Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-05 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 August 22, 2017 AGENDA City Hall Chambers 250 Hamilton 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 Open Space and Parks Office at 3201 East Bayshore Road during normal business hours. Please call 650-496-6962. 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 COMMUNICATIONSMembers of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonabletime restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to limit oral communications period to 3 minutes. IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT V.BUSINESS1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the July 25, 2017 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting –PRC Chair Keith Reckdahl – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT 2.Baylands Boardwalk Replacement Preliminary Design Update – Megha Bansai – Discussion– (30 min) ATTACHMENT3.Review of the Rinconada Park and Junior Museum & Zoo Long Range Plan and Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Peter Jensen – Discussion – (60 min) ATTACHMENT 4. Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study – Daren Andersen – Discussion – (45 min)ATTACHMENT5.Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair - Discussion – (15 min) V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 MEETING VII.ADJOURNMENT DRAFT Draft Minutes 1 1 2 3 4 MINUTES 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING 7 July 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: 15 Others Present: 16 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen, Kristen O'Kane, Tanya 17 Schornack 18 I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Tanya Schornack 19 II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 20 Chair Reckdahl: We'll move on to Agenda Changes, Requests, Deletions. Does anyone 21 have any suggestions? 22 Kristen O'Kane: Chair, I actually have a suggestion mostly for future meetings. I 23 thought at this meeting it might be helpful as well to move the Department Report on the 24 agenda ahead of Oral Communications or after Oral Communications, either way. Just 25 so that members of the public who are here can hear the Department Report, and staff 26 who are reporting on the different things can do that at the beginning. 27 Chair Reckdahl: I'm happy with that. Does anyone have any … 28 Male: Great idea. 29 Chair Reckdahl: Let's move that up today. Department Report, we'll move up right 30 before Business, between Oral Communications and Business. 31 DRAFT Draft Minutes 2 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1 Chair Reckdahl: That bring us to—we do have Oral Communications. Jessica Brettle is 2 going to speak. 3 Jessica Brettle: Thank you, Chair Reckdahl, Commissioners. Thank you for letting me 4 be here this evening. My name is Jessica Brettle. I've met some of you. If not, I'm 5 upstairs on the seventh floor in the Clerk's Office. I'm here today, as we normally do, to 6 announce a recruitment that we have for a new committee. This committee is the Storm 7 Water Management Oversight Committee. As you guys might recall, back in November, 8 we held an election with property owners to increase our storm water management fee. 9 This new committee will be in charge of overseeing the budget and the disbursement of 10 those funds for the storm water management fee. We like to come to talk to all of you 11 because we know that you're well connected, and you know folks in the community. We 12 really encourage you to talk to them and encourage them to apply. The deadline to apply 13 for this committee is August 1st, which is next week. They can apply online or they can 14 give us a call in the Clerk's Office and apply via the internet or PDF. We make it easy on 15 them. If they have any questions, they can call us as well. As a side note, this committee 16 does not meet every month. It's probably once, twice a year. If you know someone who 17 wants to start getting involved but maybe doesn't have a huge time slot to be involved, 18 this is a good start for them to get involved in the community. I'm going to put some 19 flyers in the back if you want to take them home with you, if you know of anybody. I 20 appreciate your time this evening. Thank you. 21 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 22 IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 23 Chair Reckdahl: Now we move on to the next, which is Department Report. 24 Ms. O'Kane: Good evening, Commissioners. Kristen O'Kane, Community Services 25 Department. I have two things to report, and then I'm going to turn it over to Daren 26 Anderson, who has some updates as well. The first is I just wanted to report back on our 27 aquatics program. Palo Alto Swim and Sport will be officially taking over the aquatics 28 program on August 14th with oversight by City staff. The contract with Rinconada 29 Masters is still not finalized, but we are very close. We just have a few things to work 30 out, but I do believe we are very close. We will get there soon. We are working with 31 Palo Alto Swim and Sport to get the website updated and to just make sure everything is 32 fine-tuned and ready to go on August 14th. The second thing I wanted to just report out 33 on is just a follow-up on an article that was in the Daily Post related to the San Francisco 34 Mime Troop. In May of this year, the San Francisco Mime Troop applied for a permit to 35 perform at Mitchell Park. In addition to performing, the permit application stated that the 36 Mime Troop would be soliciting donations at the event. The Council-adopted Park and 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 3 Open Space Rules and Regulations prohibit the solicitation of donations in parks. Staff 1 informed the Mime Troop that they could have their event at Mitchell Park; they just 2 could not solicit donations at the event. The Mime Troop subsequently removed the 3 performance at Mitchell Park from their 2017 summer schedule. Just to follow up on 4 that, we are talking with the Mime Troop. I spoke with them today actually to see how 5 we can possibly get them to come to Palo Alto this summer and perform at Mitchell Park, 6 something that works for them but also complies with our Municipal Code and our Parks 7 Rules and Regulations. We're still determining how that might work. We are hopeful 8 that they will come and perform this year in Palo Alto. They've been coming for a 9 number of years. We are happy to have them. Unfortunately, we need to enforce our 10 rules and regulations at the park. We can't have a lot of discussion on this tonight 11 because it wasn't an agendized item. If the Commission would like to agendize not 12 necessarily this issue but maybe the specific rule that's in question or that came to light 13 for a future meeting, we would be happy to do that. 14 Chair Reckdahl; We're planning already next month to talk about the commercial 15 activity in parks. I think we could roll this into that. Do you think that's good timing? 16 Ms. O'Kane: Sure. Yeah, that would be great. 17 Vice Chair Moss: Did we pay them to come to the park to perform? 18 Ms. O'Kane: No, we don't pay them. They apply for a permit to come and perform. 19 They would pay the fees that are outlined in the Municipal Fee Schedule. Now, I'll turn it 20 over to Daren for an update on the Foothill trails. 21 Daren Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson, Open Spaces, Parks, and Golf. I 22 wanted to share the latest with our problem trails up at Foothills Park. This is close to 23 Costanoan Trail and Los Trancos Trail. I've got a couple of photos. This is a map of the 24 preserve that shows the various closure spots. I apologize; it's rather small. To fit it in 25 and give it context, it had to be. It shows a number of slides and washouts along Los 26 Trancos. It's got a closure of a little under 3 miles. This is the back side of Los Trancos 27 that's closed. The Costanoan Trail, this segment here that's just under a mile was closed 28 in March. It's all the result of this very, very heavy rain we received in this winter. We 29 received 23.5 inches in January and February. That's about what we get in an average 30 year. It was a year's worth of rain in one month. The result was a lot of these typically 31 problematic areas that have minor washouts that are problematic and usually could be 32 maintained without having to reroute or do much. It's just manual work. Sometimes our 33 trail contractor brings in a small piece of—it's heavy equipment, but it's very narrow and 34 can fit on the trails and fix things. This is beyond that scope. I've got a few photos to 35 show. The trail is right up here and the absence of the trail. You can see some of the old 36 header board, that had been part of a probably 1980s installment to support that edge, had 37 completely washed out, all the way down to the creek. This is Los Trancos right along 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 4 the creek's edge. This is another section; I think the same washout, the same board. You 1 can just see the soils are so loose there's just no way of cutting back into that without 2 damaging and causing significant impacts to the creek. Some of these photos out of 3 context it's hard to even see where the trail is anymore. This isn't just a bunch of refuse. 4 This is uphill debris that slid down the trail far off screen now. This is the Costanoan 5 section of the trail. This was a bigger landslide in terms of the amount of land that 6 moved, but it's a little more localized. It wasn't on so many numerous spots. It's one 7 significant spot. The trail just slid out. They're unsafe. We closed those trails because it 8 was no longer safe for visitors to hike on them. This is another section. That is on top of 9 what was once trail. The same Costanoan spot. The actions we took is we met with our 10 trail consultant, walked the site with him, got his best opinion on what he thought we 11 should do. His suggestion was "some of this I can repair. Your significant washouts, 12 both the Costanoan and several sections of Los Trancos, your best technique would be 13 rerouting that trail away from the creek onto more stable soils." We also hired a 14 geologist to come out and hike the site with us and get his opinion too. He had the same 15 opinion. In those two areas, unless you're prepared to spend a significant amount of 16 money and very lengthy permitting processes, come out, excavate masses of some soil 17 down to bedrock and rebuild it, you're going to have to reroute. The environmental 18 impact of doing that would be so harmful I don't think we'd ever get permitted. It makes 19 so much more sense to reroute. The next step was to consult with our partners at Mid-20 Peninsula Regional Open Space District. They have 50,000 acres-plus of land that they 21 manage. They're installing new trails and rerouting trails far more frequently than we 22 have, which we haven't done in my tenure with the City. Ask them for their advice, 23 "what do you think we're looking at in terms of permitting, review processes, etc." Their 24 advice was if we're going to do the reroute, because there are sensitive species on Los 25 Trancos—you've got the steelhead potential and on the Costanoan you've got the dusty-26 footed woodrat—we should hire a consultant and go through the CEQA analysis, which 27 would be the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. That's the next steps 28 for us, to find that consultant, work with our trail contractor to confirm this realignment. 29 He eyeballed one in the field, but now it has to be hiked, measured out and, in 30 consultation with the consultant, work through that CEQA process. That's the next steps. 31 We're going to get bids very shortly and move forward with that one. We'll learn more 32 about what kind of timeframes that consultant says on the permitting. Hopefully, it's not 33 too difficult. That's where we are on that project. 34 Chair Reckdahl: It sounds like it's going to be many months. 35 Mr. Anderson: I think so, yeah. 36 Chair Reckdahl: That's unfortunate. Those are nice trails. Is that it for the Department 37 Report? 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 5 Ms. O'Kane: Yes, that's it. 1 Chair Reckdahl: Sorry. I was waiting for you. 2 V. BUSINESS: 3 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the June 27, 2017 Parks and Recreation 4 Commission meeting. 5 Approval of the draft June 27, 2017 Minutes was moved by Commissioner LaMere and 6 seconded by Commissioner Cribbs. Passed 4-0, Moss, McDougall, Greenfield abstaining 7 2. Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan and 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration. 9 Chair Reckdahl: We'll move on to Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master 10 Plan. We do have one speaker card. Do you want to do a presentation first or the 11 speaker card first? Do you have a presentation to give? 12 Ms. O'Kane: I'll do the presentation first. 13 Chair Reckdahl: Generally, we like the presentation first. Sometimes, if it's a skimpy 14 presentation, we move straight to the comments. Kristen, you can take over. 15 Ms. O'Kane: Kristen O'Kane, Community Services. Tonight we have an action related 16 to the Parks Master Plan. It is specifically a recommendation for the Parks and Rec 17 Commission to recommend that Council approve the Master Plan and adopt the Mitigated 18 Negative Declaration, which is the CEQA document that was prepared for the Master 19 Plan. To my right, I have Barbara Beard from MIG with me to provide some information 20 on the public comments that we received during the public review period for the CEQA 21 Initial Study. Before we get into that, I wanted to review one change to the Master Plan 22 that is a result of the May 22nd Council meeting. At that meeting, Council made a 23 motion to request staff to rework a specific policy in the Master Plan. I would like to 24 review those changes, hear Commission feedback on those particular changes. Then, I'll 25 turn it over to Barbara to go into the CEQA comments. At the May 22nd Council 26 meeting, Council made a motion specifically to direct staff to strengthen the language of 27 Programs 6.C.1, 6.C.2, and 6.C.3 to minimize private, exclusive use and, when such uses 28 are allowed, charge significant fees and include specific outreach language. Staff 29 attempted to revise that policy, and also I did receive some comments from the ad hoc 30 that was put together not for the Master Plan but the field use policy ad hoc. I did receive 31 some comments from them. We did some rewording in that policy. I wanted to 32 specifically go over what was added to the programs in response to that Council motion. 33 They're all related really to Program 6.C.1, the new 6.C.1. That is to limit the number of 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 6 days for private uses to a maximum of 5 consecutive days. That would include event 1 setup and breakdown. The reason that number was chosen was to avoid an event going 2 over a 2-weekend period. Five days would force the event to only be on one weekend or 3 the other or just during the week. The next addition was notice of the private event will 4 be made to the neighboring community and facility users 14 days in advance. We 5 originally had that all private events would have a public meeting associated with it, and 6 then we added "unless they were only 1 day." If it was a 1-day event, we wouldn't 7 require a public meeting. Anything over 1 day, we would include a public meeting in the 8 outreach efforts. We kept the statement that cost recovery including wear and tear on the 9 facility should be 100 percent. Those were the additions that were made to the programs 10 under Policy 6.C. If any Commissioners wanted to ask questions or provide feedback, I 11 could take those now. 12 Chair Reckdahl: Is this the change from what was in the packet? 13 Ms. O'Kane: This is a summary of the changes. The before and after is in the packet. 14 Chair Reckdahl: The current text is the same as in the packet? Do we have comments 15 and questions? Jeff. 16 Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. I do have some comments. The new policy 17 update is definitely making progress in distinguishing between profit and nonprofit 18 events, closed versus public, and intensity of use. I think that's really what Council was 19 asking for. A primary role of ours as Commissioners is to help develop policies which 20 reflect the spirit of the law and make sure that's consistent with the letter of the law. 21 Actually, the SF Mime Troop is—the issue that came up is a good example of that. I 22 look forward to talking more about that next month. With that said, I think there are 23 some ambiguities remaining that I'd like to highlight. I will be making a motion for some 24 specific changes. First off, under 6.C, I'd like clarification if this policy is intended to 25 apply to the exclusive private use of part of a park or is it exclusive use of a park or an 26 athletic field. I think the answer is it depends on the scope. A larger part of a park 27 should be included as well. If that's the case, then the current verbiage is ambiguous on 28 that. Could staff provide an answer on the intent there? 29 Ms. O'Kane: I think it would apply especially for large parks, for example Rinconada or 30 Mitchell Park. If someone was reserving half of a park for—if they requested half of the 31 park for 2 weeks, this policy would come into play for that as well. We could include 32 that. 33 Commissioner Greenfield: That makes sense to me. What I would suggest then under 34 Policy 6.C, the first line, is a change of "booking an entire park site" to "booking a park 35 site." A "park site" could mean an entire park or a larger part of a park, depending on 36 interpretation. Again, I believe the intent of this policy is to apply to both parks and 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 7 athletic fields. Under 6.C.1, the first bullet—under the line of 6.C.1, it says "exclusive 1 use of parks or athletic fields," which is what we want. The first bullet says "no 2 exclusive use of parks by private parties." It doesn't include athletic fields. If we omitted 3 "of parks" and just say "exclusive use by private parties," then that would imply parks 4 and athletic fields as stated in the line above that. I do support limiting the private use to 5 5 days as stated in the second bullet point. I think that's a good number. Under the third 6 bullet, I have some concerns about the ambiguities regarding the community message and 7 meeting requirements and the 1-day threshold. Part of it you've clarified. You're asking 8 for noticing to be done for any private event, even if it's less than 1 day. I'm not sure that 9 would be necessary depending on the scope of it. Perhaps we want the same 1-day 10 threshold to apply to both the community messaging and to the community meeting. 11 Regarding the community meeting, clarification on the timing of that needs to be made. 12 The verbiage now doesn't seem to mandate that it be 14 days before the permit is issued. 13 I also think it's important to note that the public meeting should be before the permit is 14 granted. Finally, on that same bullet I'm not clear if the threshold for the private events 15 lasting longer than 1 day applies to events reserved for multiple calendar dates or for 16 more than 24 hours. If someone reserves it from 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday to noon on 17 Thursday, does this trigger this clause, which it should? In which case, maybe we should 18 call this—we can say that this refers to multiple days. Council has requested charging an 19 increased permit rate as noted for private events. Right now, the verbiage is cost 20 recovery should be 100 percent. My question is, is this the most we can charge. Is that 21 why that's stated? Is there some other wording that would apply? It seems to infer that a 22 new rate tier should be added probably for the private event permit as opposed to a field 23 permit. I don't know if that's implicit in the verbiage or we need to call that out. I'm 24 interested in staff's opinion on that. 25 Ms. O'Kane: Related to how much we can charge someone, that's outlined in the 26 Municipal Fee Schedule, which is approved by Council. That would be a separate action 27 by Council to revise the amount we can charge or to add another layer to a special event 28 permit fee, such as a commercial use or some other language like that. 29 Commissioner Greenfield: If I understand your answer correctly, we're probably fine 30 leaving it as it is, and Council can take it up and revise that further when the policy goes 31 to them as desired. 32 Ms. O'Kane: That's correct. 33 Commissioner Greenfield: As far as the need to call out a new rate tier for this, is that 34 implicit in the current verbiage or do we need to add something for that? 35 Ms. O'Kane: You're asking if this policy should include adding another rate category in 36 the Municipal Fee Schedule? 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 8 Commissioner Greenfield: In the recent event that occurred, one issue was there was no 1 appropriate rate tier for that event permit. That calls out the need to add a rate tier. 2 Ms. O'Kane: I think we could add it here. Whatever motion you make tonight, if you 3 could include that you recommend that there be an additional tier added. 4 Commissioner Greenfield: I do have an updated policy, which I typed out. I can forward 5 it if that's easier than reading this as part of a motion. 6 Chair Reckdahl: I think we have to read it just because it's an action item. 7 Ms. O'Kane: We do. 8 Chair Reckdahl: If this was a discussion item, then that might be better. Let's do a round 9 if other people have comments on top of your comments, then we'll come to a consensus 10 at the end. Any more comments on this? 11 Commissioner McDougall: Beginning with the policy statement, it says "events by 12 outside organizations." I'm not sure what outside organizations implies. Is that 13 organizations that are in Menlo Park or in San Francisco but not in Palo Alto? If 14 organizations are voters apparently, then an organization that's in Palo Alto is really not 15 an outside organization. Even just calling out private organizations would be better. 16 Outside is stigmatizing in a way I don't think we want to do. I agree with many of the 17 other comments that Jeff said. Private users will be limited to 5 consecutive days. Again 18 because of the kind of organization that we're dealing with, I think it would be useful to 19 clarify whether that includes weekends or not. Some of these organizations may say 5 20 consecutive days is Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Monday, Tuesday. It's business days 21 that they're implying. I think we should clarify that weekends are included. The cost 22 recovery item, I would at least want to say that the wear and tear on the facility should be 23 not less than 100 percent. In fact, it could be more than 100 percent under whatever 24 terms we put in. I'd also worry at what point do we define what the wear and tear is. 25 Somebody has a party; somebody spills something noxious. It's not obvious at the end of 26 the party, but 6 weeks later all of the surrounding oaks die. How do we recover that? 27 How do we define that? Is there some sort of mitigation? Is there some sort of deposit? 28 Is there some sort of hold-back on funds? I don't know how you would do that. The 29 whole cost recovery on wear and tear scared me in terms of what you would do. Thank 30 you. I don't know how you want to address any of that in your … 31 Commissioner Greenfield: The change of outside to private is a good idea, and I would 32 add that and the first comment you made. Regarding the other comments, those could be 33 handled by staff in the policy phase. I'm not sure it's appropriate to include them in the 34 Master Plan policy. I'm interested in staff's opinion on that. 35 DRAFT Draft Minutes 9 Chair Reckdahl: I had two comments here. One was the full park is not obvious to me. 1 Right now if you look, it says "limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks." That to me 2 sounds like an entire park. It should have the same clarification there. Any part of the 3 park that's currently not reservable is considered a private event. The second, I wanted in 4 the cost recovery to put in addition to cost recovery including wear and tear on the 5 facility, we also should be charging a market rate for the opportunity cost. Now, your 6 comments make me think we're not allowed to do that. If the market rate for renting a 7 field in Palo Alto is X number of dollars, we're not allowed to charge that? We have a 8 ceiling on what we can charge? 9 Ms. O'Kane: We do have a ceiling. In the Muni Fee Schedule, there's a range of what 10 we can charge for a particular rental. 11 Chair Reckdahl: That's fixed in time or is that … 12 Rob de Geus: No. Kristen's right. That's reviewed every year by the full Council. We 13 can amend that. You could include a program here that we look at amending the 14 Municipal Fee Schedule to add a higher rate for this type of activity. We wouldn't say it 15 just like that, but so that we could charge a premium rate if there is an impact to 16 residents. 17 Chair Reckdahl: We're not forcing you to be excessive. What we want is something 18 representative, market rate. Something that's fair. We're not trying to squeeze people; we 19 don't want to be giving away our assets. 20 Mr. de Geus: We can add that as a program here. 21 Chair Reckdahl: Would we put that in that cost recovery bullet or would we put it 22 elsewhere? Should we say "amend the Municipal Fee Schedule to … 23 Commissioner McCauley: While Keith thinks about that for just a moment—excuse me. 24 I don't mean to interrupt you. 25 Chair Reckdahl: Please do. 26 Commissioner McCauley: Is there anything else that's driving the logic behind the 27 current language on cost recovery? I know in the past there's been at least a suggestion 28 that the City shouldn't be recovering or actually might be limited in recovering more than 29 its costs. Is that what's driving this or is there some other logic behind the current 30 language? 31 Mr. de Geus: We would have to check with the City Attorney's Office to make sure that 32 we're within the legal bounds. There are circumstances where we can charge more than 33 DRAFT Draft Minutes 10 the costs of a program. I believe this is one area where we can do that. We'll obviously 1 have to verify with the Legal Department before we take it to Council for review. 2 Commissioner McCauley: It's driven a lot of questions amongst this group. I'm not 3 opposed to including it, but I wonder if removing it might be a simpler way to go. 4 Obviously, the City's Fee Schedule is going to apply. 5 Chair Reckdahl: Yeah, that's true. 6 Mr. de Geus: It sounded to me like there was an interest, though, in staff exploring a way 7 to ensure there is a premium fee charged for a private group that uses a significant portion 8 of a park, that has an inconvenience to residents, which we don't have in the Municipal 9 Fee Schedule currently. I think the language could be to explore that and evaluate that 10 and bring it to Council for consideration as a program here. We would then work on that 11 when we go through the budget process and get the Municipal Fee Schedule approved 12 next fiscal year. They could approve that. That gives us the ability to charge that higher 13 fee should something like this come up. 14 Commissioner McCauley: I have no objection or reservation to putting a hook of that 15 sort into the Master Plan. I'm perfectly happy to see that there. I think it's slightly 16 different than the current bullet, which is the cost recovery one. 17 Chair Reckdahl: How about if we add another bullet after that cost recovery that says 18 "amend Municipal Fee Schedule to allow the City to charge market rental rates for park 19 facilities"? Is that … 20 Commissioner Greenfield: That might be too specific. 21 Commissioner McCauley: I agree. 22 Commissioner Greenfield: Adding the language of charging a premium fee, which is at 23 minimum cost recovery, and then leaving it to Council to further add to that if they so 24 choose to. 25 Commissioner McDougall: I would only argue that it needs to say fee structure as 26 opposed to just fee. I would still be interested in something that says the fee is $10,000 27 and you have to deposit an increment of $10,000 that we might give back to you if you 28 don't destroy the park. I'm really worried about the concept of—the wear and tear 29 brought to mind what if they spill something that kills all the oaks. Now, we've got to try 30 and get money out of them as opposed to we already have the money. That bothers me. 31 Chair Reckdahl: How about "amend Municipal Fee Schedule to allow city to increase 32 maximum fee structure for park rentals"? 33 DRAFT Draft Minutes 11 Commissioner Greenfield: I'm not sure that we should be directing Council to amend the 1 fee structure. It might make more sense to indicate what kind of fees we're looking for, 2 and then Council can make amendments as needed to address that. 3 Commissioner McDougall: Do we need to do more than leave this concept with staff? 4 Ms. O'Kane: My only concern is we were looking for a motion tonight that would allow 5 us to go to Council and request that Council adopt the Master Plan. It would be helpful if 6 the Commission could make a motion that included the specific changes and additions 7 that you wanted to this policy. 8 Chair Reckdahl; Normally, I would say that this is something that staff could take care of 9 in the implementation. The Council was pretty clear about what they wanted included in 10 the Master Plan. We have to address this, which you have done. Part of this also is 11 addressing the cost recovery aspect of that. Just because it's a Council directive we have 12 to at least specify our recommendation. We're not directing Council to do something; 13 we're recommending that the Council do something. Would recommended be more 14 palatable? 15 Commissioner Greenfield: I'm not clear how changing a fee structure for something is 16 applicable to be in our Master Plan. It seems like the fee structure is outside the Parks 17 and Rec Master Plan. That's why I'm hesitant to include it as part of this policy. 18 Ms. O'Kane: You could propose language similar to what Rob said, that the program 19 could start with explore. I know the Comprehensive Plan uses that, but it would be 20 explore updates to … 21 Commissioner McDougall: The Comprehensive Plan is full of explore and consider and 22 whatnot. "Consider appropriate fee structure" as a program in here under the policy 23 would give you the wording that allows us to move ahead but not be so specific that it 24 sounds like we're dictating. 25 Commissioner Greenfield: I can support that. 26 Chair Reckdahl: Do you want both language? What did you say? Consider … 27 Commissioner McDougall: I would say consider incremental or new or whatever cost 28 recovery fee structures that address the risk of wear and tear on the facility. Something 29 that … 30 Chair Reckdahl: I don't think it's just wear and tear. I think it's opportunity cost too. If 31 the City can't use this park for a week, how much is that worth to us? 32 DRAFT Draft Minutes 12 Commissioner McCauley: To tweak it slightly—Don, jump in here please—perhaps 1 consider fee structure adjustments that include but are not limited to cost recovery 2 (including wear and tear on facility). 3 Commissioner McDougall: I agree with something like that. 4 Commissioner Greenfield: Should this be part of the same cost recovery bullet or are we 5 first trying to indicate what kind of a rate tier we're looking for and then, separate from 6 that, if changes need to be made to allow for this rate, maybe that's a separate item. 7 Chair Reckdahl: In my mind, there's two bullets. One bullet is that we want to charge 8 the maximum we can or the maximum that's appropriate. The second is we should revise 9 or at least revisit the maximum that's set by the fee structure and see is that appropriate. 10 Ms. O'Kane: Chair, did you want to include in that last new bullet reference to market 11 rates? 12 Chair Reckdahl: That's what my initial feeling was, but I don't think we should 13 necessarily dictate that. We could say premium charge or increase the fee structure. I 14 don't think it necessarily has to be market rate. That's what's driving it. If we're going to 15 rent out the facilities, we should be charging market rate, particularly if it's a for-profit 16 entity. 17 Ms. O'Kane: I just wanted to make sure that piece wasn't lost, but that sounds … 18 Chair Reckdahl: I'm not wedded to market rate, but that's what's driving this desire. Go 19 ahead, David. 20 Vice Chair Moss: When I think of the Palantir event, they gave $50,000 to the City, and 21 they gave $10,000 to two different soccer clubs. They may have done that out of the 22 goodness of their heart, but in the future they may not. If they displace users, there has to 23 be a significant price. How do we make it so that what they pay is the least that they can 24 do? When you talk about market rate, I like the idea of a premium. I want you to have 25 the ability to charge a whole lot of money, and I don't know how to word it. If you just 26 leave this, Palantir can demand that we give them a public space for their use every year 27 for 5 days for very little money. I don't want that to happen. I don't know how we can 28 protect ourselves from—can they demand that we give them that public space? 29 Mr. de Geus: They can't demand that we give them public space. One thought I had here 30 is just an extra bullet that says "explore establishing premium deposits and fees for such 31 use," which relates to the language above. That gives us enough room to try and think 32 this through, about what kind of fee structure. Maybe it's a significant deposit if there is 33 risk to trees or other assets in the area. We can discuss that through the year with the 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 13 Commission and have it be a part of the budget process as we update the Municipal Fee 1 Schedule. That would be fairly simply. "Explore establishing premium deposit and fees 2 for such use" seems to capture it. It'd put it out there as something to consider. 3 Vice Chair Moss: Do we have to—if they say, "Sure, we'll give you the money," do we 4 have to give it to them? Do we have to give them the public space? The reason you're 5 notifying the neighborhood—do they have any say in this? 6 Mr. de Geus; Ultimately, it's the City that has to issue the permit. We're evaluating the 7 impacts to residents and the community. If we think it's not in the best interest of 8 residents, then we won't issue the permit. 9 Chair Reckdahl: What do you think of Rob's text? I'm happy with that if other people 10 are. 11 Commissioner McDougall: I don't like premium as opposed to alternative or something 12 that doesn't start off with an argument. 13 Chair Reckdahl: Premium is a loaded word. Can you think of a better one? 14 Commissioner McDougall: I would have used alternative. 15 Chair Reckdahl: Or increased? 16 Commissioner McCauley: I don't mean to be too lawyerly, but I agree with Don. If that 17 actually is a concern, I'm not sure that it is really. If it is one, then I think you want to be 18 more ambiguous. 19 Chair Reckdahl: I guess we're saying we want the ability to charge a different rate, and 20 that's all we're saying. 21 Commissioner McDougall: If It's a private organization that's a nonprofit, there may be 22 a—if it's the San Francisco Mimes. 23 Chair Reckdahl: This only applies to private rentals. This is … 24 Commissioner Greenfield: Private, multiday rental. 25 Chair Reckdahl: We're saying explore, so I would say increased or larger. We're not 26 saying that we must explore whether we want to charge more for private people. We 27 certainly would not charge less for a private corporation compared to a nonprofit. 28 Commissioner McDougall: So let's use incremental. 29 DRAFT Draft Minutes 14 Mr. de Geus: Yeah, incremental or alternative. It does work. Obviously, this is 1 something that Council would approve, so we wouldn't be going forward with something 2 that's less. I think it works, incremental or alternative. 3 Chair Reckdahl: What's the distinction between incremental and increased? Incremental 4 to me is taking steps as opposed to we just want to say it's larger. Do you have a problem 5 with increased or larger? 6 Commissioner Greenfield: I like incremental. 7 Chair Reckdahl: You like incremental? 8 Commissioner McCauley: That's certainly fine by me. 9 Chair Reckdahl: We'll go with incremental then. 10 Commissioner McDougall: Rob, did your wording—what was the rest of your wording? 11 Mr. de Geus: Explore establishing incremental fees for such use. 12 Chair Reckdahl: Deposits and fees. 13 Mr. de Geus: Deposits and fees. Sorry (inaudible). 14 Commissioner McDougall: That's what I wanted to make sure, the idea that there's fees 15 and deposits. 16 Chair Reckdahl: Let's roll this up. That's one extra bullet that we are adding after the 17 cost recovery bullet. Jeff, do you want to outline yours in terms of a motion? 18 Commissioner Greenfield: Sure. The one area that I'm not clear on is a comment that 19 you made regarding the parks or part of parks. My question is if our first line is saying 20 limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks (booking a park site or recreation facility for 21 events by private organizations that are closed to the general public), is that sufficient to 22 include parks and parts of parks? 23 Chair Reckdahl: I was saying "or part thereof" I would add. 24 Commissioner Greenfield: Where would you add that? 25 Chair Reckdahl: Where it says "booking an entire park site or recreation facility or part 26 thereof." 27 Commissioner McCauley: Let me ask for staff's opinion again. There is a distinction 28 between renting an entire park and renting a quarter of it or renting a picnic area within a 29 DRAFT Draft Minutes 15 park for 3 days for perhaps a company meeting of 50 employees for a 3-day period or 1 something like that. The impact to the community is much lower, so then the question 2 would be do you think it's actually necessary to have the same requirements for that sort 3 of thing. Maybe there's a simple tweak which is just to say a significant portion of a park 4 or something like that. 5 Chair Reckdahl: I wouldn't mind that, "a significant portion." 6 Commissioner Greenfield: So booking a park site, recreation facility, or significant part 7 thereof? 8 Chair Reckdahl: How about in 6.C we just get rid of the word entire? When we go to 9 6.C.1, we specify. 10 Commissioner Greenfield: I already was getting rid of "an entire." 11 Chair Reckdahl: In 6.C? 12 Commissioner Greenfield: Right. 13 Chair Reckdahl: Read what you have, and I'll tell you if I'm happy or not. 14 Commissioner Greenfield: Limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks (booking a park 15 site, recreation facility, or significant portion thereof) or wordsmith that last bit if you 16 want. 17 Chair Reckdahl: I'm happy with that. 18 Commissioner Greenfield: For events by private organizations that are closed to the 19 general public. 20 Chair Reckdahl: 6.C.1 you wanted … 21 Commissioner Greenfield: 6.C.1 does not change. 22 Chair Reckdahl: In this text that you have on the screen, you use the term private use, 23 which I like better than exclusive use. 6.C.1, do you want to start that with private use or 24 are we losing something by … 25 Commissioner Greenfield: I guess it gets down to the question of does exclusive infer it 26 has to be all of a park or not. Since in 6.C we've stated that it can include a significant 27 portion of a park, I think we're covered. 6.C.1, exclusive use means exclusive use of 28 parks as we've defined it above. 29 DRAFT Draft Minutes 16 Commissioner McCauley: I take it to mean essentially private events that are closed to 1 the general public. That's my view as an exclusive use. 2 Chair Reckdahl: In 6.C.1, can that first line, the whole first line, be deleted and just 3 replaced with "private events that are"? Do we lose anything by making that 4 simplification? 5 Commissioner McCauley: Saying exclusive private events as opposed to—there might 6 be many private events that don't actually exclude the community (crosstalk). 7 Chair Reckdahl: The next line says "closed to the general public." 8 Commissioner McCauley: Do you mean in 6.C.2? 9 Commissioner Greenfield: 6.C.1. 10 Chair Reckdahl: 6.C.1. The second line says "closed to the general public." 11 Commissioner Greenfield: I guess I'm interested in staff's opinion, but I think 6.C.1 12 works as written. 13 Ms. O'Kane: Including the bullets or … 14 Commissioner Greenfield: Just 6.C.1 not including the bullets. 15 Chair Reckdahl: I think it's wordier than it has to be , but I don't object to it. 6.C.1 stays 16 as is. Now, next bullet. 17 Commissioner Greenfield: First bullet, just crossing out "of parks," so it says "no 18 exclusive use by private parties," etc. Do you want me to read the whole thing? 19 Chair Reckdahl: No. The first line we're just removing "of parks." 20 Commissioner Greenfield: That's right. No changes to bullet 2. Bullet 3 is replaced with 21 "for any multiday private event including setup and breakdown, notice of the private 22 event will be made to the neighboring community and facility users a minimum of 14 23 days in advance. In addition, at least one public meeting will be held a minimum of 14 24 days in advance and prior to a permit being issued." Comments? 25 Chair Reckdahl: Do you have a comment on that or is that … 26 Ms. O'Kane: No. We just didn't get all of that. Could you repeat it? 27 Commissioner Greenfield: I would be happy to repeat it. 28 DRAFT Draft Minutes 17 Ms. O'Kane: Thank you. 1 Commissioner Greenfield: Maybe I can even get it all out in one effort too. For any 2 multiday, private event including setup and breakdown, notice of the private event will be 3 made to the neighboring community … 4 Chair Reckdahl: Made to the neighboring community you said? 5 Commissioner Greenfield: "Will be made to the neighboring community and facility 6 users a minimum of 14 days in advance." 7 Chair Reckdahl: Wasn't there something about a permit? 8 Commissioner Greenfield: "In addition, at least one public meeting … 9 Ms. O'Kane: Could you repeat that last part please? 10 Commissioner Greenfield: Sure. The second sentence: "In addition, at least one public 11 meeting will be held a minimum of 14 days in advance and prior to the permit being 12 issued." 13 Commissioner McDougall: While you're on that point, I don't mean to be picky, but 14 don't you run the risk of sending out a notice and holding the meeting on the same night 15 because they're both 14 days? 16 Commissioner Greenfield: I'm open to suggestions from staff. 17 Commissioner McCauley: May I ask in terms of—so long as the permit is issued after 18 the public has an opportunity to provide feedback, does the 14-day timing for the meeting 19 really matter? My interest is just to provide the most flexibility to staff. I realize that 20 some of these things might at times be on slightly shorter notice. Fourteen days to me 21 seems sufficient giving the neighbors notice. If there's an opportunity to have neighbors 22 give that feedback to the City before the permit is actually issued, I think that 23 accomplishes the … 24 Commissioner Greenfield: I'm open to any tweaking of the numbers. I was just trying to 25 remain consistent with the policy as written by staff. Any change in numbers that people 26 would like to suggest I could be quite amenable to. 27 Ms. O'Kane: Typically I think just as practices when you notice something for public 28 review or public notice, you then wait a period before you have your public meeting so 29 people can digest whatever the topic is and also be made aware instead of doing it on the 30 same day. 31 DRAFT Draft Minutes 18 Chair Reckdahl: (inaudible) the numbers should not be equal. I'll either say make one 21 1 and 14 or 14 and 7 or something. 