of Palo Alto design guidelines and standards; and
• Tree Technical Manual.
Solar installation
74
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
6.E Incorporate sustainable best practices in the
maintenance, management and development of open
space, parks and recreation facilities where consistent
with ecological best practices.
PROGRAMS
6.E.1 Increase energy efficiency in Palo Alto parks, including
allocating funding to retrofit facilities for energy efficiency
with increased insulation, green or reflective roofs and
low-emissive window glass where applicable.
6.E.2 Conduct energy audits for all facilities, establish an energy
baseline for operations, benchmark energy performance
against comparable facilities and implement energy
tracking and management systems for all park facilities
and operations.
6.E.3 Select Energy Star and equivalent energy-efficient
products for park equipment purchases.
6.E.4 Expand the collection and use of solar power (parking lots,
roofs) and other renewable energy sources at parks and
facilities (e.g. pools).
6.E.5 Provide convenient and well-marked compost and
recycling receptacles throughout the park system, in
recreation facilities and at special events.
6.E.6 Ensure that trash, recycling and compost receptacles have
covers to prevent wildlife access to human food sources.
6.E.7 Review purchasing policies and improve employee
education to reduce overall consumption of materials
throughout the system.
6.E.8 Procure environmentally preferable products (as required
by the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy)
as the “default” purchasing option.
6.E.9 Initiate composting of green waste within the park system.
6.E.10 Work with Public Works to replace the vehicle fleet with
electric vehicles whenever practical.
6.E.11 Install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at park
facilities with parking lots.
Palo Alto park maintenance
7574
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
6.E.12 Enforce a “No Idle” program with vehicles and other gas-
powered equipment.
6.E.13 Conduct water audits for all parks and recreation facilities
and park operations.
6.E.14 Install high-efficiency urinals, toilets, sinks and showers in
all facilities.
6.E.15 Extend recycled water use to more park sites.
6.E.16 Explore stormwater runoff capture opportunities in parks
for recycling in irrigation.
6.E.17 Ensure irrigation systems on public landscapes (including
those expanding the use of recycled water) are run by a
smart controller and/or sensors and that staff are trained
in programming them.
6.E.18 Link all park facilities to a centralized irrigation
management system to maximize water use efficiency.
6.E.19 Promote urban greening by integrating storm water
design into planting beds, reducing irrigation and providing
interpretive information about park contributions to city
water quality.
6.E.20 Train City maintenance staff and include specific standards
and expectations in maintenance contracts for the
care of low-water, naturalized landscapes, natural play
environments and other new types of features in the
system.
6.E.21 Ensure project designs for new facilities and retrofits
will be consistent with sustainable design principles
and practices. This includes evaluating all projects
for opportunities to implement green stormwater
infrastructure such as bioswales, stormwater planters,
rain gardens, permeable pavers and porous concrete and
asphalt.
6.E.22 Identify locations and develop swales, detention basins
and rain gardens to retain and treat storm water.
Example of urban greening/green infrastructure
76
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
6.F Strengthen the Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
policy as written. While some parks may be managed
as “pesticide free” on a demonstration basis, IPM
should continue to be Palo Alto’s approach, grounded
in the best available science on pest prevention and
management.
PROGRAMS
6.F.1 Periodically review and update the IPM policy based on
best available data and technology.
Policy
6.G Strategically reduce maintenance requirements at
parks, open spaces, natural preserves and community
centers while maintaining Palo Alto’s high quality
standards.
PROGRAMS
6.G.1 Locate garbage and recycling receptacles in a single
location that is easily accessible by maintenance staff and
vehicles.
6.G.2 Explore high capacity, compacting and smart garbage and
recycling receptacles that can reduce the frequency of
regular collection.
6.G.3 Select standardized furnishing palettes for durability,
vandal-resistance and ease of repair.
Policy
6.H Coordinate with and/or use other relevant City plans
to ensure consistency, including:
• Baylands Master Plan;
• Urban Forest Master Plan;
• Urban Water Master Plan;
• Long-term electric acquisition plan (LEAP);
• Water Reclamation Master Plan;
Accessible garbage and recycling receptacles
7776
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
• Recycled Water Project;
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan;
• Comprehensive Plan;
• Public Art Master Plan; and
• Others adopted in the future.
Policy
6.I Continue to engage other relevant City departments
and divisions in planning, design and programming,
drawing on the unique and specialized skills and
perspectives of:
• City Manager’s Office;
• The Palo Alto Art Center;
• Library, including Children’s Library;
• Junior Museum and Zoo;
• Children’s Theatre;
• Public Art;
• Transportation;
• Urban Forestry;
• Planning;
• Public Works; and
• Palo Alto Youth and Teen Leadership.
Policy
6.J Participate in and support implementation of regional
plans related to parks, recreation, natural open space
and trails, such as:
• 2014 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision;
• Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan; and
• Land Use near Streams in Santa Clara County.
Appendix C
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan City of Palo Alto
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendix C
Sensitive Habitats and Special-Status Species Documented in Palo Alto
Sensitive Habitats and Special-Status Species Page 1
Species Name Listing
Status1 Habitat Requirements
Natural Communities
• Northern coastal saltmarsh NA Salt marsh dominated by pickleweed, salt grass, and jaumea.
• Serpentine bunchgrass NA Serpentine soils dominated by native grasses and forbs.
• Valley oak grassland* NA Woodland consisting of valley oaks.
Plants
• Alkali milk-vetch
(Astragalus tener var. tener) 1B.2 Alkali flats in grassland or vernal pools.
Arcuate bush-mallow
(Malacothamnus arcuatus) 1B.2 Gravelly alluvium in chaparral.
• California seablite
• (Suaeda californica)
FE
1B.1 Margins of coastal salt marshes.
• Choris’ popcorn-flower
• (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus) 1B.2 Moist areas in chaparral, coastal scrub, coastal prairie habitat.
• Fragrant fritillary
• (Fritillaria liliacea) 1B.2 Clay, serpentine, usually in grassland.
• Franciscan onion
• (Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum) 1B.2 Woodland and grassland on clay soils, often serpentine.
• Hoover’s button-celery
• (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri) 1B.1 • Vernal pools.
• Kings Mountain manzanita
• (Arctostaphylos regismontana) 1B.2 Manzanita chaparral and Douglas-fir forest.
• Lost thistle
• (Cirsium praeteriens) 1A • Unknown.
Sensitive Habitats and Special-Status Species Page 2
Species Name Listing
Status1 Habitat Requirements
• Point Reyes salty bird’s-beak
• (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. Palustre) 1B.2 Coastal salt marsh, usually with Salicornia, Distichilis, Jaumea, Spartina, etc.
• San Francisco collinsia
• (Collinsia multicolor) 1B.2 • Mixed evergreen woodland.
Santa Clara red ribbons
(Clarkia concinna ssp.
• automixa)
4.3 Cismontane woodland, chaparral on slopes and near drainages.
• Showy rancheria clover
• (Trifolium amoenum)
FE
1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, coastal bluff scrub, serpentine.
• Slender-leaved pondweed
• (Stuckenia filiformis) 2B.2 • Freshwater marshes.
• Western leatherwood
• (Dirca occidentalis) 1B.2 Woodland, creek riparian.
• White-flowered rein orchid
• (Piperia candida) 1B.2 Montane coniferous forest.
• Woodland woolythreads
• (Monolopia gracilens) 1B.2 Chaparral, valley, and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland, broadleaved upland forest, North Coast
coniferous forest. Grassy sites in openings, sandy to rocky soils, often seen on serpentine after burns.
Animals
• Bay checkerspot butterfly
• (Euphydryas editha bayensis) FT Serpentine grassland with host plants California plantain and owl’s clover.
• Longfin smelt
• (Spirinchus thaleichthys)
FC
CT
CSSC
• Open water of estuaries.
Sensitive Habitats and Special-Status Species Page 3
Species Name Listing
Status1 Habitat Requirements
• Steelhead (Central California coast Distinct
Population Segment [DPS])
• (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus)*
FT Deep pools within fast moving streams and shallow water gravel beds for spawning.
• California red-legged frog
• (Rana draytonii)*
FT
CSSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent
riparian vegetation.
• California giant salamander
• (Dicamptodon ensatus) CSSC Known from wet coastal forests near streams and seeps from Mendocino County south to Monterey
County and east to Napa County.
• California tiger salamander
• (Ambystoma californiense)
FT
CT
CSSC
A mosaic of habitats consisting of seasonally filled pools located in or near grasslands or oak woodlands.
Semipermanent ponds, reservoirs, and portions of slow-moving, seasonal creeks may also be used.
• Red-bellied newt
• (Taricha rivularis) CSSC Coastal drainages from Humboldt County south to Sonoma County, inland to Lake County. Isolated
population of uncertain origin in Santa Clara County.
• Santa Cruz black salamander
• (Aneides niger) CSSC Found in mixed deciduous and coniferous woodlands and coastal grasslands in San Mateo, Santa Cruz,
and Santa Clara counties.
• Western pond turtle
• (Actinemys marmorata)* CSSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, usually with
aquatic vegetation. Needs basking sites (sandy banks and grassy open fields) and suitable upland
habitat.
• San Francisco garter snake
• (Thamnophlis sirtalis tetrataenia)
FE
CE
Vicinity of freshwater marshes, ponds, and slow moving streams in San Mateo County and extreme
Northern Santa Cruz County.
American peregrine falcon
• (falco peregrinus anatum) CFP Riparian areas, wetlands, lakes. Nests on cliffs or man-made structures.
• Alameda song sparrow
• (Melospiza melodia pusillula) CSSC Resident of salt marshes bordering south arm of San Francisco Bay
• Burrowing owl
• (Athene cunicularia) CSSC Open, dry grassland with ground squirrel burrows and areas to forage.
Sensitive Habitats and Special-Status Species Page 4
Species Name Listing
Status1 Habitat Requirements
• California black rail
• (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) ST Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet meadows, and shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering larger
bays.
Long-eared owl
• (asio otus) CSSC Riparian willows and cottonwoods; live oak forest along streams; requires adjacent open land for forage
and existing hawk, crow, magpie nest for breeding.
• Northern harrier
• (Circus cyaneus) CSSC Grasslands, meadows, marshes, seasonal and agricultural wetlands.
• Ridgeway’s rail
• (Rallus obsoletus)
FE
SE
Saltwater and brackish marshes traversed by tidal sloughs in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay.
• Saltmarsh common yellowthroat
• (Geothylpis trichas sinuosa) CSSC Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh and saltwater marshes.
• Western snowy plover
• (Charadrius alexandrines nivosus)
FT
CSSC
Sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and shores of large alkali lakes.
• White-tailed kite
• (Elanus leucurus) CFP Low foothills and valleys with oaks; riparian areas, marshes near open grasslands for forage.
• Yellow Warbler
• (Setophaga petechia)* CSSC Riparian plant associations in close proximity to water; often in willow thickets.
• American badger
• (Taxidea taxus) CSSC Dry, open areas of shrub, forest, and grassland habitats with friable soils. Preys on burrowing rodents,
needs sufficient food, and uncultivated ground.
• Pallid bat
• (Antrozous pallidus) CSSC Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky
areas for roosting.
• Saltmarsh harvest mouse
• (Reithrodontomys raviventris)
FE
CE Only in the saline emergent wetlands of San Francisco Bay and its tributaries.
• Saltmarsh wandering shrew
• (Sorex vagrans halicoetes) CSSC • Saltmarsh wandering shrew is most frequently found in salt marshes that provide dense cover and have
abundant sources of invertebrates for food and continuous ground moisture.
Sensitive Habitats and Special-Status Species Page 5
Species Name Listing
Status1 Habitat Requirements
• San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat
• (Neotoma fuscipes annectens)* CSSC • San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is found in forest and scrub habitats of moderate canopy and
moderate dense understory.
• Townsend’s big-eared bat
• (Corynorhinus townsendii)
CPT
CSSC
• Roosts in caves, mines, and large trees. It forages within woodlands and along stream edges; extremely
sensitive to human disturbance.
* Means that the species occurs or has the potential to occur in the creeks or riparian habitat adjacent to several of the City’s urban parks and
recreational facilities.
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: JAZMIN LEBLANC, STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS SENIOR MANAGER,
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA DATE: MAY 23, 2017
SUBJECT: CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR TEAM SHEEPER AQUATICS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to Council an amendment to
Team Sheeper’s learn to swim contract from August 14, 2017 through December 31, 2018 to include:
operational management of Rinconada’ s lap and open swim programs; and
oversight of Rinconada Masters and Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics (PASA) programs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Beginning in 2015, the City has struggled to hire and retain adequate pool staff to meet community
demand for the Lap Swim, Learn‐to‐swim and Family Recreation Swim programs. In 2015, the
Community Services Department (CSD) entered into an emergency contract with an outside vendor to
mitigate its Learn‐to‐swim staffing shortages. Working on a very short timeline, CSD was able to write
and approve a contract with Team Sheeper Inc., a professional third party aquatics service provider who
mobilized quickly to provide qualified professional swim instructors and lifeguards to support the Palo
Alto aquatics programs.