2 Commissioner Greenfield: Do we need a notice to call the meeting and then another 3 notice if the permit is issued? 4 Chair Reckdahl: I think that's excessive. What's staff's thought on the timing? Is 21 5 days advance notice excessive? 6 Mr. de Geus: I don't know if it's excessive. I think it's unlikely we're going to ever have 7 a private event in our park. I can tell you that. I wonder whether that's—there are 8 unintended consequences. 9 Commissioner McCauley: I agree that this is putting quite a few hurdles in the process. 10 That is appropriate at some level, but at some level it might be appropriate to allow some 11 private events in parks. Actually as we saw from the Palantir example, that generated a 12 large amount of money for the City and some charitable donations to the effected user 13 groups who, I think at the end of the day based on what you reported, were actually 14 happy with the way things had worked out. I think there can be win-win situations, but I 15 agree we shouldn't in these aspirational statements that go into the Master Plan make it so 16 difficult as to discourage any private use. 17 Chair Reckdahl: How about if we move the public meeting a minimal 7 days in advance? 18 Most of these things are planned months in advance. 19 Commissioner McDougall: How about we put the wording in "allow for public input"? 20 It really doesn't have to be a public meeting. It could be an online survey or something. 21 That might be a lot easier and that there be flexibility as to whether there's a meeting. 22 Mr. de Geus: Personally, I think that's better. 23 Commissioner Greenfield: Suggestions for an amendment here? 24 Commissioner McDougall: I would put "notice be made to the neighboring community 25 and facility users 14 days in advance. In addition, vehicles for public input should be 26 considered" or something like that. In fact, why not just say "facility users, a minimum 27 of 14 days in advance allowing for public input"? 28 Commissioner Greenfield: Prior to a permit being issued? 29 Commissioner McDougall: Yeah. That's by definition. That's fine. 30 Commissioner Greenfield: Let me read the bullet as I understand it. "For any multiday, 31 private event including setup and breakdown, notice of the private event will be made to 32 DRAFT Draft Minutes 19 the neighboring community and facility users a minimum of 14 days in advance, allowing 1 for public input prior to a permit being issued." 2 Chair Reckdahl: That works for me. 3 Commissioner Greenfield: I'm not clear exactly where you want to go on the cost 4 recovery bullet and the additional bullet. If you want to propose something, I'm happy 5 with that. 6 Chair Reckdahl: My only concern is the 100 percent. 100 percent of what? It's not 7 obvious. Can we say "100 percent of the maximum"? 8 Commissioner McDougall: I'm asking staff is there any reason why we can't say wear 9 and tear on the facilities should be no less than 100 percent? 10 Ms. O'Kane: I think that would be fine. 11 Commissioner McDougall: That statement would be okay with the "no less than." The 12 cleverly articulated Rob de Geus statement would be the final one. 13 Commissioner Greenfield: Do we need to include wear and tear on the facility when 14 we're talking about cost recovery? Can we just say "cost recovery should be 100 15 percent"? It seems that by including wear and tear on facility we're highlighting that and 16 emphasizing that in contrast to many other factors that constitute cost recovery. 17 Commissioner McDougall: To me those are the signal words that allow us and people in 18 the future reading this to worry about wear and tear. As opposed to simply saying the 19 rate table says $1 an hour, so they paid $1 an hour, but they destroyed the place. This 20 allows us to recover the wear and tear. I think it's important to have it there. 21 Commissioner Greenfield: Does that emphasize it over the opportunity cost that was 22 suggested? 23 Commissioner McDougall: We were adding another statement. 24 Mr. de Geus: Which I had as "explore establishing incremental deposits and fees." 25 Chair Reckdahl: For such use. 26 Mr. de Geus: I had for such use. I don't know if it's necessary because the other bullets 27 don't have that. We could add that. 28 Commissioner McDougall: For a Master Plan, I think that's a good statement that gives 29 us the policy, the program that we should be incrementally recovering costs. 30 DRAFT Draft Minutes 20 Commissioner Greenfield: Should we include that as a single bullet then? "Cost 1 recovery including wear and tear on the facility should be no less than 100 percent." 2 Then, a separate bullet. The next sentence, explore establishing incremental fees and 3 deposits or deposits and fees. 4 Chair Reckdahl: Kristen, do you have a handle on all the changes? 5 Ms. O'Kane: We do. 6 Chair Reckdahl: Is there anything more on that? You want to make a motion? 7 MOTION 8 Commissioner Greenfield: I'd like to make a motion to revise Policy 6.C in the final draft 9 Master Plan as we've just outlined. 10 Commissioner McDougall: I would second that. 11 Chair Reckdahl: Any discussion or … 12 Commissioner McDougall: Do we need to make it clear that we're amending Policy 6.C 13 including the—are the bullets in this programs or are they just bullets? 14 Ms. O'Kane: 6.C is the policy, and then C.1, C.2, and C.3 are programs. Any bullet 15 that's under like C.2 is included in that program. 16 Commissioner McDougall: We would need to say Policy 6.C and Program 6.C.1 to be 17 clear, wouldn't we? Isn't that what we just did? 18 Ms. O'Kane: Correct. You could say "policy and its programs." 19 Commissioner Greenfield: So moved. 20 Commissioner McDougall: So second. 21 Chair Reckdahl: All in favor. It passes unanimously. That was quite the sideline. Back 22 to the presentation. Do you have more? 23 The Motion carried unanimously. 24 Female: (inaudible) 25 Mr. de Geus: Yeah, I think we might have missed a step there. We didn't fully finish the 26 presentation. After the presentation, you were going to go to the public. It would be 27 appropriate to do that. 28 DRAFT Draft Minutes 21 Chair Reckdahl: We will have that motion on hold, finish the presentation, public input, 1 and then we'll revisit that motion. 2 Ms. O'Kane: Thank you for that clarification. Now, I'm going to turn it over to Barbara 3 Beard, who has been waiting patiently for her turn to discuss the public comments that 4 were received during the CEQA public review period. 5 Barbara Beard: Good evening, Commissioners. As you know, the Initial Study and 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Parks and Rec Master Plan was circulated for 7 public review from May 8th to June 6th. The Commission held a public hearing on May 8 23rd to receive public comment. There was no public comment received at the hearing, 9 but the City did receive five comment letters. Those comment letters were provided in 10 your packet tonight. There was a letter from Caltrans, three letters from Santa Clara 11 County Departments, and one letter from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. Each 12 comment letter is numbered, and the comments within each letter is also numbered so 13 that we can track the responses and provide documentation as to how each comment was 14 responded to. We worked with City staff to come up with the responses for each 15 comment and prepared written documentation that's going to be part of the CEQA 16 administrative record that Planning Department will have. This also includes text edits to 17 the Initial Study that are in response to the comments received. Per the City Planning 18 Department's normal procedure for Initial Studies, we prepared a final Initial Study and 19 Mitigated Negative Declaration that shows text changes in red with strikeout and 20 underline. This document will be posted on the City's webpage for the project and will 21 be presented at the City Council hearing. The text changes, I can summarize them very 22 briefly. In response to the Caltrans letter, there was text added to the traffic section that 23 was going to talk about the City's need to prepare a traffic control plan if construction of 24 a park project were going to affect traffic or circulation on a Caltrans facility. In 25 response to Santa Clara County Parks Department's comment, the legend for figure 4 in 26 the Initial Study, which also is a figure in the Master Plan, was changed to indicate 27 designated Countywide trails. That was the comment the County Parks people were 28 hoping would be made. The County Environmental Health Department raised concerns 29 about historic soil contamination and the potential exposure of workers in the public to 30 future park projects that may disturb subsurface soil. Do you have a question? 31 Commissioner McDougall: Excuse me. Can I just ask a question? 32 Ms. Beard: Yes. 33 Commissioner McDougall: In the package, you did a very nice job of providing us with 34 the letters. As you pointed out, the letter, for example, from the County was divided into 35 B1, B2 and B3. In the package, you only talk about B2 and E1 and E2, I guess, or 36 whatever. Now, you're talking about some of the others. Is that right? 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 22 Ms. O'Kane: The difference is what Barbara is referring to is changes made in the Initial 1 Study document. The changes that are called out in the staff report are changes that were 2 made to the Master Plan document itself. That's the difference. 3 Commissioner McDougall: For example, if I'm looking at A6 or whatever, sea level rise, 4 that's in the document from the Department of Transport. You acknowledge their 5 interest, but you didn't change anything in the document. That's why it's not called out 6 here. 7 Ms. Beard: Correct. 8 Commissioner McDougall: Every one of these organizations would have received a 9 letter back saying, "Thank you for your input. Here's what we did about A1, A2, A3." 10 Ms. Beard: The way the Planning Department responds to public comment for Initial 11 Studies is they come up with the City's responses. The CEQA Guidelines do not require 12 notification to the commenter of what those responses are. The text changes will be 13 available to the public via the webpage. When the City Council has the document in their 14 packet, it will be part of the public record. The Planning Department also has our written 15 responses for each specific comment, and they're going to keep that as part of the 16 administrative record. If you wanted to find out how the City was responding to the sea 17 level rise question from Caltrans, the document that the Planning Department has would 18 indicate that its comment is noted and that should a park project be located in an area 19 where there is going to be projected sea level rise, the planning of that project would 20 incorporate the current guidelines for sea level rise projections. There's no necessary 21 changes to the Initial Study text based on that comment, using that as an example. Many 22 of the Caltrans comments didn't require text changes to the Initial Study. They were "you 23 have to contact us if you work in our State right-of-way. You need your easements. You 24 need to prepare traffic control plans. You would have to conduct whatever studies are 25 necessary for hazardous materials." Very routine kinds of comments. None of them 26 requiring text changes. Is that a sufficient answer to your question? 27 Commissioner McDougall: Yes, I understand what you said. I'm not sure that in all 28 cases not responding to the submitter of the letter, "Thank you for your letter. Here's our 29 response." By not responding, I'm not sure how polite that was I guess is my … "Thank 30 you for your input. We're not going to do anything about it," would have been a useful 31 response. 32 Ms. Beard: Our approach to this has been guided by input from the Planning Department 33 and also the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines don't require 34 written responses to commenters for an Initial Study. Planning Department's normal 35 procedures are not to respond directly to them. 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 23 Commissioner McDougall: Thank you. 1 Vice Chair Moss: I want to make a comment. We are providing input to staff, but it's 2 staff's responsibility to respond when necessary. We don't have to respond to everything 3 that is in that CEQA note unless you find something that doesn't agree with our Plan. We 4 have to trust staff to provide the input to the different departments as necessary. We 5 shouldn't have to respond to all of this. 6 Commissioner McDougall: I'm not expecting that we would respond. That wasn't my 7 point at all. Thank you. 8 Ms. Beard: Sure. 9 Chair Reckdahl: Let's move on. 10 Ms. Beard: We were picking up where we were talking about where the text edits from 11 the Initial Study are coming from, where they were made. We did respond to all the 12 County Department comments by adding text to the Initial Study. We revised the legend 13 to reflect Countywide trails. We added text to reflect the County Department of 14 Environmental Health's concerns about historic contamination of subsurface soils. Their 15 primary concern was historic ag uses. This would be long ago because the City has 16 obviously owned and operated its current parkland for quite a long time. We responded 17 by inserting text that discusses the City's normal procedures for following existing 18 regulations when you undertake a new project where there is going to be soil disturbance. 19 You follow a certain set of procedures to identify whether you need to do a Phase I 20 report, environmental assessment report, or any other subsequent soil analysis prior to the 21 soil disturbance. If you're going to do a CEQA process for that project, that would fall 22 under the CEQA process for a specific project. We added text describing the City's 23 normal procedures to address the comments of the County Environmental Health 24 Department. The letter from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, we made text 25 changes to mitigation measure bio 2, which discusses preconstruction surveys for nesting 26 birds. We added text to indicate that surveys should be done—excuse me. I'm backing 27 up a little bit. To clarify the definition of an active nest, which includes a nest where 28 fledglings are still using it or where they're being fed in the nest or its immediate vicinity. 29 That would come into play if a park project was beginning—prior to its construction, a 30 nesting bird survey is required by California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations. 31 This definition of an active nest would tell the field biologist when it would be safe to 32 allow construction if the nest was present. We also added language to Master Plan Policy 33 4.A in response to the comments regarding impacts to park resources from increased 34 access and from potentially allowing dogs on any new trails and open space preserve. 35 This sentence that was added to Master Plan Policy 4.A indicates that the protection of 36 biological resources should be the priority in open space preserves. That might have 37 been part of Kristen's presentation and text in your packet. That sentence was added both 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 24 in the Initial Study and in the Master Plan. Finally, City Planning staff made edits to the 1 draft Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan that was Appendix A of the Initial 2 Study. Those edits focused on clarifying the responsibility for implementation and 3 oversight of the mitigation measures themselves. The changes would be indicated in the 4 final Initial Study with red strikeout and underline, but you have the Mitigation 5 Monitoring and Reporting Plan in your packet tonight, which is the final language. The 6 changes are not indicated in strikeout or underline text. That was the sum total of the 7 City's responses to the public comment and is the final step in preparing for the action 8 that the City would like to take on the CEQA document. 9 Ms. O'Kane: I would like to point out two other changes that were made to the Master 10 Plan in response to public comments on the CEQA document. Those were in your packet 11 and are also projected on the screen. One was the reference to the Countywide trails 12 plan. Another one was a reference to the City Charter, Article VIII, which defines parks 13 and their limitations. The one that Barbara mentioned regarding protecting open space 14 preserves from visitor impacts. I'm just going to quickly go over next steps. Tonight, the 15 recommendation to the Commission is for the Commission to recommend that Council 16 adopt the Master Plan and also the Mitigated Negative Declaration. We are planning on 17 going to Council on September 5th with that, and your recommendation will be included 18 in our staff report to Council. We will be asking Council to adopt the Master Plan and 19 the CEQA document on that date. Just from a procedural standpoint, the final Notice of 20 Determination for CEQA needs to be filed within 5 days from the date that Council 21 adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 22 Chair Reckdahl: Tight schedule. Let's go to public comments, and then we will have 23 Commission comments, and then we'll go to the vote. Shani Kleinhaus. 24 Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. Shani Kleinhaus with Santa Clara Valley Audubon 25 Society. I'm also a resident of Palo Alto. One thing about process, CEQA does not 26 require that staff respond to comment letters, but many municipalities do. San Jose, for 27 example, any letter that we send them for any—whether it's a Negative Declaration, 28 Mitigated Negative Declaration, we'll get to see the changes that they make. It's only 29 right to do that because it's very difficult for me to try and trace all of this when I don't 30 have it well in advance. Especially today, all of that should be available already for the 31 public to review. When you say all of that will be before the City Council, it has to be 32 now. That's what we're responding to. I think this is a big misstep here from my 33 perspective. Some of the other projects that we comment on do engage us. I was on the 34 stakeholder group too, so I'm very familiar with the Plan. If I have comments on this, I 35 expect the respect of responding. I appreciate changing the mitigation bio 2 on nesting. I 36 do want to say that the theme of we care about nature was so strong throughout the 37 process. At least half, if not more, of the people said, "We care about nature." This was 38 translated in the MND to five categories, relax and enjoy the outdoors. That was not 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 25 what people said. They said the words nature, wildlife, I want to see frogs, I care about 1 those animals whether I see them or not. People want to know that our nature is 2 protected even if they don't have access. They do want access, but this is why I 3 suggested another bullet on that, which was another need, conservation, restoration, 4 enhancement of nature and wildlife habitat and providing access to nature. It's not in the 5 MND. We have five other things. The only one that kind of hints at nature is this relax 6 and enjoy the outdoors. I don't think it's the same thing. It's not to me, and it wasn't to a 7 lot of the people who participated in public meetings, comments online, several surveys, 8 intercept events, etc. I expect to see something about nature here. You can consolidate 9 the two, but it needs to be there. The riparian corridor, I don't know why Palo Alto looks 10 only at top of the bank and not at the edge of the canopy. All the other cities look at 11 whichever is greater. It's either at the driplines, which means if you have trees along the 12 creek, we look at the dripline of the creek. We measure 100 feet from there. In Palo Alto 13 for some reason, we're only looking at the top of the bank, which is where the bank 14 flattens out. It's a lot narrower. I think we should look at other cities in that respect and 15 go to dripline instead of the 100 feet from the top of the bank. Where you have active 16 recreation, like a lot of lights in a sports field or something like that, go 200 feet like San 17 Jose does. They did a lot of study on that. If we can get the same protections for Palo 18 Alto creeks, a lot of them are concrete, and it won't help a lot but maybe some. One other 19 thing. In the new mitigation on visitor use, that's great but I would talk about activity too, 20 not just use, use and activity. I think use is a lot more general, but activity would be 21 important to have there. It's hard for me because I don't have it in front of me. If I had 22 the response, it would be easier to provide some language. Thank you for a long process. 23 I hope one of you will make a motion to include the nature, the need of conservation, 24 restoration, enhancement, etc., into the document. I think you should move it forward; 25 although, I would have preferred to not be on the spot like this. Thank you. 26 Chair Reckdahl: One comment I have is we have a whole Goal 4 that talks about protect 27 natural habitat, integrate nature, natural ecosystems and ecological principles throughout 28 Palo Alto. Overall, this is a very big document. Overall, we've done a very good job. 29 There's going to be some omissions that the wordsmithing isn't going to be perfect for 30 everybody. Overall, I think we've addressed all the issues. Comments, does anyone have 31 any comments before we move on to making the motion? Let's clean this up. Let's do 32 the motion that Jeff had just before. Do you want to re-move to have your motion? You 33 don't have to read the whole thing. Just say "as read before." 34 MOTION 35 Commissioner Greenfield: I'm looking for it. I'd like to move to modify Policy 6.C and 36 Program 6.C.1 as previously specified with one minor change on the last line. I'd clean 37 that up a little bit to "cost recovery including wear and tear on facilities should be no less 38 than 100 percent. Explore establishing an incremental fee and deposit structure." 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 26 Chair Reckdahl: I'm happy with that. Do we have a second. 1 Commissioner McDougall: I'll second, but I thought we had those as two separate 2 statements. 3 Commissioner Greenfield: My understanding is at the end we combined them into a 4 single bullet. 5 Commissioner McDougall: Does staff have an opinion? If everybody's in agreement, I'll 6 second the motion. 7 Chair Reckdahl: In my mind, it's two separate issues. 8 Commissioner Greenfield: I don't have strong feelings about it. 9 Commissioner McDougall: I thought it was two separate issues. It was cost recovery 10 and then incremental. 11 Mr. de Geus: That's correct. It was two separate bullets. 12 Commissioner McDougall: I thought it was two separate items. 13 Commissioner Greenfield: My misunderstanding. Let's make it two separate bullets. 14 Chair Reckdahl: Two separate bullets then. 15 Commissioner McDougall: I'll second the motion as amended. 16 Chair Reckdahl: Any discussion? All in favor. Opposed. Now, Master Plan comments, 17 questions. Anne, do you have anything? 18 The motion carried unanimously. 19 Commissioner Cribbs: Just a question. What do you expect when you go to Council on 20 the 5th? It is the day after Labor Day. 21 Ms. O'Kane: That's correct; it is on a Tuesday. I expect—Rob, maybe you can chime in 22 after me—there will be discussion on Policy 6.C as amended. One of the other 23 comments that we heard from the Mayor was he would like in the staff report some detail 24 as to how we developed the list of high priority projects and programs. We're crafting 25 that language, and I expect there to be some discussion on that as well. I'm hopeful that 26 they will adopt the Master Plan. Whether they do that without a motion to tweak some 27 language, I'm not sure. I'm hopeful that the Master Plan would be adopted at that time. 28 DRAFT Draft Minutes 27 Commissioner Cribbs: Will we have any opportunity to review the staff report before it 1 goes to the Council? Maybe it's not appropriate; maybe it's not necessary. It just feels 2 like we've been all working on this for such a long time. I know you're anxious to get it 3 done. We're all anxious to get it done. 4 Mr. de Geus: We wouldn't typically have the Commission review a staff report 5 necessarily to Council. There is another meeting in August, but we're working on that 6 staff report. 7 Chair Reckdahl: Isn't the deadline for submission before the … 8 Mr. de Geus: It gets made public 10 days before the meeting. To answer this question 9 specifically, we wouldn't bring a staff report that staff is writing for Council for the full 10 Commission to review. 11 Commissioner Cribbs: I understand that. The tone of it or –I don't know. Maybe it's not 12 appropriate. I just would like to know in advance maybe something about what you're 13 thinking. 14 Mr. de Geus: We certainly can report on that and give you an outline of what we're 15 planning. Sometimes actually it's helpful, with the presentation in particular, to do a dry 16 run with the Commission. It's good feedback for us. 17 Chair Reckdahl: David, did you have any comments? Don, did you have comments? 18 MOTION 19 Commissioner McDougall: My experience in the Comprehensive Plan is it was, number 20 one, wordy of course. Number two, the repeating things in various places was sometimes 21 important. I'd like to support and actually make a motion that we add in 2.9.4 the 22 statement that Shani has recommended in what is labeled as E2, which is conservation, 23 restoration, and enhancement of nature and wildlife habitat and providing access to 24 nature. That would be the first part of the motion. The second part of the motion or we 25 can make it two motions—I do happen to believe that as a minimum we should at least 26 expand the riparian corridor to 100 feet from the dripline as opposed to the bank and even 27 200 feet per active recreation area. Basically, in the mitigation measure add that, from 28 the dripline as opposed to from the bank. 29 Commissioner Greenfield: I would second the motion. 30 Chair Reckdahl: You're modifying the Master Plan or are you modifying the … 31 Commissioner McDougall: I'm suggesting modification to the Master Plan. I'm 32 suggesting modifications to the modifications that we've been presented with here. I'm 33 DRAFT Draft Minutes 28 not going back to the original. What they've shown us tonight is a response to the input. 1 I'm asking that we further consider that input in the way I've suggested. 2 Chair Reckdahl: Can you repeat what you said? 3 Commissioner McDougall: Staff has a comment, I think. 4 Ms. Beard: I'm ready to respond in a very general sense just for your consideration. The 5 Initial Study exactly summarized what the needs and desired activities were as presented 6 in the Master Plan. The language of the project description in the Initial Study exactly 7 matches the language in the Master Plan. Any potential changes to the Initial Study text 8 related to a need would have to be made in the Master Plan. It's not just in the Initial 9 Study. The project description of the Initial Study is presenting Master Plan language. If 10 that makes sense. The whole needs section of the Master Plan is a very focused section. 11 If you read that carefully, the language that's suggested in Comment E2 might need to be 12 tweaked a little bit. We had a staff conference call about this particular comment and 13 whether to add it or not. At the time, there was thoughts that some of the language was 14 not necessarily reflecting a need but also touching upon management because its calling 15 for restoration and enhancement. Those are also management activities. The concept of 16 the comment may be worth pursuing, but the language might need to be considered 17 carefully so it fits that section well. 18 Commissioner McDougall: So it fits the needs section? 19 Ms. Beard: Yes. 20 Commissioner McDougall: Do you have a suggestion? 21 Ms. Beard: Not at the moment. Since I'm focusing on the Initial Study and the whole 22 Master Plan team has been working on this for years, I would defer to the Master 23 Planning team. My comment also regarding the riparian corridor definition, the Initial 24 Study uses the definition coming out of the Comprehensive Plan process. The draft EIR 25 for the Comprehensive Plan provided us a lot of language that we could use in this 26 document. This document uses the definition of riparian corridor, etc., that's in the 27 Comprehensive Plan. 28 Commissioner McDougall: Can I ask which Comprehensive Plan you're referring to? 29 Ms. Beard: The update, the Draft EIR. 30 Commissioner McDougall: The newest draft? 31 Ms. Beard: That's not yet adopted. 32 DRAFT Draft Minutes 29 Commissioner McDougall: There was a great deal of conversation in that. I think, in 1 fact, within the Comprehensive Plan Committee, the momentum was in the direction of 2 much, much larger offsets relative to riparian corridors. I think this is going back to the 3 wording that was in the 1986 Comprehensive Plan, aren't we? 4 Ms. Beard: The language that's used in the biology section to define riparian corridor—5 you're correct—is from the current Comprehensive Plan. 6 Commissioner McDougall: It's not from what I think is in the draft or was certainly 7 intended to be in the draft. I think in the draft it's much more aggressive. 8 Ms. Beard: The reasoning for that came from the Planning Department, which said that 9 current CEQA documents aren't allowed to use the draft language as adopted policy yet, 10 until the new Comprehensive Plan becomes adopted. 11 Commissioner McDougall: We could put in the Master Plan that the riparian corridor 12 should be as defined in the Palo Alto current Comprehensive Plan. 13 Ms. Beard: We could. 14 Commissioner McDougall: Assuming the current Comprehensive Plan addresses what 15 I'm talking about. If it doesn't, too bad I lose. If it does, we get what's appropriate as 16 opposed to the old one. 17 Ms. Beard: We could make that change, yes. 18 Commissioner McDougall: That would be my recommendation. Relative to the first 19 one, the need, it says conservation and restoration and enhancement. If we change that 20 too conserve, restore, and enhance natural wildlife habitat, is that not rewording it as a 21 need? 22 Ms. Beard: I'm trying to find the needs section in the Master Plan. 23 Mr. de Geus: Commissioner, did you have a page number that you were looking at on 24 the Master Plan? 25 Commissioner McDougall: I don't. I would ask if Ms. Kleinhaus has a page number that 26 she would refer us to. I don't. 27 Vice Chair Moss: Page 11. 28 Chair Reckdahl: My page 11 doesn't have it. 29 Commissioner McCauley: That's not it. 30 DRAFT Draft Minutes 30 Ms. Beard: I believe it's page 30 of the Master Plan, starting with relax and enjoy 1 outdoors play for children, throw a ball, exercise and fitness, and gathering. Those are 2 the needs identified in the Master Plan that were brought into the Initial Study. 3 Commissioner McDougall: Why can't we just simply say access to nature is a need? 4 Ms. Beard: I defer to staff. 5 Commissioner McDougall: That wasn't in your list, was it? Why can't we add access to 6 nature as an additional need? I agree certainly all our experience with the 7 Comprehensive Plan and everything else was nature was a big deal. I think it's a big deal 8 that it's been much more sensitive today than it was 15 years ago. 9 Ms. O'Kane: There is language on page 34 of the Master Plan that says additional 10 geographic analysis evaluated access to experiences. These include the experience and 11 preservation of nature. 12 Vice Chair Moss: That was going to be my comment. The comment that Shani made is 13 many, many places in the Master Plan, and many programs and many policies. I don't 14 think you have to make the change here because it's many other places. I'm worried that 15 we are changing the Master Plan that we have spent months hashing and rehashing at this 16 very last minute. I would rather see us adopt the Master Plan the way it is right this 17 minute after months and months and months of hashing and rehashing than to nitpick 18 individual pieces at this very late date. 19 Commissioner McDougall: I'll accept that argument relative to the need, but relative to 20 the riparian corridor, I'd sure like it to have wording that was relative to the current 21 Comprehensive Plan where the effort went into that, which was also years of effort. 22 Ms. Beard: That is a change that would just primarily occur in the Initial Study. It 23 wouldn't necessarily affect Master Plan text that I'm aware of right now. That is a change 24 that we could make before this goes to Council. 25 Commissioner McDougall: Thank you. 26 Chair Reckdahl: There was no motion associated with that. She's going to (inaudible). 27 Commissioner McDougall: Do you need a motion relative to that or can you accept that? 28 Can staff accept that as something that they will do for us? 29 Ms. Beard: I would approach it by developing a more robust response to the comment 30 letter itself, which would be—what comment letter is it? Comment E3. Working that 31 into the text changes of the final Initial Study. 32 DRAFT Draft Minutes 31 Commissioner McDougall: Thank you. That would be … I'm done. 1 Chair Reckdahl: Ryan. 2 Commissioner McCauley: Forgive me for not being sensitive to this previously when it 3 was first inserted into the Initial Study and the Master Plan early in May. I'm looking at 4 Program 4.A.1. 5 Chair Reckdahl: What page is this? 6 Commissioner McCauley: This is at page 65 of the Master Plan, the added sentence. I 7 certainly agree with Goal 4 generally. I certainly agree with Program 4.A.1 generally. 8 I'm a little bit concerned by saying that the production of biological resources from 9 visitor use is the priority in the open space preserves. I think it would be better to say "a 10 priority" or "a significant priority." I'm worried about tying the City's hands in that 11 manner particularly when there are other considerations that have to be brought into 12 effect in every instance. I would propose that we amend that to be, rather than "the 13 priority," "a significant priority in open space preserves." 14 Chair Reckdahl: I agree with that. What's the impact if we make that change? Is that 15 just simply a vote and you can go and edit it or is there more ripples to that? 16 Ms. O'Kane: With respect to the Master Plan document, you can make a motion to 17 change that. I don't know if it has an impact on the CEQA. I'll defer to Barbara for that. 18 Ms. Beard: The same change would be made in the Initial Study that would reflect the 19 changes in the Master Plan. It wouldn't affect the analysis per se. Just be aware that 20 throughout the Initial Study the Initial Study document says that each open space 21 preserve will have its own Master Planning process. In that Master Planning process, you 22 would develop the goals and priorities for that particular open space preserve. However, 23 the Parks and Recreation Master Plan should be considered the big umbrella that all open 24 space preserves are managed and developed under. Any guiding policies in this 25 document should filter down into the individual open space preserve master plans as they 26 are developed. 27 MOTION 28 Commissioner McCauley: Thanks. I'll move to amend it in that manner. 29 Chair Reckdahl: Do we have a second? 30 Commissioner McDougall: Second. 31 Chair Reckdahl: Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. 32 DRAFT Draft Minutes 32 Ms. O'Kane: Can you state the revised language you would like? 1 Commissioner McCauley: It's just to change "the priority" in that added sentence to 2 "shall be a significant priority." 3 Ms. O'Kane: Thank you. 4 Vice Chair Moss: I oppose. 5 Chair Reckdahl: Let's go back. All in favor. Opposed. 6 Vice Chair Moss: I oppose. 7 Chair Reckdahl: It passes 6-1. 8 The motion carried 6-1. 9 Chair Reckdahl: Do you want to explain? 10 Vice Chair Moss: I don't want any more changes to it. 11 Chair Reckdahl: For me, the threshold for the programs is lower. The threshold for the 12 front matter, I think, is quite high. We should not be touching that unless there's 13 something egregious. 14 Vice Chair Moss: I believe that this is going to be a living document, and we should be 15 able to adjust the programs and actions over time without disturbing the overall 16 document. 17 Chair Reckdahl: Any more comments? 18 Commissioner McCauley: No further comments. 19 MOTION 20 Chair Reckdahl: Jeff? I have no other comments. That moves us to making a motion to 21 … I move that the Commission recommends that the Council adopt the Master Plan and 22 the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration. 23 Commissioner McDougall: Can I ask a question before you do that? 24 Chair Reckdahl: Okay. 25 Commissioner McDougall: We've now had a motion to make one change. Tell me again 26 why we shouldn't change the riparian corridor in here. Go back through your … 27 DRAFT Draft Minutes 33 Chair Reckdahl: Is that defined in … 1 Commissioner McCauley: It's not actually in the Master Plan. 2 Commissioner McDougall: It's not in the Master Plan is your point. 3 Ms. Beard: Right. 4 Commissioner McDougall: Thank you. 5 Chair Reckdahl: It probably should be defined in the Master Plan. At some point, you 6 just have to call it a day. Any discussion? 7 Commissioner McDougall: I'll second your motion. 8 Chair Reckdahl: All in favor. Opposed. Passes 7-0. Do you have any more or should 9 we move on to the next item? 10 The motion passes unanimously. 11 Ms. O'Kane: We're ready to move on. 12 Chair Reckdahl: We're an hour-plus behind. That was an action item. That was 13 important to do right because it was an action. We still have a couple of hours' worth of 14 work here. Let's try and trim down, really keep the questions to a minimum. These are 15 all discussion items coming forward, so we will get another shot at these. Only major 16 questions if possible. 17 3. Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Preliminary Design Update. 18 Chair Reckdahl: We move on to the Highway 101 pedestrian bike bridge update design. 19 Commissioner McCauley: Keith, forgive me. Would it be possible to determine any 20 community members if they're planning to speak on these discussion items, that we could 21 take them in the order that people are present here. 22 Chair Reckdahl: We have two people for this item. 23 Commissioner McCauley: We do, great. Thank you. 24 Chair Reckdahl: We will have the presentation. After the presentation, we have two 25 speaker cards, and then we'll move on to Commission questions. 26 Megha Bansai: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Megha Bansai. I'm Project 27 Engineer with Public Works. Tonight, we are providing you with an update on Highway 28 DRAFT Draft Minutes 34 101 pedestrian and bicycle overpass project. From our team, we have Elizabeth Ames, 1 Senior Project Manager, sitting in the audience. To my right, our consultant Roy 2 Schnabel from Biggs Cardosa Associates. Before we get into the details of design, a little 3 background. Back in November 2016, Council selected certain elements of the project 4 including the bridge structure type, pathway width, and alignment for the project to meet 5 the total project budget. Subsequently, we presented the design to the Commission back 6 in March 2017 and to Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation 7 Commission. We have advanced the design further based on input received in those 8 meetings that we will be presenting to you tonight. We would really like to focus on our 9 discussion and get your input on certain elements including overlook, refinements, 10 trailheads, landscaping, and habitat restoration, lighting, location of amenities, and 11 location and type of signage. With that, I turn it over to Roy Schnabel. 12 Roy Schnabel: Good evening, Commissioners. This first slide is basically a project map 13 that shows the areas for the individual elements that Megha introduced and shows 14 basically the areas they involve. We'll start with a brief update on the overall project. 15 We're looking at placing a steel structure over the roadways, East and West Bayshore and 16 the freeway, with 8-foot safety fencing. The following access ramps will be concrete 17 structures with a 4-foot safety railing. Over the confluence of Barron and Adobe Creek, 18 we have a steel truss similar to the existing one on the other side that basically leaves this 19 path to one of the initial connections at the Adobe Creek Trail connection at West 20 Bayshore. One of the project elements that was included by Council was an overlook, 21 but they wanted something fairly minimal. We looked at providing a seating area with an 22 ADA-accessible area in front. This is basically a minimal approach to the overlook. We 23 had a couple of design charrettes and some input from the various Commissions and 24 Commissioners. We looked at some of the enhancements that could be made to make 25 this area more functional. One of that was to expand the area to include a bicycle storage 26 area so that it wouldn't clutter the space and make it less ADA accessible and the 27 incorporation of art elements in architectural features like the benches and the railing at 28 this location. We have three main trail connections. The first one is at West Bayshore, 29 located at the confluence of the sidewalks and the existing Adobe Creek Trail, which is 30 currently closed to the public. The Water District is amenable to opening this up to 31 improve safer access to this area. They also are amenable to expanding the confluence 32 area, the area that all of the traffic meets at, into their right-of-way. We've reviewed an 33 expanded area. Some of their conditions from what we originally had shown. They 34 didn't like the amenities at this location because they were fearful that their maintenance 35 operations would run into the amenities, and they would be responsible for having to 36 replace those or update them. They also wanted a wider entrance to accommodate their 37 vehicles. They also requested the addition of at the end of that area a 20-foot lockable 38 fence so that, when they were performing their maintenance operations, they could lock 39 their maintenance vehicles inside the trail during those operations. The other end of the 40 trail is at Meadow Drive. We have coordinated with the Transportation Division in the 41 DRAFT Draft Minutes 35 City, who is also doing a bike boulevard project in and around the area. They've asked us 1 to provide a raised crosswalk and some chicanes, which are similar to what they're 2 providing in their project. We've accommodated that at the East Meadow trailhead. At 3 the nexus of the Bay Trail and this project, we have the connection at the Bay Trail circa 4 to East Bayshore Road. One of the comments that we had originally received from this 5 Commission was the original alignment had a T-intersection. You had asked us to take a 6 look at a possible revision to that to provide something that would improve safety, 7 especially with the mixing of the pedestrians and the bicyclists. We developed this 8 roundabout idea, which is becoming popular especially in areas where we have bicycle 9 and mixed use. We worked with PABAC and Transportation to develop this 10 configuration. We're still resolving some circulation issues and some circulation 11 questions. This is the current approach for this connection that we're looking at currently. 12 With regards to the landscaping, we're affecting 28 trees all on the West Bayshore side. 13 We are not able to replace all of the trees on that side, so we're looking to mitigate some 14 of the tree impacts on the East Bayshore side within the Baylands. We're also looking at 15 restoring some of the nonnative habitat areas that we're impacting with native grasses and 16 native plant species. On the other side, we worked with the Urban Forester and the City 17 Landscape Architect to identify some tree revisions to the other side to replace some of 18 the species of trees that we're impacting with some more native plant species. With 19 regards to lighting, the goal for the lighting is to minimize the amount of spillage onto the 20 natural environments and still provide safe, lighted walking paths . Most of the lighting 21 is very low level. We have some areas with pole-mounted lights. Those are limited to 22 the West Bayshore side and only on 12-foot tall poles. We've revised the pole standard 23 based on some comments from the other Commissions and are looking at more capped-24 style lights that reach over the pathway for the pole-mounted lights to improve their 25 efficiency and their look. Most of the lights are mounted on the rails and railings, so 26 they're fairly low-level. Here's an image of what they potentially will look like during the 27 day and night. With regards to the amenities, we've resolved to minimize the number of 28 amenities and the locations of these amenities. We're only looking at fairly limited 29 amenities, a hydration station, a bike rack, a bike repair stand, and some trash receptacles. 30 We also have some benches. They're located at two locations. One is the overlook, 31 where we'll locate the benches and the bike racks. There will also be some interpretive 32 signs at the overlook, that basically—we haven't identified what the information is that's 33 going to be there. On the Bay Trail adjacent to the traffic roundabout, we're going to 34 have trash and recycle receptacles, the bike repair station, and then the hydration station. 35 These are the two locations where we have all of the designated amenities. With regards 36 to signage, the sign on the top left is the standard that transportation is using for the bike 37 boulevard project and what they've recommended that we utilize for our wayfinding. 38 One of the comments that came from the other Commission was that it was very bike-39 centric and include some information with regards to or some inclusion of the 40 pedestrians. In lieu of putting all that information, what they recommended that we put 41 on the signs is basically direction, destination, and distance, and not necessarily the 42 DRAFT Draft Minutes 36 duration it's going to take to get there because it's different for a bicyclist than a 1 pedestrian, and it was getting fairly busy. The other thing is they asked us to look at 2 custom trail options instead of just the bike standard, included both the bicycle and 3 pedestrian symbology. With regards to wayfinding, we've worked with Transportation to 4 get an understanding of what informational and etiquette signage. We're going to 5 probably use a combination of signs and pavement markings. These are some of the 6 examples that were delivered to us by Transportation in coordination with PABAC. 7 They're trying to develop some standards for the City that are for these shared-path 8 situations. These are some of the standard etiquette and pavement markings that we 9 potentially foresee on this project. With that, questions, comments? 10 Ms. Bansai: We are planning to come back to the Commission with a Park Improvement 11 Ordinance in September. I just wanted to point that out. 12 Mr. Schnabel: The first slide basically shows the project elements. These are the 13 locations of … 14 Ms. Bansai: Locations of signage. We wanted to highlight and wanted to get your input. 15 Mr. Schnabel: Currently, we're looking at placing the signage at locations of decision-16 making, so basically at all the trail connections and at the "Y." We're going to be limiting 17 it to those areas so we don't overpopulate the bridge structure with signage. With regards 18 to pavement markings, similarly we're envisioning pavement markings which are 19 informational to slow down the bicyclists in those areas where they potentially will meet 20 with pedestrians. 21 Vice Chair Moss: Everything looks great. I only have one questions, and that's the 22 circle. Somebody's coming down from the bridge at full speed at night, is there some 23 way for them to see the circle? Is the circle flat or is it raised? 24 Mr. Schnabel: There is a little bit of a raise, but it's mountable. It's basically … 25 Vice Chair Moss: They could come right off the bridge and go right on top of that and 26 not crash. 27 Mr. Schnabel: You could come right over it. You might crash into the fence that's on the 28 other side of it. We had originally a more substantial curb, and Transportation gave us 29 this curb detail, which is basically a mountable curb, that they're using on some of the 30 other traffic circles in the City. 31 Vice Chair Moss: That's all I have. 32 Chair Reckdahl: Can you explain that more? This is the curb around the inner circle. 33 DRAFT Draft Minutes 37 Mr. Schnabel: There's a detail for it so we can actually see what it looks like. You can 1 see the image on the left. It's basically an inch high where it meets the pavement. 2 Chair Reckdahl: This is the tan portion, or beige? 3 Mr. Schnabel: Yeah, the beige portion covers that detail that's on the left. You can see 4 the curb. I don't know if it's clear. 5 Chair Reckdahl: Do we want any curb at all there? 6 Mr. Schnabel: We're discussing that with Transportation. If you don't put a curb there, 7 people will just go across it. The question is how do we make it functional and not force 8 people to cheat. That's one of the things that we had discussed, the circulation issues. 9 That's one of the circulation issues because they feel like some people will try to cross on 10 the other side, and that will decrease safety instead of improve it. 11 Chair Reckdahl: If you could just make it rough, so it's not pleasant. A curb, I think, 12 seems like a safety issue. There's experts in the field that can have more (crosstalk). 13 Ms. Bansai: We will also have some trail etiquette signs there, at the circle. 14 Mr. Schnabel: On all three corners we'll have trail etiquette signage to remind people to 15 be safe. Thankfully, you guys have a very informed bicycle community, and a lot of 16 those guys self-police. It's pretty good. 17 Chair Reckdahl: Is that it? Are you done with the presentation? 18 Ms. Bansai: Yeah. 19 Chair Reckdahl: We have some public comment. We have Shani Kleinhaus, and then 20 followed by Jeff Saunders. 21 Shani Kleinhaus: Good evening. Shani Kleinhaus again. I wanted to thank staff for a 22 very, very extensive outreach to the community, getting a lot of comments, sharing the 23 process with us. That was a very, very good process. That's all. Thank you. 24 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Jeff Saunders. 25 Jeff Saunders: I like the way that this is evolving. I think it's great. Keep moving 26 forward. I want to continue to raise awareness to people that after this is done we should 27 look ahead to extending this to Sterling Canal to take the bicycle and pedestrian traffic 28 off of West Bayshore up to Greer Park. Also, looking at this design, I had one question 29 about the trail intersection at Meadow. If bicyclists are going along Meadow, there's 30 nothing really south of there. The trail would go along behind (inaudible) and Kehillah 31 DRAFT Draft Minutes 38 High School, and then it kind of dead ends. I'm not sure where that would go with that 1 raised sidewalk going across. Bicyclists shooting out onto Meadow might encounter 2 traffic. It might be a good idea to put a barricade there, so that bicyclists can't go directly 3 out into traffic. Thank you. 4 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. We're done with public comments. Commissioners. Jeff. 5 Commissioner LaMere: I think it's a really great plan. Just a quick question. The one 6 concern that I do have is I think it's going to be heavily used. It's in a great location. It's 7 a great idea, the usage and the mixing of bicyclists and pedestrians, obviously, the 8 importance of signage of etiquette and whatever we're painting on the pavement. A quick 9 question. Is it wide enough that you could have designated bike lanes and designated 10 pedestrian lanes? It probably is not, but I'm curious about that. 11 Mr. Schnabel: When we first looked at this, one of the options was to look at dedicated 12 bike and pedestrian lanes, but that required a fairly wide structure and was fairly costly, 13 had more environmental impacts. Council selected the option to provide as much width 14 as they could but not dedicated lanes. Basically, the bicyclists, when they would have to 15 pass, would probably have to go to the open lane or slow down before they could pass. 16 Commissioner LaMere: My other comment would just be I'm not sure if the bike racks 17 that you showed here are the ones that you guys intend to use. To me they look 18 aesthetically very pleasing. They don't look super functional to lock up different types of 19 bicycles. That'd be my only comment. 20 Mr. Schnabel: We're still working out the kinks with regards to the bike rack. We did 21 include—that was the one that the architect selected as it evoked some of the same things 22 that they wanted to evoke at that location. I think we still need to work with 23 Transportation because they have some very, very good ideas with regards to what's 24 functional in the City with regards to bicycle racks all over the City. 25 Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you for a very comprehensive plan. As I've said 26 before, there's lots to like about it. I like the addition of the roundabout, and the 27 bike/pedestrian dual signage is a good step as well. My primary question and comments 28 center around access to the western approach to the bridge. In looking at the plan, it's 29 very difficult to figure out what the intended paths are for bicycles and pedestrians from 30 the various access points. Within the presentation, the trailhead slides help that a lot, but 31 they weren't included in the packet. I think it would be very helpful to have a table set up 32 that talks about the various ingress/egress points to the western approach. On West 33 Bayshore we have the northbound and southbound approaches, and we also have the East 34 Meadow access to the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. A question which I asked previously, 35 which I don't have a clear answer to is what happens when there's a maintenance closure 36 from Santa Clara Valley Water District. What is closed, and then what are the new 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 39 recommended paths from each of these three points? Really, it applies to two of the 1 points. Included in the table should just be a clear explanation. If a pedestrian just wants 2 to walk along Bayshore without accessing the bridge, make it clear where they're going in 3 and out. A question I have is, which I think I understand it, on West Bayshore when you 4 are southbound, pedestrians would access from one point on the ramp, but bikes are not 5 intended to go on that ramp. Bikes are intended to continue on the bike path to the 6 second intersection point. There's really two intersection points on the west side. 7 Mr. Schnabel: Yeah, that's correct. The access ramp, the pedestrian ramp, at the "Y" was 8 basically—there was a desire to put a staircase, a secondary access point, there for 9 providing easier access or closer access for pedestrians and also for fire response. We 10 looked at the staircase, and the ramp option had so many advantages to it in continuing 11 the sidewalk and some of the other things that putting the bike lane back into sole use on 12 the street from a safety perspective that we went towards the ramp option. We're not 13 going to exclude bicycles from using it. Bicycles have to dismount, though. There will 14 be dismount signs. Bicyclists who do want to use that path as a secondary path access 15 can do it. We made the path wider than a standard sidewalk to accommodate them. 16 Commissioner Greenfield: If a table could just be set up that explains all these details, 17 that would be a lot clearer when someone's looking at the plan, trying to understand it. 18 Mr. Schnabel: With regards to maintenance, we're still working with the Water District 19 as to the requirements. Currently, what they want is when they do their maintenance 20 every 3-5 years for several weeks, their plan is to close the trail and to lock their 21 equipment inside the trail during those periods. They typically don't utilize this area as 22 often as the area on the other side. We don't think it's going to be used as often as they 23 think it is. It's probably going to close the trail for that duration. That area in front where 24 pedestrians will be continues to remain open. That wider area where bicyclists can turn 25 around will still be open. 26 Commissioner Greenfield: When the trail is closed, then northbound traffic, which is 27 basically on the sidewalk on West Bayshore, would continue up and would be able to 28 access … 29 Mr. Schnabel: They'd have to take a left into that area and then to that trailhead and go 30 up that, which they can do now. Transportation has asked us to put bicycle markers 31 similar to what's on the other side to indicate even currently when we finish the project 32 that bicyclists will be allowed. We just feel that more bicyclists will utilize the Adobe 33 Creek Trail because it's safer. 34 Commissioner Greenfield: At the 15 percent presentation, there was a question about 35 whether that access point would even be open for bicycles and pedestrians with the 36 potential that they'd have to continue down to the ramp. 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 40 Mr. Schnabel: As we meet with the Water District, we're continuing to get more and 1 more definition on the limitations of what they want. At some point, we're going to need 2 to start negotiating maintenance agreement-type and cooperation agreement-type 3 information. That'll get more solidified as we get closer to those conversations. 4 Commissioner Greenfield: That seems pretty critical to sort out. 5 Mr. Schnabel: It's all in their right-of-way. We're trying to get as much as we can. 6 We're also trying to negotiate early access to the trail as one of the Commissions wanted 7 to access that earlier. 8 Commissioner Greenfield: Between the new Adobe Creek bridge and the trailhead, 9 where the Adobe Creek Reach trailhead meets West Bayshore, is that just a single path? 10 There's no sidewalk besides—that access path is the only way to move along. 11 Mr. Schnabel: No, there's sidewalks. Our project will widen that sidewalk, which is 12 nonexistent right now, and basically put it into that trailhead. There's an existing 13 sidewalk on the other side. There will be a continuous sidewalk on both sides of their 14 opening. 15 Commissioner Greenfield: This is south of the bridge. There would be a sidewalk. 16 Mr. Schnabel: There is an existing sidewalk there that basically ends at the current 17 Benjamin Lefkovits underpass connection. 18 Commissioner Greenfield: There will be both a sidewalk and the path, which is 19 connecting to the bridge. 20 Mr. Schnabel: Yes, and it'll widen there for the combination of pedestrians and bicyclists 21 on the (crosstalk). 22 Commissioner Greenfield: That's real hard to see in the current drawings. 23 Mr. Schnabel: It is. 24 Commissioner Greenfield: Last question and then move on. The 20-foot lockable area, 25 is that intended to be on the Reach Trail? 26 Mr. Schnabel: Yes, yes. 27 Commissioner Greenfield: That's why the Reach Trail is closed. 28 DRAFT Draft Minutes 41 Mr. Schnabel: We located it further back so we could get that space as wide as we can 1 and as big as we can based on what they're looking for. They want to have the ability on 2 both sides to lock the trail up, prevent access during those maintenance operation periods. 3 Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. 4 Commissioner McDougall: Just a few comments. The last time there was a presentation 5 here my question was had there been any attempt to create a use case. The document 6 says a facility may be used for both commuting and recreational. Do we have any idea at 7 all of is it 50/50, is it intended to be 80/20? How will we know we've been successful in 8 the end if we don't have some sort of estimate? 9 Mr. Schnabel: We tried to approach that right after the last meeting. I think we're still 10 trying to get our arms around how to do that with regards to evaluating. We've asked 11 Transportation to give us some information with regards to how to understand the overall 12 use. 13 Commissioner McDougall: You want to even have maybe three cases, 50/50, 80/20, 14 20/80 or something because a lot of the questions that are being asked about access and 15 what not, the answer almost depends on are you talking about commuters in spandex or 16 whatever or are you talking about a biker with a trailer behind with kids in it. The answer 17 almost depends on it. Even the question of the outlook. I think you have to force 18 yourself at some point to be able to say, "We're estimating this use case." You don't have 19 to be right in the end, but we really have to consider that. 20 Mr. Schnabel: I think we've considered it because we've heard from a number of those 21 users. We've heard from the commuters; we've heard from the recreational users; and 22 we've heard from the moms who are carting around their trailers. Hopefully we've 23 accommodated all of those users and usages in this plan. I thought your—forgive me for 24 not understanding. I thought what you had originally asked for was in regards to the 25 signage. 26 Commissioner McDougall: Signage is part of it. I think that's what instigated the 27 thought. My thought is throughout the whole project, access, signage, outlook, even the 28 roundabout, we should have some understanding of what is it we're expecting. Even if 29 you look at what you've got now and say, "What we ended up with is not necessarily 30 good for everybody." I like what you've said, that you've asked everybody and you've 31 tried to get all the points, but I kind of doubt it. I won't push that further. I appreciate 32 that you remembered, and I appreciate you continuing to think about it. The one picture 33 that shows on the east side at Bayshore where there's all that vegetation, habitat, I think 34 that's very important that it be habitat. I like habitat restoration. Somewhere else it says 35 landscaping. Considering its proximity to the Baylands, habitat restoration is more 36 important than landscaping. The other thing I would worry about here is, if we're going 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 42 to put native plants in there, what we run the risk of is nearby are all sorts of invasive 1 species that have the opportunity of immediately getting into this restored habitat area. I 2 hope that's taken into account, that it's not just the immediate area but maybe there's some 3 proximity that we have to worry about in order to preserve our restoration. 4 Ms. Bansai: To respond to that, we are working with stakeholders and with our biologist 5 and landscape architect and arborist. We will come up with a plant list that will be 6 suitable for that area. 7 Commissioner McDougall: All of the planting. I hope that all the stakeholders consider 8 what used to be Acterra is now … 9 Ms. Bansai: Grassroots Ecology. 10 Commissioner McDougall: I hope they're included. I hope the Audubon people are 11 included. Maybe Environmental Volunteers, which are new. I hope they all get 12 included. My other comment would be about the lighting. It just seems like there's an 13 awful lot of lighting. I'm not sure what's too much and what's not enough. One of my 14 questions would be is the lighting—would the lighting be on all night or would it be a 15 triggered lighting? 16 Mr. Schnabel: The plan is to have control systems. There will be occupancy sensors. 17 When there are no occupants utilizing the pathway, the lights will dim down. As it 18 senses occupants, it will raise. We're still working out for how long and what duration 19 those are. The plan is to include control systems for the lights. 20 Commissioner McDougall: Thank you. My last comment would be as we move 21 forward—we're all obviously enthusiastic about moving this forward as quickly as 22 possible. I would sure like to see something like complete 35 percent design, which now 23 says fall of 2017. As we get closer, I'd like to see that become a month. Can we say 24 October? Can we say November or whatever? Fall could be any time between 25 September and March of next year. The only problem with having a fiscal or annual 26 quarter as a measurement device, when you slip 3 months, you've really only slipped one 27 quarter, so it's not a big deal. You get my point. I'd just like to see us get more 28 (crosstalk). 29 Mr. Schnabel: Project delivery is very important. We've heard it from every 30 Commission and a number of the community. We are dedicated, both staff and project 31 team, to trying to expedite delivery. Some of those things are outside our control; that's 32 why it's sort of a seasonal thing. We still have to wait for CEQA clearance and 33 environmental clearances to occur. That date hasn't been completely solidified yet. 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 43 Commissioner McDougall: If I wouldn't slow you down by asking a bunch of questions, 1 you'd get there faster. Thank you very much for what you're doing. 2 Chair Reckdahl: David. Anne. I just have a couple of questions. First, West Bayshore 3 is just a mess. It's not your design; it's just that's a bad situation. 4 Mr. Schnabel: It's not ideal. There's just not a lot of space to fit anything that is better. 5 Chair Reckdahl: Can we have a dedicated crosswalk or marked areas? 6 Mr. Schnabel: I've discussed some of the—we put a lot of thought into it because we 7 struggle with the same issues, us and Transportation. We sort of worked out what would 8 be best in that. We talked about potentially raised crosswalks here too. They felt leaving 9 it as minimal as possible was going to be the best solution. 10 Chair Reckdahl: Right at that corner, it's just such a bad situation. Could we slide it 11 down and have the crossing—the people who have to cross West Bayshore, have that 12 further north where the ramp comes down and have the crossing there and make that a 13 bike path coming up the ramp as opposed to pedestrians? 14 Mr. Schnabel: I'm not sure how to make that safe. The southbound bicycles have to 15 make a fairly large U-turn. Trying to do a sharp turn like that closer to the ramps might 16 not be ideal. The northbounds have to make a left turn. The street is pretty tight with 17 regards to the traffic, and the traffic is going pretty quick in that area. That's why … 18 Chair Reckdahl: I don't want to belabor it. I agree with Jeff that we have to really look at 19 how people are going to get to that west crossing. There are kids; kids are going to be 20 crossing, using this bridge to go down to Baylands or going over at Twister's Gym. 21 There's going to be kids here, and I really feel uncomfortable with that corner right there. 22 It's just a bad situation. You know that, and we need to work on that. Bike racks on the 23 overlook I don't understand. I don't see anyone locking their bike on the overlook. I can 24 see them maybe stopping for a minute or two. 25 Mr. Schnabel: What we had originally planned was the bikes would just be leaned on the 26 rails. As we looked at the spaces with the architect, they tended to clutter the areas that 27 were available for the ADA ramps and access points. If they put it up near the bench, 28 they would—we only had 4 feet between the bench and the railing, so that's basically the 29 ADA minimum. If somebody put a bike there, we would basically be non-ADA-30 compliant. The thought was to identify an area to store bikes, whether that's a bike rack 31 or just something that's sticking up where bikes can be leaned upon. We just wanted to 32 identify an area that was more functional to keep it away from access points and in front 33 of the benches. 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 44 Chair Reckdahl: I just think it'll be used more often for strollers and things like that. 1 Having bike racks in there will make it hard, make it less usable. I like the benches on 2 the overlook. The seniors and other people need that break. If we can get another bench 3 over on the West Bayshore side somewhere, it doesn't have to be right at the stop. 4 Somewhere in that general area near the Reach Trail a bench just so people can rest. For 5 someone who's elderly, that's a long hike. You're going up elevation and over. We don't 6 view the elderly world through our eyes. We ignore that. We need benches for the 7 elderly. That's good enough. There's no staircase on the east side? That's been deleted? 8 Mr. Schnabel: That's been replaced by the access ramp. 9 Chair Reckdahl: On the east side? 10 Mr. Schnabel: On the east side, no. 11 Chair Reckdahl: It'd be nice to have but not required. Thank you. Thank you. I 12 appreciate your work. We're a little rushed to catch up here. It's good work. I'm looking 13 forward to having it built. You said you plan to come back in September for the PIO? 14 Mr. Schnabel: Yes. 15 Ms. Bansai: Yes. 16 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 17 Mr. Schnabel: Thank you very much for all your comments. 18 Ms. Bansai: Thank you very much. 19 Chair Reckdahl: Let's move on. We are still behind schedule. 20 4. Proposed Dog Park Design at Peers Park. 21 Chair Reckdahl: Dog park, Peter Jensen is going to talk that. Again, this is just a 22 discussion item. We'll come back for a PIO later. Try to get the highlights for your 23 questions. 24 Mr. Anderson: Good evening. I'm Daren Anderson with Open Space, Parks and Golf. 25 I'm with my colleague from Public Works, Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect. We're 26 here tonight to discuss with you the draft design for the Peers Park dog park. I'll briefly 27 discuss the background regarding how we got to where we are at this point. Then, I'll ask 28 Peter to walk you through the key elements of this draft design. The background is that 29 in December 2016 we hosted two community meetings to discuss the option and collect 30 feedback from the public about the idea of putting a dog park in either Pardee or Peers 31 DRAFT Draft Minutes 45 Park. The outcome of the first meeting, which was Pardee, was a number of concerns 1 and a lot of opposition to the concept for a number of reasons. One of the predominant 2 ones was the location we were forced to use was so close to the residents' house lines. 3 There were concerns about impacts to those homes and privacy and noise. A week later, 4 we had the public meeting for Peers. There was a much more positive reception to the 5 idea. There was very little opposition. After we analyzed it a little bit, some of the—in 6 addition to the feedback, once we started looking at design, there was enough space at 7 that site to have a 0.72-acre dog park. Very large and considerably larger than the 8 options at Pardee. In addition to that, you have the ability to place it right along the train 9 track side, so the noise issue gets mitigated to a great degree because you already have 10 trains. At the March 2017 Commission meeting, the Commission expressed support for 11 the concept and for proceeding with adding a dog park at Peers. Staff has done so. 12 We've created this draft design using feedback both from the Commission, from the ad 13 hoc committee, from our public meetings, and prior public meetings going back several 14 years where we have notes about things people wanted. For example, separating big dog 15 and small dog. I'd add to that that we've also learned from staff experience of the three 16 existing dog parks we have what's working and what's not, and what elements we should 17 add. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Peter to walk you through the elements of this 18 draft design. 19 Peter Jensen: Good evening, Commissioners. Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the 20 City of Palo Alto. Like Daren was saying, the park is advantageous to having a dog park. 21 I think one of the difficulties with locating a dog park in our current park system is 22 actually dedicating that large of a space to a specific use as a dog park. It turns out, 23 though, that Peers Park does have an optimal place for it. As Daren was saying, there is 24 an unused buffer that's in the rear of the park, that's up against the Caltrain tracks, that 25 supplies a good space that is sort of a pseudo dog park right now, that's just basically not 26 fenced off well. The graphic that you're seeing up there, the red outline is the proposed 27 location of the dog park. This graphic is more of a construction document. What it starts 28 to do is define the spaces between the large dog park and the small dog park. This line is 29 dividing the smaller location. The longer, linear part of it is the small dog park. The 30 location behind the tennis court that has a little bit more of a larger open space for larger 31 dogs is the larger dog park. A few other amenities. The main point of the project is 32 fencing and defining that area. The idea would be to start to use a black, vinyl-clad, 33 chain-link fence in that area to mitigate the chain link as much as possible. It is 5 feet 34 tall. One of the feedback we heard along the way is the double entry gate to each zone. 35 The small dog and the large dog would have the setup where you would have two gates. 36 There would be space between that would allow dog owners to collar their dogs before 37 they leave the dog park. Water bowls for the dogs as well or dog drinking fountains, 38 picnic tables that are dispersed loosely through the dog park, that allow some flexibility 39 and movement of seating out there, and then maintaining the surface area out there. Most 40 of it is grass, but there are areas of mulch as well. Having that diversity of surface 41 DRAFT Draft Minutes 46 material works out very well for the dog park itself. There is flexibility in the plan. 1 There is a sliding 12-foot gate between the two dog parks. If it's seen one day that maybe 2 it's just better to have the whole space as one dog park, we do have the opportunity to do 3 that as well and give us some flexibility of using that space. There will be new concrete 4 walks specifically adjacent to the tennis courts that connect the existing concrete 5 walkway to the main entries of the dog park. There's easy access from those locations. 6 In a nutshell, that's pretty much it. There's not too much complex about a dog park. 7 We're basically just defining an area. I think we'll move on and take questions. I think 8 our goal is –going back, this is the setup in the seasons again as far as schedule goes. 9 Most of it is definitely concentrated right now, so we would like to get feedback from the 10 Commission, of course, but we would like to start to put a construction document 11 together, bid it out, and actually get a dog park installed. The dog park goes back way 12 before even my work here, maybe a decade or more of trying to get a dog park in Palo 13 Alto. We're very close now. Let's just get to the finish line, and it'll be great. I know the 14 dog owners are very eager to have a dog park, a new facility that we don't have yet, 15 especially in the north of Palo Alto, which does not have a dog park currently. 16 Mr. Anderson: The only thing I'd add to that is if the ad hoc who's been so generous with 17 their time and support has anything to add, now is maybe a good time. 18 Chair Reckdahl: (inaudible) anything to add? 19 Commissioner Cribbs: Yes, I do. First of all, I'm excited to see this. I think it's great. 20 I'm glad we have the money for it now as part of the CIP. I'm disappointed and dismayed 21 at 2018 in the winter time. It just seems like a really long time from now. It would be 22 great if we could accelerate that somehow. I know there are processes and all of that, but 23 I think we'd really like—it's been 10 years. It'd be great if it could go faster than that. 24 Specifically about this particular dog park, it's a great location. There's a lot of good 25 work done on it. There was some questions about the budget and if there were 26 opportunities in the budget for the dog owners who offered at a number of community 27 meetings to support the budget. Maybe we could identify some of those places, and have 28 a vehicle to raise the money and all of that. Can you think about that and maybe the ad 29 hoc can think about that as well? Two other questions independent of that. In the last 30 report, there was that discussion of the public art in one of the parks. There were 31 restrictions on the public art, so we couldn't have a dog park in a place that you thought it 32 might be good. Can we find out specifically about what that kind of restriction is? 33 Secondarily, the whole issue of the trees, the dog urine underneath the trees, and that kind 34 of tension because it's limiting the places that we can put a dog park. The last thing is 35 what's the next dog park on the list. Thanks very much. It's exciting. 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 47 Commissioner McCauley: I'll be very brief. Thanks to Daren and Peter for pushing this 1 forward. I agree that it'd be great to have it constructed as soon as possible. I know 2 you'll work towards that. Please continue to push. Thanks. 3 Commissioner McDougall: I'm sorry. I'd like to make a couple of quick comments. I 4 recently spent a bunch of time in New York and went around to all the dog parks in New 5 York. One of the things they didn't do is they said there was a mixed dog space and then 6 a small dog space. It wasn't big dogs and little dogs. People could say, "It's my option to 7 take my little dog into this space." I think that might help us going forward. We talk 8 about dog water bowls. They were much more aggressive in terms of fountain space and 9 whatnot. I don't know if we can approve that, if we have the budget for that or not. I 10 would encourage that we be more aggressive than just water bowls. It also says picnic 11 tables for seating. Are those picnic tables inside the dog area or are those the existing? 12 Mr. Jensen: They're inside. 13 Commissioner McDougall: Why would it be picnic tables as opposed to benches? 14 Mr. Jensen: The picnic tables, they can sit loose without being tethered. A bench would 15 need some type of pad to be attached to. We felt just for the space itself and having the 16 flexibility and because of the terrain out there right now of the grass and the mulch that 17 picnic tables would work well, but we can look at benches. 18 Commissioner McDougall: My other comment is concrete paving. In so many of our 19 projects we immediately say concrete paving. I was over there today, and I'm not so sure 20 that you couldn't put some ADA kind of path in that was just simple hardscape of some 21 kind, that wasn't concrete. I'm not sure if more concrete in our parks is necessary. I 22 would discourage that. 23 Chair Reckdahl: At El Camino Park, they have that concrete that at least the water … 24 Mr. Jensen: The permeable. 25 Commissioner McDougall: I think that's important. In terms of the schedule, I would 26 wonder if there's some way to phase it. It's not a big project. I was over there today. 27 Phase I is—the tennis court is the current dog park. I'm sure you're aware. I was there; 28 six dogs were inside the tennis court having a good time. It seemed to me that it wouldn't 29 take much to put up a fence quicker and get even one part of it so that it was available, 30 and we started to have some experience with it. I agree with Commissioner Cribbs that 31 the winter of '18 seems like a long way away to put up some 5-foot fence. I realize we're 32 minimizing all of the other issues. I think that's important. I was worried when it said 33 picnic tables, that that meant the picnic tables that are already there. Any access that we 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 48 can provide that doesn't encroach on the current picnic tables is probably a good idea to 1 keep them safe. 2 Commissioner Greenfield: I support all of the comments to reduce the timeline. Good 3 stuff otherwise. 4 Chair Reckdahl: I understand when you have construction put out for bids and stuff, but 5 the planning. What exactly is Planning doing? Checking ADA compliance and other 6 things like that? 7 Mr. Anderson: They'll end up doing an environmental review as well. There may be an 8 Initial Study that's required; we'll see as we go through the process. Originally, we were 9 looking at a longer process even. It can be onerous. You see on this revised staff report 10 it says up to 4 months, and that was some negotiation and convincing on Peter's part as 11 we negotiated with the staff and the Planning Department to see if we can't expedite as 12 our ad hoc and Commission has advised in the past. We're going to do our best to drive it 13 forward. 14 Chair Reckdahl: It looks good. I think it's a great place for a park. I think it's nice and 15 long. They'll be able to get the speed up. I think it's really good. Thank you for your 16 work. 17 Mr. Jensen: Thank you. 18 5. Update on Cubberley Community Center Master Planning. 19 a. Draft Scope of Work for Consultant to Assist with Master Planning 20 Effort. 21 Chair Reckdahl: Let's move on to the next item, update to Cubberley Community Center 22 Master Planning. 23 Ms. O'Kane: Kristen O'Kane, Community Services. We added this to the agenda in 24 response to a request to have the draft scope of work be sent to the Commissioners. We 25 decided to just put it on the agenda. There's no action tonight; it's just an update on what 26 we are doing with the Cubberley Master Plan process. Just a brief background. As you 27 probably know, the City owns 8 acres of the Cubberley site, and the School District owns 28 27 acres, which the City then leases. The Community Services Department operates the 29 entire facility including the athletic fields as the Cubberley Community Center. The 30 current lease will expire in December 2019. Included in the lease agreement is a 31 provision that the City and School District will jointly develop a Master Plan for the 32 entire site by the end of the lease term. In March of 2016, both City Manager Jim Keene 33 and Palo Alto Unified School District Superintendent Max McGee signed a Cubberley 34 Futures Compact to demonstrate the two entities' commitment to collaboratively plan for 35 DRAFT Draft Minutes 49 the future of the 35-acre Cubberley site. Since then, both staff from the City and the 1 School District have been working together to develop a scope of work. The scope of 2 work was developed jointly by City and School District staff and has been reviewed by 3 Superintendent Max McGee and his staff as well. The intent of releasing this Request for 4 Proposals is to enter into a professional services agreement with a consultant who is 5 experienced in creative and effective public engagement and design thinking, who can 6 assist the City and School District staff in an efficient Master Planning process. Staff 7 presented the scope of work to the Policy and Services Committee on June 13th. The 8 Policy and Services Committee approved the recommendation, which was for Council to 9 direct the Community Services Department to release a Request for Proposals for a 10 consulting firm to assist the City and School District with Master Planning of the 11 Cubberley Community Center. They added additional language, which was "including a 12 negotiated cost-sharing agreement, and that the negotiation will not cause a delay to the 13 RFP." Following our presentation to Policy and Services, the School District staff 14 presented it to the School District Board of Education. They also expressed their support 15 for embarking on this RFP process. The scope of work that we presented to Policy and 16 Services was slightly revised between that meeting and the Board of Education meeting. 17 Those changes are identified in the at-places memo that was provided today. A majority 18 of those changes were with respect to the School District's position on their 27 acres of 19 the Cubberley Community Center. The next step is we are planning on going to Council 20 on September 5th and requesting that they direct staff to release a Request for Proposals 21 for a consultant. This would be a joint effort between the School District and the City to 22 start a Master Planning effort for the combined site. 23 Chair Reckdahl: That's it? 24 Ms. O'Kane: That's it. 25 Chair Reckdahl: Do you have any questions? Jeff. 26 Commissioner Greenfield: Is the joint effort to be joint funded? 27 Ms. O'Kane: The intent is for us to put together a cost-sharing agreement that would be 28 funded by both the City and the School District. 29 Chair Reckdahl: Is that going to be 50/50 or is that still up for negotiation? 30 Ms. O'Kane: It's still up for negotiation. The initial discussions have been that it will 31 likely be 50/50. It's not for certain yet. We need a completed agreement, but that's, I 32 believe, where it would be going. 33 Chair Reckdahl: I could see some of the tradeoffs in wanting more recreation, if we 34 wanted a swimming pool, things like that. The School District may not want that. The 35 DRAFT Draft Minutes 50 bells and whistles may end up being on the City's dime just because they are City needs. 1 I'll wait for my turn. Was that it? Don, do you … 2 Commissioner Cribbs: Is there an option B if it's not going to be a joint project? Is the 3 study going to be about a joint project? If all of a sudden the demographics change or the 4 landscape changes or the School District wants something different, are we back at 5 square one in 5 years? Is there something that we're thinking about that could be option 6 B where the City just develops the land that's available to us? 7 Ms. O'Kane: Our goal with the Master Planning process is the School District will still 8 retain their 27 acres, and we'll retain our 8 acres. The intent of the Master Plan is the 9 School District have their property representing their needs, and ours representing our 10 needs, but those would intermingle and would be possibly joint uses. They would 11 complement one another. If the School District—you made a good point. When we get 12 done with the Master Planning effort, we may be in different places as far as building that 13 property out. We would still need to find funding for that. There could be various 14 options, so it could be that the City and the School District try to obtain funding jointly or 15 it could be that we obtain funding separately. I think that's going to be something we're 16 going to need to look at, at the end of the Master Planning process depending on what the 17 outcome of the process is. I don't think the City has necessarily a plan B. There could be 18 an opportunity for the City to find funding on our own if the School District's not ready 19 or vice versa or we could find funding together as two organizations. Does that answer 20 your question? 21 Commissioner Cribbs: It's complicated. 22 Ms. O'Kane: It's very complicated. 23 Commissioner Cribbs: I'm wondering if it wouldn't be an exercise that would be at a 24 pretty high level. You already probably know this from what the recreational needs are 25 for the City. What would it look like to just have the land that's available to us to develop 26 and how much would it cost? Not to say we're going to go it alone or anything, but just 27 to say should we look at this as a community with that as an option. 28 Mr. de Geus: I think that's likely something we'll look at as part of the Master Planning 29 process. There will be different conceptual plans that are going to be developed. I do 30 think it's likely that the City's interests and needs around a multigenerational community 31 center with a variety of things is going to be more defined likely than what the School 32 District is going to be able to do. I think that's going to be one of the options that will be 33 part of the package. 