In search of a more sustainable and reliable solution for community aquatics services, in December
2015, CSD issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the following services: 1) Learn‐to‐swim lessons; 2)
Youth Competitive Swim Team; 3) Adult Masters Swim Team; and 4) aquatics facilities operation,
including recreational swim, lap swim, and pool rentals. Firms were invited to submit a proposal for one
or all of the above services and attend a pre‐bid meeting. Two proposals were received one from the
Palo Alto Family YMCA and the other from Team Sheeper Inc. and both bidders were invited to present
their proposals and respond to questions from the consultant review team. The consultant review team
was represented by five City staff, a Recreation Supervisor from the City of Mountain View, a Recreation
Supervisor from the City of Milpitas, and a pool user (lap swim). After careful review of both proposals,
discussing with the consultant review team and interviewing the two potential service providers, the
proposals were scored and Team Sheeper prevailed as the preferred contractor.
Although Team Sheeper was the preferred contractor responding to the RFP, staff also wanted to
evaluate what staff and resource requirements would be needed if the City were to operate the
Aquatics program in house as a City‐run aquatics program at the same level of programming
Team Sheeper proposed, which included significant expansions of the swim lesson program as well as
additional year round hours for lap swim and recreation swim. Staff also considered the option of
1
maintaining the status quo with a summer‐only recreational swim program and continuing to contract
swimming lessons as we have done for the past two summers.
Staff has now completed this evaluation. Staff reviewed management alternatives using the following
criteria:
City and Customer Costs
Quality of Service and Customer Satisfaction
Diversity of Programming and Accessibility
In conducting this evaluation, it became clear that Team Sheeper could provide high quality
programming, expand open and recreational swim programs, and provide more youth swim lessons at a
lower cost than an in‐house model primarily because an in‐house model would require additional
fulltime benefitted employees.
Staff recommends expanding the public‐private partnership with Team Sheeper, Inc. that we entered
into in January 2017. The current contract is limited to providing swim lessons and summer swim camps
in 2017 and expires on December 31, 2017. The proposed contract amendment would add: summer
swim lessons for 2018 (at City negotiated fees without subsidizing Team Sheeper), summer swim camps,
expanded recreational and lap swim program, oversight of PASA and Rinconada Masters, and day‐to‐day
management of the City aquatics program at lower cost to the City.
DISCUSSION
On January 9, 2017, City Council approved and authorized an agreement between the City of Palo Alto
and Team Sheeper, LLC for the City’s Learn to Swim Program in the 2017 calendar year (see Appendix B
for details on this agreement). Team Sheeper began offering swim lessons through that contract in April
of this year and lessons will continue through October. This summer, Team Sheeper will also be offering
a swim camp as part of this contract. Initial feedback for the expanded program has been positive. In
order to alleviate staffing challenges, staff is recommending expanding Team Sheeper’s current contract
to include swim lessons and camps for 2018 as well as lifeguards and pool oversight for the recreational
and lap swim programs from August 14, 2017 through December 31, 2018. Additionally, staff would like
to structure PASA’s and Rinconada Masters’ contracts as subcontracts under Team Sheeper’s contract.
This relationship structure will allow for a clear process for managing day‐to‐day scheduling at the pool
under one operator in collaboration with CSD staff.
Staff recommends using a revenue share model for the additional services added to this contract so
there would not be any additional cost associated with this contract beyond the 2017 swim lesson
subsidies. Because Team Sheeper’s staff will be collecting revenues at the points of entry for Rinconada
Pool, staff recommends that Team Sheeper use their own Point of Sale (POS) and registration system to
collect pool entries and to register participants for memberships, classes and camps. In order to reduce
the City’s risk and limit access to personal customer information, staff does not recommend providing
Team Sheeper’s staff with access to the City’s POS and registration system, Enjoy Online, used across all
CSD program areas.
2
Outreach
Staff has engaged residents and Rinconada Pool users to ensure that this contract model is established
in a way that preserves Rinconada’s quality customer experience. Over the last several months, staff
has held formal community meetings, informal discussions at the pool with residents and customers,
and conducted surveys of swim lesson participants, to solicit feedback on the aquatics program and
potential changes. Staff also organized a focus group consisting of lap swimmers to discuss potential
adjustments to the lap swim program including schedule and pricing changes.
In synthesizing the information from these sources, it has become clear that pool users would like to
ensure that City retains share control over Rinconada’s scheduling and pricing with Team Sheeper. Staff
has incorporated this feedback into the contract amendment, requiring both Team Sheeper’s and the
City’s approval to make scheduling and price changes.
Operating Changes Associated with this Proposed Agreement
If this agreement is adopted there will be several modest changes for residents including pricing,
membership options and slight schedule changes.
Pricing
Fall 2017 Resident Pricing
3
Fall 2017 Non‐resident Pricing
One notable change from the proposed fee structure is transition from a 10 pack swim option to a
monthly pass program. Team Sheeper’s POS and registration system is set up to offer monthly passes
and does not offer 10 packs. During the negotiation process staff reviewed the impact of this change
and found it reasonable. The monthly pass price was set by City staff to provide a reasonable price
break to heavy pool users and was agreed to by Team Sheeper.
If this contract amendment is approved, City staff will refund aquatics 10 pack customers the cost of any
remaining 10 pack swims during the fall of 2017.
4
Scheduling Changes
Team Sheeper has agreed to maintain “block schedules” for much of the existing weekly programming
and has proposed additional recreational swim programming which can be seen in this draft fall 2017
Schedule:
Current Summer Fall ‐ Rinconada Pool
6:00am
6:30am
7:00am
7:30am
8:00am
8:30am
9:00am
9:30am
10:00am
10:30am
11:00am
11:30am
12:00pm
12:30pm
1:00pm
1:30pm
2:00pm
2:30pm
3:00pm
3:30pm
4:00pm
4:30pm
5:00pm
5:30pm
6:00pm
6:30pm
7:00pm
7:30pm
8:00pm
8:30pm
Saturday
Lap Swim (14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)
Rec Swim
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
Sunday
Lap Swim
(14 lanes) Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Masters
(14 lanes) Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes) Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
PASA
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)
Rec Swim
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
PASA
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
(4 lanes) (10 lanes)(4 lanes) (10 lanes)
(7 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
(7 lanes) (7 lanes)
5
To better understand the scale of this schedule’s changes, the 2016 fall schedule is below:
The most noteworthy changes between last year’s schedule and this year’s proposed schedule are: 1)
PASA has indicated that they would like to moderately reduce their early afternoon hours and regular
Sunday hours at Rinconada which will allow time for additional recreational and lap swim hours
throughout the fall; and 2) lap swim lanes will be reduced on Saturday and Sunday afternoons to
accommodate added recreational swim times. The tentative 2017 summer swim schedule can be seen
in Appendix A.
At the conclusion of the fall season, Team Sheeper will work with City staff to develop a winter schedule
as they will do for all remaining seasons for the duration of the contract.
Other Contract Terms
In order to keep prices accessible to all residents, the contract negotiated in January of this year
included City payments to Team Sheeper of $6 for every resident group lesson participant and $28 for
every resident private lesson participant during the 2017 lesson season. It also included a 10 percent
revenue share for lesson revenues.
This contract amendment would eliminate any City payments to Team Sheeper to subsidize swim
lessons for the 2018 lesson season (reducing the cost of this contract to $0 in 2018) but would also keep
prices accessible with any proposed price changes between 2017 and 2018 approved by City staff as well
Current Summer Fall ‐ Rinconada Pool
6:00am
6:30am
7:00am
7:30am
8:00am
8:30am
9:00am
9:30am
10:00am
10:30am
11:00am
11:30am
12:00pm
12:30pm
1:00pm
1:30pm
2:00pm
2:30pm
3:00pm
3:30pm
4:00pm
4:30pm
5:00pm
5:30pm
6:00pm
6:30pm
7:00pm
7:30pm
8:00pm
8:30pm
Sunday
Masters
(14 lanes) Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes) Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes) Lap Swim
(14 lanes) Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Maintenance
Masters
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
PASA
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
Maintenance
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
PASA
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)
Maintenance
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
Maintenance
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
(7 lanes) (7 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
(7 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
Maintenance
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)(4 lanes) (10 lanes)(4 lanes) (10 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
6
as Team Sheeper. As part of this contract amendment, staff negotiated a revenue share of up to 12
percent based on the number of lessons provided during the year. Because the City will be so involved
in scheduling and pricing, and as such, will limit Team Sheeper’s earning capacity, City staff proposed the
revenue share table below. The table uses swim lessons as the driver for the revenue share because it is
simple to monitor and is a prime generator of aquatics revenues.
Swim lessons sold in CY Gross revenue share to
City from all programs
11,000 or less 1%
11,001‐12,000 2%
12,001‐13,000 3%
13,001‐14,000 4%
14,001‐15,000 5%
15,001‐16,000 6%
16,001‐17,000 7%
17‐001‐18,000 8%
18,001‐19,000 9%
19,001‐20,000 10%
20,001‐21,000 11%
22,000 or more 12%
City staff will continue to be closely involved with aquatics programming to ensure the continued
success of programs and satisfaction of users. This contract proposal also includes provisions that Team
Sheeper will provide staff with customer statistics on a monthly basis including resident and non‐
resident use of classes, camps, memberships and daily entrants. Additionally, Team Sheeper will
provide an annual report which will include customer feedback and survey data.
Contract Duration
This contract is set as a short duration contract, expiring on December 31, 2018. This will give us time to
assess the contract model and contract terms. We will begin a new RFP process during the spring of
2018 and will use data and feedback from this contract as part of our evaluation of the model.
Impact on City Staff
Expanding the Team Sheeper aquatics contract will impact SEIU positions at the pool. The aquatics
program is assigned one full‐time SEIU position and 12 SEIU hourly positions (for a total of 3.79
FTE). Staff recommends freezing the aquatics positions at the commencement of the contract
amendment. CSD staff has been working closely with HR to proceed through the SEIU Meet and Confer
process. The full‐time SEIU employee is in a job classification with a current vacancy. The position is a
Recreation Coordinator and the vacancy is a Youth and Teen Coordinator located at the Mitchell Park
Community Center. Staff has intentionally left the position vacant for the past nine months so that the
7
City could transfer the impacted employee into the vacant Youth and Teen Coordinator position should
a viable contract for aquatics services be negotiated.
Regarding the hourly positions, Team Sheeper would like to interview any interested hourly lifeguard
and swim instructor aquatics employees for positions with their organization, and staff understands that
Team Sheeper’s pay and benefits exceed that of the City’s for lifeguard and instructor positions.
Team Sheeper uses both year‐round and seasonal employees at its other pools and estimates that at
least 70 percent of seasonal staff consists of local high school and college students. If they
operate Rinconada Pool, they expect a similar portion of local students to work during summers.
Resource Impact
The City will need to adjust the FY 2018 budget for Aquatics to reflect changes caused by this contract
amendment.
Forecasted Fiscal Impact FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019
Actuals Adopted CSD Proposal Contract (Est.)
Revenue 424,352 555,993 145,000 125,000
Operating Expenditures 505,102 564,469 267,494 60,000
Contract Fees 75,000 143,947 85,000 0
Swim Lessons Provided (Est.) 5,500 5,500 32,000 32,000
Group Swim Lesson Price 11 11 16 Est. 17
Net General Fund Impact (155,750) (152,423) (207,494) 65,000
There are several one‐time expenses associated with implementing this contract amendment but once
accomplished, aquatics program costs will be reduced on an ongoing basis. These include:
Refunding aquatics 10 pack customers any remaining pool entries – expected to cost
approximately $35,000;
Paying Team Sheeper approximately $85,000 for remaining swim lesson subsidies for the 2017
swim lesson program – 2018 swim lessons have been negotiated to be provided at City rates
with no subsidy payment; and
Continuing the in‐house aquatics program through August 13, 2017 – this contract amendment
would have Team Sheeper begin providing management of the lap and recreational swim
programs on August 14, 2017.
While the one‐time expenses described above will increase the net General Fund impact above the FY
2017 adopted budget, staff is confident that moving to a public‐private partnership model will provide
significant savings in FY 2019 and beyond. The intent of the recommendations in this staff report is to
provide an enhanced level of service at or below current cost to the General Fund. Contracting with
Team Sheeper will meet this goal.
Policy Implications
This proposal is aligned with Comprehensive Plan goal G1: Effective and Efficient Delivery of Community
Services.
Environmental Review
The recommendation in this report does not constitute a project requiring review under the
8
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments
Appendix A – Tentative Summer Swim Schedule
Appendix B – January 9, 2017 City Council Memo Authorizing Adoption of the Current Team Sheeper
Aquatics Contract
Appendix C – Draft Contract Amendment
9
Appendix A
Tentative Summer Schedule for 2017
10
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: JAZMIN LEBLANC, STRATEGY AND OPERATIONS MANAGER,
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2016
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE PALO ALTO AQUATICS PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting that the Parks and Recreation Commission provide feedback on the staff
analysis and evaluation of potentially contracting with Team Sheeper to provide some or all
aquatics programs and services for the City of Palo Alto. Staff has reviewed management
alternatives using the following criteria:
•City and Customer Costs
•Quality of Service and Customer Satisfaction
•Diversity of Programming and Accessibility
Staff recommends entering into a public-private partnership with Team Sheeper, Inc. to
manage the summer swim lesson program for 2017 as well as to provide a summer swim camp.