34 Commissioner Cribbs: It's just a thought. How does it fit into the property that could be 35 developed for recreation over by the golf course? That's all I have. 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 51 Chair Reckdahl: When you go to Council, they will be directing you to hire the 1 consultant to outline the process? We have a Phase I and Phase II, but this is Phase 0 that 2 they're directing, right? 3 Ms. O'Kane: This is just directing staff to release an RFP. It's similar to what we did 4 when we released the RFP for the aquatics program. We went to Council to—one, it's to 5 raise the process that we're going through, particularly because we're doing this combined 6 with the School District. We really want to raise their awareness that this is the direction 7 that we're heading, and we would like their support and approval to do that. 8 Chair Reckdahl: This is an RFP. It's not for Phase I; it's for the planning. 9 Ms. O'Kane: This is an RFP to get the consultant onboard. 10 Chair Reckdahl: Different consultants will say what they can do and their expertise, and 11 we'll choose from that. That consultant will … 12 Ms. O'Kane: Into Phase I. 13 Chair Reckdahl: We do have a speaker card, Penny Ellson. 14 Penny Ellson: Good evening. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions. I'm a 15 former member of the Cubberley Community Advisory Committee. I just want to make 16 the point that teacher housing, which is included in this report, was never vetted in any of 17 our discussions. As a representative of my neighborhood, I never brought that question 18 to our neighborhood. I have no idea what their opinion is on it. I'm guessing that would 19 bring it to a level of density that might cause some consternation. If we're talking about 20 doing a school and a community center and housing, it's a lot at a location that is pretty 21 intensively used and would be. I noticed in here that you refer to the community asset 22 evaluation, which we referred to in the committee as a community needs assessment, 23 which is a rather different thing. If you're looking at the existing community assets, that's 24 one thing. What we talked about was a survey or a way of studying what the community 25 needs or deficits might be. What do we not have that perhaps we need, not just what do 26 we have that we need more of. I just want to make sure that—maybe that work was done 27 as part of the community Master Planning. I don't know. That's what was in our minds. 28 We felt there was a big gap in our knowledge, and we didn't know what it was that the 29 community needed. Finally as always, Safe Routes to School is big in my mind. As this 30 process moves forward, I hope that the people who are working on it will give careful 31 thought to how much traffic this site and all the approach streets can handle at certain 32 times of day and how it's going to manage bicycles because it's going to be an afterschool 33 destination, I imagine. It might be a school destination. To the School District, one of 34 the things I'm going to say—I'll say it publicly now—is we need to think very carefully 35 about whether or not that should be a choice school or a neighborhood school because 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 52 that's an area that is already impacted by traffic from a nearby private school that draws 1 about 500 kids a day from outside of the community, all driven to school. Hoover 2 Elementary School, a choice school, very high volume of car trips. Greendell, of course, 3 draws a mixture. It's got kids from all over the community, and many of them are driven 4 but also many bicycle. There are a lot of nearby schools. It's a very sensitive area with a 5 lot of congestion in the morning. Traffic's going to be a key concern. Thanks. 6 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you, Penny. Do you have any last comments? We're moving on. 7 6. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 8 Chair Reckdahl: The next is Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. Does anyone 9 have any updates? I guess we have the grid this month. Does anyone want to talk about 10 their updates? We have a status update for all the ad hocs. If anyone thinks a verbal 11 explanation would be better; otherwise, the grid will do. 12 Commissioner Cribbs: I like this process. It was really helpful to me to see where other 13 ad hoc committees are and what we needed to do. I think it was helpful to the 14 committees that I'm on to be able to request from the staff the things that we felt we 15 needed to get our work done or more information. I'm excited that we've tried this. 16 Thank you for putting it all together. I think we should let it run for a couple more 17 months and see how we all feel about it. 18 Chair Reckdahl: I agree. There's some added benefit. 19 Vice Chair Moss: I like this process very much. The good and the bad of it is that I've 20 got lots of things I want to do right now. We need staff to do them right now. It focuses 21 us like a laser. You've got ten different committees all wanting to focus like a laser. 22 What do you suggest for getting staff time for these items? Do we make a 30-minute 23 appointment with you? What would you suggest? 24 Ms. O'Kane: In all of those, there is a staff liaison assigned. I would reach out to the 25 staff liaison, which I think is pretty much me and Daren. Whoever is assigned, you can 26 reach out. We can just have a conversation about timing. There may be something that 27 staff knows would be more appropriate to include the ad hoc in a few months or maybe 28 there's a reason to include the ad hoc sooner. Don't hesitate to contact us and just ask us. 29 We could talk through it and see what the best role for the ad hoc is at that time. 30 Chair Reckdahl: Don, do you have anything? We move on. The Department Report is 31 done. 32 DRAFT Draft Minutes 53 VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1 Chair Reckdahl: Comments and Announcements. Do you have any comments or 2 announcements? Does anyone? 3 Commissioner Cribbs: I do. I'm sorry; go ahead. 4 Vice Chair Moss: The Friends of the Palo Alto Parks have invited us to their next 5 meeting, which is in September. Don and I are going to represent the Commission. 6 Chair Reckdahl: Is there anything specific or they just want contact with us? 7 Vice Chair Moss: That was the thing. One of the things they were very interested in was 8 the AT&T property, but Daren has said that that's a very slow process. I wish there were 9 a way to speed that up. We have 2 months before we have to go before that committee. 10 If there was any way we could get something before then, that would be great. That's one 11 of the things. 12 Commissioner McDougall: I think their outreach was just a general "we'd like an update, 13 come and talk to us." 14 Chair Reckdahl: Interaction with them is always very good. We need to stay tightly 15 connected. The AT&T property, they have not redrawn the lines yet? It's a no go until 16 they do that. Have you heard anything new? 17 Ms. O'Kane: I believe that AT&T and the City are still working on the lot line 18 adjustments. 19 Chair Reckdahl: Are we talking directly with AT&T or are we talking through the lot 20 line people? What's the route that the parks people are talking to AT&T? 21 Ms. O'Kane: Our Real Estate Department is mostly working with the company that 22 AT&T has hired to do the lot line adjustment. We're also directly communicating with 23 AT&T as well. 24 Chair Reckdahl: If it goes up for sale, we will know quickly? 25 Ms. O'Kane: We would. 26 Vice Chair Moss: One more question. When I reviewed the transcript of the May 22nd 27 meeting with the City Council about the Master Plan, they had many, many comments. 28 Foothills Park, opening it up, and bicycles and many, many items. Do you feel that we're 29 going to get some pushback from the City Council for the—the reason I wanted to push 30 for this version to go is I'm worried that there's going to be some last minute changes or 31 DRAFT Draft Minutes 54 issues, and we'll never get this approved. What's your take on getting this approved by 1 the Council in September? 2 Mr. de Geus: I think we're on track to get it approved. It's not uncommon for the 3 Council—it's their prerogative to make final adjustments and revisions. That's okay. I'm 4 confident we've done a good job here, the Commission, the staff, and the many members 5 of the public. Helpful to have the Commission there and speak in support. I think it'll get 6 approved. 7 Chair Reckdahl: The last Council meeting, I thought they'd have 20 or 30 comments. 8 They only really had one where we had to go back and change. I think that's good news. 9 Commissioner Cribbs: I had another comment about the chili cookoff, which I thought 10 was great fun. Thank you for getting me in to be a judge. I think Jeff and I both felt like 11 it was great fun and great fun for the community. We'd love to see more chili teams next 12 year. We'd like to have the Commission challenge ourselves to find some chili teams, 13 either to have our own or do some outreach. If we each brought in one or two chili 14 teams, we'd get back up to the 25. It could be really good. I didn't want to lose sight of 15 that, so I have this. If we could address that in the agenda maybe in November or 16 something, we could start to do that. 17 Ms. O'Kane: That'd be great. Thank you for … 18 Chair Reckdahl: Did Pat Markovich have her team? 19 Commissioner Cribbs: She was there, but she didn't win this time. She wanted to win, 20 but she didn't. 21 Ms. O'Kane: Thank you for being a judge. It is a fun event for staff and for everyone 22 who attends. Thank you for being there. 23 Commissioner Cribbs: It was great fun. It was great fun for the community. People of 24 all ages were enjoying the music and the dancing and the Bowl and everything. It's was a 25 great 4th of July in Palo Alto. We just needed more teams. 26 Commissioner Greenfield: I think we also wanted to encourage the other Commissions 27 to reach out to try and get participation. 28 Vice Chair Moss: One other thing is the Midtown—what is it called? 29 Commissioner Cribbs: The ice cream social. 30 Vice Chair Moss: I encourage everybody to participate. 31 DRAFT Draft Minutes 55 Commissioner Cribbs: I have one more question. Rob, could you talk to us about your 1 tenure and what's going on and when you're moving to the Manager's Office and all of 2 that? 3 Mr. de Geus: I thought about whether to bring it up. We can talk about it next month as 4 well. We have begun the recruitment for my replacement. We're working with a 5 company, Terry Black. They'll do a national search. We're almost finished with the 6 brochure, so that will be out hopefully next week. It'll be open for a month. I have 7 already moved to the City Manager's Office, so I'm up there now, and have been doing 8 both jobs for this month. I fly to Australia on the weekend to see my family for 2 weeks. 9 That also marks a transition for Kristen to step in as interim while we go through the 10 process. The City Manager, Jim Keene, will make an announcement formally about that 11 change. That's the plan. It'll take 2-3 months to get through the process of recruiting. In 12 fact, I invite some of the Commissioners to participate on the interview panels that we'll 13 have for hiring the new director. If you're interested in that, let me know. 14 Chair Reckdahl: Ed helped out last time. He has expertise in that area. If you can get 15 Ed, I think … Go ahead. 16 Commissioner LaMere: Just one quick question. We've talked about the AT&T 17 property. The ITT property, is that on anyone's radar still about some of the direction of 18 that? Daren took me out there maybe 3 months ago. Someone else came out from the 19 City and made it seem like there's some simple things that could be done to kick start it. 20 There doesn't need to be any response now, but just something to keep on our minds or 21 maybe some agenda item in the next month or two just to get an update on that. Thank 22 you. 23 Chair Reckdahl: There's so much work that we could do out there. If we had a big 24 budget, we could do something really good. We, unfortunately, don't, so I think it's just 25 going to sit for a long time. 26 VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR AUGUST 22, 2017 MEETING 27 Chair Reckdahl: Let's move on to next month. We have four things. We have JMZ is 28 going to come back with a PIO. That's going to be an action item. We'll have three 29 discussion items, one of them being park dedication, what activities are prohibited and 30 park activities. I want to talk about this whole mime issue and what can you do and can't 31 you do in a park. The next is Rinconada, the long-term plan. The final is the Buckeye 32 Creek hydrology study update. Is there anything else? 33 Ms. O'Kane: There's not unless we discuss the Master Plan that's coming to Council as 34 Commissioner Cribbs recommended. I will say these four items could possibly be very 35 lengthy items. We may want to consider even moving one of these out. 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 56 Chair Reckdahl: If it hadn't been for this mime issue, I would have said push out park 1 dedication. That was for information only. Rinconada long-range plan. Is there 2 anything new on that or is that just an update? That's with the JMZ, isn't it? They 3 dovetail together. Let's either bump out park dedication or Buckeye Creek. Let's figure 4 out with Daren if there's news. 5 Commissioner McDougall: I would be willing to let the Chairman work with staff to 6 determine the agenda. 7 Commissioner Greenfield: Just one question. Regarding Buckeye Creek, is there a 8 schedule to share that with Council that would be impacted by pushing that? 9 Ms. O'Kane: It was supposed to go tonight, and we moved it to August. As Rob said, I 10 think it's fall, but I'd have to check with Daren on that. Probably October is the 11 timeframe. 12 Chair Reckdahl: Let's pencil in and confirm in a couple of weeks. Let's pencil moving 13 the park dedication 1 month back to September. We'll see how we feel in 2 weeks. 14 VIII. ADJOURNMENT 15 Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner McDougall and second by Vice Chair 16 Moss at 10:07 p.m. 17 To:      Parks and Recreation Commission          From:     Megha Bansal, Public Works Department                                       Date:    August 22, 2017     Subject:  Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Project Design Update    RECOMMENDATION  No action to be taken.  This report provides an update on the preliminary design  of the Baylands Boardwalk Improvement Project (CIP PE‐14018).  Staff would like  Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) input on design elements  presented in this report.    BACKGROUND   The project includes replacement of the existing boardwalk at the Lucy Evans  Baylands Nature Interpretive Center (Interpretive Center) with a new boardwalk  of the same length and on the same alignment as the existing boardwalk.     The existing boardwalk, approximately 850‐foot long and four‐foot wide timber  structure with two intermediate overlooks and one observation platform, was  constructed in 1969 and rehabilitated in 1980. Due to structural damage and  safety concerns, the boardwalk was closed in March 2014. After minor structural  repairs, a 200‐foot segment of the boardwalk between the Interpretive Center  and first overlook was opened to the public. A Feasibility Study was conducted in  March 2016 to assess the boardwalk condition. The study determined the  boardwalk to be structurally unsound and recommended replacement of the  existing structure, meeting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)  requirements and providing a longer design life of 50 to 75 years. Staff  presented the findings of the Feasibility Study to the Commission on March 22,  2016, and the Commission was in favor of boardwalk replacement (Staff Report:  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51603).    In September 2016, Council approved a contract with Biggs Cardosa Associates to  provide design services for the new boardwalk (Staff Report ID#6669). The project  team presented the initial design concepts in a community meeting on May 3,  2017 to receive public input. Meeting materials and additional project  information are provided on City’s website:  (www.cityofpaloalto.org/baylandscenter). The design features are presented  herein.     DISCUSSION  Project Description  The project includes replacement of the existing boardwalk with a new, ADA  compliant boardwalk of the same length and alignment. The new boardwalk will  be 5 feet wide and at the same deck elevation as the Interpretive Center. The  new boardwalk structure (railings, decking, supports, piles, etc.) will be  constructed of various types of timber elements to match the existing structure  style and character, and is expected to have a life span of 50 to 75 years. There  will be one observation platform at the far end of the structure, and four  intermediate overlooks along the structure. Benches with back and arm rests,  viewing panels, and sign rails to mount interpretive signage (under a separate  future contract) will be provided at the intermediate overlooks and observation  platform. The new boardwalk design will also accommodate access at the  interface of the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) catwalk where it crosses the  existing boardwalk, roughly at 400 feet from the Interpretive Center.      Additionally, the project requires the following regulatory permits and guidance  before construction:    United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Nationwide  Permit   California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401  Certification/ Waste Discharge Requirements    San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)  permit   United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) consultation    Attachment A includes a site plan detailing the scope of the project. Attachment  B includes a detailed description of project elements, graphics, and 35% design  drawings.  While the alignment, height, and width of the new boardwalk were  determined with guidance/input from the regulatory agencies, the Commission’s  input is requested on elements such as the number and locations of overlooks,  type and color of railing and decking, and type and location of benches and  viewing panels.  The project consists of the following elements:  1. Demolition of the Existing Boardwalk  2. Boardwalk Alignment, Height and Width  3. Intermediate Overlooks and Observation Platform  4. Railings and Viewing Panels  5. Decking  6. Piles and Supports  7. Benches  8. Wood Finish    1. Demolition of the Existing Boardwalk:  The existing boardwalk will be demolished including railings, decking, supports  and piles to the mudline.  The material removed will be disposed of/salvaged in  accordance with the City’s Green Building requirements.     2. Boardwalk Alignment, Height and Width:   The new boardwalk will be on the same alignment and will have the same length  (approximately 850 feet) as the existing boardwalk. The new boardwalk deck  width will be 5 feet to meet ADA standards, and the top of the deck will be at  elevation 13.5 feet throughout the structure, which is the same as the top of deck  elevation of the recently renovated Interpretive Center. The proposed elevation  (approximately 3.6‐4.3 feet higher than the existing boardwalk) was suggested  during preliminary discussions with the BCDC staff to accommodate sea level rise  predictions. Per input from the RWQCB, a shade study identified that the new  wider and taller boardwalk would not impede vegetation growth under the  structure. This study will be part of the environmental assessment currently being  prepared for the project.    3. Intermediate Overlooks and Observation Platform:  Similar to the existing boardwalk, the new boardwalk will have an observation  platform at the San Francisco Bay end of the structure to provide a panoramic  view of the bay. The observation platform will be 12 feet wide and 18 feet long.     Four new trapezoidal intermediate overlooks, 5‐foot wide, 12‐foot long (shorter  edge), and 18‐foot long (longer edge), are planned along the boardwalk length.  These intermediate overlooks are spaced out at roughly 200 feet (exceeds ADA  requirements of resting areas every 400 feet) and situated at locations capturing  specific features and phenomena of the salt marsh such as channels, formations,  typical wildlife, etc. Additionally, these overlooks will serve as resting spots, and  will improve access by allowing clearance for multi‐mode users in wheelchairs to  turn around and pedestrians to pass by.    Both the observation platform and the intermediate overlooks will accommodate  a 30 inch by 48 inch clear area for wheelchair users.     4. Railings and Viewing Panels:  A minimum 3.5 feet high redwood railing will be provided on each side of the  boardwalk. The railing design will be similar to the railing of the Interpretive  Center with minor modifications.     Intermittent viewing panels, either glass with bird‐safe design patterns or wire  mesh (1.5 feet wide and 2.75 feet tall) will be incorporated into the railings at the  intermediate overlooks and observation platform to enhance visibility for  wheelchair users and small children. The size of the viewing panels was  determined in consultation with the USF&WS. One viewing panel at each  intermediate overlook and two viewing panels at the observation platform are  planned.    Based on the input from the regulatory agencies, rollers (horizontal metal rods  that spin when touched) will be installed at the top of the railing to deter raptors  from perching to minimize the potential for predation of endangered species  (e.g., salt marsh harvest mouse and Ridgway’s Rail).     Sign rails (slanted railing cap designed to mount signs directly to the railing) will  be provided at the intermediate overlooks and observation platform to mount  interpretive signage (part of a future separate project).    5. Decking:  Redwood is proposed for the new boardwalk deck to match the Interpretive  Center deck material. The deck planks (2‐foot x 6‐foot x 5‐foot) would be placed  transversely, the most common style for boardwalks. The existing boardwalk has  deck planks placed longitudinally which has slightly higher maintenance and  replacement cost.     6. Piles and Supports:  The deck planks will be connected to and supported by timber bent caps and  timber posts/piles. Timber cross bracing will be installed between the posts/piles  to provide the necessary stability/support to the superstructure. The new  boardwalk is designed to have 12‐foot spans between piles/foundation, as  opposed to the 10‐foot spans of the existing boardwalk, reducing the number of  wooden piles/posts in the marsh from roughly 186 (existing) to 159 (proposed).     Alaskan Yellow Cedar is proposed for the proposed piles/posts, cross bracings,  and bent caps due to its suitability to marsh environment, durability and decay‐ resistance.  This material is recommended by the RWQCB in place of pressure  treated Douglas fir wood due to concerns with potential chemical treatment  effects.     7. Benches:  Wood benches with back and arm rests are proposed. Each intermediate overlook  will have one bench (2‐foot x 6‐foot) and the observation platform will have two  benches (2‐foot x 7‐foot).  Each overlook will also provide spaces for a wheel chair  alongside the benches.    8. Wood Finish:  In accordance with the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for Palo Alto  Baylands Nature Preserve, wood finishes will consist of Olympic 911 Natural Gray  Stain and metal components will be painted with Benjamin Moore Sandy Hook  Gray (HC‐108).    Environmental Constraints and Potential Construction Measures  The boardwalk is located in an environmentally sensitive area and is home to  several protected endangered species such as harvest mouse, Ridgway’s Rail, and  the California black rail. An effective construction methodology and sequence will  be developed pending environmental assessment and review to comply with all  regulatory requirements and environmental constraints. The potential  construction measures include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:    Construction window will be restricted to September 1 through January 31,  generally a non‐nesting season for  Ridgway’s Rails.    Existing boardwalk platform will be utilized as a staging platform to  construct the new boardwalk to minimize disturbance and avoid staging in  the marsh.     Expedited construction methods such as panelized railing construction will  be explored and implemented if feasible, to insure adherence to the  construction window.   Temporary marsh mats will be explored and implemented if feasible to  allow larger materials and equipment to access the boardwalk. Smaller  hand‐held equipment will be carried via the deck of the Interpretive Center.  The marsh mats distribute weight and prevent excessive sediment  disturbance and mobilization.   Construction personnel will be restricted to the existing Boardwalk and  marsh mats.      RESOURCE IMPACT  Funding for design services for this project is included in Capital Improvement  Program (CIP) project (PE‐14018) – Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Project.      POLICY IMPLICATIONS  The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and  programs.      TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS  This project requires an environmental assessment and the Commission to  recommend a Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) for Council approval.  Additionally, a major Architectural Review Board’s review is planned in fall 2017.  Project schedule is as follows:   Began design: October 2016   Public review of preliminary design: May – December 2017   Environmental assessment/public review: September – December 2017   Commission’s review and recommendation for PIO: September 2017   Agency permits/review:  Fall 2017‐ Summer 2018   Complete design/bid project pending permits: Summer 2018   Boardwalk construction  (best case): September 2018 ‐January 2019*   Boardwalk construction  (worst case): September 2019 ‐January 2020*  *To avoid nesting birds in the Baylands, the construction window is limited to five  months from September 1 through January 31, pending permits.  ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW  Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a draft Initial Study  and environmental assessment will be prepared and circulated.  A Mitigated  Negative Declaration is anticipated for this project.     ATTACHMENTS  Attachment A: Site Plan  Attachment B: Graphics and 35% Design Drawings      Attachment A – Site Plan     Plan View      Typical Section  ADOBE CREEK MULTI-USE PATH BRIDGE SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW PACKAGE 1 | VICINITY MAP/PROJECT DATA 4 | STRUCTURE ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 2 | NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 5 | CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 3 | SITE PLAN 6 | TREE PROTECTION PLAN BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 VICINITY MAP/PROJECT DATA 1.1 PROJECT DATA Project Address Situated in the Baylands public marshland, to the northwest of the existing Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center (Nature Center) located at 2775 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Project Owner City of Palo Alto Engineer: Anthony Notaro -Biggs Cardosa Associates Representative: Elizabeth Ames, Public Works Dept., Sr. Project Manager Zone: Land Use Designation: PF (D) P; CL; MISP Existing Improvement(s): The existing timber boardwalk structure extends roughly 850 feet north across the Harriet Mundy Marsh towards the San Francisco Bay from the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center and the San Francisquito Creek Trail. The existing boardwalk structure was constructed in 1969 and rehabilitated and widened by the City in 1980. The existing boardwalk was closed in 2014 due to structural deficiencies and safety concerns. The driven timber posts and supports have gradually decayed and broken over the years due to the elements and impacts from the corrosive tidal saltwater. The once level boardwalk is now undulating along its surface and listing noticeably to the east in several locations due to failed substructure elements. Total Site Area: 25,007 SF Existing Deck Area: 3,655 SF Proposed Deck Area: 4,815 SF Area Added: 1,160 SF Existing Deck Elev.: 9.9 feet (NAVD88) Proposed Deck Elev.: 13.5 feet (NAVD88) Green Design Elements Potential Green Elements being considered: The Boardwalk replacement project will avoid the use of pressure treated Douglas fir (PTDF) timber due to concerns with potential chemical treatment effects (most notably arsenic and copper) on the marsh environment Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification is available for the Alaskan Yellow Cedar timber elements, if desired by the City. FSC certification reduces the pool of mills able to process the material to roughly 15% of the available mills so there will be an associated lead time and costs increase. Cost increase is estimated at 10% to 15% premium. Assessor Parcel Map Location Map Comprehensive Plan BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 2.1 PHOTOGRAPHIC DISPLAY / NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 2.2 PHOTOGRAPHIC DISPLAY / NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT (Cont) BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 2.3 PHOTOGRAPHIC DISPLAY / NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT (Cont) Location of Existing Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.1 T2 BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.2 S1 BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.3 S2 BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.4 S3 BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.5 S4 BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.6 S10 BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.7 S11 BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.1 S5 BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.2 S6 BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.3 S7 BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.4 COLORS AND MATERIALS The following materials and colors are proposed for the replacement Boardwalk: MATERIALS In accordance with City and public input, the replacement Boardwalk will be constructed of timber elements to match the style and character of the existing Boardwalk structure. ALASKAN YELLOW CEDAR The timber structural elements (piles/posts, joists, bracing) are proposed to be constructed of Alaskan Yellow Cedar (AYC). AYC is highly durable and is in relatively common use for timber structures in marine environments:  AYC is notable for its durability and longevity.  AYC is naturally resistant to rot, decay, insect damage and, in saltwater applications, to marine borers.  AYC is considerably harder than most commercially available softwoods.  AYC resists splitting and slivering, and it is highly resistant to wear. AYC can be certified through the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) if desired by the City. FSC certification reduces the pool of mills able to process the order to roughly 15% of the available mills so there will be an associated lead time and costs increase. Cost increase is estimated at 10% to 15% premium. REDWOOD Heart Redwood timbers will be utilized for all timber deck and railing elements. Production of redwood lumber is limited to California, but the market is nationwide. The wood is easy to work, generally straight grained, and shrinks and swells comparatively little. It is also exceptionally stable, with very little shrinkage or seasonal movement. Redwood’s durability is entirely natural. The same tannins and unique cell structure that gives redwood its warm tones and exemplary strength make it naturally resistant to insects, decay, water and even fire. Redwood has proven durability in outdoor projects such as decking, fencing and outdoor furniture. The use of Redwood Decking would match the decking of the adjacent, recently renovated, Nature Center. METAL COMPONENTS TIMBER CONNECTORS: All metal connectors for mounting and connecting timber elements will be stainless steel and painted prior to installation. TIMBER FASTENERS: Coated deck screws and/ or stainless steel screws will be used for all timber to timber connections and to mount metal connectors. COLORS In accordance with the “Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve,” all wood finishes will consist of Olympic 911 Natural Gray Stain and all metal components will be painted with Benjamin Moore Sandy Hook Gray (HC-108). Benjamin Moore Sandy Hook Gray Olympic 911 Natural Gray Stain BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.5 INTERMEDIATE OVERLOOKS AND OBSERVATION PLATFORM The replacement Boardwalk will include an Observation Platform at the San Francisco Bay end of the Boardwalk to provide a panoramic view of the bay. The replacement Boardwalk will include four Intermediate Overlooks along its length. The existing Boardwalk has 2 overlooks. The overlooks will be spaced along the Boardwalk, and will serve to further improve access, allowing clearance for multi-mode users in wheelchairs to turn around and pedestrians to pass by. Both the Observation Platform and the Intermediate Overlooks will accommodate a 30 inch by 48 inch clear area for wheelchair users and a bench with arm rests. Bench Concept #1 Bench Concept #2 The intermediate overlooks and observation platform will be designed to support exterior interactive exhibits to engage visitors in salt marsh phenomena. Interactive exhibits and signage will be provided under a separate contract. The Boardwalk Replacement Project will include sloped timber sign rails at the Intermediate Overlooks and Observation Platform to serve as a platform for attaching the interpretive signage in the future. Interpretive Signage Samples BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.6 S8 BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.7 S9 BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.8 RAILINGS AND DECKING A redwood timber railing, 3.5 feet minimum in height, will be erected on each side of the boardwalk. The railing will take their style and character from the timber railings of the Nature Center. The railings will be customized to meet the structural requirements of the long straight Boardwalk. The railing will be designed to be constructed in panels to minimize on site construction and to speed erection of the railing within the limited work windows provided by the project (See “Project Constraints”). Intermittent viewing panels will be provided at the intermediate overlooks and observation platform to enhance visibility for wheelchair users and small children. In consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in order to minimize the potential for birds to strike the panels, each panel will be no more than 18 inches in width and will contain either glass with bird-safe design patterns or wire mesh. Existing Glass Viewing Panel at Nature Center Wire Mesh Viewing Panel Option Glass Frit Pattern Option Glass Etching Pattern Option Existing Railing at Nature Center Proposed Railing at Boardwalk Redwood is also proposed to be used for the deck of the boardwalk, which is the material used for the railings and deck of the recently renovated Nature Center. Interpretive signage on the railings will be installed as part of a future project. BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 5.1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE Task 1: Site Preparation: 1.1 Install temporary marsh mats to provide equipment and material access to the near end of the Boardwalk. 1.2 Remove existing railing, reinforce the existing Boardwalk and modify the deck width as required to accommodate construction operations Task 2: Post/ Pile Installation: 2.1 Vibrate/push lower segment of timber post/ pile to ground line 2.2 Splice upper segment of timber post/ pile to partially installed lower segment of timber post/ pile 2.3 Vibrate/push spliced timber post/ pile to specified tip elevation and cutoff top of post/ pile to cutoff elevation Task 3: Sub/Superstructure Installation 3.1 Install timber bent cap 3.2 Install timber cross bracing 3.3 Install timber rim joists and blocking 3.4 Install timber decking 3.5 Remove existing Boardwalk to mudline when no longer required for construction operations Task 4: Timber Railing Installation 4.1 Install timber railing on completed superstructure 4.2 Remove marsh mats 4.3 Complete site clean-up BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 8, 2017 TREE PROTECTION PLAN 6.1 See Attached otlA olaP fo ytiC !nalP eht fo traP s’tI - noitcetorP eerT !thgir boj eht od sbus dna swerc ruoy erus ekaM c morf raelc erutcurts gnihcnarb dna yponac egailof eht gnipeek yb meht tcetorp ot laitnesse era seert dnuora serusolcne decneF ,seitivitca dna slairetam ,tnempiuqe yb tcatno hw ni )ZPT( enoZ noitcetorP eerT eht gniyfitnedi dna ,etats detcapmoc-non dna tcatni na ni snoitidnoc lios dna stoor gnivreserp ,detcirtser era seitivitca dna dettimrep si ecnabrutsid lios on hci .devorppa esiwrehto sselnu .eert detaluger a fo ZPT eht nihtiw srucco ytivitca tcejorp nehw teehs siht ot dedda eb tsum troper noitcetorp eert devorppa nA eht weiver ,tnempoleved gnirud noitcetorp dna seert detaluger s'otlA olaP no noitamrofni deliated roF launaM lacinhceT eerT ytiC ./seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www ta dnuof )MTT( 1-TteehS noitcurtsnI noitcetorP eerT laicepS otlA olaP fo ytiC )dedeen sa gnidda( teehs siht no dedivorp ecaps eht ot dedda eb llahs stroper detaler-eert rehto llA .egaP dnegeL ro xednI teehS tcejorP no )s(teehs siht edulcnI ta dedaolnwod eb nac 1-T fo ypoc A Apply Tree Protection Report on sheet(s) T-2 Use addtional “T” sheets as needed TNEMETATS ERUSOLCSID EERT OTLAOLAP FO YTIC eunevA notlimaH 052 ,noisiviD gninnalP 10349AC,otlAolaP 1442-923 )056( gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth cilbup dna etavirp no detacol seert niatrec fo noitcetorp dna erusolcsid seriuqer ,040.01.8 retpahC ,edoC lapicinuM otlA olaP timrep gnidliub llaynapmocca tsum tnemetats erusolcsid detelpmoc A.snalp etis devorppa no nwohs ebyeht taht dna ,ytreporp .ytivitca tnempoleved rehto ro ,snoitacilppa timrep gnidarg ro noitilomed lla ,krowroiretxe edulcni taht snoitacilppa :SSERDDA YTREPORP ______________________________________________________________________ detalugeR ereht erA 1 ONSEY?ytreporp eht ot tnecajda ro no seert )4noitceS ot deecorp ,on fI( ].elbacilppa erehw kcehc ro/dna elcric esaelP .tnacilppaeht yb detelpmoc eb TSUM 4 -1 snoitceS[ .ylppa taht esoht kcehC ?seert eht era erehW .1 )seert retemaid ”4 revo gniwohs dettimbus eb tsum snalP( ytreporp eht nO etis tcejorp eht gnignahrevo ytreporp tnecajda nO )seerT teertS( enil ytreporp fo ’03 nihtiwtnemesae yaw-fo-thgir ro pirts retnalp ytiC eht nI * *seert teertS 1 erusolcne decnef a yb noitcetorp laiceps eriuqer edivorp tsumuoy ,timrep yna gniviecer ot roirP .snoitcurtsnidehcattaeht rep, t deriuqer fo noitcepsni rof 3595-394 ta snoitarepO skroW cilbuPgnillacyb mrofnoitacifireV noitcetorP eerT teertS dezirohtua na III ro II ,I epy .)506# liateD dehcatta ees( gnicnef detcetorP yna ereht erA .2 1 detangiseD ro 1 ?seerT SEY )elbacilppa erehwkcehC(ON )s( eerT detcetorP )s( eerTdetangiseD ytreporp eht gnignahrevo ro nO ?seert eseht fo )retemaid knurt eht semit 01 suidar(?enilpird eht nihtiwgnidarg ro ytivitca ereht sI .3 ONSEY a ,seY fI tropeRnoitavreserP eerT MTTees( weiver ffats rof dettimbus dna tsirobra deifitrec ASI na yb deraperp eb tsum 2 .)52.6 noitceS , .stnemeriuqeR nalP etiS rep ,”!nalP eht fo traPsti ,noitcetorP eerT:,1-T teehS ot troper siht hcattA stnemeriuqeR nalP etiS eht erA .4 **?detelpmoc ON SEY yponacdnaretemaid knurt derusaem eht wohs tsum snalP )1(:gniwollof eht eriuqer tnempoleved gnirudseertdetalugeRfo noitcetorP** - 506# liateD dna1-TteehS rep ,enilpird eht ottuo aeraerusolcnedecnef a ,enil dehsad dlob a sa ,etoned tsum snalP )2( ;enilpird mth.smrof/seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth MTT osla eeS(2 )decnef eb otaera rof 51.2 noitceS , .erusolcsid siht fo snoitidnoc eht ot eerga ,dengisrednueht ,I ro eslaf gnidivorp yltnegilgen roylgniwonk taht dnatsrednu I noitceSedoC lapicinuM otlA olaP eht fo noitaloiv a setutitsnoctnemeriuqer erusolcsid siht ot esnopser ni noitamrofni gnidaelsim .noitca lagel livic ro/dna lanimirc ot dael nac hcihw,040.01.8 ____________ :etaD______________________________ :tnirP __________________________ :erutangiS )tnegA ro renwO .porP( :ESU FFATS ROF gnicneF evitcetorP eb tsum 6-5 snoitceS ffats yb detelpmoc .)timrep gnidliub ro gnidarg ,noitilomed( timrep tnempoleved yna fo ecnaussi eht rof seerT detcetorP.5 taht gniyfirev dehcatta si tnemetats nettirw A .ecalp ni si gnicnef eert deificeps ehT . ecalp ni yltcerroc si gnicnef evitcetorp .seert detangised ro/dna detcetorp dnuora ONSEY ereh kcehc ,seertdetcetorp on era ereht fi A/N() seerT teertS.6 .dehcatta si mrof noitacifireV noitcetorP eerT teertS skroW cilbuP dengis A .ONSEY ereh kcehc ,seert teerts on era ereht fi A/N(.) _____________________________1 5.11 era hcihw skaO yellaV ro skaO eviL tsaoC – seert detcetorP )b ;ytreporp cilbup no seert – seert teertS )a –seerT detalugeR tsaoC ,regral ro retemaid ni ”Cyb detangised seert era seert egatireH dna ;edarg larutan evoba ”45 derusaem nehw ,regral roretemaid ni ”81 era hcihw sdoowdeR )c dna ;licnuoC yti.nalp epacsdnal devorppa na fo trap era hcihw ,seert ytreporp laitnediser-non ro laicremmoc –seerT detangiseD2 ta elbaliava ,mrof siht no stnemeriuqer lla rof snoitcurtsni sniatnoc )MTT( launaM lacinhceTeerT otlA olaP lmth.launam-lacinhcet_eert/ytinummoc-gninnalp/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth tnemetatSerusolcsiDeerT/ofnI noitcetorPeerT/tsirobrA/vidalP/nalP:S 60/80desiveR J XIDNEPPA snoitacificepS dna sgniwarD dradnatS 4002 otlA olaP fo ytiC 60/80desiveR 13 noitceS ,EWP ,noitcetorP fo noitacifireV eerT teertS P S - OTLA OLA SNOITCURTSNI NOITCETORP EERT TEERT --13 NOITCES- lareneG1-13 snoitcnufyramirpeerhtsah noitcetorp eerT.a raelc erutcurts gnihcnarbdna yponac egailof eht peekot )1,dna tcatni na ni snoitidnoc lios dna stoor evreserp ot )2 ;seitivitcadna slairetam ,tnempiuqe yb tcatnoc morf si ecnabrutsidlios onhcihwni )ZPT( enoZ noitcetorP eerT eht yfitnedi ot )3dna etats detcapmoc-non .devorppa esiwrehto sselnu,detcirtser era seitivitcadna dettimrep )ZPT(enoZ noitcetorP eerT ehT.b semit-net fo suidar a htiw eert ehtfoesab eht dnuora aera detcirtser a si .gnicnef ybdesolcne ,retaerg si revehcihw ;teefnet roknurt s'eert eht fo retemaid eht stnemucoD ecnerefeR 2-13 506 liateD.a .woleb debircsed snoitautis fo noitartsullI – smroF )MTT( launaM lacinhceTeerT.b ( /seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth ) .1 ( senoZ noitcirtseR gnihcnerT )C(02.2noitceS ,MTT ) .2 ( locotorP gnitropeR tsirobrA 03.6noitceS ,MTT ) .3 (stnemeriuqeR nalP etiS 53.6 noitceS ,MTT ) .4 ( tnemetatS erusolcsiD eerT JxidneppA ,MTT ) mroF )VTS( noitacifireV eerT teertS.c ( smrof/seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth ) noitucexE 3-13 :noitcetorP eerT I epyT.a eht tuohguorht detcetorpebot )s(eert eht fo ZPT eritne eht esolcne llahs ecnef ehT ,saera gnikrap emos nI .tcejorpnoitcurtsnoceht fo efil ton lliwtaht etercnoc rognivap nodetacol si gnicnef fi ybdevorppa fi ,esab etercnoc level edarg etairporppa na yb detroppus eb yamstsopeht neht ,dehsilomedeb .snoitarepO skroW cilbuP :noitcetorP eerT II epyT.b fo edis dray dna pirts gnitnalpeht ylno ,pirts gnitnalp a nihtiwdetautis seert roF dnaklawedis eht peekot redro nignicnef evitcetorpknil niahcderiuqer eht htiw desolcne eb llahs ZPT eht .esu cilbup rof nepo teerts :noitcetorP eerT III epyT.c ylnodesu eb oT a nidetautis seerT .snoitarepOskroWcilbuP folavorppa htiw ni-2htiw depparw ebllahs,tip retnalp klawedis ro lleweert ot dnuorg eht morfgnicnef citsalp egnarofosehc gidot dewolla eb ton llahs stals( yleruces dnuob