Staff further recommends that we engage in additional community outreach and analysis
before expanding Team Sheeper’s role in operating additional programs and services including
oversight of the relationships with Rinconada Masters and PASA, and lap swim and recreation
swim at Rinconada and JLS pools. Staff will continue to solicit feedback from pool users to
ensure we are hearing from as many stakeholders as possible and return to the Parks and
Recreation Commission early in the 2017 calendar year with the results of the outreach and
analysis and potentially additional recommendations.
This staff report includes analysis of the potential advantages and disadvantages of Team
Sheeper Inc. operating the full suite of aquatics programs and services. As stated above staff
are only recommending Team Sheeper manage the swim lesson program at this time, with
further community outreach and analysis needed before further recommendations can be
made.
Executive Summary
Rinconada Pool is a valued community asset, receiving over 58,000 drop-in visits to its lap and
recreation swimming programs each year and providing swimming lessons to approximately
1,000 youth annually. In the past few years, City residents have made clear that they would like
Appendix B
11
more pool access. Residents want open swim programs available for an extended swim season
and would like to increase daily open hours. They would also like more access to youth
swimming lessons with more lessons available and at more convenient times during the week.
This increased demand for both recreational and instructional swimming, together with CSD’s
difficulty in hiring and retaining adequate lifeguarding staff to provide swim lessons has led
staff to recommend several changes to the Aquatics Program.
In December 2015, after receiving direction from the Finance Committee and subsequently the
full Council, staff released a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit bids for Aquatics Management
services to improve the City Aquatics program. In our evaluation we identified opportunities to
not just maintain the aquatics program but to meet community requests to expand and
enhance aquatics programming for Palo Alto.
The objective of the RFP and our analysis was to consider alternatives for how we might best
achieve the following:
1)Expand the recreational swimming season to open both pools for recreation swimming
in mid-April and keep the pool open through late October.
2)Adjust and add open hours for lap swim and recreational swimming programs to better
meet customer demands for pool use outside of 9 to 5 weekday hours.
3)Expand the swim lesson season to match the expanded recreational swim season and
adjust swim lesson offerings to provide more evening and weekend lessons.
The City received two proposals, one from the Palo Alto Family YMCA and the other from Team
Sheeper Inc. Of the two proposals Team Sheeper Inc. provide the lower cost, greater diversity
of program and service proposal, and demonstrated ability to perform and deliver the highest
quality of service. Based on the Team Sheeper Inc. proposal, staff evaluated a range of
management options for the Aquatics Program, each with advantages, disadvantages and
tradeoffs. These included:
•Enter into a partnership with Team Sheeper, Inc. to manage pool operations at
Rinconada, oversee the relationships with the Rinconada Masters and PASA, and
provide swimming lessons at Rinconada and JLS pools;
•Identify and evaluate the staff and resource needs for and enhanced in house City-run
aquatics program to match the level of programming and services Team Sheeper
proposed; and
•Maintain the status quo with a summer-only recreational swim program and continuing
to contract swimming lessons as we have done for the past two summers.
12
Background
During the summer season, which runs from mid-June through mid-August, the City of Palo Alto
Aquatics Program offers a variety of activities for the community including:
• family recreation swim,
• adult lap swim,
• learn-to-swim lessons,
• facility rentals for private pool parties,
• a youth competitive swim team (PASA - Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics), and
• an adult competitive swim team (Rinconada Masters).
The City has existing contracts to provide the Rinconada Masters and PASA programs, while City
staff historically has provided staffing for the remaining programs. The majority of the aquatics
programs are held at the City-owned Rinconada pool with some summer swim lessons also
taking place at the JLS Middle School pool.
Throughout the rest of the year (mid-September through mid-May), the only aquatics activities
that are offered at Rinconada are adult lap swim, PASA, and the Rinconada Masters.
For the past two summers (2015 and 2016), the City has struggled to hire and retain adequate
pool staff to meet community demand for the Lap Swim, Learn-to-swim and Family Recreation
Swim. In 2015, CSD entered into an emergency contract with an outside vendor to mitigate its
Learn-to-swim staffing shortages. Working on a very short timeline, CSD was able to write and
approve a contract with Team Sheeper Inc., a professional third party aquatics service provider
who was able to mobilize quickly and provide qualified professional swim instructors and
lifeguards to support the Palo Alto aquatics programs.
Following the 2015 summer swim season, CSD staff conducted program evaluations of the
summer lessons that Team Sheeper Inc. had provided. Parents of participants were very
pleased with the experience and felt their children’s progress and technique had improved over
the course of the lessons. Because the 2015 Team Sheeper program was well received by the
community and because of continuing staffing shortages, CSD entered into another short-term
limited contract with Team Sheeper Inc. to manage the Learn-to-swim program for the Summer
2016 season and to provide lifeguarding hours for short-staffed lap swim sessions as needed.
There are several reasons the City aquatics program is experiencing difficulty hiring and
retaining staff. The biggest challenge has been that the City currently only has the ability to hire
part-time staff to work under 1,000 hours each per year but Rinconada has a need for
employees who can work year round to staff the lap swim program. This issue leads to staffing
shortages outside of the summer season.
13
In addition, pay rates for lifeguards and swim instructors are not as competitive compared to
other employment opportunities for high school and college students. The majority of the
aquatics employees are students and after summer they have limited work availability.
Provision of aquatics services for cities in the region is delivered in a number of ways. For
example, the City of Menlo Park contracted out their entire aquatics program to Team Sheeper,
Inc. and it now operates in a public-private partnership as Menlo Swim & Sport. The City of
Morgan Hill has a unique partnership with the YMCA to run their recreation programs. As
partners, the City of Morgan Hill and YMCA partner to provide high quality health and fitness,
youth, teen, family, and senior programs including aquatics for residents and the surrounding
community to enjoy. Currently, the City of Palo Alto provides a hybrid program where the
Aquatics program is predominantly run in house with the exception of our Master’s and PASA
programs which are provided by contractors.
In December 2015, CSD issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the following services: 1)
Learn-to-swim lessons; 2) Youth Competitive Swim Team; 3) Adult Master Swim Team; and 4)
aquatics facilities operation, including recreational swim, lap swim, and pool rentals. Firms
were invited to submit a proposal for one or all of the above services and attend a pre-bid
meeting. Two proposals were received one from the Palo Alto Family YMCA and the other from
Team Sheeper Inc. and both bidders were invited to present their proposals and respond to
questions from the consultant review team. The consultant review team was represented by
five City staff, a Recreation Supervisor from the City of Mountain View, a Recreation Supervisor
from the City of Milpitas, and a pool user (lap swim). After careful review of both proposals,
discussing with the consultant review team and interviewing the two potential service
providers, the proposals were scored using the following criteria and Team Sheeper prevailed
as the preferred contractor:
•Quality and Completeness of Proposal.
•Quality, performance and effectiveness of the solution, or services to be
provided;
•Proposer’s experience, including the experience of staff;
•Revenue to the City;
•Proposer’s ability to perform work within the time specified; and
•Proposer’s ability to provide program registration that integrates seamlessly
with the City’s procedures.
Staff proceeded to evaluate short and long term alternatives for future Aquatics Program
delivery with Team Sheeper Inc. Team Sheeper has the experience, staffing levels, and
innovative programming to not only maintain the City’s aquatics program at its current level of
service, but also expand it and add additional new programs if the City so desires.
14
Discussion
Team Sheeper is the preferred contractor responding to the RFP, however; staff also wanted to
evaluate what staff and resource requirements would be needed if the City were to operate the
Aquatics program in house as a City-run aquatics program at the same level of programming
Team Sheeper proposed. Staff also considered the option of maintaining the status quo with a
summer-only recreational swim program and continuing to contract swimming lessons as we
have done for the past two summers. Staff analyzed each of the alternatives using the following
criteria:
•City and Customer Costs
•Quality of Service and Customer Satisfaction
•Diversity of Programming and Accessibility
If we assume that any management changes to pool operations should not increase cost it is
clear the City cannot match the service level enhancements that Team Sheeper is proposing
through changes to in-house management. It would be significantly more expensive to
enhance Aquatics programs and services to a year round program than the Team Sheeper
option because the alternatives would require an increase the number of full-time benefitted
City employees in order to ensure sufficient staffing and oversight of an expanded program.
Team Sheeper can provide a significant increase in programming and hours at the pool which
will allow Rinconada to be utilized by more residents and provide swimming lessons to more
Palo Alto youth. Importantly, using Team Sheeper also alleviates the City’s staffing shortage
issues which will allow pool programming to operate without emergency measures or cuts to
programs like we have seen in previous years.
Team Sheeper has proposed operating a year round lap and recreational swimming program,
dramatically increase youth swim lesson offerings, increase masters swim programs, provide
programming enhancements including swim camps and aqua fitness, and will allow City staff to
focus on other programming areas. Team Sheeper is an organization focused solely on aquatics
programming and operations and so has a level of expertise in the area that is hard to rival.
Team Sheeper’s philosophy is one of maximizing usage (while keeping a delicate balance to
avoid crowding the pool.) Under their operation, there would be more sharing of space. As an
example, during midday weekday hours when demand for lap lanes may be low, Team Sheeper
may use some lanes for lap swim and offer some lanes for lessons or aqua-aerobics. This will
be a change for some customers who have grown accustomed to having their choice of empty
lanes but it is a change that we believe will ultimately allow us to serve more Palo Alto residents
with a greater variety of programming.
15
Full details of the evaluation of in-house versus contracting with Team Sheeper can be found in
Appendix C.
Team Sheeper’s proposal provides the following benefits at roughly the same cost to the City as
the current Rinconada programs:
1. Significantly expanded youth swimming lesson program. Team Sheeper estimates that
it will provide roughly six times more swimming lessons than offered in 2016 (32,000
lessons compared with 5,500 lessons) and will offer more lessons on evenings and
weekends.
2. Expanded recreation and lap swim hours. Team Sheeper has proposed expanding all
lap and recreation swim hours year round. Appendix B provides both snapshots of our
current Summer and Non-Summer Programming at Rinconada and Team Sheeper’s
anticipated schedule for Summer and Non-Summer Programming.
3. New programming including summer swim camps and aqua fitness classes.
4. Different youth swim lesson programming. Team Sheeper’s typical swim lesson model
is to set each child up with once per week lessons that they attend for several months in
a row. The City’s lesson program is for each child to take lessons four days in a row for
several weeks at a time. Team Sheeper anticipates that it will offer its typical once per
week schedule for lessons at Rinconada and Palo Alto’s traditional four days straight
model at JLS Middle School, which will give families the option to choose their preferred
method.
16
The chart below highlights the differences in pool availability between our current program and
Team Sheeper’s proposal. Staff is committed to providing a valuable aquatics program to Palo
Alto residents and should we contract the full suite of operations staff would ensure that
flexibility in scheduling is written into any contract with Team Sheeper so that we can modify
the schedule in response to customer feedback.
Weekly Open Hours
Status Quo Team Sheeper
Su
m
m
e
r
Lap Swim
62 79
Lap Pool Recreation
27 30
Wading Pool
55 86
No
n
-Su
m
m
e
r
Lap Swim
42 52
Lap Pool Recreation
0 4
Wading Pool
0 46
Contracting pool operations to Team Sheeper does come with some trade-offs, two of the more
significant tradeoffs include:
1. Higher customer prices. Palo Alto residents paying at the entrance for lap and
recreation swim would not see a price change but other customers would.
Approximately 1,300 Palo Alto residents use a 10-pack to participate in lap and
recreation swim. Most of those customers would see an increase in their cost to use
Rinconada. However, if they continue to use the pool with the same frequency, they
could expect to pay an additional $16 per year for pool access and if they chose to take
advantage of newly added operating hours, they can buy a monthly pass- something
that Team Sheeper has proposed adding. We believe that this level of price increase is
acceptable given the many more hours of pool availability residents will have
throughout the year.
17
The following tables highlight the current and proposed lap and recreation swim pricing
changes:
Pricing Increases for Current 10-pack customers (residents)
Team Sheeper also proposes to provide approximately six times more swimming lessons
under their operations than Palo Alto has offered in the past. However, in order to
provide so many lessons, Team Sheeper would increase youth swimming lesson prices.
Staff is proposing that the City subsidize group swimming lessons by $6 per lesson.
Lessons would still be more expensive than in previous years, with prices increasing
from $11 to $16 per lesson; in our review of other public pools we found the average
price per lesson was $13. Private lessons would see a large increase from $24 per lesson
now to $67 per lesson. Private lessons have historically been heavily subsidized and
staff believes that the current pricing structure is not sustainable and should increase
regardless of the management. (Benchmark pricing is detailed in Appendix A.)
Status Quo Team Sheeper
Adult $6.00 $6.00
Senior $4.00 $4.50
Youth $5.00 $4.50
Infant $3.00 $4.50
Family N/A $15.00
Status Quo Team Sheeper
Adult $6.00 $7.00
Senior $4.00 $5.25
Youth $5.00 $5.25
Infant $3.00 $5.25
Family N/A $18.00
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
No
n
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Lap and Recreation Swim Pricing Changes for Daily Rate Entrants
Adult $2.00
Senior $2.50
Youth $1.00
18
The following table highlights the current and proposed lesson pricing changes:
Palo Alto Sheeper Resident Non-Resident
Group Youth Lessons $11 $12
$16 ($22 Non
Resident)
Semi Private Youth Lessons N/A N/A $37
Private Youth Lessons $24 $26 $67
Group Adult Lessons N/A N/A $30
Private Adult Lessons $64 (60 min) $75 (60 min) $37 (30 min)
Masters Swim
$75-
80/month
$75-
80/month $80
Team Sheeper’s full cost per group lesson is $22 but staff proposes that the City
subsidize group swim lessons to encourage all Palo Alto youth to learn to swim. A
subsidy of $6 per lesson could cost as much as about $250,000 per year if Team Sheeper
filled every lesson they offered with a Palo Alto resident. If this happened, it could bring
the City cost slightly above our Status Quo projection or current projected budget for
Aquatics. Staff feel that the $6 per lesson subsidy is a reasonable compromise between
keeping costs down for residents and not adding City costs to the program overall. The
table below shows the cost of group lesson subsidies based on subsidy level and
potential enrollment of Palo Alto residents.
Subsidy
level
Expected
Enrollment
(~30,000)
Maximum
Enrollment
(~42,000)
$1 $30,368 $41,776
$2 $60,736 $83,552
$3 $91,104 $125,328
$4 $121,472 $167,104
$5 $151,840 $208,880
$6 $182,208 $250,656
$7 $212,576 $292,432
$8 $242,944 $334,208
$9 $273,312 $375,984
$10 $303,680 $417,760
$11 $334,048 $459,536
2. Less control over day to day operations. If the City contracts pool operations to Team
Sheeper, Team Sheeper has more control over details of daily operations such as which
particular parts of the pool are available to various user types throughout the day. Staff
19
will however prioritize specific issues that staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission,
and Council have with regard to pool operations such as how many lanes are available
for open swim and how many hours of recreation swim include access to the diving
boards.
Other tradeoffs that will need to be managed carefully to ensure the customer experience and
quality of service is high include:
•Additional aquatics programming will result in the need for more sharing of the pool
between different interest groups;
•Team Sheeper maintains their own registration system, so customers would not register
for swim lessons through the City’s process but would register through a different site;
•Team Sheeper and City staff needs to determine how Team Sheeper’s financial aid
programs will be administered and whether residents will also be eligible for price
reductions through the City’s aid program.
While the trade-offs described above are important to understand and appreciate, Staff
believes that continuing discussions with Team Sheeper is the best option to meet City goals to
alleviate staffing shortages and to respond to resident requests for more pool access.
Impact on PASA and Rinconada Masters
If the City elects to contract the full aquatics program to Team Sheeper, Team Sheeper has
proposed absorbing or subcontracting the Rinconada Master’s program and would subcontract
with PASA to operate their program.
Impact on City Staff
If the City enters into a public-private partnership with Team Sheeper it will impact the SEIU
positions used at the pool. There is one full-time SEIU position and 12 SEIU hourly positions
used by the aquatics program. Only 5 of 12 are currently filled for a total of 2.06 FTE. The
remaining 7 unfilled positions total 1.73 FTE. The full-time SEIU employee is in a job
classification with a current vacancy. The position is a Recreation Coordinator and the vacancy
is at the Mitchell Park Community Center Teen Center. Staff has intentionally left the position
vacant for the past month so that the City can consider either eliminating a position and
transfer the employee into the vacant Teen Center position, or restructure the position to focus
on other areas such as special events programming.
Team Sheeper is committed to considering hiring the remaining pool staff for positions on their
staff. Team Sheeper uses both year-round and seasonal employees at its other pools and
estimates that at least 70 percent of seasonal staff consists of local high school and college
20
students. If they operate Rinconada Pool, they expect a similar portion of local students to work
during summers.
Timeline
• September 2016 – PSO meets with SEIU to notify them of the possible impact on 1 SEIU
permanent position and 12 SEIU hourly positions in the Aquatics Program. (Only 5 of 12
are currently filled for a total of 2.06 FTE. The remaining 7 unfilled positions total 1.73
FTE.)
• November 2016 – Parks and Recreation Commission presentation and discussion.
• December 2016 – City Council presentation and discussion of contract for swim lessons
only.
• December 2016 – Pending City Council and CMO direction, contract with Team Sheeper
finalized and Aquatics Programming changes begin.
• January 2017 – Pool operations begin for 2017.
Resource Impact
The City’s cost recovery expectations for FY 2018 are detailed in the chart below.
Year One – FY 2018
Forecasted Fiscal Impact
FY 2018 Contracted
Status
Quo
Revenue $0 $465,000
Operating Expenditures $60,000 $565,000
Contract Fees $180,000 $200,000
Maintenance and Overhead $300,000 $275,000
Swim Lessons Provided 32,000 5,500
Net General Fund Impact ($540,000) ($575,000)
The intent of the recommendations in this memorandum is to provide an enhanced level of
service at or below current cost. Contracting with Team Sheeper meets this goal.
Policy Implications
This proposal is aligned with Comprehensive Plan goal G1: Effective and Efficient Delivery of
Community Services.
21
Environmental Review
The recommendation in this report does not constitute a project requiring review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments
Appendix A – Youth Swim Lesson Program Pricing Comparison
Appendix B – Sample Schedules of Pool Programming Under the Current Model and Team
Sheeper’s Proposal
Appendix C – Assumptions and Analysis Used in Evaluating Management Options
22
Appendix A
Youth Swim Lesson Program Pricing Comparison
Swim school lesson pricing (per 30 minutes)
Public Group Private
City of Mountain View 7$ 25$
City of Milpitas 9$ 38$
City of Morgan Hill 9$ 29$
City of Cupertino 10$ 42$
City of Santa Clara 10$ N/A
City of Sunnyvale Pools 11$ 50$
City of Palo Alto 11$ 24$
Los Gatos/Saratoga Recreation 12$ 38$
Menlo Park Belle Haven 15$ 67$
City of Redwood City 15$ N/A
City of Fremont 16$ 34$
City of Campbell 18$ N/A
Menlo Park Burgess 22$ 67$
Rancho Rinconada (Cupertino)N/A 33$
Average 13$ 35$
Private
Palo Alto YMCA - Ross 13$ 52$
Palo Alto JCC 16$ 55$
Flying Fish (Milpitas)18$ 54$
Star (Saratoga)20$ 78$
Sutton Swim (Campbell)22$ N/A
AVAC (Almaden Valley)23$ N/A
DACA (Cupertino)23$ 90$
Peninsula Swim School (Redwood City)23$ 46$
Kings Academy (Redwood City)23$ 64$
La Petite Baleen (Redwood City)24$ 64$
Waterworks (San Jose)27$ 80$
Average 21$ 65$
Resident/Member
23
Appendix B
Sample Schedules of Pool Programming Under the Current Model compared to the Team
Sheeper’s Proposal
Status Quo Summer Schedule
6:00am
6:30am
7:00am
7:30am
8:00am
8:30am
9:00am
9:30am
10:00am
10:30am
11:00am
11:30am
12:00pm
12:30pm
1:00pm
1:30pm
2:00pm
2:30pm
3:00pm
3:30pm
4:00pm
4:30pm
5:00pm
5:30pm
6:00pm
6:30pm
7:00pm Lap Swim Lap Swim
7:30pm 7 lanes 7 lanes
8:00pm
8:30pm
Lap Swim
10 lanes
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Masters
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
10 lanes
Sunday
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Masters
(14 lanes)
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Masters
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
10 lanes
7lanes
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Lap Swim
4 lanes
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Rec Swim
10 lanes
Rec Swim
10 lanes
Lap Swim
4 lanes
PASA
10 lanes
Lap Swim
10 lanes
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
PASA
10 lanes
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters (14)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
Masters (14)
7lanes
Lap Swim (14)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Rec Swim
(10 lanes)
Lap Swim
(4 lanes)
Rec Swim
(10 lanes)
Lap Swim
(4 lanes)
Lap Swim (14)
Staff Training
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim (14)
7lanes
Masters
(14 lanes)
Rec Swim
10 lanes
Lap Swim
4 lanes
Rec Swim
10 lanes
Lap Swim
4 lanes
Rec Swim
10 lanes
Lap Swim
4 lanes
PASA
10 lanes
Swim
Lessons
4 lanes
Masters
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
10 lanes
24
Status Quo Non-Summer Schedule
6:00am
6:30am
7:00am
7:30am
8:00am
8:30am
9:00am
9:30am
10:00am
10:30am
11:00am
11:30am
12:00pm
12:30pm
1:00pm
1:30pm
2:00pm
2:30pm
3:00pm
3:30pm
4:00pm
4:30pm
5:00pm
5:30pm
6:00pm
6:30pm
7:00pm
7:30pm
8:00pm
8:30pm
Sunday
Masters
(14 lanes)Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)Lap Swim
(14 lanes)Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Masters
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
Maintenance
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Maintenance
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
PASA
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Maintenance
Masters
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
PASA
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
PASA
(7 lanes)
Lap Swim
(7 lanes)(4 lanes)(10 lanes)
Maintenance
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
(7 lanes)(7 lanes)
PASA
(14 lanes)
(4 lanes)(10 lanes)
Maintenance
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
(7 lanes)(7 lanes)
Masters
(14 lanes)PASA
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
Lap Swim
(14 lanes)
25
Team Sheeper Proposed Summer Schedule
26
Team Sheeper Proposed Non-Summer Schedule
27
Appendix C
Assumptions Used to Estimate Costs of Each Management Alternative
City-run Management
•Assumed an increase in swim lesson pricing to the benchmark average prices for group
and private lessons
•Increased non-resident pricing for swim lessons to reduce the subsidy for those
customers. Rates would increase to $20 per lesson for group lessons and $63 per lesson
for privates
•Increase of approximately $25,000 per year in additional gas and chlorine costs to keep
the round pool open for a longer season
•Assumes approximately 20% more pool visitors due to increased hours
•New full-time benefitted pool staff added to Rinconada’s operations:
o Assumes increase from .25% to 100% of Community Services Manager to provide
program management
o 2 FTE Pool Managers/Deck Coordinators to stabilize staffing levels year round
o 1 FTE Swim School Manager for City-run swim school and 1 FTE Customer Service
Manager for increased programming
o Increase starting lifeguard salaries from $11.50 to $15.00 in line with Team
Sheeper and others
o Assumes approximately half of lifeguards will become eligible for SEIU hourly
employment (work more than 416 hours per year)
Team Sheeper Management
•Team Sheeper manages the City’s Aquatics Programming
•Rinconada’s lap and recreation swim programs are expanded to offer more hours of
access
•The number of swim lessons available increases and are offered from spring through fall
Customer Pricing
Lessons
In order to allow Team Sheeper to offer many more lessons from spring through fall, staff
increased lesson prices in this model. In this option, Team Sheeper would provide 24,000 more
lessons than in 2016. In order to minimize costs, the City cannot subsidize lessons at the rate it
has historically done, so this model assumes the group lesson customer pricing rises from $11
to $16 per lesson and private lesson customer pricing rises from $24 to $67 per lesson.
28
Lap and Recreational Swim
Team Sheeper would use the same pricing model for lap and recreational swimming as it does
at the Burgess Pool. Their proposal includes two tiers of walk-up prices, by differentiating
between residents and non-residents. Adult residents who pay upon entry would see no
change in the price they pay and youth over three years old would see a slight decrease in their
rates. Senior rates would increase slightly as would infant rates. The table below outlines
these changes.
Team Sheeper Lap and Recreation Swim Pricing
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Adult Senior Youth Infant Family
Daily Rate $6.00 $4.50 $4.50 $4.50 $15.00
Monthly Pass $48.00 $36.00 $36.00 $36.00 N/A
No
n
-Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Adult Senior Youth Infant Family
Daily Rate $7.00 $5.25 $5.25 $5.25 $18.00
Monthly Pass $54.00 $40.50 $40.50 $40.50 N/A
Roughly 40 percent of daily entrants to the pool currently are paid through the 10-Pack
program which is a lower cost alternative to paying the daily entrance fee. For the current 10-
Pack users, prices under the Team Sheeper contract would rise. The chart below indicates the
percentage increase in pricing from the current 10-pack prices to the daily entrance fees for
Team Sheeper.
Team Sheeper Rate Increase for 10-Pack users
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Adult 50%
Senior 80%
Youth 29%
Infant 50%
No
n
-Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Adult 56%
Senior 75%
Youth 31%
Infant 75%
29
In 2015, approximately 1,330 residents used a 10-pack at some point in 2015 an average of 13
times per year and another 443 non-residents used the 10-pack in 2015 an average of 12 times
per year. Approximately 30 percent of 10-pack users are seniors, 60 percent are adults, and 10
percent are youth.
Because of the relatively low frequency that 10-pack users visit the pool, the average impact of
price increases to 10-pack users would only be about $16 per year. Staff believes that this is a
reasonable price increase given the additional pool hours available to users. Additionally, Team
Sheeper is proposing to offer a monthly pass option which will allow heavy pool users to save
money over their current costs.