stals nedoowkciht hcni-2htiwdialrevodna hcnarb tsrif eht yna gnigamad diova ot desu eb llahs noituac ,gnicnef citsalpeht fonoitallatsni gniruD.)krab eht otni .tsirobrA ytiCeht ybdetcerid sa gnicnef citsalperiuqer osla yam sbmil rojaM .sehcnarb .decnef eb otaera dna epyt ,eziS.d niahc hgihtoof )'6( xis htiwdetcetorp eb llahsdevreserpebot seert llA ot dnuorg eht otni nevird ,stsop nori dezinavlagretemaid hcni-owt nodetnuomeb ot era secneF.secnefknil sselnu,gnihcnarbretuoeht ot dnetxe llahs gnicneF.gnicaps toof-01 naht erom on ta teef-2 tsael ta fohtped a .mroFVTSeht no devorppa yllacificeps sngis ’gninraW‘.e toof-02taecnef hcae no deyalpsid yltnenimorp dna foorp rehtaew ebllahsngisgninraw A . :srettel llat hcni flah ni etats ylraelc dna sehcni-11xsehcni-5.8 muminim ebllahs ngisehT .slavretni ot gnidrocca enif aot tcejbus si dna devomerebton llahs ecnef sihT - enoZ noitcetorP eerT - GNINRAW“ ”.011.01.8 noitceS CMAP noitaruD.f itilomederofebdetcere ebllahs gnicnef eerT .niniamer dnasnigeb noitcurtsnocro gnidarg ;no lios rokroW.ZPT eht ni dewolla yllacificeps krow rof tpecxe ,tcejorp ehtfo noitcepsni lanif litnu ecalp dnuora krowfo esac eht ni( tsirobrA ytiC rotsirobra tcejorp ehtyb lavorppa seriuqer ZPT ehtni ecnabrutsid .skroW cilbuP morf timreP kroWteertS a eriuqer yaw fo thgircilbup eht nihtiw snoitavacxE.)seerT teertS noitcurtsnoc gniruD.g .1 .dnikyna fo tcapmi morfdetcetorpeb llahs etis tcejorpeht gnahrevotaht seert 'srobhgien llA.2 seert denwo ylcilbup yna fo ytlanepsulp tnemecalper ro riapereht rof elbisnopser eb llahs tnacilppa ehT otlAolaP ehtfo 070.40.8 noitceS ottnausrup ,noitcurtsnocfo esruocehtgnirud degamad erataht .edoC lapicinuM .3 :deniaterebot seert lla ot ylppa serusaem noitavreserp eertgniwollofehT .a .ZPT eht nihtiw dettimrepeb llahs tnempiuqe ro selcihev ,liospot ,lairetam fo egarots oN .b .deretla eb ton llahs aera yponac eert eht dnuora dna rednudnuorgehT.c .lavivrus erusne ot yrassecen sa deniatniam dnadetarea ,detagirri ebllahsdeniater ebot seerT NOITCES FO DNE otlA olaP fo ytiC tnemtrapeD eerT snoitarepO skroW cilbuP 30349 AC ,otlA olaP 05201 xoB OP 3595-694/056 9829-258/056 :XAF gro.otlAolaPfoytiC@noitcetorpeert fo noitacifireV noitcetorP eerT teertS eerT dengis htiw gnola mrof siht XAF ro liaM .mrof siht fo noitrop reppu etelpmoC :snoitcurtsnI tnacilppA .tnacilppa yfiton dna tcepsni lliw ffatS eerT skroWcilbuP .tpeD skroW cilbuP ot tnemetatS erusolcsiD :ETAD NOITACILPPA TEERTS FO NOITACOL/SSERDDA :DETCETORP EB OT SEERT :EMAN S’TNACILPPA :SSERDDA S’TNACILPPA ENOHPELET S’TNACILPPA :SREBMUN XAF & ffatSeerT ytiC yb tuo dellif eb ot noitcessihT evoba eht ta seerT teertS ehT .1 yletauqeda era )se(sserdda noitcetorp fo epyt ehT .detcetorp :si desu woleb 2# ot og ,ON fI * :yb detcepsnI :noitcepsnI fo etaD SEY *ON evoba eht ta seerT teertS ehT .2 era sserdda TON tcetorPeerT.tS/SD/eerT/SPO/DWP:S 6071/5 yletauqeda gniwollof ehT .detcetorp :deriuqer era snoitacifidom deriuqer ehtwoh etacidnI detacinummoc erewsnoitacifidom .tnacilppa eht ot noitcepsnI tneuqesbuS dnuof erewsserdda evoba ta seert teertS :detcetorp yletauqeda eb ot .esac fo noitisopsid eht woleb ”setoN“ ni etacidni ,ON fI * :yb detcespnI :noitcepsnI fo etaD SEY *ON :setoN ,seiceps yb seert teerts ytiC tsiL noitcetorp eert fo epyt dna noitidnoc ,etis erewserutcip fi eton oslA .dellatsni .yrassecen fi teehs fo kcab esU .nekat .ecnaussi timrep gnidliub ro noitilomed rof tnacilppA ot teehs devorppa nruteR itcetorPeerTotlAolaPfoytitCadetacolerasnoitcurtsnInosu.ac.otla-olap.ytic.www//:pttlhmth.launam-lacinhcet/seert/ ---GNINRAW--- enoZnoitcetorPeerT tuohtiwdevomerebtonllahsgnicnefsihT )3595-694-056(lavorppatsirobrAytiC sinoissimreptuohtiwlavomeR *yadrepenif005$aottcejbus 011.01.8noitceSedoClapicinuMotlAolaP* :hcraeS decnavdA cipoTyBesworB emoH tnemnorivnEytinummoC&gninnalP emoH ytiC-seerTdenwo yletavirP-seerTdenwo eerTehttuobAecnanidrO 01.8eltiT seerTegatireH smroF launaMlacinhceTeerT sQAF sUtcatnoC secruoseR launaMlacinhceTeerT oT esahcrup launaMlacinhceTeerTeht noitidEtsriF1002,enuJ :noitcesybweiV stnetnoCfoelbaT )BK78,FDP(esopruPdnatnetnI )BM50.1,FDP(noitcudortnI -launaMfoesU )BM50.1,FDP( 0.1noitceS -snoitinifeD )BK69,FDP(0.2noitceS -noitcurtsnoCgniruDseerTfonoitcetorP )BK952,FDP( 0.3noitceS -seerTfognitnalP&tnemecalpeR,lavomeR )BK711,FDP(0.4noitceS -seerTsuodrazaH )BK501,FDP(0.5noitceS -senilediuGecnanetniaMeerT )BK011,FDP( 0.6noitceS -stropeReerT )BK48,FDP( :snoitcesLLAweiV launaMlacinhceTeerT-lluF )BM48.1,FDP( SECIDNEPPA tnemeganaM&noitavreserPeerT,01.8retpahCedoClapicinuMotlAolaP.A snoitalugeRytiCeerT:B -ASU mroFnoitaulavEdrazaHASI:C )ecruosecnerefeR(seicepSdetceleSrofsnrettaPeruliaFtnerehnIfotsiL:D senilediuGgninurPeerTASI:E )BM58.1,FDP(1.331ZISNA,sdradnatSytefaSeraCeerT:F -)ecruosecnerefeR(4991003AISNA,sdradnatSecnamrofrePgninurP:G -)ecruosecnerefeR(5991 :H 505&405margaiD,sliateDgnitnalPeerT tnemetatSerusolcsiDeerT:I snoitcurtsnInoitcetorPeerTdradnatSotlAolaP:J 1-T Pr o j e c t Da t a Type II Tree Protection Type I Tree Protection Type III Tree Protection Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shown in gray (radius of TPZ equals 10-times the diameter of the tree or 10-feet, whichever is greater). Restricted activity area -- see Tree Technical Manual Sec 2.15(E). Restricted trenching area -- see Tree Technical Manual Sec 2.20(C-D), any proposed trench or form work within TPZ of a protected tree requires approval from Public Works Operations. Call 650-496-5953. TPZeither 10 x Tree Diameter or 10-feet, whichever is greater Any proposed trench in TPZ requires approvalSee TTM 2.20 C-D for instructions 6-foot high chain link fence,typical (to be used only with approval of Public Works Operations) Tree fencing is required and shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins. Any inadvertant sidewalk or curb replacement or trenching requires approval Rev By Date City of Palo Alto Standard DwgNo. Approved by: Dave Dockter Date PE No. 2006 Scale: NTS 605 Tree Protection During Construction 1RWH6WUHHW7UHHV,VVXDQFHRIDSHUPLWUHTXLUHV 3XEOLF:RUNV2SHUDWLRQVLQVSHFWLRQDQGVLJQHG DSSURYDORQWKH6WUHHW7UHH9HULILFDWLRQ 679 IRUPSURYLGHG 1RWH2UGLQDQFH3URWHFWHG 'HVLJQDWHG7UHHV,VVXDQFHRIDSHUPLWUHTXLUHVDSSOLFDQWಬVSURMHFWDUERULVW ZULWWHQYHULILFDWLRQ7\SH,LVLQVWDOOHGFRUUHFWO\ DFFRUGLQJWRWKHSODQVDQG7UHH3UHVHUYDWLRQ5HSRUW 2-inches of Orange Plastic Fencing overlaid with2-inch Thick Wooden Slats Detailed specifications are found in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) (www.cityofpaloalto.org/trees/) Warning Warning Warning 8.5x11-inch Warning Signs one each side Fencing must provide public passage while protecting all other land in TPZ. For written specifications associated with illustrations below, see Public Works Specifications Section 31 Fence distance to outer branches or TPZ 12/14/92 Restricted use fortrees in sidewalk cutout tree wells only For all Ordinance Protected and Designated trees, as detailed in the site specific tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by the applicant’s project arborist as diagramed on the plans. Yard Sidewalk Parkway Strip Street D.D.01 08/04/04 02 D.D.08/10/06 0 DWH Warning SPECIAL INSPECTIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT TREE PROTECTION INSPECTIONS MANDATORY PAMC 8.10 PROTECTED TREES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE PROJECT SITE ARBORIST IS PERFORMING REQUIRED TREE INSPECTION AND SITE MONITORING. PROVIDE WRITTEN MONTHLY TREE ACTIVITY REPORTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT LANDSCAPE REVIEW STAFF BEGINNING 14 DAYS AFTER BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. BUILDING PERMIT DATE: ______________________ _______ DATE OF 1ST TREE ACTIVITY REPORT: ___ _____________ CITY STAFF: ___________________________ ___________ REPORTING DETAILS OF THE MONTHLY TREE ACTIVITY REPORT SHALL CONFORM TO SHEET T-1 FORMAT, VERIFY THAT ALL TREE PROTECTION MEASURES ARE IMPLIMENTED AND WILL INCLUDE ALL CONTRACTOR ACTIVITY, SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULED, WITHIN A TREE PROTECTION ROOT ZONE. NON-COMPLIANCE IS SUBJECT TO VIOLATION OF PAMC 8.10.080. REFERENCE: PALO ALTO TREE TECHNICAL MANUAL, SECTION 2.00 AND ADDENDUM 11. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6460 2775 EMBARCADERO WAY THERE ARE NO TREES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS otlA olaP fo ytiC !nalP eht fo traP s’tI - noitcetorP eerT !thgir boj eht od sbus dna swerc ruoy erus ekaM c morf raelc erutcurts gnihcnarb dna yponac egailof eht gnipeek yb meht tcetorp ot laitnesse era seert dnuora serusolcne decneF ,seitivitca dna slairetam ,tnempiuqe yb tcatno hw ni )ZPT( enoZ noitcetorP eerT eht gniyfitnedi dna ,etats detcapmoc-non dna tcatni na ni snoitidnoc lios dna stoor gnivreserp ,detcirtser era seitivitca dna dettimrep si ecnabrutsid lios on hci .devorppa esiwrehto sselnu .eert detaluger a fo ZPT eht nihtiw srucco ytivitca tcejorp nehw teehs siht ot dedda eb tsum troper noitcetorp eert devoppa nA eht weiver ,tnempoleved gnirud noitcetorp dna seert detaluger s'otlA olaP no noitamrofni deliated roF launaM lacinhceT eerT ytiC ./seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www ta dnuof )MTT( 2-TteehS noitcurtsnI noitcetorP eerT laicepS otlA olaP fo ytiC 2-T )dedeen sa gnidda( teehs siht no dedivorp ecaps eht ot dedda eb llahs stroper detaler-eert rehto llA .egaP dnegeL ro xednI teehS tcejorP no )s(teehs siht edulcnI nloaded atwod eb nac 1-T fo ypoc A Pr o j e c t Da t a http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6460 Apply Tree Protection Report on sheet(s) T-2 Use addtional “T” sheets as needed TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Public Works DATE: 08/22/17 SUBJECT: Rinconada Park Long Range Plan RECOMMENDATION No action to be taken. BACKGROUND The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan (LRP) Project is an evaluation of the park and it’s amenities to guide future improvements and renovations, analyzing current site conditions as well as community input and needs. The long range plan provides insight into how the park is currently being utilized and identifies areas in which the park can be improved. The long range plan will be used to guide the future development and maintenance of the park over the next 25 years. The LRP started its development in March of 2012. Over the next two years a full park analysis was performed to identify the existing conditions. A community design process conducted over a series of three meetings to capture input and review design options for enhancements to the park. A stakeholder group composed of representatives from the surrounding facilities and main park user groups was also assembled to participate in the design process. The proposed Draft LRP recommendations were reviewed by the City’s Boards and Commissions including the Parks and Recreation Commission (three meetings), Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission as well as by city staff. Other feedback was provided by Walter Hays School, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Commission and the Palo Alto Arts Commission. A Draft LRP was presented at a community meeting in September of 2013 and subsequently reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) in November of 2013. The proposed plan was supported by both the community and the PRC at the time of those reviews. All project information and presentations can be found at the projects web page at www.cityofpaloalto.org/rinconadaplan. As an aspect to finalize the LRP is the completion of an environmental study of the enhancement proposed to the park per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As part of the LRP, the expansion of the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) was included in this study as a portion of the Zoo extends into the boundaries of the park. To finalize the environmental study a completed design of the JMZ was necessary. Over a two year period from 2014 - 2016 the design of the new JMZ facility was conducted with feedback from the community and the City’s Boards and Commissions. A full developed design of the JMZ that provided the necessary detail to conduct the environmental study was prepared in 2016, which began the start of the environmental study work for both projects. A copy of the Draft Rinconada LRP (Attachment ‘A’) ,a Draft Copy of the Long Range Plan Report (Attachment ‘B’) and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration or IS/MND (Attachment ‘C’) have been provided for the commission to review. Further information concerning the Junior Museum and Zoo Project can be found at the projects web page at www.cityofpaloalto.org/jmzproject. DISCUSSION Long Range Plan Review This presentation of the Draft LRP to the Parks and Recreation Commission is to provide an update on the plans development, recommendations and implementation. The LRP has divided the park into 12 main elements these elements include:  Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation  Gateways  Play Areas  Girl Scout House and Group Picnic Area  Main Lawn  Tennis Courts  Pool Area  Arboretum  Concrete Bowl  Magic Forest  Substation Perimeter  Hopkins Street Frontage The recommendation for each of these elements is discussed in further detail in the Draft LRP Report (Attachment ‘A’). CEQA Review Per the findings of the initial study, for both the LRP and JMZ project, it was determined that no significant environmental impacts would result from the implementation of these two projects. As a result each project was determined to move forward with the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). A Mitigated Negative Declaration provides guidance of how and what type of mitigation measures would be required to address areas in which a minor environmental impact would occur. A copy of the Draft IS/MND has been provided for the PRC’s review (Attachment ‘C’). The studies associated with the project’s environmental review can be found on the projects web page and a hard copy draft of the full IS/MND and studies can be reviewed in the planning office at City Hall. A community meeting and public hearing was conducted on August 10, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and to comply with CEQA requirements. The August 22, 2017 PRC meeting marks the second community meeting and provides another opportunity for the public to respond to the findings of the IS/MND. The 30 day comment period ends on September 5th. Mitigation measures will be implemented for both the LRP and JMZ projects and focus on the following aspects: • Biological Resources • Migratory Bird Treaty Act • Tree Preservation and Replacement • Cultural Resources • Unrecorded cultural or archaeological resources • Unrecorded human remains • Paleontological resources • Noise • Construction Activity Noise Mitigation NEXT STEPS The Rinconada LRP along with the IS/MND will return to the PRC by the end of the year requesting a recommendation for Council to adopt the plan. Upon PRC recommendation, both documents will be presented to the City Council for adoption. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed 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. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Long Range Plan Attachment B: Draft Long Range Plan Report Attachment C: Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – the full version with the studies in the appendices is located on projects web page at www.cityofpalotalto.org/rinconadaplan PREPARED BY Peter Jensen Landscape Architect City of Palo Alto RINCONADA PARK DRAFT LONG RANGE PLAN July 2017 ATTACHMENT B ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN CITY OF PALO ALTO This project was a joint effort of the Community Services and Public Works Departments of the City of Palo Alto. The core team included the following staff members: Rob de Geus, Director of Community Services Kristen O’Kane, Assistant Director of Community Services Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks & Golf Division Manager Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer The parks and Recreation Commission advised staff throughout the planning process: Current Members: Keith Reckdahl Anne Warner Cribbs Jeff Lamere Jeff Greenfield Ryan McCauley Don McDougall David Moss Past Members: Stacy Ashlund Dierdre Crommie Jennifer Hetterly Abbie Knopper Ed Lauing Pat Markevitch Jim Cowie CONSULTANTS Primary Consultant Verde Landscape 2455 The Alameda # 200, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Report By MIG, INC. 800 Hearst Ave, Berkeley, CA 94710 PALO ALTO COMMUNITY Special thanks to the dedicated Palo Alto residents and community members who contributed their time, energy and ideas to this effort, particularly the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group. CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 1 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION In 2012, the City of Palo Alto (the City) launched a long-range planning process for Rinconada Park. The park is home to many of Palo Alto’s valued recreational, cultural, and natural resources, including tennis courts, the Junior Museum and Zoo, the City’s only public aquatic facility, and a rich canopy of mature redwood and oak trees. The park is adjacent to the Lucie Stern Community Center and fire and power stations. Encompassing 11.8 acres of land, Rinconada Park is centrally located in Palo Alto’s Community Center neighborhood and abuts Embarcadero Road. The park is a popular destination for both Palo Alto residents and community members from the surrounding region. The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan will guide improvements and renovations to Rinconada Park for the next 25 years. The development of the Plan reflects the City’s commitment to evolving the parks system to serve a larger and more diverse set of community needs and maintain the high standard of living enjoyed by residents. The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan is consistent with the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Master Plan principles related to play, health, sustainability, inclusivity, accessibility, flexibility, balance, and nature. The planning process started in spring of 2012. The Project Team, including the design consultant and City staff, worked closely with community members and stakeholders to understand needs, and establish priorities for Rinconada Park. The Project Team translated the initial public input into three design alternatives, which were then explored by community members and stakeholders. The preferred design, presented in this document, represents a community supported vision for one of Palo Alto’s most treasured parks. RINCONADA PARK LONG TERM PLAN OBJECTIVES Coordinate and update park resources and amenities to reflect current and future needs of park users. Balance the needs of a diversity of users. Respond to park usage as it relates to the surrounding neighborhood and community facilities. Address safety concerns and make building code updates and infrastructural improvements. Establish priority improvements and a phased implementation plan and budget. C o o r d i n a t e a n d CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 2 Chapter II of this Long Range Plan document includes the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan design with descriptions of planned improvements and a summary of the implementation approach. Chapter III describes the process that shaped the Plan, including site analysis and community engagement. The appendices include a complete cost analysis and phasing. CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 3 CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN The technical analysis and public outreach indicated a need for improved circulation and park gateways as well has enhanced play and social spaces, natural areas, and recreational amenities in Rinconada Park. The Long Range Plan includes improvements to circulation, parking, safety, and accessibility; creating a sense of aesthetic consistency throughout the park though clear wayfinding and program identification, site furnishing upgrades, and pathway materials; and preservation and integration of heritage trees and water-wise landscaping. (See Graphic 1.) The Plan divides the park into twelve elements per the overall character or programed activity of each. These twelve park elements include:  Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation  Gateways  Play Areas  Girl Scout House and Group Picnic Area  Main Lawn  Tennis Courts  Pool Area  Arboretum  Concrete Bowl  Magic Forest  Substation Perimeter  Hopkins Street Frontage This chapter describes each element followed by a description of the implementation phases. PLAN ELEMENTS PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION Rinconada Park’s internal path system will weave together the many uses and integrate the park into Palo Alto’s citywide multimodal transportation network. (See Graphic 2.) Insert Circulation – Pedestrian Graphic The main pathway through Rinconada Park will connect the park entryways at the east and west ends of the park, providing pedestrian and bicycle access to the many amenities in and adjacent to the park. Bike racks located at heavily used entryways and distributed throughout the park will allow users to secure their bicycles while making use of the entire park. CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 4 The main pathway will be 15-feet wide and constructed of concrete. It may be textured, colored, or patterned to enhance crossings, gathering spaces, and entryways. Smaller pathways, constructed of decomposed granite, will connect secondary park entrances and recreation and play areas with the main path. Pathways in proximity to existing mature native trees will be constructed of permeable paving to allow for stormwater absorption into the soil. Sidewalk, crosswalk, and entryway enhancements will improve the visibility and accessibility of the park and better connect Rinconada Park with surrounding neighborhoods. GATEWAYS West Entrance (Rinconada Parking Lot) The west entrance to Rinconada Park will feature a new plaza that showcases the existing mature trees. Other enhancements may include an architectural structure with a welcome sign, wayfinding signage, and pedestrian scale art work celebrating the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. Colorful low plantings and shade trees will welcome visitors and allow for visibility in and out of the park. East Entrance (Newell) The main east entrance is an important point of access to the park, linking the Rinconada Library and Art Center. An improved crosswalk at the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Newell Road, a drop-off zone, and a meandering pathway set back from Newell Road will create an inviting gateway that connects the park with the Rinconada Library and the Palo Alto Art Center. To achieve the meandering path the existing row of Redwood trees will be removed, due to high voltage electrical lines above that require the continuous topping of the trees and subsequent declining health. The redwood trees will be replaced with other types of native trees more appropriate for the growing space. An enhanced shuttle stop along this path will serve both Rinconada Park and the Library and Art Center. In congruence with the park’s west entrance, a welcome sign and wayfinding signage will greet visitors at the entry. Additional lighting will highlight the entrance while enhancing security. A three dumpster refuse bin enclosure with access from Newell Road with solid walls and gates will provide additional service to the park reducing trash pick-up in the park. WEST ENTRANCE EAST ENTRANCE SOUTH ENTRANCE CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 5 South Entrance (Embarcadero) Special paving, low landscaped themed stone walls that curve into the park and away from the curb edge, and art elements will announce the park entrances into the Arboretum and improve circulation for the pedestrian and bicyclists accessing the park from the sidewalk PLAY AREAS The Long Range Plan brings the tot lot and older child play equipment together, creating one integrated play environment at the west end of the park. The space will be accessible for children of all ages and abilities. The consolidated play spaces will allow guardians to supervise children of different ages. A low fence will provide secure enclosure and delineate the children’s areas. Shade sails over the play equipment will protect children from the direct sun. An adult exercise area features exterior fitness equipment and open rubber surfacing for physical activity. Placed between the playground and main lawn activity area, this exercise space will provide opportunities for people of all generations and abilities. Seating around the play equipment, the nearby Group picnic area, and outdoor exercise equipment directly to the east will establish this as a hub of multigenerational activity. A new restroom located at the west end of the park will be open during park hours of operation and will serve this play area and main group picnic area. The established large trees in and around this space will be preserved. GIRL SCOUT HOUSE AND GROUP PICNIC AREA Girl Scout House The Girl Scout House will be enhanced with ADA upgrades and additional amenities. This element will be shared by the public and Girl Scouts, with Girl Scouts having priority use. Group Picnic Area New and improved amenities include a fire pit, food preparation table, benches, and picnic area. MAIN LAWN Rinconada Park’s existing large lawn area will remain open space and the existing mature trees in the middle of the lawn area should not be replaced when they naturally decline. Due to the limited amount of open space for large group gathering or activities replacement trees for those trees located in the main lawn are not recommended to be replaced in CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 6 their current locations, however, further tree planted should be considered in the many planting areas found throughout the park. The lawn area can be accessed from a secondary entry on Hopkins Avenue via the main pathway. The north end of the lawn is boarded by a secondary pathway and includes a large shaded picnic area. Walter Hays Elementary School borders the lawn area and uses the pathway as a running and walking loop. The improved path will include entry nodes with educational elements, artwork, and demonstration gardens adjacent to the pathway. TENNIS COURTS (within the park) The tennis courts are heavily used, valued by community members. The Long Range Plan shifts the courts to the west to allow a pedestrian access route along the east side of the courts. Additional seating and viewing space will be added around the perimeter, which will help to enhance the courts as community space where family, friends, and passersby can watch tournaments or casual play. On the west side, a covered pavilion will be open to the public and used by the Tennis Club as desired for check-in and coordination. To the south of the courts, an informal tennis plaza with shaded seating will provide space for spectators. A permeable area designed to protect the roots of the large heritage oak tree will replace the existing tot lot playground and provide areas of shaded seating and gathering. CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 7 POOL AREA The pool is a popular and beloved community destination and is used for recreation, fitness, and competitive swimming. Improvements will better integrate the pool into the fabric of Rinconada Park and enhance the pool as a central gathering place. Enhancements include the following: Pool Deck Expansion Enhancements include increasing the pool deck area on the west side of the lap pool to provide a much needed larger deck space and to the east side of the children’s pool providing a larger seating area for families to gather. Increased the access to shade in the expanded deck areas will also be incorporated. Pool Building and Locker Room Renovations The Long Term Plan recommends the renovation to the existing 4,700 square foot pool structure that includes the locker rooms, office, and pool storage. The renovation will add a 2,300 square foot wing for a new public restroom, activity room and a potential space for concessions. The City may consider concessions operated by a private entity, managed under the same guidelines as the café in the new Mitchell Park Community Center and Library. Exterior Pool Plaza Area CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 8 On the south side of the pool building, a plaza with thematic paving, shaded seating and art work will provide an additional area for pool related activities, including concessions. The perimeter fencing will be replaced with a more transparent screen that will contribute to the integration of the pool into the surrounding park and enhance the social areas. A direct service corridor from Newell Road to the pool will allow for improved serviceability. Long Term Pool Expansion Space has also been defined in the plan for the possible expansion of the existing lap pool towards the west end of the pool area to accommodate the demand for increased swimming programs and lanes. ARBORETUM The Long Range Plan preserves Rinconada Park’s established tree canopy. The Arboretum is home to many of the park’s heritage trees and celebrates these special natural features. The Arboretum is the face of Rinconada Park to people traveling on Embarcadero. Within the Arboretum, existing turf areas will be eliminated under the existing oak trees and replaced with drought tolerant plantings to enhance and accentuate the existing specimen trees. Improved lighting will highlight entry elements as well as select trees. The spaces in the Arboretum are designed for quiet activities. CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 9 CONCRETE BOWL The existing concrete bowl space will be enhanced to continue to support community gatherings and performances. A small stage to replace the existing and related infrastructure including electrical, data, sound and lighting will be installed. The lawn seating area will be maintained in its current configuration. A turf area along the mounded berm will continue to provide overflow ‘lawn’ seating for additional spectators. A planted screen will buffer the concrete bowl from Walter Hays Elementary School. When the bowl is not in use for performances and events, the City should consider temporary programming such as portable skateboard park installations or outdoor classes. MAGIC FOREST The Magic Forest includes more than 60 mature redwood trees. This unique park element will be preserved with limited improvements. Access to the Magic Forest will be enhanced with a new sidewalk along Hopkins Avenue, a street crossing, and secondary park entries with signage. There will be a lighted access path to the existing ball wall and into the park. The shuffleboard courts will be removed and individual picnic tables will be placed throughout the Magic Forest. A more transparent fence area will provide views to the pool. POWER SUBSTATION PERIMETER This area will include two bocce courts, picnic facilities, and pedestrian scale art elements. The east end of the pool deck will provide access to the small picnic and bocce area. CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 10 HOPKINS STREET FRONTAGE A new sidewalk in the location of the existing hedge along the tennis courts will complete a contiguous walkway along the edge of the park on Hopkins Avenue. New sidewalks and crosswalks will be aligned with proposed curb cuts along Hopkins Avenue. The improvements will provide ADA access to the tennis courts. A planted “green” screen added to the Hopkins side of the tennis courts will provide an aesthetic street frontage. PARKWIDE PLANTINGS The Long Range Plan generally recommends that turf be limited to areas programmed for active recreation and be removed anywhere it is underutilized and does not support programming. Where turf is removed, the City should consider replacing it with drought tolerant landscaping. Planting buffers and delawned areas should provide visual, seasonal, and textural interest with consideration given to providing pollinator gardens and habitats for birds, bees, and butterflies. The park’s heritage trees should be preserved and a plan developed for successional tree plantings to ensure a diverse urban forest. IMPLEMENTATION The implementation of the Rinconada Long Range Plan will be accomplished over the next 25 years through multiple phases of capital improvement projects. PHASING PLAN Short term projects (to be completed by 2022)  Western edge improvements to the play area and parking lot connection.  Rinconada parking lot and building frontage along the park’s edge.  Paving improvements through the center of the park. Improvements will align with the proposed LRP and develop some of the plaza spaces adjacent to the aquatics and tennis court areas. Paving will align with the existing improvements on the western end of park.  Enhanced park entry on Newell Road with a trash bin area. CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 11  Signage improvements as part of the City’s signage improvement plan. Signage will also include wayfinding signage in the park.  Arboretum Area with improved walkways and entries off of Embarcadero.  Add restroom to west end of park. Mid-term projects (to be completed between 2023 and 2030)  Expand and improve open lawn.  Remodel and expand pool building and restroom structure.  Hopkins Street improvements.  Concrete bowl improvements.  Magical Forest Improvements. Long term implementation will include (to be completed after 2030)  Pool remodel and expansion.  Shifting of Tennis courts. RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 12 CHAPTER III: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT An analysis of existing conditions, technical sources, and community input revealed a variety of assets, constraints, and opportunities for Rinconada Park. The design team evaluated traffic and parking studies and made site visits to the park to observe the existing conditions and park users. Input was gathered from community members, commissioners, committees, and stakeholders. The following section summarizes the existing conditions, community input, and analysis. CONTEXT Established in 1922, Rinconada Park is Palo Alto’s second oldest park. The most recent renovation was an irrigation upgrade in 1999. Since 1990, only the children’s play equipment has been upgraded and the tennis courts resurfaced. Now, in 2017, Palo Alto looks much different. The City has been at the epicenter of the growth and prosperity experienced by the Silicon Valley region in recent years. Along with many opportunities, the growth has also brought increased housing demand, traffic congestion, and a changing population. During this period, California also experienced record setting drought and mandated water use restrictions. The City of Palo Alto is dedicated to preserving a high quality of life for its residents while also growing sustainably, addressing climate change, supporting healthy ecosystems, and providing recreational and cultural opportunities for a diverse community. Today, Rinconada Park is loved and highly utilized by the community, but it needs updates and improvements to support the changing community and environment and to align with current park design standards and best practices. EXISTING USER GROUPS Rinconada Park is a hub of activity in Palo Alto and is used by a variety of community members with a range of interests and needs. Palo Alto residents and community members from neighboring cities visit Rinconada Park for its unique amenities and recreational opportunities. Community members picnic, play, exercise, and socialize. The park is home to the Rinconada Masters Swim Team, Palo Alto Swim Club, and the Palo Alto Tennis Club. The park is also used by the Girl Scouts and Walter Hays Elementary School students. CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 13 COMMUNITY INPUT The Rinconada Long Range Plan was developed in collaboration with community members and stakeholders. Engagement activities included stakeholder meetings, community meetings, a community survey, and City Commission meetings. Stakeholder Advisory Committee members included representatives from six neighborhood associations, Palo Alto Swim Club, Master Swim Club, lap swimmers, Tennis Players Association, Girls Scout House, Lucie Stern Community Center, Junior Museum & Zoo, Children’s Library, Children’s Theater, Friends of the Art Center, Friends of the Palo Alto Parks, Canopy, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Walter Hayes Elementary School. The design team translated initial community input and ideas into three design alternatives. The design alternatives were presented to community members and stakeholders who provided feedback on the designs, identifying their preferred improvements. Community feedback and insights are incorporated into the following Existing Conditions and Site Analysis section. RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 14 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SITE ANALYSIS Public input and an evaluation of existing conditions in Rinconada Park shaped the Long Term Plan recommendations. The analysis surfaced constraints as well as significant opportunities. Following is a discussion of the challenges and opportunities related to each park element. PARKWIDE Plantings Trees are one of the major assets of the park, particularly the Magic Forest and the Arboretum trees along Embarcadero Road. Different types of uses that occur under trees, and the materials that accompany those uses should be carefully identified as longevity and health of the trees should take priority. Tree groupings help define spaces in the park. A reforestation and replacement plan should be developed and implemented, as well as a possible tree identification or education program. Safety and Visibility RINCONADA PARK CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Constraints  Interface with adjacent uses  Existing site layout  Historical uses  Existing trees  Parking Opportunities  Increasing connectivity  Installing educational and interpretive elements  Expanding park programs  Preserving tree canopy  Incorporating artwork  Supporting city-wide sustainability goals  E x p a n d CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 15 Street crossings from park entrances should be improvement for safety and ADA accessibility. Throughout the park, lighting is minimal and certain areas feel more secluded and less visible. Park safety could be improved through site lighting, emergency call stations, and defined fire and emergency access routes. Site lines, the sense of safety in the park, and police input should be considered. Maintenance The current maintenance and delivery vehicle routes conflict with users and park features. There is damage to softscape edges and planting areas from service vehicles needing to make tight turns. The asphalt is damaged along the edges of pathways. concrete edge bands would help protect asphalt from damage. Throughout the park turf areas could be reduced to save water and maintenance. Trash management should be improved. Dumpster enclosures and their locations need to be reconsidered and updated. Service locations and routes need to be separated from park use. Trash and recycling bins should be placed throughout the park in high use locations such as picnic areas. Composting options should be considered. Trash receptacles should match the style of other site furnishings and be accessible. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION Internal Rinconada Park’s main pedestrian path and vehicular path are combined, which causes conflicts and inefficiencies. The condition of the existing pathways is poor. Some pathways are not dedicated or are poorly defined. Pathways must avoid trees and pavement under mature trees should be permeable. Dedicated vehicular routes, including adequate vehicular load calculations, with wayfinding signage should be considered. External The park’s relationship and connection to adjacent uses should be improved. The location of entries and crosswalks should be reconsidered and improved. Visual connections into the park from adjacent roadways and neighborhoods are important, and should be considered when locating or relocating program elements. Off-site directional signage to the park should be provided. GATEWAYS RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 16 West Entrance The western entry and parking areas are disorganized and inefficient, with poor connectivity to adjacent areas. There are no dedicated service routes, signage, or wayfinding. There are more trash and recycling bins than necessary and they are not placed strategically, which creates visual clutter and degrades one the of the park’s main entryways. The site furnishings in this area are antiquated and should be upgraded to create a unifying theme. PLAY AREAS Western Playground The western playground equipment, which serves older children (5-12 years old), should be replaced with more dynamic equipment, as recommended by the Citywide Play Equipment Replacement Plan. Despite the play area’s proximity to the Children’s Museum and Zoo, the uses are disconnected. There are great opportunities for improving circulation and integrating the uses into a youth-focused, dynamic play environment. Northern Playground Tot Lot The northern playground tot lot area is located toward the center of the park and isolated from the western playground area. The separation creates a challenge for families with younger and older children. The tot lot should be moved closer to the older children playground on the southwest side of the park. The same observations related to the condition of the structures and site furnishings of the western playground apply to the tot lot. Additionally, the sand surfacing in the tot lot limits accessibly. Alternative surfacing options should be explored to improve accessibility and safety. There is a large oak tree in this area that is an incredible asset and should be protected. The playground and associated uses should be moved from under the tree as recommended by the City Arborist. If the area under the tree remains paved, new paving should be permeable or include a raised platform, which could serve as a seating area. Girl Scout House The group picnic area, next to the Girl Scout House, is heavily used and in need of renovation. The Girl Scout House is disconnected from the play area. The play area and Girl Scout House should be more cohesive. Privacy and separation from the neighbors is needed. CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 17 MAIN LAWN The western lawn area is located at the west end of the park between the two playgrounds and abuts Walter Hays Elementary School. This area is mostly un-programmed open space with perimeter pathways. The turf edge bordering the school is aesthetically sterile and institutional and underutilized. The lawn supports large events, but lacks amenities and utilities. There are several large trees as well as others which were recently planted. These trees should be reviewed as to their location in the lawn and whether they classify as heritage trees. If specific trees were to be removed it would offer the opportunity for a larger unobstructed open space and enhanced site lines. The Hopkins Avenue side of the western lawn includes numerous large trees that should be protected. This area of turf and irrigated landscaping could be reduced and replaced with a group picnic area and drought tolerant, low maintenance plantings. Along Hopkins Avenue, the park edges are not well defined and pathways are being impacted by tree roots. There is a need for designated access and ADA improvements. This edge of the park would also benefit from screening to buffer adjacent neighbors from park elements such as trash. TENNIS COURTS AND POOL AREA The tennis courts and pool area is a heavily used active area of Rinconada Park that shares parking and circulation. Circulation, parking, and usage should all be improved around the tennis courts and pool. Parking improvements are required along Hopkins Avenue to address circulation and lack of accessibility. Connections to parking, including sidewalks, signage, ramps, and curbs are limited. There is an informal social path on the northeast side of the tennis courts that cuts through the Magic Forest. This pathway should be widened to allow for a variety of users or users should be directed to alternate access routes. Currently there is conflict between maintenance, deliveries, and pedestrian circulation, which should be addressed with designated pathways and wayfinding. Service and utility use areas and pathways should be separated from park use areas and pathways. Tennis Courts There are opportunities to improve the aesthetics and directional wayfinding and program element identification. The hedge along Hopkins Ave could be reduced or removed, which would provide a wider and more accessible sidewalk along the existing parking. The parking and tennis courts are at different elevations, which creates access challenges. The tennis court perimeter is showing age and the fencing is too short. RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 18 The tennis users have requested a designated storage or small office building. Pool Area The observations related to circulation and parking above also apply to the pool. The pool area is not visually integrated into the park and feels isolated. The pool building could use renovations to align with usage and code requirements. The exterior of the building offers opportunities such as murals, art, or integrated wayfinding, tying it into the park. ARBORETUM The Arboretum area is located at the southeast side of the park along Embarcadero Road. The mature trees should be preserved and will require protection from overwatering and root damage. Pathways through this area should meander to avoid the trees. There is opportunity to use this space as a passive recreation area and/or a secluded area for weddings or other events with a small pavilion nestled in the trees. The edge along Embarcadero Road lacks defined entrances and site elements. Pedestrian and bicycling safety should be improved along the park’s border with Embarcadero Road. CONCRETE BOWL The concrete bowl area is located towards the center of the park at the northwest corner of the Arboretum. This area is underutilized due to lack of features such as utilities and a well-defined stage. The adjoining restroom building is outdated and is visually unidentifiable. This building could be relocated to improve site lines as well as park uses. MAGIC FOREST The Magic Forest area is at the northeast edge of the park between the Aquatic Center and Hopkins Avenue. The existing forest of redwood trees is a significant park asset and should be preserved and programmed for passive recreation and relaxation. There are over 60 mature redwoods with shallow rooting structure, which will limit the improvements in this area. The existing shuffle board and horseshoe pits are in bad condition and are rarely used. An established beehive exists in the tree base near the existing shuffle board which should be protected, per a professional bee keeper. This area is bordered by the electric substation at the east with overhead power lines. CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 19 RESTROOM Currently there is one restroom facility located centrally in the park. The Restroom structure dates to the 1950’s and is in need of renovations. The current restroom configuration does not meet ADA standards. A small informational booth where park rangers once operated is now used as a storage closet. Due to the age of the building and required renovations to bring it up to code, it’s recommended for removal. The removal of the building will open sight lines from the Newell end of the park to Lucie Stern that will create a better link between city facilities. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS The City of Palo Alto Municipal code protects the citizens and their environment. Municipal Code regulates certain park functions and activities, including:  Hours of use  Approved activities and prohibited activities  Activities and events requiring permits – such as group picnics and performances  Pet use requirements in park  Protection of flora and fauna  Amplified sound requirements  Markings and graffiti  Picnic area use restrictions The improvements included in the Rinconada Long Range Plan are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets, and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. The Plan is also consistent with the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Urban Forest Master Plan, Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan. The Rinconada Park Long Range planning process included a Historic Resources Evaluation and an Initial Study of Environmental Impacts. (Refer to the CEQA Initial Study). Rinconada Park Long Range Plan & Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo Initial Study Architectural Review Application #17PLN-00147 August 2017 Attachment C TABLE OF CONTENTS Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ i Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Page SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................................ 3 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 4 2.1 PROJECT TITLE ............................................................................................. 4 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................... 4 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT .......................................................................... 4 2.4 APPLICATION NUMBER .............................................................................. 4 2.5 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICT ............. 5 2.6 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 5 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 9 3.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 9 3.2 USES OF THE INITIAL STUDY ................................................................. 13 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ................ 18 4.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................ 18 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................. 22 4.3 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................. 24 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES........................................................................ 31 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 40 4.6 GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 51 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................. 54 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................... 59 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................... 64 4.10 LAND USE .................................................................................................... 71 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 74 4.12 NOISE ............................................................................................................ 75 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................. 86 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................... 88 4.15 RECREATION ............................................................................................... 90 4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ......................................................... 92 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................... 113 4.18 ENERGY CONSERVATION ...................................................................... 119 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 127 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS ............................................................... 130 TABLE OF CONTENTS Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ ii Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Page Figures Figure 2.0-1: Regional Map ................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 2.0-2: Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2.0-3: Aerial Photograph and Proposed Project Site ............................................................... 8 Figure 3.0-1: Rinconada Park LRP Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................ 14 Figure 3.0-2: Palo Alto JMZ Conceptual Site Plan .......................................................................... 15 Figure 3.0-3: Palo Alto JMZ Elevations ........................................................................................... 16 Figure 3.0-4: Palo Alto JMZ Elevations ........................................................................................... 17 Figure 4.16-1: Study Intersections ...................................................................................................... 96 Figure 4.16-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................... 97 Figure 4.16-3: Existing Transit Facilities ........................................................................................... 98 Tables Table 4.12-1: Summary of Long and Short-Term Noise Measurement Data ................................... 77 Table 4.16.1: Level of Service Definitions ..................................................................................... 100 Table 4.16-2: Existing and Background Conditions Levels of Service .......................................... 100 Table 4.16-3: Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation .................................................................... 102 Table 4.16-4: Existing and Estimated Weekday Trip Generation ................................................... 104 Table 4.16-5: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ................................................ 104 Table 4.16-6: Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service .......................................... 105 Table 4.16-7: Saturday Project Trip Generation Estimates ............................................................. 107 Table 4.16-8: Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................... 108 Appendices Appendix A: Air Quality Analysis Appendix B: Arborist Reports Appendix C-1: Archaeological Literature Review Appendix C-2: Historic Resources Evaluation – Palo Alto JMZ Appendix C-3: Historic Resources Evaluation – Rinconada Park Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation Appendix E: Noise Assessment Appendix F: Transportation Impact Analysis Appendix G: Rinconada Park Long Range Plan Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 3 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The City of Palo Alto proposes two projects: 1) a long-range plan to guide the development of Rinconada Park, and 2) the rebuilding of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ). Rinconada Park is a regional destination for a variety of passive and active recreational activities and is co-located near the JMZ and other City facilities. The purpose of the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan (LRP) is to make park improvements based on current and future community needs. In this respect, the LRP provides guidance on changes anticipated over the next 25 years. The current JMZ building (built in 1941) and zoo area (built in 1969) are not adequately designed or sized to accommodate the JMZ’s various educational programs, nor do they meet current State building code requirements for accessibility and seismic safety. The goal of the proposed re-build is to construct a new JMZ facility that would provide adequate space for its educational programs while meeting all State building code requirements along with standards for zoo accreditation and museum accreditation. In addition, the project aims to improve circulation within the JMZ to allow universal access for children with disabilities to all exhibits and areas of the facility, which requires considerably more space than allowed for in the existing facility. The proposed JMZ facility is intended to better serve its current local visitors and schools while still maintaining an intimate experience for children to explore science and nature. This Initial Study (IS) of environmental impacts is being prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the City of Palo Alto. This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts which might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed Rinconada Park LRP and Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) project. Although the proposed LRP and JMZ are separate development projects, they are located adjacent to one another within a larger City-owned parcel, and will have overlapping timeframes for development. For these reasons, the LRP and JMZ projects are being evaluated as one project under CEQA. The City of Palo Alto is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Initial Study to address the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 4 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 PROJECT TITLE Rinconada Park Long Range Plan and Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The project site consists of the 11.8 acre Rinconada Park, located at 777 Embarcadero Road, the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ), located at 1451 Middlefield Road, and a paved parking lot located adjacent to the JMZ. The site is located within an 18.3-acre City-owned parcel (APN 003- 46-006) with frontage on Hopkins Avenue, Newell Road, Melville Avenue, Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road in the City of Palo Alto. In addition to Rinconada Park and the JMZ, the parcel includes Fire Station #3 located at 799 Embarcadero Road, the Girl Scout House (aka Lou Henry Hoover House) located at 1120 Hopkins Avenue, the Children’s Library located at 1276 Harriet Street, the Lucie Stern Community Center located at 1305 Middlefield Road, and an electric substation located at 1350 Newell Road. The parcel is bordered primarily by single-family residential uses. Walter Hays Elementary School is located on the northern corner of Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road, adjacent to Rinconada Park and the JMZ. The Palo Alto Art Center and Rinconada Library are located east of the parcel across Newell Road. Regional and vicinity maps of the site are shown on Figures 2.0-1 and 2.0-2, and an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding area is shown on Figure 2.0-3. 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT Amy French, Chief Planning Official Department of Planning and Community Development 250 Hamilton Avenue 5th Floor- City Hall Palo Alto, CA 94301 2.4 APPLICATION NUMBER A Formal Architectural Review application was submitted for the JMZ redevelopment on April 27, 2017 (File Number 17PLN-00147). No application has been filed for the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan. Revised JMZ plans dated July 24, 2017 are on file and viewable via this webpage https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning by searching the address “1451 Middlefield Road” and clicking on the green dot to review the record details, opening the “more details” option, using the “Records Info” drop down menu and selecting “Attachments” and opening the attachment named “Revised Plans July 2017”. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 5 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 2.5 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICT General Plan: Public Parks, Major Institutions/Special Facilities Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF) 2.6 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The project site is comprised of two areas within the 18.3-acre City-owned parcel: Rinconada Park and the Palo Alto JMZ. Rinconada Park is a multipurpose park offering a variety of recreational amenities, including: two children’s playgrounds, turf area for activities, nine tennis courts and backboard, picnic area with barbecues, municipal swimming pool and children’s pool, restroom and pool buildings, redwood grove, heritage oak tree stand, multipurpose concrete bowl, benches, and jogging/walking paths. The JMZ site includes the JMZ facility and a paved parking lot adjacent to the facility that extends northward between the Girl Scout House and Lucie Stern Community Center. The JMZ is situated adjacent to the southwest portion of Rinconada Park, and consists of a two-story, 9,000 square-foot (sf) museum building and a 13,000 sf fenced, outdoor zoo area. The remainder of the City-owned parcel, which includes Fire Station #3, the Girl Scout House (aka Lou Henry Hoover House), the Children’s Library, the Lucie Stern Community Center, and an electric substation, is not a part of the project site. REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.0-1 Fremont Newark Santa Clara MountainView Sunnyvale Los Altos Palo Alto Menlo Park San Carlos Belmont Foster City Fremont Newark Santa Clara MountainView Sunnyvale Los Altos Palo Alto Menlo Park San Carlos Belmont Foster City Redwood City 238 237 880 880 680 85 82 84 84 82 101 101 101 Project Site San Francisco Bay Pacific Ocean Monterey Bay San José Fremont Oakland San Francisco Santa Cruz Mountain View Morgan Hill San José Fremont Oakland San Francisco Santa Cruz Mountain ViewPalo AltoPalo Alto Morgan Hill Project SiteProject Site VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.0-2 Channing Avenue Walter Hays Drive Lois Lane Iris Way Newell Road Newell Road Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Guinda Street Fulton Street Middlefield Road Middlefield Road E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Cowper Street Waverley Street Webster Street Webster Street Fulton Street Seale Avenue Louis Road Barbara Drive Northampton Drive Southampton Drive Lowell Avenue Tennyson Avenue Byron Street Hopkins Avenue Melville Avenue Melville Avenue Channing Avenue Walter Hays Drive Lo i s L a n e Iris Way Ne w e l l R o a d Ne w e l l R o a d Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Gui n d a S t r e e t Fult o n S t r e e t Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Embarcad e r o R o a d Embarcad e r o R o a d Co w p e r S t r e e t Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t We b s t e r S tre e t We b s t e r S tree t Fult o n S t r e e t Seal e A v e n u e Lou i s R o a d Bar b a r a D r i v e Nort h a m p t o n D r i v e Sout h a m p t o n D r i v e Low e l l A v e n u e Tenn y s o n A v e n u e Byr o n S t r e e t Hopkins Avenue Melv i l l e A v e n u e Me l v i l l e A v e n u e Project Site 0 100 500 750 1000 Feet AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2.0-3 Parkinson AvenueParkinson Avenue Community LaneCommunity Lane Harriet Street Ha r r i e t S t r e e t Cedar Street Ce d a r S t r e e t Pine Street Pi n e S t r e e t Newell Road Ne w e l l R o a d Coleridge Avenue Cole r i d g e A v e n u e Byron Street By r o n S t r e e t Guinda Street Gui n d a S t r e e t Middlefield Road Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Hopkins AvenueHopkins Avenue E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Embarca d e r o R o a d Fulton Street Ful t o n S t r e e t Project Boundary Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, July 28, 2016.Photo Date: Apr. 2016 0 50 200 400 Feet Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Rinconada Library Palo Alto Art Center Lucie Stern Community Center Walter Hays Elementary School Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 9 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT 3.1.1 Project Description The proposed project includes two components: 1) implementation of the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan (LRP) and 2) redevelopment of the JMZ facility and reconfiguration of the adjacent parking lot, including provision of landscaping, storm drainage system, and lighting. The two project components are described in detail below. 3.1.1.1 Rinconada Park Long Range Plan The LRP was developed by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department to guide the future development and renovation of Rinconada Park. Implementation of the plan is anticipated to take up to 25 years. The LRP includes the following components: Entry Plazas, Internal Pathways, Access, and Alternative Transportation Improvements Two main pedestrian entry plazas would be developed at the west and east entrances to the park. The west entrance to Rinconada Park, north of the proposed JMZ building, would be improved with an entry plaza that would showcase the large existing trees and provide elements such as an enhanced entry noting the point of arrival, way-finding signage, and pedestrian scale art work. A formalized entry would be located at the east edge of the park on Newell Road, north of Fire Station #3, and would include improvements such as an enhanced entry, reduction of turf with accent drought tolerant plantings, and way-finding signage. The existing pathways in the park are asphalt and in need of renovation. Pathways within the park would be expanded and enhanced. The project includes multimodal circulation improvements to connect the site to the surrounding neighborhood. Perimeter sidewalks and on-street parking would be expanded and enhanced along Hopkins Avenue and Embarcadero Road. Bike racks would be provided throughout the park. An enhanced shuttle stop would replace the existing stop on Newell Road to promote the use of alternate forms of transportation to the park. Fourteen (14) non-protected trees are proposed to be removed as part of the pathway improvements to provide space for a larger and more direct main circulation route through the park and to maintain the openness of the main active turf area. Trees removed will be replaced with native trees located in the area between the path and the school fence. West Playground Area/Girl Scout Picnic Area/Large Turf Area The two existing playgrounds in Rinconada Park are proposed to be combined into one playground located in a defined children’s play area at the west end of the park in close proximity to the JMZ and Walter Hays School access points. An expansion of the existing picnic area would be part of the new playground configuration. Adult exercise equipment would be provided at the eastern edge of the playground. The existing trees in this area would be protected and maintained. The area next to the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House would serve public use but cater to use by the Girl Scouts, with a fire pit, food preparation table, benches and picnic tables in a small gathering area. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 10 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 The existing turf area in the central portion of the park, south and east of the picnic areas, is highly used and would be maintained in its current condition to the extent possible. This area is currently utilized for community gatherings such as outdoor performances, movies and concerts and is used by the City’s community services department for youth activities and camps. The turf area will continue to maintain the current schedule of use and programming. A new restroom is proposed to accommodate this western area of the park. Street and Access Improvements on Hopkins Avenue, Newell Road, and Embarcadero Road New sidewalks and crosswalks aligning with adjacent sidewalk curb cuts are proposed along Hopkins Avenue. Additionally, new head in parking stalls are proposed to be installed along Hopkins Avenue, west of the tennis courts. The City is also exploring shifting the sidewalks along Embarcadero Road northward to provide additional street parking and a turning lane. The 12 topped redwood trees along Newell Road would be replaced with small scale trees that would not interfere with the overhead power lines. In the area where the redwoods will be removed, new plantings and a meandering pathway pulled away from Newell Road will provide a connection from the park’s main east entry to the crosswalk at the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Newell Road. An enhanced shuttle stop would also be located along this new pathway. Artwork panels are proposed to replace the existing fencing currently screening the electric substation located at the northeast corner of the park when replacement of the fence is required. Tennis Courts The existing tennis courts on Hopkins Avenue would be shifted to the west to allow for a pedestrian access route along the east side of the courts. The proposed shifting of the courts would occur when the tennis courts paving receive full renovation and replacement. Magic Forest The Magic Forest area consists of over 60 mature redwoods which will be retained. Minimal improvements to this area would include a lighted access path to the existing ball wall and into the park, a new sidewalk at the curb edge to provide pedestrian access along Hopkins Avenue, picnic tables and benches, and a proposed children’s natural play area. Pool Area Improvements The existing pool deck areas would be expanded on the east and west sides for lounging, supervision, and aquatic events. The area east of the pool and adjacent to the electric substation would include a new picnic area, and seating. Other amenities such as a bocce ball court will also be considered when the area is renovated. On the south side of the pool building, a plaza with thematic paving, shaded seating areas, and artwork to support the pool area activities and concessions, would be installed. The LRP includes a full renovation of the existing 4,700 sf pool building, which includes locker rooms, offices, and pool storage. In addition to the renovated building, a 2,300 sf wing would be added to the west end to include a public restroom, activity room and possible concession area. The restroom would replace the existing restroom building currently located in the same area. Arboretum The priority of this area in the LRP is to maintain the native and heritage oak trees for years to come. The current pathways would be upgraded throughout this area with a permeable material and new oak trees will be planted to preserve the oak stand. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 11 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Multi-Use Concrete Bowl The existing concrete bowl space south of the pool area will maintain its current use as a small multi- use space for outdoor activities and performances with the same seating capacity. Outdoor events are currently programed for the bowl; therefore, this is not a new use on the site. The hours of operation and number of events scheduled for the bowl would continue and be consistent with its current use. The project proposes to install a new stage to reduce sun glare for spectators. The stage would be oriented to the southwest, away from the nearest residential uses, approximately 20 feet from its current location. Coordination with Walter Hays Elementary School to utilize the bowl for educational gatherings is also proposed as part of the LRP. 3.1.1.3 Junior Museum and Zoo As described in further detail below, the proposed JMZ redevelopment would occur in two phases. The majority of the proposed improvements would occur during Phase I, construction of which is anticipated to last 18 to 24 months. Improvements associated with Phase II may not be completed for up to 10 years. Phase I JMZ Building and Outdoor Zoo The project includes the demolition of the existing 9,000 sf, one- and partial two-story museum building and construction of a new one-story 15,033 sf museum and educational building in the same location as the existing building. The new building would have a gabled roof reaching a maximum height of 27 feet. Amenities in the building would include educational classrooms and educational courtyard, a teacher area, general storage area, a small exhibit maintenance shop, indoor exhibits, and restroom facilities. The main JMZ entrance plaza would lead into the lobby and reception area of the JMZ building. New walkways near the new JMZ building would connect with parking lot improvements, Middlefield Road, and the Rinconada Park. The project would also construct a new open-air netted enclosure and supporting outdoor animal management area in the location of the existing 13,000 sf outdoor zoo area. The 17,415 sf, 36-foot tall netted enclosure would be accessible from the JMZ building. The netted enclosure, referred to as “Loose in the Zoo”, would feature animal exhibits with landscaped features. The netting would allow for exhibition birds to fly about the enclosure. Parking Lots Redesign The existing parking lots located adjacent to the JMZ and between the Lucie Stern Community Center and Girl Scout House would be reconfigured to improve traffic flow, maximize parking spaces, improve landscaping and lighting, and increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Vehicular access to the Girl Scout House’s existing garage would be maintained, and the bird bath dedicated to a Boy Scout leader is anticipated to be relocated near the Boy Scout building in the Lucie Stern Complex. One of the existing driveway curb cuts on Middlefield Road to the parking lot would be eliminated and replaced with a bike and pedestrian pathway connection to Rinconada Park, and a bus drop off zone in front of the JMZ would be provided. The reconfigured parking lots would be connected for automobile traffic and provide improved pedestrian pathways to the many surrounding facilities Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 12 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 while incorporating a relocated vehicular driveway entrance on Middlefield Road and a new entrance onto Hopkins Avenue. The components include:  Dedicated bike and pedestrian entrance at intersection of Kellogg Avenue and Middlefield Road (separated from vehicular entrance), raised pathway through the parking lot and direct connection to pathways in the park;  Safe pedestrian pathway through parking lot leading to JMZ entry plaza defined by colored concrete;  New, relocated single vehicular entrance mid-block on Middlefield Road and new, relocated vehicular entrance on Hopkins Avenue;  Fire truck and bus access through the parking lot with dedicated driveway onto Hopkins Avenue (no standard vehicular use);  Two-way circulation through the parking lot with dedicated drop-off and loading zone near JMZ entrance and park arrival plaza;  Efficient stormwater treatment system: pervious paving, shallow treatment area, and connection to storm drainage line in utility corridor;  50 percent shading of the paved area (as required per the Parking Facility Design Standards, Chapter 18.54 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) would be met by existing and new trees; and  Increase in bicycle parking (including racks at the entrance to JMZ and the park) and increase in long-term bicycle storage for staff. The current demonstration garden on the west side of the Girl Scout House would be relocated within the park near Walter Hays Elementary School as part of the parking lot renovations. A total of 42 trees are proposed to be removed for the JMZ project. None of the trees proposed for removal are protected trees. Two protected trees (a coast live oak and a coast redwood) are proposed to be relocated within the project boundary. A total of 57 new trees will be planted to replace trees removed. Phase II Outdoor Zoo Building The JMZ project includes a proposed future two-story 3,600 sf building adjacent to the zoo area. The building, which would have a gabled roof reaching a maximum height of 25 feet, would consist of a classroom on the first floor and a butterfly/insect exhibit on the second floor. The massing and material of the future Outdoor Zoo Building would be similar to the proposed JMZ building. With construction of both Phase I and Phase II of the JMZ redevelopment, the project would result in a net increase of 9,633 sf of floor area and 4,415 sf of outdoor zoo area compared to the existing JMZ facility. The overall lot coverage of the JMZ facility would increase by 12,748 sf. 3.1.1.4 Temporary Relocation Plan During demolition, building construction and modifications on the JMZ site, JMZ services would continue without interruption at a temporary location at the Cubberley Community Center, located at 4000 Middlefield Road in Palo Alto. The Cubberley Community Center is housed on the campus of the former Ellwood P. Cubberley High School, which opened in the fall of 1956 and closed in 1979. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 13 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 It has been home to organizations that provide many services to the community in areas education, health, childcare, arts, dance and music instruction including Foothill College, and was home to animal rescue operations for many years. The old high school classrooms meet the JMZ needs for education staging and classrooms. The Auditorium is suited to a temporary Junior Museum, indoor animal housing, education and program areas, collections management, and offices. A fenced temporary exterior animal holding area would be constructed to contain a few of the animals and would meet regulatory requirements and animal husbandry needs. These JMZ animals would not be on view for the public. No construction involving substantial ground disturbing activities would be required as part of the temporary relocation of JMZ services. The five parking zones at the campus would provide parking for staff and visitors to the temporary museum. 3.1.2 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan designates Rinconada Park as Public Parks and the JMZ property as Major Institutions/Special Facilities. Both properties are located within the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. The project does not propose a Comprehensive Plan amendment or rezoning. 3.1.3 Access, Circulation, and Parking Access to Rinconada Park is provided by Embarcadero Road, Newell Road, and Hopkins Avenue. Access to the JMZ and surface parking lot is provided by Middlefield Road. The JMZ is also accessible by bicycle and pedestrian pathways connecting it to Rinconada Park. 3.2 USES OF THE INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study (IS) provides decision-makers in the City of Palo Alto (the CEQA Lead Agency), responsible agencies, and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in considering the project. This IS may also be relied upon for other agency approvals necessary to implement the project. RINCONADA PARK LRP CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.0-1 Source: Verde Design, July. 16, 2013. 0 50 100 150 Feet PALO ALTO JMZ CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.0-2 Source: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, April 27, 2017. EENTRY LOBBY R D HERPRACK(DRY) HERPRACK (DRY)HERPRACK(WET) HERP UNIT MEDIUMHERP UNITHERPRACK(DRY) HERP UNIT ANIMALSUPPLY 'DIRTY' 'CLEAN' D/W MW ABOVE JAN. SHOP STORAGE HERP ZONE PROGRAM ANIMAL ROOM TRASH ENCLOSURE GIRL'S RESTROOM BOY'S RESTROOM QUARANTINE EST 188 SF 700 SF 76 SF 160 SF L ANIMAL ENCLOSURES 0TRENCH DRAIN TRENCH DR ANIMAL CARE 10 0 77 SFDRY STORAGE 8 10 ZOO WORK SPACE 267 SF 200 SF W/ x 5 x 8 5 x 8 TRENCH DN xx 10 DRY STORAG OUTDOOR CLASSROOM +0 -24" +0 +18 -24" +0" DN 32 FH ((N) FH FIRE RISER UTILITY COORIDOR RECONFIGURED PARKING LOT DROP-OFF HOPKINS AVENUE GROUP PICNICAREA OPEN GREENSPACE UTILITY COORIDOR SHADED GROUP PICNIC AREA GIRL SCOUT FIRE PIT BIKE PARKING EXTE R I O R NE T T E D ENC L O S U R E TRASH ENCLOSURE (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE (E) BRICK PATH LP LP (E) BRICK PATH (E) LOADING ZONE (E) BOBCAT EXHIBIT PROJECT SCOPE BOUNDARY A PROJECT SCOPE BOUNDARY B PROJECT SCOPE BOUNDARY A PROJECT SCOPE BOUNDARY B RAISED PEDESTRIANCROSSWALK PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK BBIIOOSSWWAALLEE BIKE PARKING DRIVEWAY FOR BUS AND FIRETRUCK ONLY BIKE PARKING PECAN TREE PLAZA DN SCHOOL PARKING LOT LUCIE STERN COMMUNITY CENTER GIRLSCOUT BUILDING CHILDREN PLAY AREA MID D L EFIE L D R O A D K E LL O G G A V E N U E SHARED TOT PLAY OLDER CHILDREN PLAY OUTDOOR ANIMALMANAGEMENT AREA PARK ARRIVALPLAZA JURASSIC GARDEN COURTYARD PROPOSED MUSEUM & EDUCATION BUILDING OUTDOOR CLASSROOM RINCONADA PARK ADULT EXERCISE WALTER HAYS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SECONDARY ENTRY EXTERIOR NETTEDENCLOSURE PROPOSED LOOSE IN THE ZOO EXTERIOR NETTEDENCLOSURE MAIN ENTRANCE SE R V I C E L O A D I N G +0 SLOP E D O W N +0" -18" -12" BRID G E TUN N E L BRID G E PRO M E N A D E ENT R Y PLA Z A 20'-0" 39 30 29 19 25 40 21 26 2320 25 2928 19 17 22 32 32 31 27 37 28 32 17 27 1 17 1 34 33 1 1 32 31 35 36 35 36 31 41 24 41 37 12 32 17 32 31 32 12 14 13 16 37 1515 2 35 13 1332 2 32 4 5 5 6 22 34 32 35 3 332 8 8 11 7 10 3 31 31 31 16 25 42 9 38 RINCONADA PARK BOUNDARY PROPERTY LINE STREET SETBACK UTILITY CORRIDOR FIRE ACCESS LANE (20' WIDE MIN.) PROJECT SCOPE BOUNDARY B PROJECT SCOPE BOUNDARY A NEW TREE: REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS LLEGEND: EXISTING PARKING COUNT: 95 STALLS (7 ACCESSIBLE) PROPOSED PARKING COUNT: 93 STALLS (8 ACCESSIBLE) GENERAL NOTES: KEYNOTES: PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1 PALO ALTO JMZ ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.0-3 Source: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, April 27, 2017. 18’-0” 27’-0” 36’-0” 10’-0” 0’-0” 18’-0” 10’-0” 0’-0” -4’-0” 18’-0” 27’-0” 10’-0” 0’-0”-4’-0” 18’-0” 27’-0” 36’-0” 10’-0” 0’-0”-4’-0” PALO ALTO JMZ ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.0-4 Source: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, April 27, 2017. 18’-0” 10’-0” 0’-0”-4’-0” 18’-0” 27’-0” 10’-0” 0’-0”-4’-0” 18’-0” 27’-0” 0’-0”-4’-0” Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 18 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project area, as well as environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as recommended in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, identifies environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of this section. Mitigation measures are identified for all significant project impacts. Mitigation Measures are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guideline 15370). 4.1 AESTHETICS 4.1.1 Aesthetics Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1-3 b. Significantly alter public viewsheds or view corridors or scenic resources (such as trees, rocks, outcroppings or historic buildings) along a scenic highway? 1-3 c. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1-2 d. Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? 1-2 4.1.2 Existing Setting Rinconada Park is an 11.8-acre park that contains mature trees and landscaping. There is a six- court tennis facility on the northern portion of the site bordering Hopkins Avenue. The interior of the park consists of various recreational amenities, including two children’s playgrounds, turf area for activities, picnic areas, backboard, picnic area with barbecues, a municipal swimming pool and children’s pool, shuffle board and horse shoe pit, redwood grove, multipurpose concrete bowl for outdoor events, benches, and jogging/walking paths. Palo Alto Fire Station 3 is located at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and Newell Road, at the site’s southeastern corner. Walter Hays Elementary School is located directly south of the Park at the intersection of Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 19 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road, adjacent to the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ). The JMZ is housed in a one- and partial two-story wood frame building located at 1451 Middlefield Road. The JMZ includes a fenced-in outdoor area containing various animal exhibits. The building and the zoo grounds border the southwestern boundary of Rinconada Park and are located adjacent to a complex of one-and two-story buildings consisting of the Lucie Stern Community Center, the Children’s Library, and the Girl Scout House. The surrounding area consists mainly of one- to two-story single family residences across the roadways bordering the site which include Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, Newell Road, and Hopkins Avenue. The immediate area also contains community facilities including the Girl Scout House (also known as Lou Henry Hoover House), the Children’s Library and Theater, and Lucie Stern Community Center located northwest of the site. Other public uses in the vicinity include the Rinconada Main Library northeast of the Park across Newell Road, the Art Center located east of the Park across Newell Road, three additional tennis courts across Hopkins Avenue, and community gardens. 4.1.3 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The improvements proposed by the LRP would enhance the visual character and quality of the site through increased landscaping throughout the park, in addition to infrastructure improvements including repaving of sidewalks and pathways. A total of twenty six (26) trees are proposed to be removed from Rinconada Park as part of proposed park improvements identified in the LRP. Twelve (12) of the trees proposed to be removed are Coast Redwood trees growing along Newell Avenue that are protected trees under the Municipal Code. Currently the redwoods are growing under high voltage power lines and are continuously topped to maintain clearance. Native trees of more appropriate size under the power lines are proposed to replace the redwood trees at a 4:1 ratio, and per the city of Palo Alto technical manual on tree replacement requirements. The remaining fourteen (14) non-protected trees identified by the LRP for removal are adjacent to the main pathway and open turf area and have all been planted recently. Removal of these trees will allow for a wider, more prominent pathway that connects the park to the surrounding facilities and provide a larger open active turf area, which is currently limited in Rinconada Park. New native trees will replace these non-native trees at a 2:1 ratio between the pathway and the school. The proposed JMZ buildings would be larger in size and scale than the existing JMZ building. The new JMZ building would be approximately 27 feet in height, while the netted enclosure would be approximately 36 feet in height. The Outdoor Zoo Building proposed during Phase II would be approximately 25 feet in height. The heights of the proposed buildings would be similar to existing houses located across Middlefield Road in proximity to the JMZ, many of which are two stories in height. The netted enclosure for the zoo would appear to be “open-roofed”. The proposed JMZ buildings would be constructed with gabled Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 20 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 roofs, and the southern façade would be set back approximately 24 feet from Middlefield Road. Additionally, the building would be built with variations in color and exterior texture on the facades to provide visual interest. Ornamental landscaping is proposed on the exterior of the facility and in the parking lots to be reconfigured, in addition to indoor exhibit designs. While 42 trees are proposed to be removed in the JMZ project area, approximately 57 trees would be added, for a net increase of 15 trees. No heritage or protected trees will be removed, and tree removal and replacement will comply with the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Tree Preservation Ordinance, as further discussed in section 4.4.3(e). The project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural Review process, which ensures compliance with City standards to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety. Architectural review approval findings require improvements and structures to be compatible with the architecture and massing of surrounding uses. Additionally, the project would be consistent with City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies, including Policy P-48: “Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.” For these reasons and those described above, construction of the project would not substantially degrade the character or quality of the site or the surrounding area. [Less Than Significant Impact] b. Would the project significantly alter public viewsheds or view corridors or scenic resources (such as trees, rocks, outcroppings or historic buildings) along a scenic highway? The project site is not located along, or visible from, a state scenic highway. The project, therefore, would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Embarcadero Road is identified as a “scenic route” and “major view corridor” in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The JMZ project is not visible from this view corridor, but the Rinconada Park has frontage on the corridor. Due to the flat nature of the site and the presence of mature trees, views of the project site are limited to the immediate area. Implementation of the LRP and construction of the proposed JMZ would not modify identified scenic resources or views of scenic resources in Palo Alto. For these reasons, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor. [Less than Significant Impact] c. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? As part of the LRP implementation, new security lighting to illuminate pathways may be installed throughout different portions of Rinconada Park. The proposed JMZ building would include minimal outdoor lighting (i.e. security lighting) and indoor lighting that would generate similar amounts of light to the existing JMZ. Lighting would be controlled to minimize spillover light beyond the property lines, and would be required to meet the City’s standards (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.23.030), which restrict light levels to minimize visual impacts of lighting on nearby residential sites. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 21 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 d. Would the project substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? The LRP does not propose any structures that would create substantial new shadows compared to existing conditions. The proposed JMZ buildings would have a maximum height of 27 feet. Based on the project’s location in the northern hemisphere, shadows created by the building would extend west, north, and east, depending on the time of day. The area to the west of the proposed JMZ building would consist of a paved entrance area and parking lot, while the area to the east would continue to consist of buildings and a parking lot associated with the existing Walter Hays Elementary School. Neither of these areas would be considered public open space. The area to the north of the proposed JMZ building would consist of the 36-foot tall netted enclosed area referred to as “Loose in the Zoo”. Shadows from the JMZ building would not extend beyond this area. The netting proposed for the “Loose in the Zoo” area would allow light to filter through and would not create shadows. The proposed JMZ development, therefore, would not substantially shadow open space, including nearby portions of Rinconada Park. [Less Than Significant Impact] 4.1.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse visual or aesthetic impacts. [Less than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 22 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 4.2.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1-4 b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1-4 c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526)? 2,3 d. Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1-3 e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1-4 4.2.2 Existing Setting The project site is not designated as farmland or forest land. According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012 map, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land, meaning that the land contains a building density of at least six units per 10-acre parcel or is used for industrial or commercial purposes, golf courses, landfills, airports, or other utilities. 4.2.3 Impacts Evaluation a. - b. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The project site is not designated, used, or zoned for agricultural purposes. The project site is not part of a Williamson Act contract. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in impacts to agricultural or forest resources. [No Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 23 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 c. - d. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Would the project result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The project site is not zoned or used for agriculture. The surrounding area is not used or zoned for timberland or forest land. The project would not impact timberland or forest land. [No Impact] e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012 map, the project site and surrounding area are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. The development of the project site would not result in conversion of any forest or farmlands. [No Impact] 4.2.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an impact to agricultural or forestry resources in the area. [No Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 24 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.3 AIR QUALITY This section is based in part on an air quality assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in April 2015. The report analyzed the impacts of a larger JMZ facility based on previous site plans than the proposed site plans analyzed in this Initial Study. Therefore, air quality impacts described below represent a conservative analysis. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix A. 4.3.1 Air Quality Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (such as the 2017 Clean Air Plan or the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan)? 1-3, 5 b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1-3, 5 c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? 1-3, 5-6 d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1-3, 5-6 e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1-3, 5-6 4.3.2 Existing Setting Air quality and the amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere are determined by the amount of a pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for what are commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants,” because they set the criteria for attainment of good air quality. Criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM). Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 25 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.3.2.1 Regional Air Quality The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the air basin. The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act require that the CARB, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standard are not met as “nonattainment areas.” Because of the differences between the national and state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation. The Bay Area is designated as an “attainment area” for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The region is classified as a “nonattainment area” for both the federal and state ozone standards, although a request for reclassification to “attainment” of the federal standard is currently being considered by the U.S. EPA. The area does not meet the state standards for particulate matter; however, it does meet the federal standards. Clean Air Plan Regional air quality management districts such as BAAQMD must prepare air quality plans specifying how state air quality standards would be met. BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP focuses on two closely-related BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. To protect public health, the plan describes how the BAAQMD will continue its progress toward attaining all State and federal air quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities. The 2017 CAP includes a wide range of control measures designed to decrease emissions of the air pollutants that are most harmful to Bay Area residents, such as particulate matter, ozone, and toxic air contaminants; to reduce emissions of methane and other “super-GHGs” that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion. BAAQMD Guidelines As discussed in the CEQA Guidelines, the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Palo Alto and other jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin often utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air emissions and/or health effects developed by the BAAQMD based upon the scientific and other factual data prepared by BAAQMD in developing those thresholds. The BAAQMD Guidelines have largely survived a legal challenge brought by the California Building Industry Association. While the litigation is not yet concluded, and while there is a limited portion of the Guidelines being set aside following the most recent appellate decision (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Quality Management District (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1067), that limited portion does not impact the City’s use of the Guidelines for the purpose of the current Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 26 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 project. The court only set aside a portion of the Guidelines which suggest that CEQA mandates evaluation of impacts to future new occupants of a project. 4.3.2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer or serious illness) and include, but are not limited to, criteria air pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a highway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal level. The identification, regulation, and monitoring of TACs is relatively new compared to that for criteria air pollutants that have established ambient air quality standards. TACs are regulated or evaluated on the basis of risk to human health rather than comparison to an ambient air quality standard or emission-based threshold. Diesel Particulate Matter Diesel exhaust, in the form of diesel particulate matter (DPM), is the predominant TAC in urban air with the potential to cause cancer. It is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average). According to the CARB, diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State’s Proposition 65 or under the federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. California has adopted a comprehensive diesel risk reduction program. The U.S. EPA and the CARB have adopted low-sulfur diesel fuel standards in 2006 that reduce diesel particulate matter substantially. The CARB recently adopted new regulations requiring the retrofit and/or replacement of construction equipment on-highway diesel trucks and diesel buses to lower fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions and reduce statewide cancer risk from diesel exhaust. 4.3.2.3 Sensitive Receptors There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. For cancer risk assessments, children are the most sensitive receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing TACs. Residential locations are assumed to include infants and small children. The sensitive receptors nearest to the project site are students of Walter Hays Elementary School which is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the JMZ and the southern boundary of Rinconada Park. The closest residences are approximately 115 feet south of the project site across Middlefield Road. Additional residences are located at farther distances south and north of the project area. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 27 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.3.3 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (such as the 2010 Clean Air Plan or the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan)? Because the project proposes to make improvements to existing land uses and, therefore, would not support substantial additional jobs or cause an increase in the population, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plan. Additionally, the would not result in a substantial increase in vehicle trip generation. [Less Than Significant Impact] b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Implementation of the LRP would not result in a substantial increase in project operations compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would increase the footprint of the JMZ facility by roughly 12,748 sf (including Phase II Outdoor Zoo Building). A net increase in developed space typically results in an increase in traffic and an associated increase in local and regional pollutant emissions. BAAQMD screening levels were developed to assist lead agencies in identifying projects that would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air pollution and air quality impacts. According to BAAQMD thresholds, a project that generates more than 54 pounds per day (or 10 tons per year) of ROG (reactive organic gases), NOx, or PM2.5; or 82 pounds per day (or 15 tons per year) of PM10 would be considered to have a significant impact on regional air quality. Although no screening threshold exists that specifically applies to museums or zoos, the screening threshold for libraries would be the most applicable to the proposed project. Libraries are a land use where patrons arrive throughout the day, stay for a period of time and utilize the facilities for education and recreation, then depart. The BAAQMD screening threshold for libraries is 78,000 sf. The proposed 12,748 sf expansion of the JMZ would fall well below this screening threshold. Additionally, as described in Section 4.16 Transportation, the proposed project would result in minimal net new vehicle trip generation. Since the project size is well below these BAAQMD screening levels and projected net trip generation is relatively low and would not impact the LOS of nearby intersections, it can be assumed that the project would result in a less than significant operational impact from criteria pollutant emissions and from construction air quality impacts. The proposed project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to any existing or projected air quality violations. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 28 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? The long-term operation of the proposed projects would not substantially increase the number of vehicle trips in the area or increase regional emissions, and therefore would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in any pollutant. [Less Than Significant Impact] d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Predicted Cancer Risk and Hazards The maximum modeled diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5 concentrations would occur at a receptor at Walter Hays Elementary School adjacent to the project site. Increased cancer risks for a school child were calculated using the maximum modeled DPM concentrations and BAAQMD-recommended risk assessment methods for a child exposure (two to 16 years of age). For residential exposures, infant (third trimester through two years of age), child, and adult exposures were included.1 The cancer risk calculations were based on applying the BAAQMD-recommended age sensitivity factors to the DPM exposures. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer causing TACs. BAAQMD-recommended exposure parameters were used for the cancer risk calculations.2 Infant and child exposures were assumed to occur during the entire construction period. Results of this assessment indicate that for project construction the incremental school child cancer risk would be 1.1 in one million, the maximum residential child increased cancer risk would be 2.3 in one million, and the incremental residential adult cancer risk would be 0.1 in one million. The maximum increased cancer risks for a school child and residential exposures would be lower than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million or greater. The maximum modeled annual PM2.5 concentration would be 0.09 μg/m3, occurring at the same location where the maximum DPM concentration would occur. This PM2.5 concentration is lower than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 μg/m3 used to judge the significance of health impacts from PM2.5. Potential non-cancer health effects due to chronic exposure to DPM were also evaluated. Non-cancer health hazards from TAC exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index (HI), which is the ratio of the TAC concentration to a reference exposure level (REL). California’s Office of Environmental Health and Hazards (OEHHA) has defined acceptable concentration levels for contaminants that pose non-cancer health hazards. TAC concentrations below the 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May. 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines. January. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 29 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 REL are not expected to cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals. The chronic inhalation REL for DPM is five μg/m3. The maximum modeled annual DPM concentration was 0.08 μg/m3, which is much lower than the REL. The maximum computed hazard index based on this DPM concentration is 0.016 which is much lower than the BAAQMD significance criterion of a hazard index greater than 1.0. Construction Dust Nearby residential uses and students of the Walter Hays elementary school may be exposed to short-term construction emissions during construction. Construction activities, particularly during demolition, site preparation, and grading would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of respirable particulate matter (PM10) and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less than significant if best management practices are employed to reduce these emissions. The project would be required to implement BAAQMD measures recommended for all projects as City of Palo Alto conditions of approval, further reducing any short-term construction impacts. These measures are as follows;  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day if water is available due to drought and water shortage conditions.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly turned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Palo Alto’s Department of Public Works regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic associated with the LRP would generate diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. However, construction of the LRP is anticipated to be substantially less intensive than construction of the zoo and museum. As Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 30 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 discussed above, and based on dispersion modeling using BAAQMD-recommended methodology, construction of the JMZ would have a less than significant impact with regards to community risk. Therefore, based on the relatively limited magnitude of LRP construction, it is anticipated that excess cancer risk and non-cancer impacts would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds during construction of the LRP. Implementation of best management practices below, would further reduce impacts from fugitive dust associated with LRP construction. Based on the relatively small size of the project and the implementation of BAAQMD dust control measures as standard conditions of approval, as described below the project would result in a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors from pollutant concentrations. [Less Than Significant Impact] e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The project does not include any odor-causing operations, and any odors emitted during construction would be temporary and localized. [No Impact] 4.3.4 Conclusion The projects would result in less than significant air quality impacts. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 31 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The discussion in this section is based in part on arborist reports prepared by Hort Science in June 2015 and updated in June of 2017. The reports are included in this Initial Study as Appendix B. 4.4.1 Biological Resources Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1-3, 9 b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1-3, 9 c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1-3 d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1-3 e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? 1-3, 7-8 f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1-3, 9 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 32 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.4.2 Existing Setting The proposed project is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP and the construction of a new JMZ facility. The project is within the existing Rinconada Park and JMZ facility boundaries. There are no waterways, wetlands, or other sensitive habitats on or adjacent to the project site. The Park contains various tree and animal species that are commonly found in parks throughout the San Francisco south bay area. The JMZ contains native and non-native animal species that are under the care and supervision of zoo staff. 4.4.2.1 Regulatory Background Federal and California Endangered Species Acts The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species that is federally listed as threatened or endangered without prior approval. “Take” is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that directly results in death or injury of a listed wildlife species. Special status species in California include plants or animals that are listed as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as California Species of Special Concern, as well as plants identified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)3 as rare, threatened, or endangered. The CDFW has jurisdiction over state-listed species and regulate activities that may result in take of individuals. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 USC Section 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment, a violation of the MBTA. California Fish and Wildlife Code The California Fish and Wildlife Code includes regulations governing the use of, or impacts on, many of the state’s fish, wildlife, and sensitive habitats. Certain sections of the Fish and Wildlife Code describe regulations that pertain to certain wildlife species. Fish and Wildlife Code Section 3503, 2513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections) protect native birds, including their nests and eggs, from all forms of take. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in 3 The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a non-profit organization that maintains lists and a database of rare and endangered plant species in California. Plants in the CNPS “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California” are considered “Special Plants” by the CDFW Natural Diversity Database Program. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 33 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan There are two adopted Habitat Conservation Plans in Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (SCVHP), which encompasses a study area of 519,506 acres (or approximately 62 percent of Santa Clara County) and the Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan. The project sites are outside of the covered areas of both Habitat Conservation Plans. 4.4.2.3 Tree Resources A tree survey was completed by Hort Science in June 2015 for both Rinconada Park and the JMZ. The tree surveys, including a detailed description of the size, health, and preservation suitability of each tree surveyed is included as Appendix B of this Initial Study. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5 (Natural Environment) of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (1998) includes policies, programs and implementing actions to ensure the preservation of biological resources, including trees. The following policies and programs would apply to the proposed project: Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Relevant Policies Policy Description Policy N-14 Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest. Policy N-15 Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. Policy N-17 Preserve and protect heritage trees. Program N-16 Require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development. Program N-17 Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, irrigation, and replacement of trees. Program N-19 Achieve a 50 percent tree canopy for streets, parks, and parking. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and permitted by the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department or Public Works Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 34 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Department. Three categories within the status of regulated trees include protected trees (PAMC Chapter 8.10), public trees (PAMC Section 8.04.020), and designated trees (PAMC Chapter 18.76, when so provisioned to be saved and protected by a discretionary approval). Section Chapter 8.10 of Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, “Tree Preservation and Management Regulations,” (referred to as the “Tree Preservation Ordinance”), protects categories of trees on public or private property from removal or disfigurement. These categories of regulated trees include:  Protected Trees. Includes all coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak (Quercus lobata) trees 11.5 inches or greater in diameter, coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) trees 18 inches or greater in diameter (PAMC Section 8.10.020), and heritage trees designated by the City Council according to any of the following factors: it is an outstanding specimen of a desirable species; it is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto; or it possesses distinctive form, size, age, location, and/or historical significance (PAMC Sections 8.10.020(j) and 8.10.090).  Street Trees. Also protected under Chapter 8.04 of Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code “Street Trees, Shrubs and Plants” are City-owned street trees (all trees growing within the street right-of-way, outside of private property). A permit is required for work that would in any way damage, destroy, injure, or mutilate a street tree. The excavation of any ditch or tunnel or placement of concrete or other pavement within ten feet from the center of any street tree trunk also requires a permit. Street trees require special protection by a fenced enclosure, according to the City’s Standard Tree Protection Instructions, before demolition, grading or construction.  Designated Trees. Designated trees are established by the City when a project is subject to discretionary design review process by the Architecture Review Board that under PAMC Section 18.76.020(d)(11) includes as part of the findings of review, “whether natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project.” Outstanding tree specimens or groups of trees that function as a screening buffer or have other value may contribute to an existing site, neighborhood or community, and may have a rating of “High” suitability for preservation. Palo Alto Tree Preservation Guidelines For all development projects within the City of Palo Alto, discretionary or ministerial, a Tree Disclosure Statement (TDS) is part of the submittal checklist to establish and verify trees that exist on the site, trees that overhang the site but originate on an adjacent property, and trees that are growing in a City easement, parkway, or publicly-owned land. The TDS stipulates that a Tree Survey is required (for multiple trees), when a Tree Preservation Report is required (when development will occur within the dripline of a Regulated Tree), and who may prepare these documents. The City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (Tree Technical Manual) describes acceptable procedures and standards to preserve Regulated Trees, including:  The protection of trees during construction;  If allowed to be removed, the acceptable replacement strategy; Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 35 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017  Maintenance of protected trees (such as pruning guidelines);  Format and procedures for tree reports; and  Criteria for determining whether a tree is a hazard. 4.4.3 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish (CDFW) and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site is currently developed and consists of disturbed urban habitat. Given the site’s urban setting, isolation from larger areas of natural lands, and high level of human disturbance, the value to wildlife is limited. Therefore, redevelopment of the site would not result in a significant impact to wildlife habitat. The proposed project would not affect federally protected wetlands, riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural community. The project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted state or federal conservation plan. No special status species are expected to occur on the project site, given the lack of suitable habitat and highly developed nature of the site. Due to the presence of large trees, urban- adapted bird species could occur on the project site as occasional transients. Because the project site represents only a very small proportion of the suitable habitat available for bird species regionally, the proposed project would not have a measurable effect on regional populations of any species. Nesting Birds The mature trees on the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds, including tree nesting raptors, such as small hawks. Construction-related disturbances have the potential to “take” nests, eggs, or individuals, and otherwise lead to the abandonment of nests, which would be considered a violation of the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or destruction of nests would be a significant impact. Impact BIO-1: Construction of the proposed project could result in disturbance to active migratory bird nests. [Significant Impact] Mitigation Measures: The proposed project shall implement the following measures to reduce construction-related impacts to nesting migratory birds and their nests to a less than significant level, as construction activities proceed: Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 36 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 MM BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the project shall implement the following measures:  Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. All potential nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding season (February 1 – August 31). If more than 30 days pass between the completion of the preconstruction survey and the initiation of construction activities, the preconstruction survey shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day intervals until construction activities are initiated.  If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be postponed until all the young have fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established around the nest site, in consultation with the CDFW. Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree or shrub.  Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge. No construction activities, parking, staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall be allowed within the exclusion zones until the young have fledged from the nest. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? The proposed project site is an existing park and JMZ facility. There are no riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities within Rinconada Park or within the JMZ facility property. [No Impact] c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The proposed project site is an existing park and JMZ facility and does not support any wetlands. [No Impact] d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The proposed project site is an existing park and JMZ facility and does not support migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites. [No Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 37 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? The proposed project will retain the majority of the trees on the project site, including all of the identified heritage trees within the project boundaries. There are two heritage trees on the project site, both of which would be unaffected by project implementation. A total of 12 protected trees are proposed to be removed from Rinconada Park and two (2) protected trees are proposed to be transplanted as part of the JMZ redevelopment associated with the reconfigured parking lot. All tree removals would follow the public tree removal process, including adequate neighborhood notification. Below, the trees proposed for removal are broken down per both projects and divided into Protected Tree, Street Trees and Public Trees categories. Arborist reports for the project with the specific tree information can be found in Appendix B. Construction of the proposed project would require new sidewalks, which may require the additional removal and replacements as determined by the Public Works Department. The project would be required to replace street trees in such a way as to avoid existing underground utilities and infrastructure, and also to follow the Palo Alto Tree Preservation Guidelines. Protected Trees to be Removed: LRP: Twelve (12) protected Sequoia sempervirens, Coast Redwood trees are proposed to be removed as part of the LRP Improvements. The redwoods currently exist under high power electrical lines and are being continuously topped at approximately 20 feet in height. New native trees of appropriate size for the high voltage line will be planted in the locations of the redwoods at a 4:1 ratio. JMZ: No protected trees are proposed to be removed as part of the Junior Museum and Zoo Project. Two protected trees, one Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak and one Sequoia sempervirens, Coast Redwood are proposed to be transplanted within the boundries of the project site as part of the proposed parking lot reconfiguration. Street Trees to be Removed: LRP: No street trees are proposed to be removed as part of the LRP. JMZ: Two (2) street trees are proposed to be removed as part of the Junior Museum and Zoo project. One (1) Tilian cordata, Little Leaf Linden along Middlefield Avenue will be removed for the new driveway apron for the reconfigured Rinconada parking lot. One (1) Plantanus, London Plane Tree along Hopkins Avenue will be removed for the new fire access lane into the reconfigured parking lot to service the surrounding facilities. New street trees will be added to the project in the locations of the old driveway aprons to replace the removed street trees. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 38 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Public Trees to be Removed: LRP: Fourteen (14) public trees are proposed to be removed as part of the LRP. All the trees occur along with main park walkway and will be removed to realign the walk. All trees removed will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio of native trees, and would be located in more suitable planting areas outside the larger open turf space or small paving cut-outs as do the majority of the trees being proposed for removal. JMZ: Forty two (42) public trees are proposed to be removed as part of the JMZ project none of the trees are native or protected. Six (6) of the trees proposed for removal are being done so for the parking lot reconfiguration in the area adjacent to the Girl scout House. Fifteen (15) trees that currently exist in the Zoo area will be removed as part of the zoo reconfiguration. Thirteen (13) trees will be removed as part of the new JMZ building. One (1) tree will be removed along Middlefield for the new driveway apron/approach. Six (6) trees in poor condition will be removed from the natural oak grove stand adjacent to Lucie Stern to improve the growing conditions for the native oak trees and one (1) tree will be removed from Rinconada Park for the new entry plaza into the park and connection to the main park pathway. New trees and landscaping would be installed in compliance with the requirements of the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, and, therefore, the removal of these trees would not be considered a significant impact. Although not considered a significant impact under CEQA, the following Conditions of Approval, as required by City ordinances, would be included in the project to protect trees to remain on site, and to replace removed trees. Tree Protection Measures: CONDITION BIO-2.1:  A Tree Preservation Report (TPR) shall be prepared for trees to be preserved and protected, consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City Urban Forester. The TPR shall incorporate the following measures, safeguards, and information:  The TPR shall be based on the latest plans and amended as needed to address activity or improvements within the dripline area, including but not limited to incidental work (utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, patio material, leveling, etc.) that may affect the health of the trees. The project shall be modified to address TPR concerns and recommendations identified to minimize below ground or above ground impacts.  The TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the Tree Preservation Ordinance, PAMC Section 8.10.030 and the City’s Tree Technical Manual, Sections 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urban_canopy.asp. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 39 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017  To avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the health of the trees, the TPR shall review the applicant's landscape plan to ensure that patio flat work, irrigation, planting or potted plants are consistent with the Tree Technical Manual. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to the City Urban Forester. CONDITION BIO-2.2:  Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of one or more public street trees. Publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-way along Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road. Provide mitigation in the event of a public tree removal. The new frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design and materials to include the following elements:  Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree Management Program. Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources.  Create conflict-free planting sites by locating tree sites and underground utility services at least 10-feet apart (electric, gas, sewer, water, fiber optic, telecom, etc.).  Utilize City-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such as permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, and generous planter soil volume (800 to 1,200 cubic feet) to sustain a medium to large tree. [Less than Significant Impact] f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project site is located outside of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan and the Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan. [No Impact] 4.4.4 Conclusion The project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Included in the Project] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 40 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The following discussion is based in part on an archaeological literature search by Holman & Associates, Inc. in June 2015, and on historic resource evaluations prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc. in July 2016 and June 2017. The archaeological literature search and historic resources evaluations are included in this Initial Study as Appendices C-1, C-2, and C-3 respectively. 4.5.1 Cultural Resources Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a.Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? 1-3, 11- 12 b.Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1-3, 10- 12 c.Cause damage to an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? d.Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1-3 e.Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature? 1-3, 10 f.Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1-3, 10- 12 g.Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either: 1.A site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register or historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or 2.A resource determined by a lead agency in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1(c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native tribe. 1-3, 10 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 41 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.5.2 Eligibility Criteria for Historic Resources 4.5.2.1 National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is a comprehensive inventory of known historic resources throughout the United States. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological or cultural significance at the national, state or local level. A historic resource listed in, or formally determined to be eligible for listing in, the National Register is, by definition, included in the California Register (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(d)(1)).4 National Register Bulletin Number 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, describes the Criteria for Evaluation as being composed of two factors. First, the property must be “associated with an important historic context.” The National Register identifies four possible context types, of which at least one must be applicable at the national, state, or local level. As listed under Section 8, “Statement of Significance,” of the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, these are: A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. Second, for a property to qualify under the National Register’s Criteria for Evaluation, it must also retain “historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance.” While a property’s significance relates to its role within a specific historic context, its integrity refers to “a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.” To determine if a property retains the physical characteristics corresponding to its historic context, the National Register has identified seven aspects of integrity: 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling, and 7) association. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for establishing standards for all programs under the Department of the Interior’s authority, and for advising federal agencies on the preservation of historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The Standards for Rehabilitation (codified in 36 CFR 67 for use in the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program) address the most prevalent treatment. “Rehabilitation” is defined as “the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible 4 See Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(d)(1) Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 42 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.” The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property's significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and interior of the buildings. They also encompass related landscape features and the building's site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. To be certified for federal tax purposes, a rehabilitation project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the historic character of the structure(s), and where applicable, the district in which it is located. As stated in the definition, the treatment “rehabilitation” assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building's historic character. Similarly, exterior additions that duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the extent that they compromise the historic character of the structure, will fail to meet the Standards. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy, and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 4.5.