City Costs
Team Sheeper offers the lowest City cost to operate the aquatics facilities. Staff expects that
Alternative Two would cost the City approximately $540,000 to operate the Aquatics Program
in its first year of operations, assuming that the Council chooses to offer a $6 per lesson subsidy
for Palo Alto residents taking group swimming lessons.
This option also impacts City staffing. Currently the City has one permanent position and 12
SEIU hourly positions in the Aquatics Program. (Only 5 of 12 hourly positions are currently filled
for a total of 2.06 FTE. The remaining 7 unfilled positions total 1.73 FTE.) Staff would need to
work with the SEIU and the employees through the Meet and Confer process defined in the
City’s Memorandum of Understanding with SEIU to determine how each employee will be
impacted.
Quality of Service and Customer Satisfaction
Team Sheeper and the City both place high value on pool safety and have similar maintenance
and cleanliness standards.
The most notable difference in programming between Team Sheeper’s model and the City’s is
in the swim lesson model. Palo Alto offers summer-only group swim lessons that are held four
days in a row for two weeks at a time. Team Sheeper generally offers year-round group lessons
that meet once weekly and can last as long as necessary for a child to advance. Both programs
offer a ratio of 4 students to 1 instructor and utilize high quality instruction methods.
Team Sheeper anticipates that it will offer its typical once per week lessons at Rinconada Pool
and the 4-day per week model at the JLS Middle School pool. This will allow families the option
of using their preferred lesson model.
Team Sheeper’s swim lesson programming is different that the City’s traditional Red Cross
program. The City’s learn-to-swim program has emphasized water safety and building comfort
30
in the water. Team Sheeper’s program emphasizes water safety and comfort in the water but in
addition focuses heavily on building fundamentally sound swim techniques in all four
competitive swim strokes. Customer satisfaction has been generally positive for both summers
using Team Sheeper to provide lessons.
Team Sheeper has provided the information below to elaborate on how their swim program
goes beyond a traditional swim safety program:
•Single Goal Approach- Swimmers focus on one skill or stroke at a time, they master the
stroke being taught, while building on previous skills with each new level.
•Each lesson is extremely focused on the individual student and their swim ability. They
teach to the student while in a group setting.
•Teachers will give students hands on and verbal instruction, they will modify the
instruction given with each interaction, giving swimmers the feedback they need and
tailoring the lesson to the student in each class.
•Each time a student comes to a swim lesson they have the opportunity to advance. After
demonstrating the skill they are working on successfully in three separate lessons,
swimmers receive a ribbon and are able to move on to the next skill while staying in the
same class.
•Instructors provide support to the progress of the swimmers in collaboration with Deck
Coordinators. Deck Coordinators are called over during a lesson to watch the student
swim; they then provide feedback to the swimmer, give direction as needed and serve
as a way to ensure the student is receiving the opportunity to advance.
•Team Sheeper’s program is year round and not session based. Swimmers can continue
progress without interruption. Session based programs can stop a swimmer’s
momentum. The year round approach allows students the opportunity to join a class at
any time, without feeling that they are behind.
•Year round classes allow Team Sheeper to hire full-time instructors with more
experience than seasonal employees typically have. Team Sheeper’s staff includes many
instructors with extensive backgrounds in aquatics, advanced degree in athletics, and
some were competitive swimmers in the past.
•They provide ongoing training and continued investment in all swim instructors, training
courses include: swim clinics, new teaching methods, innovation to curriculum, teacher
to student relationship building, and team building.
31
Diversity of Programming and Accessibility
Team Sheeper’s proposal offers more hours of lap and recreation swimming as well as other
programs that Palo Alto currently does not provide including summer and holiday swim camps,
aqua-fitness classes and swim pro services.
The biggest potential Accessibility drawback from using Team Sheeper would be that some
customers may feel they cannot afford the newly increased prices under a Team Sheeper.
Team Sheeper offers a financial aid program for swim lessons, water polo team membership
and lifeguard certification classes at its Belle Haven pool which they plan to bring to Rinconada.
32
..
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF
~~[b@
~rLu@
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ROB DE GEUS, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
JANUARY 9, 2017
10
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10-Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute
an Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Team Sheeper LLC, for the
Learn to Swim Program for Summer 2017 at an Amount Not-to-Exceed $143,000
The Agreement with Team Sheeper LLC (Attachment A), was not yet executed by Team Sheeper
LLC at the time this Agenda Item was prepared for the Council Packet. There are also minor
changes between the signed Agreement and the version prepared for the Council Packet.
Those changes are: the addition of Scope of Services dates from March 1, 2017 through
December 31, 2017 (Exhibit B), the removal of details describing lesson levels and daily
activities for swim camps (Exhibit B), and an adjusted invoicing schedule to provide for monthly
invoices and payments (Section 5). The Agreement was executed by Team Sheeper LLC on
January 3, 2017. Find the signed Agreement attached. ~ ·J / /)
,. .· // I
I ,J-)/t Lt/~
Rob De Geus
Director
Community Services
1of1
33
JcuSJgn Envelope ID: DB5B45F9-34DD-4A01-8627-B2B19AOD3BDE
CITY OF PALO AL TO CONTRACT NO: Cl 7161146
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO AL TO AND TEAM SHEEPER, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this 1st day of March, 2017, ("Agreement") by
and between the CITY OF PALO AL TO, a California chartered municipal corporation
("CITY"), and TEAM SHEEPER, INC. a California corporation, located at 501 Laurel Street,
Menlo Park, CA 94025 ("CONSULT ANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to provi4e its Summer 2017 Session Recreation Aquatics Program
("Project") and desires to engage a consultant to provide certified swim instructors to teach
private and group swim lessons to registered participants in the Palo Alto Recreation Aquatics
Program for the CITY of Palo Alto offered at the Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) Pool, 480 East
Meadow Drive, Palo Alto 94306 and Rinconada Pool, 777 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA
94301 in connection with the Project ("Services").
B. CONSULT ANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the
Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULT ANT to provide
the Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part of this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions,
in this Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at
Exhibit "A" in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31,
201 7 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance
of Services under this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall complete the Services within the term
of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and 34
DocuSign Envelope ID: DB5B45F9-34DD-4A01-8627-B2B19AOD3BDE
made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified
in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULT ANT in a reasonably
prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the
CONSULTANT. CITY's agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall
not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of
CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULT ANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services"),
and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Thirteen Thousand Dollars
($113,000). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total
compensation for Basic Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not
exceed One Hundred Forty Three Thousand Dollars ($143,000). The applicable rates and
schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit "C", which is attached to and made a part of this
Agreement. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total
exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the
CITY.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions
of' Exhibit "C". CONSULT ANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services
performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any
work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but
which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit "A".
SECTION 5. INVOICES. The CONSULTANT will invoice the CITY for payment at the end
of each month for services provided. The CONSULT ANT payment voucher will then be
submitted to the fiscal section for payment at which point the CITY has 30 working days from
the last date of the payment voucher to render payment to the CONSULT ANT. Invoices must
include CONSULTANT name, address, contract number, date of services, compensation
amount.
SECTION 6. OUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT
represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perfo~ the
Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience
to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULT ANT represents that it, its employees and
subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all
licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally
required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULT ANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or
similar circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of
2
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 35
and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that
may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to
perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall procure all permits and licenses,
pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULT ANT is solely responsible for costs,
including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by
CONSULTANT's errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections
such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by
the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSULT ANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of
design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent
(10%) of CITY's stated construction ~udget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to
CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved
recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to
CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT. It is understood and agreed . that in
performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or
contracted with CONSULT ANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act
as and be an independent CONSULT ANT and not an agent or employee of CITY.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSULT ANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall not
assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of
CONSULTANT's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the CITY manager.
Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the CITY manager will be void.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
CONSULT ANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this
Agreement without the prior written authorization of the CITY manager or designee.
CONSULT ANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULT ANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subcontractor. CONSUL TANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval
of the CITY manager or his designee. ·
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Charlie Boeck
as the project manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services and as the project coordinator to represent CONSULT ANT during the
day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director,
project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute
3
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 36
DocuSign Envelope ID: DB5B45F9-34DD-4A01-8627-B2B19AOD3BDE
project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to
the prior written approval of the CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request,
shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable
manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project
or a threat to the safety of persons or property.
CITY's project manager is Sharon Eva, Community Services Department, 1305 Middlefield
Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone (650) 463-4909. The project manager will be
CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the
Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULT ANT
agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall
be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other
intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its
CONSULTANTs, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or
organization without the prior written approval of the CITY Manager or designee.
CONSULT ANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for ~se in or
application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULT ANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time
during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records
pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULT ANT further agrees to maintain and
retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect,
indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability
of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss,
including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court
costs and disbursements ("Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to
performance or nonperformance by CONSULT ANT, its officers, employees, agents or
CONSULT ANTs under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an
Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed
to require CONSULT ANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the
active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall
not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall
4
Professional Services
Rev_ April 27, 2016 37
ocuSign Envelope ID: DB5845F9-34DD-4A01-8627-B2819AOD3BDE
survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any
covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance
or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions,
ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term,
covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in
full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in
Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its Contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement
naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or
policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through
carriers with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or
authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all
CONSULT ANTs of CONSULT ANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will
obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical
insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required
above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY
concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the
approval of CITY' s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is
primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the
insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of
the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides
less than thirty (30) days' notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the
Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business
days of the CONSULTANT's receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for
ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY' s Chief
Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be
construed to limit CONSULT ANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification
provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance,
CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss
caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement,
including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has
expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19 .1. The CITY Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in
5
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 38
DocuSign Envelope ID: DB5845F9-34DD-4A01-8627-B2819AOD3BDE
whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days
prior written notice thereof to CONSULT ANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULT ANT
will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services.
19 .2. CONSULT ANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its
performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written noti~e thereof to CITY, but
only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by the CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
CITY Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and
other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its CONSULTANTs, if
any, or given to CONSULTANT or its CONSULTANTs, if any, in connection with this
Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY.
19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be
paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of
services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or
termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by CONSUL TANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULT ANT only for that
portion of CONSULT ANT' s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such
determination may be made by the CITY Manager acting in :the reasonable exercise of his/her
discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement:
14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25.
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY
will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the CITY Clerk
CITY of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULT ANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULT ANT covenants that it presently
has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
6
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 39
JCU::SJQO t:nve1ope ID: DB5B45F9-34DD-4A01-8627-B2B19AOD3BDE
21.2. CONSULT ANT further covenants that, in the performance of this
Agreement, it will not employ subcontractors, Contractors or persons having such an interest.
CONSULT ANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this
Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Governmeqt Code of the
State of California.
21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant"
as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission,
CONSULT ANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure
documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONSULT ANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age,
religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status,
familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULT ANT acknowledges that it has read
and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO
WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY's Environmentally
Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY' s Purchasing Department,
incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULT ANT shall comply
· with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY' s Zero Waste
Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second,
reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall
comply with the following zero waste requirements:
(a) All printed materials provided by CONSULTANT to CITY generated from a
personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes,
invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and
printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless
otherwise approved by CITY's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed
by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-
consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.
(b) Goods purchased by CONSULT ANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in
accordance with CITY' s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not
limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division's office.
(c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no
additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULT ANT shall provide
documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not
being disposed.
7
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 40
DocuSign Envelope ID: DB5B45F9-34DD-4A01-8627-B2B19AOD3BDE
SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE.
CONSULT ANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any
employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of
work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the CITY, CONSULTANT shall
pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code
section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto.
In addition, CONSULT ANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage
Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060.
SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION
25.l. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the
CITY of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without
any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the
following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only
appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available.
This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term,
condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC
WORKS CONTRACTS
~ 26.l This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. CONSULTANT is not
required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in
accordance with SB 7 if the contract is not a public works contract, if the contract does not
include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or the contract does not
include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively,
'improvement') project of more than $15,000.
OR
D 26.1 CONSULT ANT is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in
Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and
Section 1773 .1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the
Labor Code of the State of California, the CITY Council has obtained the general prevailing rate
of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each
craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the
Director of the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR"). Copies of these rates may be
obtained at the Purchasing Division's office of the CITY. CONSULTANT shall provide a copy
of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing
wage rates as a minimum. CONSULT ANT shall comply with the provisions of all sections,
including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor
Code pertaining to prevailing wages.
26.2 CONSULT ANT shall comply with the requirements of Exhibit "E" for any
contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance.
8
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 41
ocuSign Envelope ID: DB5845F9-34DD-4A01-8627-82819AOD3BDE
SECTION 27. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
27.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
27 .2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such
action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara,
State of California.
27.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value
of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third
parties.
27.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
27.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will
apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and
consultants of the parties.
27 .6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
27.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in
any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and
will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
27.8 In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the
exhibits hereto or CONSULTANT's proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case
of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT's proposal, the exhibits shall
control.
27.9 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with
CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.S(d)
about a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULT ANT shall maintain reasonable
and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform CITY
immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the
security of the Personal Information. CONSULT ANT shall not use Personal Information for
direct marketing purposes without CITY's express written consent.
27.10 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
9
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 42
DocuSign Envelope ID: DB5845F9-34DD-4A01-8627-B2819AOD3BDE
27.11 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they
have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
27.12 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when
executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement
10
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 43
ocu&rgn Envelope ID: DB5B45F9-3400-4A01-8627-82819AOD38DE
CONTRACT No. C17161146 SIGNATURE PAGE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized
representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO TEAM SHEEPER, INC.
CITY Manager Ofti ...... 1 .'1Doc:uSlgntd by: By~:e~~-
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Name: Tim Sheeper
CITY Attorney
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A":
EXHIBIT "B":
EXHIBIT "C":
EXHIBIT "D":
Title: CEO
Officer 2
JrDocuSlgnecl by: B~~M~:!~
Name: Carole Hayworth
Title: CFO
SCOPE OF SERVICES
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
COMPENSATION
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 44
DocuSign Envelope ID: DB5845F9-34DD-4A01-8627-82819AOD3BDE
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CONSULT ANT agrees to provide certified swim instructors to teach private and group swim
lessons to registered participants in the Palo Alto Recreation Aquatics Program for the CITY. It
will be offered at the Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) Pool, 480 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, CA
94306 and Rinconada Pool, 777 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301.
CONSULTANT SHALL
1. Provide Quality Program
a) Conduct the program in a safe manner.
b) Provide a Certified Lifeguard on deck whenever program participants are in water.
c) Not allow participants to be in the pool without a Certified Lifeguard present on the pool
deck and providing supervision.
d) Swim Instructors and Certified Lifeguards are:
i. Knowledgeable and experienced in the subject and age group being taught based on
the specific training program for lifeguards and swim instructors followed by ·
CONSULTANT.
ii. Reliable and punctual
m. Start and end lessons on time
iv. Expected to notify their CONSULT ANT Staff supervisor prior to the work shift if
running late or unable to attend. CONSULT ANT is responsible for finding a
replacement or providing a make-up lesson.
v. Organized and prepared to teach at the start of each lesson
e) If a lesson is missed by the CONSULT ANT, a make-up lesson is required to be provided by
CONSULT ANT during a time that is convenient for the participant
i. CONSULTANT is responsible for contacting participants to reschedule or make-up
the lesson(s).
f) At the end of each lesson the CONSULT ANT will:
i. Monitor and ensure participants are picked up by an authorized adult.
11. Keep facility neat by putting away all equipment from pool deck, empty trash cans,
pick up trash from pool deck, remove and replace pool covers on appropriate reels
after each use.
g) Program Evaluations
i. CONSULTANT will coordinate with CITY staff to create a single evaluation to be
distributed to participants.
11. The last week of lessons, evaluations will be distributed to participants.
CONSULT ANT will communicate with participants the importance of completing
the evaluation. CONSULT ANT will provide responses to CITY staff.
h) Process all registrations for swim lesson program
2. Provide excellent Customer Service
a) Build rapport with customers by greeting all participants and parents and create a welcoming
and professional atmosphere.
2
Professional Seivices
Rev. April 27, 2016 45
ocu~rgn t:nve1ope ID: DB5B45F9-34DD-4A01-8627-B2B19AOD3BDE
b) Address customer and CITY staff questions and concerns within 24 hours and provide
follow-up if needed.
3. Maintain Quality Instructors
a) Meet the CITY of Palo Alto background requirements for all employees
b) Appear for lessons wearing appropriate attire that is clean, presentable and clearly identified
as Team Sheeper, Inc. staff.
c) Swim instructors and Certified Lifeguards will not use cell phones during work shifts i.e.,
while on the pool deck and in front of customers, except in an emergency.
d) Provide consistency with quality standards for all instructors
4. Manage administrative tasks
a) Take attendance and confirm registration numbers with CITY staff
b) If a participant is not on the roster, ask for receipt. If participant is not registered, contact
CITY community center front desk staff to confirm registration.
5. Maintain Proactive and Consistent Communication with CITY staff
a) Communicate problems and isslies immediately with the CITY Aquatics Coordinator via
phone, email or in person.
b) Inform CITY staff of participant injuries and complete necessary accident reports within 24
hours. Accident forms can be obtained from center staff.
c) Respond in a timely manner to emails and phone calls within 24 hours
d) Establish and maintain working relationships with CITY staff and customers. CITY staff
consists but is not limited to Community Center front desk staff, Aquatics Coordinator,
Supervisors, and the Contracts Administration Team.
6. Submit Invoices for payments. Invoices will include:
a) CONSULTANT address,
b) date,
c) invoice number,
d) "bill to" information,
e) registration numbers, session dates and location, and
f) total amount to be paid
7. Adhere to Department's Aquatics Manual Policies and Procedures
a) Responsible for knowing the CITY's policies and procedures with regard to private and
group lessons (i.e. waiting lists, cancellation, refund, satisfaction, etc.)
b) Instructors are responsible for verifying that only registered participants are permitted to
participate in CITY's swim lessons.
c) Ensure only swim staff use the pool office.
d) Observe and enforce all pool rules.
3
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 46
DocuSign Envelope ID: DB5845F9-34DD-4A01-8627-82819AOD3BDE
CITY SHALL
1. Process all registrations for Swim Camps
2. Provide clean and safe facility for scheduled lessons at Rinconada Pool and a Palo Alto Unified
School District Pool to be determined
a. Use ofRinconada Lap Pool and Children's Pool will be limited to mutually agreed upon
schedules
3. Provide access to a phone line and internet access at Rinconada Pool
4. Oversee program delivery which includes but is not limited to:
a. Work with CONSULANT on private and group lessons offerings, cancellations, and
customer inquiries/concerns
b. Provide support to CONSULT ANT Staff to ensure the success of the class
c. Provide essential information to deliver program (rosters, attendance sheets, waiting lists,
etc.)
5. Develop and maintain proactive and' consistent communication and rapport with CONSULT ANT
a. Respond in a timely manner to emails and phone calls
b. Communicate and resolve fssues and c~ncerns immediately
6. Provide excellent customer service to Team Sheeper, Inc. Staff and customers
4
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 47
ocu:>Jgn t:nvelope ID: DBSB45F9-34DD-4A01-8627-B2819AOD3BDE
s
Professional Services
Rev April 27, 2016 48
DocuSign Envelope ID: DB5B45F9-34DD-4A01 -8627-82819AOD3BDE
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULT ANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or
decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and the
CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt
of the notice to proceed.
Scope of services agreement will commence on Monday, March 1, 2017 and expire on Sunday,
December 31, 2017.
The parties agree that the instruction of swim lessons shall occur over the Spring, Summer and
Fall of 2017. Swim lessons shall include:
Swim School
It goes from April through October on an ongoing basis.
Session Based Swim Lessons
June 5, 2017 to August 18, 2017 -It includes eleven-one week sessions of swim lessons that
include group and private lessons.
Swim Camp
It will be one week in April.
6
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 49
ocuSign Envelope ID: DB5845F9-34DD-4A01-8627-82819AOD3BDE
EXIIlBIT "C"
COMPENSATION
A. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for
performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional
services and reimbursable expenses
Swim Lessons:
• CITY to compensate Team Sheeper Six Dollars ($6) per resident participant per group
lesson for up to 9,000 ($54,000) individual group lessons, and
o CITY to compensate Team Sheeper Twenty Eight Dollars ($28) per resident participant
per private lesson for up to 2,100 ($58,800) private lessons.
• Team Sheeper to compensate the CITY of Palo Alto 10% of gross fees paid for swim
Lessons and Summer Swim Camps.
Not to exceed One Hundred and Thirteen Dollars ($113,000) during the period covering 3/1/17
through 12/31/17. In the event Additional Services are authorized by the CITY, the total
compensation for additional services will be at a rate of $25 per hour for regular staff lifeguards,
if regular staff lifeguards are not available use of lead or head lifeguards may be provided at a
rate of $40 per hour and the total compensation for Additional Services is Not to Exceed Thirty
Thousand Dollars($ 30,000.00) during the period covering 3/1/2017 through 12/31/2017.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES. Additional Services (lifeguards), if any, shall be authorized in
accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit "C". CONSULTANT shall not receive
any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of
CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be
necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of
Services described in Exhibit "A".
C. PAYMENT. The CONSULT ANT will invoice the CITY for payment at the end of each
month for services provided. The CONSULT ANT payment voucher will then be submitted to
the fiscal section for payment at which point the CITY has 30 working days from the last date of
the payment voucher to render payment to the CONSULTANT. Invoices must include
CONSULTANT name, address, contract number, date of services, compensation amount.
D. CANCELLED LESSONS. (Excluding weather-related cancellations, if applicable) In the
event that staff is late or misses a lesson, CONSULT ANT is responsible for contacting
participants to reschedule or make-up the lesson(s).
E. FACILITY USE. If the CONSULT ANT uses the CITY' s facility for any purpose other
than a mutually agreed upon and scheduled class under this agreement, then the CONSULT ANT
pays all fees and charges as specified in the current Fees & Charges resolution.
7
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 50
DocuSign Envelope ID: DB5845F9-34DD-4A01-8627-B2819AOD3BDE
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Sub-total Basic Services $113,000.00
Reimbursable Expenses $0.00
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $113,000.00
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $30,000.00
Maximum Total Compensation $143,000.00
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburse CONSULT ANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost.
Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULT ANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization
from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a
detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of
effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable
expense, for such services. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation
shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY's project manager and CONSULTANT
prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all
requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
8
Professional Services
Rev April 27, 2016 51
ocuSign Envelope ID: DB5845F9-34DD-4A01-8627-82819AOD3BDE
EXlllBIT "D"
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT
OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY
COMPANIES WITII AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT
INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AW ARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE Willi CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRE MINIMUM LIMITS
TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT D
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
EACH
. OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
LIABILITY COMBINED.
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE •$1,000,000 $1,000,000
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 ' $1,000,000
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
DAMAGE, COMBINED
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), ' AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONSULTANT, AT ITS SOLE COST AND
EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY
RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONSULTANT AND ITS
SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND
PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS,
AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
CONSULTANT'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONT ACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT
THE FOLLOWING URL: https://www .planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25 569.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS"
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER
INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
9
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 52
DocuSign Envelope ID: DB5B45F9-34DD-4A01-8627-B2819AOD3BDE
B. CROSS LlABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE TI-IAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY
SHALL NOT, FOR TIIAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER,
BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL
LIABILITY OF TIIE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
l. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON
OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSUL TANT SHALL PROVIDE
CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-
PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN
(IO) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
VENDORS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THEIR EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE
AND ANY omER RELATED NOTICES WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AT THE FOLLOWING URL:
HTTPS://WWW.PLANETBIDS.COiVI/PORT AL/PORT AL.CFM?COMP ANYID=25569
OR
HTTP://WWW.CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG/GOV/DEPTS/ASD/PLANET_BIDS_HOW_TO.ASP
10
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016 53
!Oocu~.
6 SICURIO
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: DB5B45F934DD4A018627B2B19AOD3BDE Status: Sent
Subject: Please DocuSign: C17161146 PSA TEAM SHEEPER-SUMMER 2017 AQUATICS PROGRAM 12282016 FINAL.docx
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 20
:ertificate Pages: 5
l\utoNav: Enabled
::nvelopeld Stamping: Enabled
Signatures: 2
Initials: 0
nme Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
~ecord Tracking
>tatus: Original
12/29/2016 3:47:27 PM
)igner Events
iim Sheeper
lm@teamsheeper.com
iecurity Level: Email, Account Authentication
None)
:1ectronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
ID:
:arole Hayworth
:arole@teamsheeper.com
iecurity Level: Email, Account Authentication
None)
:lectronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
ID:
nolly Stump
nolly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org
:ity Attorney
:ity of Palo Alto
iecurity Level: Email, Account Authentication
None)
:lectronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
ID:
lames Keene
ames.keene@cityofpaloalto.org
)ecurity Level: Email, Account Authentication
None)
:lectronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 4/14/2015 5:40:07 PM
ID: 44fe333a-6a81-4cb7-b7d4-925473ac82e3
In Person Signer Events
Editor Delivery Events
Agent Delivery Events
Holder: Kenneth Mullen
Kenneth.Mullen@CityofPaloAlto.org
Signature
Using IP Address: 149.20.89.2
Using IP Address: 50.156.2.62
Signature
Status
Status
Envelope Originator:
Kenneth Mullen
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
Kenneth.Mullen@CityofPaloAlto.org
IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Location: DocuSign
Timestamp
Sent: 12/29/2016 3:51 :34 PM
Viewed: 12131/2016 10:39:07 AM
Signed: 1/3/2017 9:46:21 AM
Sent: 1/3/2017 9:46:22 AM
Viewed: 1/3/2017 4:23:20 PM
Signed: 1/3/2017 4:23:36 PM
Sent: 1/3/2017 4:23:37 PM
Timestamp
Timestamp
Timestamp
54
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Robert De Geus
Robert.DeGues@CityofPaloAlto.org
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
ID:
Kristen O'Kane
Kristen.O'Kane@CityofPaloAlto.org
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
ID:
Kenneth Mullen
kenneth.mullen@cityofpaloalto.org
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
ID:
Notary Events Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 1 /3/2017 4:23:37 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure
55
c:1ec:crornc "ecora ana ;,1gnature u1sc1osure createa on: 10/1/<!013 !!:33:53 AM
Parties agreed to: James Keene
CONSUMER DISCLOSURE
From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to
you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for
providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc.
(DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly,
and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms
and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of
this document.
Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available
electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the
DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you
through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such
documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of
any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may
request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below.
Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time
change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures
only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and
disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures
electronically is described below.
Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the
speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to
you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format,
and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such
paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must
withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your
DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive
required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your
DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us
or to sign electronically documents from us.
All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide
electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures,
authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or
made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of
you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required
notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given
us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through
the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as
described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the
consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures
electronically from us.
56
How to contact City of Palo Alto:
You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically,
to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to
receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:
To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org
To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address
To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures
electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at
david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous
e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to
change your email address ..
In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected
in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign.
To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided
by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and
in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and
telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at tha~ time, if any.
To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto
To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic
format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent
page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may;
ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request
you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account
number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The
consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions
may take a longer time to process ..
R "edh d eqm.r ar ware an d ftw so are
OperatinJ?; Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP?
Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above
Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0,
Netscape 7.2 (or above)
Email: Access to a valid email account
Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum
Enabled Security Settings:
•Allow per session cookies
•Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy
Server must enable HTTP I. I settings via
proxy connection
** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will
provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time
providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will
57
have the right to withdraw your consent.
Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically
To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to
other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you
were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or
electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to
e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or
save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and
disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above,
please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below.
By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that:
• I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF
ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and
• I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can
print it, for future reference and access; and
• Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from
exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations,
acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made
available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you.
58
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C17161146
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND TEAM SHEEPER, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this XX day of XXX, 2017, (“Agreement”) by
and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation
(“CITY”), and TEAM SHEEPER, INC. a California corporation, located at 501 Laurel Street,
Menlo Park, CA 94025 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A.CITY intends to (“Operations”) for the City of Palo Alto offered at Rinconada Pool, 777
Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301 in connection with the Project (“Services”).
B.CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the
Services.
C.CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide
the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions,
in this Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at
Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31,
2018 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance
of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term
of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and
made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified
in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably
prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the
Appendix C
DRAFT CONTRACT AMENDMENT
59
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
2
CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall
not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of
CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”),
and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Thirteen Thousand Dollars
($113,000). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total
compensation for Basic Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not
exceed One Hundred Forty Three Thousand Dollars ($143,000). The applicable rates and
schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C”, which is attached to and made a part of this
Agreement. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total
exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the
CITY.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions
of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services
performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any
work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but
which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 5. INVOICES. At the conclusion of the season, CONSULTANT will invoice the
CITY for payment at the end of each month for any additional services. The CONSULTANT
payment voucher will then be submitted to the fiscal section for payment at which point the
CITY has 30 working days from the last date of the payment voucher to render payment to the
CONSULTANT. Invoices must include CONSULTANT name, address, contract number, date
of services, compensation amount.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT
represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the
Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience
to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and
subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all
licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally
required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or
similar circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of
and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that
may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to
perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses,
60
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
3
pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs,
including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by
CONSULTANT’s errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections
such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by
the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of
design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent
(10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to
CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved
recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to
CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in
performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or
contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act
as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not
assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of
CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager.
Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this
Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to or from subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever
concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and
omissions of a subcontractor. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the
prior approval of the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Tim Sheeper as
the project manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services and as the project coordinator to represent CONSULTANT during the
day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director,
project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute
project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to
the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request,
shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable
61
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
4
manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project
or a threat to the safety of persons or property.
CITY’s project manager is Stephanie Douglas, Community Services Department, 1305
Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone (650) 329-2107. The project manager will
be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the
Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work products, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT
agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall
be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other
intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if
any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the
prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no
representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not
contemplated by the scope of work.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time
during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records
pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and
retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect,
indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability
of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss,
including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court
costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to
performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or
contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an
Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed
to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the
active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall
not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall
survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any
62
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
5
covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance
or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions,
ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term,
covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in
full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in
Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement
naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or
policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through
carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or
authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of
CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in
full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming
CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY
concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the
approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is
primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the
insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of
the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides
less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the
Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business
days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for
ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief
Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be
construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification
provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance,
CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss
caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement,
including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has
expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole
or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving sixty (60) days prior
written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will
immediately discontinue its performance of the Services.
63
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
6
19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its
performance of the Services by giving sixty (60) days prior written notice thereof to CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and
other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or
given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such
materials will become the property of CITY.
19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be
paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of
services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or
termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that
portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such
determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her
discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement:
14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25.
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY
will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULTANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently
has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this
Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest.
CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this
Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance
64
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
7
with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the
State of California.
21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant”
as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission,
CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure
documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age,
religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status,
familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read
and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO
WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally
Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department,
incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply
with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste
Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second,
reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall
comply with the following zero waste requirements:
(a) All printed materials provided by CONSULTANT to CITY generated from a
personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes,
invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and
printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless
otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed
by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-
consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.
(b) Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in
accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not
limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office.
(c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no
additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide
documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not
being disposed.
SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE.
CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any
employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of
work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONSULTANT shall pay
such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
65
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
8
4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In
addition, CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance
in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060.
SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION
25.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the
City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any
penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the
following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only
appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available.
This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term,
condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC
WORKS CONTRACTS
26.1 This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. CONSULTANT is not
required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in
accordance with SB 7 if the contract is not a public works contract, if the contract does not
include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or the contract does not
include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively,
‘improvement’) project of more than $15,000.
OR
26.1 CONSULTANT is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in
Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and
Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the
Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate
of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each
craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the
Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be
obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. CONSULTANT shall
provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the
adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONSULTANT shall comply with the provisions
of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813,
of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages.
26.2 CONSULTANT shall comply with the requirements of Exhibit “E” for any
contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance.
SECTION 27. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
27.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
66
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
9
27.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such
action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara,
State of California.
27.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value
of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third
parties.
27.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
27.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will
apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and
consultants of the parties.
27.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
27.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in
any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and
will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement.
27.8 In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the
exhibits hereto or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case
of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal, the exhibits shall
control.
27.9 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with
CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d)
about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable
and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City
immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the
security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for
direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent.
27.10 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
27.11 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they
have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
27.12 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when
executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement
67
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
10 68
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
1
CONTRACT No. C17161146 SIGNATURE PAGE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized
representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager (Contract over $85k)
Purchasing Manager (Contract over $25k)
Contracts Administrator (Contract under
$25k)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney or designee
(Contract over $25k)
Contracts Administrator
(Checklist Approval)
Officer 1
By:
Name:
Title:
Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC)
By:
Name:
Title:
Attachments:
EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
69
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
2
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES
Team Sheeper, Inc.
Contractor agrees to provide certified swim instructors to teach private, semi-private and group
swim lessons to registered participants in the Palo Alto Recreation Aquatics Program as well as
to provide lifeguarding services for scheduled open and recreations swim sessions for the City of
Palo Alto offered at Rinconada Pool, 777 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301 and at an
additional PAUSD school pool during the summer season.
Scope of services agreement will commence on Monday, March 1, 2017 and expire on
December 31, 2018.
CONTRACTOR SHALL
1.Provide Quality Program
a)Conduct the program in a safe manner.
b)Provide a Certified Lifeguard on deck whenever program participants are in water.
c)Not allow participants to be in the pool without a Certified Lifeguard present on the pool
deck and providing supervision.
d)Swim Instructors and Certified Lifeguards are:
i.Knowledgeable and experienced in the subject and age group being taught based on
the specific training program for lifeguards and swim instructors followed by Team
Sheeper, Inc.
ii.Reliable and punctual
iii.Start and end lessons on time
iv. Expected to notify their Team Sheeper, Inc. Staff supervisor prior to the work shift if
running late or unable to attend. Contractor is responsible for finding a replacement
or providing a make-up lesson.
v.Organized and prepared to teach at the start of each lesson
e)If a lesson is missed by the Contractor, a make-up lesson is required to be provided by
Contractor during a time that is convenient for the participant.
i.Contractor is responsible for contacting participants to reschedule or make-up the
lesson(s).
f)At the end of each lesson the Contractor will:
i.Monitor and ensure participants are picked up by an authorized adult.
ii.Keep facility neat by putting away all equipment from pool deck, empty trash cans,
pick up trash from pool deck, remove and replace pool covers on appropriate reels
after each use.
g)Program Evaluations
i.Contractor will coordinate with City staff to create a single evaluation to be
distributed to participants.
ii.The last week of lessons, evaluations will be distributed to participants. Contractor
will communicate with participants the importance of completing the evaluation.
Contractor will provide responses to City staff.
h)Process all registrations for swim lesson program
2.Provide excellent Customer Service
70
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
3
a)Build rapport with customers by greeting all participants and parents and create a welcoming
and professional atmosphere.
b)Address customer and City staff questions and concerns within 24 hours and provide follow-
up if needed.
3.Maintain Quality Instructors
a)Meet the City of Palo Alto background requirements for all employees
b)Appear for lessons wearing appropriate attire that is clean, presentable and clearly identified
as Palo Alto Swim and Sport staff.
c)Swim instructors and Certified Lifeguards will not use cell phones during work shifts i.e.,
while on the pool deck and in front of customers, except in an emergency.
d)Provide consistency with quality standards for all instructors
4.Manage administrative tasks
a)Take attendance and confirm registration numbers with City staff.
5.Maintain Proactive and Consistent Communication with City staff
a)Communicate problems and issues immediately with the City of Palo Alto Contract Project
Manager via phone, email or in person.
b)Inform City staff of participant injuries and complete necessary accident reports within 24
hours. Accident forms should be available on site.
c)Respond in a timely manner to emails and phone calls within 24 hours.
d)Establish and maintain working relationships with City staff and customers. City staff
consists but is not limited to Community Center front desk staff, Aquatics Coordinator,
Supervisors, and the Contracts Administration Team.
6.Submit Invoices for payments. Invoices will include:
a)Contractor address,
b)date,
c)invoice number,
d)“bill to” information,
e)registration numbers, session dates and location, and
f)total amount to be paid.
7.Adhere to Department’s Aquatics Manual Policies and Procedures
a)Responsible for knowing the City’s policies and procedures with regard to swim lessons and
pool deck entry (i.e. waiting lists, cancellation, refund, satisfaction, etc.)
b)Instructors are responsible for verifying that only registered participants are permitted to
participate in programs.
c)Ensure only swim staff use the pool office.
d)Observe and enforce all pool rules.
8.Provide summer Swim Camps during the months of June, July, and August.
9.Provide an annual report covering the period of September 1st through August 31st no later than
October 15th of each year during the Contract Term to staff which will be presented to the City’s
Parks & Recreation Commission for review and comment by the Commission at its October meeting.
The annual report should include the following items:
Total program hours by program area
71
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
4
Participation statistics by program area including resident and non-resident
percentages
Customer satisfaction survey results
User group feedback by program area or rental
Gross revenues and revenue shares between CONSULTANT and the City
Risk management documentation
Training certifications listed by staff members.
10. Beginning August 14, 2017, Team Sheeper shall provide lifeguarding staff to oversee all scheduled
Open/Recreational and Lap Swim programs.
a) Keep facility neat by putting away all equipment from pool deck, empty trash cans, pick up
trash from pool deck, remove and replace pool covers on appropriate reels after each use.
b) Maintain cleanliness of pools, locker rooms, lobby and office space daily including:
i. Sweeping pool deck and indoor spaces
ii. Mopping and cleaning locker rooms
c) Take out trash at end of day and during sessions as needed on busy days
i. Pick up trash from pool deck
ii. Light cleaning of lobby and other indoor space
d) Accept fees for service from pool users using the Team Sheeper point-of-sale system. Team
Sheeper shall also accept any legacy Rinconada Pool tickets that customers bring.
CITY SHALL
1. Provide clean and safe facility for scheduled lessons at Rinconada Pool and a Palo Alto Unified
School District Pool to be determined
a. Use of Rinconada Lap Pool and Children’s Pool will be limited to mutually agreed upon
schedules
2. Provide access to a phone line and internet access at Rinconada Pool
3. Oversee program delivery which includes but is not limited to:
a. Work with Team Sheeper, Inc. on private and group lessons offerings, cancellations, and
customer inquiries/concerns
b. Provide support to Team Sheeper, Inc. Staff to ensure the success of the class
c. Provide essential information to deliver program (rosters, attendance sheets, waiting lists,
etc.)
4. Develop and maintain proactive and consistent communication and rapport with Team Sheeper, Inc.
a. Respond in a timely manner to emails and phone calls
b. Communicate and resolve issues and concerns immediately
5. Provide excellent customer service to Team Sheeper, Inc. Staff and customers
72
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
5 73
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
6
EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or
decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY
so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt
of the notice to proceed.
The parties agree that the instruction of swim lessons shall occur over the Spring, Summer and
Fall during times approved as “swim lesson times” at the pool by mutual agreement from Team
Sheeper and the City.
Schedule and Registration
Palo Alto Swim and Sport will offer swim lessons April through October. Registration for
Perpetual Lessons opens in mid-January. Summer Session Priority Registration for Palo Alto
residents will open on a date agreed upon by Team Sheeper and the City.
Session Based Swim Lessons
June through August we will be offering eleven-one week sessions of swim lessons.
Weekly Perpetual Lessons
Perpetual/weekly lessons are the optimum method for maintaining the focus of developing as a
swimmer on a year-round basis. To learn a complex skill, and to master the physical movement
patterns, consistent and continual practice is necessary. Perpetual lessons allow families to
understand the aquatics is a year-round sport/activity and that the joys of aquatics and developing
as a swimmer does not only have to be limited to the summer months. We promote keeping
aquatics and swim school in the weekly family schedule much like a family would a sports team
or music lessons. We also offer the opportunity to have concentrated daily lessons over the
course of a week during the summer months.
Levels
Waterbabies: For ages 6 months to under 3 years. Parent participation class where babies are
introduced to the water through songs and games. Each game that we play together as a group
can be adjusted to accommodate a parent’s comfort level and the swimming ability of the child.
This is a 30-minute group class with a 6:1 ratio.
Water Tots: For ages 2 years old. Water Tot’s is a class without parent participation for students
who are comfortable in the water are ready to learn the next set of swimming skills. The student
to teacher ratio of 3:1 allows a small, safe learning environment to introduce fundamental water
skills. This class focuses on building comfort, water safety, and skills such as: breathing,
floating, bobs, jumps and, of course, fun.
Swimming Principles: Children learn to be safe, independent swimmers and begin to learn
proper head and body position that will lead to success in the strokes to come. Skills include
floating independently on back and front, and breath control.
Level 1: Designed to continue water safety skills as well as develop body position and kicks.
Swimmers must be water safe and able to kick in streamline for 5 yards to pass.
Level 2: Designed to continue water safety skills as well as develop a strong foundation for
74
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
7
Freestyle. Swimmers learn to kick in streamline for 10 yards, rolling onto their back for a breath.
Level 3: Designed to develop a strong foundation for Freestyle. Swimmers learn to kick in
streamline for 10 yards with a side breath.
Freestyle: Swimmers learn freestyle beginning with body position, efficient flutter kicks,
freestyle arms, and side breathing.
Backstroke: Swimmers continue to review and improve their freestyle while learning
backstroke. They develop body position, rotation, effective kicks and backstroke arms.
Breaststroke: Swimmers will begin to learn the difference between short axis and long axis
strokes, with an emphasis on the importance of a proper kick and glide. Each of the four parts of
breaststroke will be isolated to yield a successful breaststroke.
Butterfly: Students learn the importance of a full body dolphin kick and undulation, timing of
kicks with pull and recovery.
Lessons Advanced: Swimmers continue to refine all four strokes as well as develop more
advanced techniques, including starts, turns and finishes.
Lessons Elite: The goals for swimmers in the class are to become proficient in all four
competitive strokes, swim terminology, and receive coaching in and out of the water.
Swim Lesson Prices through December 31, 2017:
Resident Group lessons: $16/lesson
Non-Resident Group Lessons: $22/lesson
Resident Private: $35/lesson
Non-Resident Private: $63/lesson
Semi-private lessons may be offered during the term of this agreement based upon
mutual agreement between Team Sheeper and the City of Palo Alto. If semi-private
lessons are offered, private lesson pricing may be adjusted up to reflect a reasonable price
break between the three class sizes.
Prices may increase annually beginning January 1, 2018 upon mutual agreement between
Team Sheeper and the City of Palo Alto.
Swim Camp
Whether just learning to swim or developing strokes, your child receives a daily, 45-minute,
level-appropriate lesson from a trained Swim School instructor (ratio 4:1). A child’s swim level
is assessed on the first day of camp, and campers with similar abilities are grouped together.
More advanced swimmers also get a workout-style swim session in a 25-yard format to practice
what they have learned. Daily hands-on lessons in small focused groups invariably lead to rapid
advancement in a child’s swim skills.
In addition to swim instruction, campers have daily swim-related workouts, free swim time for
land and camp games, crafts, and lunch. Your child should come home healthy-tired but able to
have loads of fun the entire week!
Sample Daily Activities
8:45 Camper check-in
9:00 Camp games, settle in for Director address
9:30 Group A: Swim lesson, Group B: Land games for swim strength and conditioning followed
by a healthy snack
10:15 Group A: Healthy snack followed by land games for swim strength and conditioning.
75
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
8
Group B: Swim lesson plus, for more advanced swimmers, a swim work-out
11:00 Transition out of pool (sunscreen!)
11:15 Lunch from home enjoyed on the benches or picnic-style on the grass
11:45 Camper choice: land games, crafts, relax with friends
12:45 Transition to free swim
1:00 Free swim
1:50 Get ready for pick-up or transfer to extended care
Is This Camp for You?
For ages 5 to 12 years (on the first day of camp)
For campers who HAVE COMPLETED kindergarten
Camp is for kids who are comfortable in the water, enjoy social group situations, and respond
well to instruction
Ideal before any family vacation that includes water activities!
Pre-K Camp
Palo Alto Swim and Sport offers Pre-K Aquatics camp for kids age 4.5-6!
For our little ones, Camp Palo Alto provides fun, instruction, and encouragement in a safe,
friendly environment. Each camper receives a daily 45-minute swim lesson from a Palo Alto
Swim School instructor, plus has time for land games, crafts and a light lunch. They’ll enjoy
community and team fun while developing a love of water and swim skills. Your child should
come home healthy-tired but not destroyed for the rest of the day!
When you check out each day, stick around to enjoy Open Swim with your child. Spending time
in the pool together reinforces what they’ve learned and improves their feel for the water. Open
Swim starts at noon!
Sample Daily Schedule
8:45 Check-in
9:00 Welcome and games
9:45 Crafts and snack
10:45 Fun stretching
11:00 Swim lesson
11:45 Dry off, get ready for lunch
12:00 Lunch time with friends and counselors
12:30 Story time
1:00 Free swim in Baby Pool or play games
1:50 Pick up or transfer to extended care
For ages 4.5 to 6 years (on the first day of camp)
For campers who have NOT COMPLETED kindergarten, or who need extra assistance
Campers are toilet trained and can manage the toilet independently
4:1 child-to-adult ratio both during swim lessons and with counselors on land
Ideal before any family vacation that includes water activities!
Morning Extended Camp
We are pleased to offer early Extended Camp from 8:00 to 8:45 a.m., so you can drop off your
kids and be on your way! You can be sure that check-in will be fast and your child will receive
great care for a happy start to the day!
Afternoon Extended Camp
Extended camp is just the ticket for your child to rest and re-energize, play social games, read,
advance some new skills or listen to music! Tried and true, our counselors provide a safe and
76
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
9
lively afternoon of new and varied activities, full of opportunities for the campers to mix and
mingle or have some quiet time; build and create; or have fun with more sports! The kids won’t
miss a beat, as they seamlessly transition to the afternoon segment of their day of excitement.
Pricing through December 31, 2017:
$40/ Week for Morning Extended Camp
$355/week for Camp
$165/week for Afternoon Extended Camp
Prices may increase annually beginning January 1, 2018 upon mutual agreement between Team
Sheeper and the City of Palo Alto.
Lap Swim and Open/Recreation Swim
Team Sheeper will provide lifeguards for Palo Alto’s seasonal open/recreational swimming at a
minimum of five hours per day, seven days per week in the spring, summer and fall. Team
Sheeper will also provide lifeguards for Palo Alto’s lap swim program at least five hours per day,
seven day per week year-round lap swimming. Rinconada’s open and lap swim schedules will
be determined by City staff and Team Sheeper at least 60 days prior to the start of each new
“season.”
Pricing through December 31, 2017:
Resident
Adult: $6 per day
Youth (17 and under): $4 per day
Family (up to 5 immediate family members from the same household, 2 adults
maximum): $15 per day
Senior (65 years+): $4 per day
Monthly pass: $45 (30% senior discount)
Non-Resident
Adult: $7 per day
Youth (17 and under): $5 per day
Family (up to 5 immediate family members from the same household, 2 adults
maximum): $18 per day
Senior (65 years+): $6 per day
Monthly pass: $56 (25% senior discount)
Pricing may be increased after January 1, 2018 upon mutual agreement between Team Sheeper
and the City of Palo Alto.
77
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
10
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
A. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT
for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for
professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall be
Swim Lessons:
Swim lessons shall be subsidized by the City of Palo Alto for City Residents from the start
of the contract term through December 31, 2017. Beginning January 1, 2018 swim lessons
will no longer be subsidized. The subsidy rates are as follows:
City to compensate Team Sheeper Six Dollars ($6) per resident participant per group
lesson for up to 9,000 ($54,000) individual group lessons, and
City to compensate Team Sheeper Twenty Eight Dollars ($28) per resident participant
per private lesson for up to 2,100 ($58,800) private lessons.
Not to exceed One Hundred and Thirteen Dollars ($113,000) during the period covering 3/1/17
through 12/31/17. In the event Additional Services are authorized by the City, the total
compensation for additional services will be at a rate of $25 per hour for regular staff lifeguards,
if regular staff lifeguards are not available use of lead or head lifeguards may be provided at a
rate of $40 per hour and the total compensation for Additional Services is not to exceed Thirty
Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) during the period covering 3/1/2017 through 8/13/2017.
Rinconada Pool Tickets:
Team Sheeper shall accept fees for service from pool users using their own point-of-sale system.
Team Sheeper shall also accept any legacy Rinconada Pool tickets that customers bring.
B. ADDITIONAL SERVICES. Additional Services (lifeguards), if any, shall be
authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT
shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written
authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by
CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within
the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”.
C. PAYMENT. At the conclusion of the season, Contractor will invoice the City for
payment at the end of June, the end of August and end of December for any additional services.
The Contractor payment voucher will then be submitted to the fiscal section for payment at
which point the City has 30 working days from the last date of the payment voucher to render
payment to the Contractor. Invoices must include Contractor name, address, contract number,
date of services, compensation amount.
D. CANCELLED LESSONS. (Excluding weather-related cancellations, if applicable) In the
event that staff is late or misses a lesson, contractor is responsible for contacting participants to
reschedule or make-up the lesson(s).
E. FACILITY USE. If the Contractor uses the City’s facility for any purpose other than a
mutually agreed upon and scheduled class under this agreement, then the Contractor pays all fees
and charges as specified in the current Fees & Charges resolution.
78
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
11
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Sub-total Basic Services $113,000.00
Reimbursable Expenses $0.00
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $113,000.00
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $30,000.00
Maximum Total Compensation $143,000
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which
CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization
from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a
detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of
effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable
expense, for such services. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation
shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s project manager and CONSULTANT
prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all
requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
REVENUE SHARE
Team Sheeper will collect revenue from customers for all programs they provide and any
Rinconada Pool subcontracts they hold. From March 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, Team
Sheeper will share 10% of gross revenues from all programs performed on behalf of the City of
Palo Alto and shall provide payments to the City at the end of June, the end of August and end of
December.
79
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
12
Beginning on January 1, 2018, Team Sheeper will share gross revenues of as much as 12% of all
revenues collected from all programs provided on behalf of the City of Palo Alto with the City
based upon the following table:
Number of
Swim
Lessons
Sold in a
calendar
year
Gross
Revenue
from all
program
Shared
with City
11,000 or
less 1%
12,000 2%
13,000 3%
14,000 4%
15,000 5%
16,000 6%
17,000 7%
18,000 8%
19,000 9%
20,000 10%
21,000 11%
22,000 or
more 12%
Projections of enrollment and revenue share shall be provided to the City at the end of every
month. Revenue share payment for 2018 shall be paid to the City no later than January 31, 2019.
80
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
13
EXHIBIT “D”
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT
OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY
COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT
INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRE
D TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES
YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
STATUTORY
STATUTORY
YES
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL
LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE
COMBINED.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY
- EACH PERSON
- EACH OCCURRENCE
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE),
AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND
EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY
RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS
SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND
PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS,
AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT
THE FOLLOWING URL: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS”
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER
INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
81
DRAFT
Professional Services
Rev. April 27, 2016
14
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY
SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER,
BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL
LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON
OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE
CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-
PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN
(10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
VENDORS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THEIR EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE
AND ANY OTHER RELATED NOTICES WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AT THE FOLLOWING URL:
HTTPS://WWW.PLANETBIDS.COM/PORTAL/PORTAL.CFM?COMPANYID=25569
OR
HTTP://WWW.CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG/GOV/DEPTS/ASD/PLANET_BIDS_HOW_TO.ASP
82