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources and CEQA Specific guidelines for identifying historic resources during the project review process under CEQA are set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). These provisions of CEQA create three categories of historical resources: mandatory historical resources; presumptive historical resources; and resources that may be found historical at the discretion of the lead agency. Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the listed criteria of significance and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and hence in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance.” The process of determining integrity is similar for both the California and National Registers, and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity that are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 43 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.5.2.3 Palo Alto Historic Inventory The City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of individual designers and architectural eras as well as buildings associated with local, state, or national historic events. The inventory identifies buildings on the California and/or National Registers, whether a building is in a recognized historic district, and lists categories related to architectural style and stylistic development. Development incentives, such as reduced parking requirements and bonus floor area, are allowed for in the Palo Alto Municipal Code in exchange for historic rehabilitation of Category 1 and 2 buildings.5 The specific categories in the Historic Inventory include:  Category 1: An “Exceptional” Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character.  Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.  Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion, or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden façades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. In accordance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), the Historic Resources Board (HRB) is responsible for making recommendations to the City Council on proposed additions to the Historic Inventory and on reclassifications of existing Historic Inventory buildings.6 For properties that are considered eligible for listing in the City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory and to be designated as either a “Historic District,” or “Historic Structure/Site,” the property must meet the following criteria: 1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state, or nation; 2. The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state, or nation; 5 The City’s incentive program for preservation and rehabilitation of historic buildings is provided for in the PAMC (Title 16 and Title 18), and in Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policy and programs. 5 City of Palo Alto. Historic Preservation. Accessed: July 26, 2017. Available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/preservation.asp. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 44 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare; 4. The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; 5. The architect or building is important; 6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. All properties listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. In general, Category 1 and 2 resources are defined as “significant” buildings, subject to local regulations, while Category 3 or 4 resources are defined as “contributing” buildings. Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49, Section 16.49.060 requires Historic Resources Board review and Council action on applications for demolition of significant buildings in the downtown area. The existing JMZ building is not listed as a significant building nor as a contributing building, and is not located in the downtown. 4.5.3 Existing Setting Cultural resources are evidence of past human occupation and activity and include both historical and archaeological resources. These resources may be located above ground, underground or underwater and have significance in history, prehistory, architecture or culture of the nation, State of California, or local or tribal communities. Paleontological resources are fossils, the remains or traces of prehistoric life preserved in the geological record. They range from the well-known and well publicized fossils (such as mammoth and dinosaur bones) to scientifically important fossils (such as paleobotanical remains, trace fossils, and microfossils). Potentially sensitive areas with fossil bearing sediments near the ground surface in areas of Santa Clara County are generally in or adjacent to foothill areas rather than the younger Holocene age deposits on the valley floor. 4.5.3.1 Prehistoric Resources The site is located in downtown Palo Alto, and is fully developed and previously disturbed. The site is located in an area of “moderate sensitivity” for archaeological resources, based on the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report (2014), although areas of “extreme sensitivity” are located nearby in the downtown area. An Archaeological Literature Review that was conducted by Holman & Associates at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resource Information system (NWIC) did not identify prehistoric resources on or adjacent to the project site. 4.5.3.2 Tribal Cultural Resources Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was signed into law in 2014, creating a new category of environmental resources (tribal cultural resources), which must be considered under CEQA. A tribal cultural resource is defined under Public Resources Code Section 21074 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. AB 52 also requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified of projects proposed within that Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 45 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 area. Where a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, consultation is required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource or when it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached. 4.5.3.3 Historic Resources History of Development on the City-Owned Parcel Rinconada Park has developed into its current form over a period of 95 years, with improvements that reflect a variety of civic and park design influences. Prior to development of the park, the location that is now Rinconada Park was used as the City’s first waterworks and power plant. An electricity-generating unit in the water plant was installed in 1914. The cooling pool of the power plant was converted into a public swimming pool around 1918, and drew crowds of both local residents and out-of-town tourists. The park was officially named Rinconada Park in 1924, after the City sponsored a public contest for its official name. Development plans were created in 1924 for the entire park. Because bond measures to finance the development of the park were defeated, however, the full 1924 development plan appears to have gone unfinished. Despite delays and cuts to the extensive development plan, four tennis courts, a baseball diamond, and a children’s playground were constructed. The Girl Scout House was completed in 1925, following designs by prolific Palo Alto architect Birge Clark. Funding for the Girl Scout House was provided in 1922 by Lou Henry Hoover, wife of President Herbert Hoover, and two other board members of the Palo Alto Girl Scout chapter. Hoover established the first West Coast troop in Palo Alto and served as president of Girl Scouts of the USA from 1922 to 1925 and again from 1935 to 1937. The building is the oldest active scout meeting house in the country. In the early 1930s, Lucie Stern, widow of Louis Stern who was a nephew of Levi Strauss, and her daughter Ruth gifted the city with money to build the Lucie Stern Community Center. The theater was the first part of the Lucie Stern Community Center to be completed in 1934. Construction of the Lucie Stern Community Center was completed in 1940, and included the main theater, Boy Scout headquarters, Children’s Theater, and the Children’s library. The library is the oldest freestanding children’s library in the county, and was designed by Birge and David Clark in the Spanish Colonial Revival style to match the Lucie Stern Community Center. The JMZ building was constructed in 1941, and has since been used solely used as a museum and zoo facility. The institution of the Palo Alto JMZ was founded in 1934 and belongs to a nation-wide pattern of children’s museums established in the early 20th century. The paved parking lot and adjacent landscaping between the JMZ and Lucie Stern Community Center was installed in the 1940s. The existing JMZ building has undergone significant alterations since its construction, including a remodel and expansion in 1969. Throughout the 1940s, various park improvements were made, including the addition of park benches around the swimming pools and an addition to the Girl Scout House. The Fire Station, located at the corner of Embarcadero and Newell Road was constructed in 1948. Additional park Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 46 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 improvements were made through the 1950s, namely an activities house to store recreational sports gear. In 1957, plans for a modernized park were produced by the landscape architecture firm Eckbo, Royston, and Williams of San Francisco. Later in 1964, the park was expanded to include a half- block piece of land the City owned across Hopkins Avenue. In 1970, three more tennis courts were constructed across Hopkins Avenue at Newell Road, and the Magic Forest was officially dedicated as such in 1971. The walkways were renovated in 1973 and the pools were renovated in 1978. Renovations to existing park facilities including the adult swimming pool and tennis courts were renovated in 1986 and 1989, respectively. During the 1990s, more facilities underwent additions including the children’s theater and children’s pool. The children’s library was renovated and expanded in 2005, with work completed in 2007. Historic Resources on the City-Owned Parcel The entire City-owned parcel is designated in City of Palo Alto records as a Category 1 property because of the Lucie Stern Community Center. The Category 1 designation does not apply to any other building or facility within the parcel. The Lucie Stern Community Center is considered a historic resource under National Register Criterion A/California Register Criterion 1 for its role in providing community gathering spaces and amenities, National Register Criterion B/California Register Criterion 2 for its association with benefactors Lucie and Ruth Stern, and National Register Criterion C/California Register Criterion 3 for its Spanish Colonial Revival style buildings and integrated landscape design. A historic evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc. in July 2016 evaluated the JMZ building for its historic significance based on national and state criteria. The report concluded that due to significant modifications made to the building, it is not eligible for listing on the National Register or California Register under any criteria. A subsequent historic evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc. in June 2017 evaluated the remaining development on the City-owned parcel. The Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House site was found to be significant under Criterion A/1 for its early role in scouting and Criterion B/2 for its association with Lou Henry Hoover. No additional historic resources were identified on the City- owned parcel. 4.5.4 Impacts Evaluation a., b., f. Would the project adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? The proposed project includes two components: 1) implementation of the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan (LRP) and 2) redevelopment of the JMZ facility and reconfiguration of the adjacent parking lot. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 47 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 As described above, Rinconada Park and its existing features are not considered a historic resource. Implementation of the LRP, therefore, would not result in impacts to historic resources. The Girl Scout House and Lucie Stern Community Center, which are located north and northwest of the JMZ facility, respectively, are both considered historic resources. The existing JMZ building, however, was determined not to be a historic resource. The JMZ building and site are sufficiently separated from the Girl Scout House across a paved and planted “park arrival plaza” that the new construction will not directly affect the character of the historic building. Demolition of the existing JMZ building and construction of a new JMZ facility, therefore, would not result in impacts to historic resources. The project includes reconfiguration of the parking lot that is located adjacent to the Girl Scout House and Lucie Stern Community Center. The redesigned parking lot would not affect the Lucie Stern Community Center site; the pavement would occupy a smaller footprint compared to the current paving at the south side of the complex, adding more lawn and plantings to the building’s setting. While the driveway approach would be removed from Middlefield Road to the south, a pedestrian circulation approach would replace the driveway. Thus, the view on approach to the south courtyard would remain. The historic building complex and landscaped courtyards and lawn to the west would not be affected. The parking lot would be enlarged at the northeast, coming closer to the primary façade of the Girl Scout House. The space of the “front yard” of the Girl Scout House would change, as the paving would extended across the full length of the building’s façade and the area would be paved with an organic concrete pathway, new oak trees, bark mulch ground cover, and native grass plantings. While the proposed project includes alteration of some contributing landscape/hardscape features at the “front yard,” these features will be altered but not eliminated. Additionally, the bird bath would be moved to a location near the Boy Scout Building at the Lucie Stern Community Center, which is an appropriate treatment for this feature. While the proposed project includes removal of some landscape features, particularly the demonstration garden in the front yard area of the Girl Scout House, the significance of the historic building (National Register Criteria A and B/California Register Criteria 1and 2) would continue to be represented through the building. The building’s T- shaped form, board and batten siding, multi-lite wood sash windows, solid and board-and- batten wood doors, stone chimney, and cross-gable roof would not be altered and would continue to be the primary conveyance of the building’s significance. Overall, the project does not significantly impact the historic character of the Girl Scout House and the building continues to convey its historic significance, which justifies its eligibility for listing in the National and California Registers. Thus, the reconfiguration of the parking lot would not result in impacts to historic resources. [Less than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 48 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 c., d. Would the project cause damage to an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Although existing development has altered the project site, there is always the potential to discover unknown cultural resources during site excavation. In the event any archaeological or human remains are discovered on the site, impacts would be potentially significant. Impact CR-1: Construction activities could result in significant impacts to buried cultural resources. [Significant Impact] Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50- feet of the find shall be halted, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The recommended mitigation shall be implemented and could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. MM CR-1.2: If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the proposed project, the City shall comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 49 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation] e. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature? The proposed project is located in an urban area on alluvial soil materials. There are no known paleontological resources in the vicinity of the proposed project site. [No Impact] g. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either: 1) A site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing of the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or 2) a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 (c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? In May 2016, the City of Palo received a single request from the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians to be contacted in accordance with AB 52. Through subsequent correspondence with Tribal Representatives, however, it was concluded that the Tribe had contacted the City of Palo Alto in error and did not wish to be contacted regarding future projects within the City’s jurisdiction. The Tribe is not traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area within the City of Palo Alto; rather, the area they are affiliated with lies over 400 miles southeast of the project site. Because no other tribes have requested to be contacted, no notices in accordance with AB 52 were sent. The project site is located in a fully developed area and no tribal cultural resources have been listed or determined eligible for listing in the California Register or a local register of historical resources. As described previously, An Archaeological Literature Review that was conducted by Holman & Associates at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resource Information system (NWIC) did not identify prehistoric resources on or adjacent to the project site. The project would improve existing development on the site and would not substantially change the character of the site or its surroundings compared to existing conditions. To date, no California Native American tribes that are or have been traditionally culturally affiliated with the project vicinity have requested notification from the City of Palo Alto regarding projects in the area and their effects on a tribal cultural resource. The project, therefore, is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse effect on a tribal cultural resource. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 50 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.5.5 Conclusion With implementation of the mitigation measures included in the project, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on cultural and historic resources. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 51 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.6 GEOLOGY This discussion is based in part on a Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering in January 2015. A copy of this survey is attached to this Initial Study as Appendix D. 4.6.1 Geology and Soils Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as described on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) 1-3 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1-3 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1-3 iv. Landslides? 1-3 v. Expansive soils? 1-3 b. Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 1-3 c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 1-3 d. Cause substantial soil erosion or siltation? 1-3 e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 1-3 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 52 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.6.2 Existing Setting 4.6.1.1 Background and Topography The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, an alluvial basin, bound by the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, the Hamilton/Diablo Range to the east, and the San Francisco Bay to the north. The Santa Clara Valley was formed when sediments derived from the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Hamilton/Diablo Range were exposed by continued tectonic uplift and regression of the inland sea that had previously inundated this area. Bedrock in this area is made up of the Franciscan Complex, a diverse group of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks of Upper Jurassic to cretaceous age (70 to 140 million years old). Overlaying the bedrock in the vicinity are alluvial fan and fluvial sediments of Quaternary age. 4.6.1.2 Expansive Soils Based on lab testing results, near-surface soils on the site have a high potential for expansion. 4.6.1.3 Faults and Seismicity The project area is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area, which is classified as Zone 4, the most seismically active zone in the United States. The San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults are significant regional active faults that could produce earthquakes affecting the proposed project during its anticipated life span. No known faults cross the project site, and the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone. The San Andreas fault is approximately 6.8 miles southwest of the site, the Hayward fault is approximately 12.3 miles northeast of the site, and the Calaveras fault is approximately 16.9 miles east of the site. With the relative proximity of these faults, the site is likely to be subject to ground shaking during moderate to large earthquakes produced along these active fault zones. 4.6.1.4 Liquefaction Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loose, water-saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state after ground shaking. There are many variables that contribute to liquefaction, including the age of the soil, soil type, soil cohesion, soil density, and ground water level. No liquefiable soils were detected in soil borings taken on the site, and the potential for liquefaction is minimal. 4.6.3 Impacts Evaluation a., b., c. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, ii) strong seismic ground shaking, iii) seismic-related ground failure, iv) landslides or v) expansive soils? Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 53 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 The project site is located within the seismically-active San Francisco Bay region, but are not located within a mapped fault zone. There are no known earthquake faults crossing the sites; therefore, the likelihood of primary ground rupture is low. [Less Than Significant Impact] The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has reported that the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2007) has estimated that there is a 63 percent probability that one or more major earthquakes would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between before 2038. An earthquake occurring on any of the fault lines in the region may induce seismic ground shaking at the project site. The proposed JMZ building would be designed and constructed in accordance with state and City of Palo Alto building codes and standards, as well as the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation prepared for the site, to reduce damage from seismic activity. These conditions would require a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any grading and building permits. [Less Than Significant Impact] d. Would the project cause substantial soil erosion or siltation? The project site is generally flat and not adjacent to any steep slopes. Park redevelopment and construction of the JMZ facility would not result in soil erosion, the loss of topsoil, or in substantial siltation. Construction of the proposed JMZ building would require excavation for building foundations. The project would be required to comply with the City of Palo Alto’s conditions of approval to reduce erosion during demolition, grading, and excavation. The soils on site have a relatively low potential for expansion, and construction of the new JMZ facility in conformance with the California Building Code and City of Palo Alto requirements would avoid risks associated with soil conditions. [Less Than Significant Impact] e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. [No Impact] 4.6.4 Conclusion The project would not result in significant geology and soil impacts. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 54 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1-3 b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1-3 4.7.2 Existing Setting 4.7.2.1 Background Information Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which are discussed in Section 4.3, and have local or regional impacts, emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) have a broader, global impact. Global warming associated with the “greenhouse effect” is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere over time. The principal GHGs contributing to global warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors. An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global warming is currently affecting changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California could be adversely affected by the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise could increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur. The potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 55 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.7.2.2 Regulatory Information California Assembly Bill 32 The Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill (AB) 32) was passed in California in September 2006 to address the State’s contribution to global climate change. Assembly Bill 32 requires that GHG emissions in California be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the state’s first Climate Change Scoping Plan in 2008. It proposed a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal. In May 2014, CARB adopted an updated Scoping Plan document. The 2014 Update defines CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and lays the groundwork to start the transition to the post-2020 goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012 (see below). The 2014 Update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan and evaluates how to align the State’s longer-term greenhouse gas reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, such as for water, waste, natural resources, agriculture, clean energy, and transportation and land use. Executive Orders In addition to AB 32, Executive Order S-3-05 (EO S-3-05) established a reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and Executive Order B-16-2012 established benchmarks for increased use of zero emission vehicles and zero emission vehicle infrastructure by 2020 and 2025. On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued Executive Order B-30-15, setting a new interim statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction target. The purpose of establishing the interim target is to ensure California meets its previously established target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as set forth in Executive Order S-3-05 in 2005. Under Executive Order B-30-15, the interim target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. California Senate Bill 375 Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. It builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035 in comparison to 2005 emissions. The per capita reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area in July 2013 as part of SB 375 implementation. The strategies in the plan are intended to promote compact, mixed-use development close to public transit, jobs, Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 56 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities, particularly within Priority Development Areas (PDAs) identified by local jurisdictions. Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP) focuses on two closely-related BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. Consistent with the GHG reduction targets adopted by the state of California, the 2017 CAP lays the groundwork for the BAAQMD’s long-term effort to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2017 CAP includes a wide range of control measures designed to decrease emissions of methane and other “super-GHGs” that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion. BAAQMD Guidelines As discussed in the CEQA Guidelines, the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Palo Alto and other jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin often utilize the thresholds and methodology for greenhouse gas emissions developed by the BAAQMD. City of Palo Alto Plans and Programs At the local level, the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a number of goals and policies to reduce its impact on global climate change through promoting energy efficiency and/or conservation, alternative modes of transportation, water efficiency, and specific building standards. In addition, the City adopted a Climate Protection Plan in December 2007 and a Green Building Ordinance on June 2, 2008. The Green Building Program applies to residential and non-residential private development projects (PAMC 16.14). 4.7.3 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction and normal park and JMZ operations. BAAQMD does not provide GHG screening thresholds for museums or zoos. A similar land use, based on visitation rates and duration of patron visits are libraries. Based on the established screening thresholds for libraries, the project would be under the BAAQMD thresholds for GHG emissions, and additionally would comply with the City’s green building requirements. The BAAQMD guidelines and the City of Palo Alto do not suggest a threshold of significance for short-term construction-related GHG emissions. Based on the size of the project and the amount of construction-related activities necessary to complete the project, and implementation of Basic Construction Measures discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution of greenhouse gas Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 57 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 emissions to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, and, therefore, would result in a less than significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions. [Less Than Significant Impact] b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed in Section 4.7.2.2, Regulatory Information, the State of California has adopted a Climate Change Scoping Plan. Greenhouse gas emissions are also addressed in the adopted 2017 CAP and Plan Bay Area. The CARB-approved Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines a comprehensive set of actions intended to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. The Scoping Plan includes recommended actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While the Scoping Plan focuses on measures and regulations at a statewide level, local governments play a key role in implementing many of the strategies contained in the Scoping Plan, such as energy efficient building codes, local renewable energy generation, and recycling programs. The project includes green building measures as required by the City of Palo Alto’s green building program. These measures include, but are not limited to: Non-residential Development:  Must comply with the California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory + Tier 2 requirements,  Must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Building Code (CBC);  Must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months;  Must comply with potable water reduction Tier 2;  Must be designed and installed to reduce irrigation water;  Must install recycled water infrastructure and meters;  Must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2; and  Must comply with the City’s Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance. For these reasons, the project would be consistent with recommended actions in the Scoping Plan and 2010 CAP measures, and would not conflict with implementation of recommended actions in these plans intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 (and ultimately 2050). Given that demolition and construction materials would be salvaged or recycled in conformance with City of Palo Alto requirements, and the project would meet Title 24 standards to reduce energy usage, construction and operation of the project would not contribute substantially to local or regional GHG emissions that have a cumulative significant effect on the global environment. [Less than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 58 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.7.4 Conclusion The proposed project would not generate substantial new greenhouse gas emissions considered to have a significant impact on global climate change. Voluntary implementation of BAAQMD’s recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Guidelines and compliance with green building requirements would further reduce impacts to greenhouse gas emissions to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 59 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4.8.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1-3 b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 1 c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1-3 d. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination either in excess of ground soil and groundwater cleanup goals developed for the site or from location on listed hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5? 1-3 e. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? 1,2,18 f. Result in a safety hazard from a public airport for people residing or working within the project area? 1 g. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 h. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 60 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.8.2 Background Hazardous materials encompass a wide range of substances, some of which are naturally-occurring and some of which are man-made. Examples include motor oil and fuel, metals (e.g., lead, mercury, arsenic), asbestos, pesticides, herbicides, and chemical compounds used in manufacturing and other activities. A substance may be considered hazardous if, due to its chemical and/or physical properties, it poses a substantial hazard when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or released into the atmosphere in the event of an accident. Determining if such substances are present on or near project sites is important because exposure to hazardous materials above regulatory thresholds can result in adverse health effects on humans, as well as harm to plant and wildlife ecology. Hazardous waste generators and hazardous materials users in the City are required to comply with regulations enforced by several federal, state, and county agencies. The regulations are designed to reduce the risk associated with human exposure to hazardous materials and minimize adverse environmental effects. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations require protective measures during construction activities where workers may be exposed to asbestos, lead, and/or other hazardous materials. 4.8.3 Setting 4.8.3.1 Regulatory Setting Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the state, local agencies, and developers to find information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop an updated Cortese List at least annually. The Cortese List includes lists maintained by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The DTSC, SWRCB, and CIWMB do not list the site as containing hazardous materials. Within a 1,000 foot radius of the project site, there are three sites identified by the SWRCB as having leaking underground storage tanks. All three sites have received case closure status from the SWRCB and are considered fully remediated.7 4.8.3.2 Existing Setting There are no known hazardous material concerns on the project site. Land uses in the project area consist mainly of single family residences and public facilities (Girl Scout house, Lucie Stern Community Center, Children’s Library and Theater, Walter Hays Elementary School, Fire Station, Main Library, Art Center). There are no industrial uses near the project site that pose a hazardous materials concern. 7 Cal State Water Resources Control Board, August 17, 2015. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 61 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.8.4 Impacts Evaluation a., b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The proposed JMZ would have similar operations as the existing JMZ, including the minor use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials such as janitorial, landscaping, and maintenance chemicals. Future JMZ maintenance staff would be required to comply with federal, state, and local requirements for managing hazardous materials. These materials would be used in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws, as required by the City of Palo Alto. Project construction would require the temporary use of heavy equipment, including excavation equipment. Construction would also require the use of hazardous materials including petroleum products, lubricants, cleaners, paints, and solvents. These materials would be used in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws, as required by the City of Palo Alto. If used as directed, these materials would not pose a hazard to the environment or workers or persons in the vicinity. [Less Than Significant Impact] Asbestos-containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint Demolition of the existing JMZ could expose asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-based paint. These materials, if present could pose a risk to construction workers and adjacent uses during building demolition within the JMZ. To reduce the potential for construction workers and adjacent uses to encounter hazardous materials contamination from ACMs and lead-based paint, the following measures are included in the project as conditions of approval to reduce hazardous materials impacts related to ACMs and lead-based paint. CONDITION HAZ-1.1:  In conformance with local, state, and federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a lead-based paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs and/or lead-based paint on the JMZ. The surveys shall be completed prior to demolition work beginning on these structures.  If found, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines, prior to building demolition that may disturb the materials. All construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 62 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017  During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. [Less Than Significant Impact] c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Walter Hays Elementary School is located adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste during operation. The project does not propose construction of a school. [No Impact] d. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users to the site to contamination either in excess of ground soil and groundwater cleanup goals developed for the site or from location on listed hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5? The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and none of these sites are adjacent to the site (refer to Appendix D).8 The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from contamination in excess of soil and groundwater cleanup goals. [Less Than Significant Impact] f., g. Would the project result in a safety hazard from a public airport for people residing or working within the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? The project sites are located approximately 2.1 miles west of the Palo Alto Airport, and are not within the Palo Alto Airport’s Comprehensive Land Use Planning area. Implementation of the projects would, therefore, not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. [No Impact] h., e. Would the project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The development of the proposed project would not impair or interfere with implementation of the City’s emergency response plans or any statewide emergency response or evacuation plans. The sites are located in a developed area of Palo Alto, and therefore not subject to hazards from wildland fires.9 [No Impact] 8 State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Accessed July 8, 2016. 9 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara County. October 8, 2008. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php. Accessed July 8, 2016. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 63 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.8.5 Conclusion The project do not propose new hazardous materials uses and are not located on a site contaminated with hazardous materials. Implementation of the required City of Palo Alto conditions of approval would reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant hazards and hazardous materials impact. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 64 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.9.1 Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1-3 b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there will be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells will drop to a level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1-3 c. Substantially increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of storm water runoff or alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1-3 d. Result in stream bank instability? 1 e. Significantly increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of storm water runoff in a manner which would result in new or increased flooding on-or off-site? 1-3 f. Create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1-3 g. Provide substantial additional sources of pollutants associated with urban runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1-3 h. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1,16 i. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which will impede or redirect flood flows? 1,16 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 65 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) j. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding by placing housing or other development within a 100-year flood hazard area or a levee or dam failure inundation area? 1,2 k. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,19 4.9.2 Existing Setting 4.9.2.1 Regulatory Background Federal Emergency Management Agency In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance available for communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the NFIP and creates Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that designate 100-year floodplain zones and delineate other flood hazard areas. A 100-year floodplain zone is the area that has a one in one hundred (one percent) chance of being flooded in any one year based on historical data. Portions of the City are identified as special flood hazard areas with a one percent annual chance and two percent annual chance of flooding (also known as the 100-year and 500-year flood zones) as determined by the FEMA NFIP. As noted previously, the developable portion of the site is located in the 100-year flood zone. Water Quality (Nonpoint Source Pollution Program) The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water quality. Regulations set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. EPA’s regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the water quality control boards, which for the Palo Alto area is the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)/C.3 Requirement The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Permit Number CAS612008) (MRP). In an effort to standardize stormwater management requirements throughout the region, this permit replaces the formerly separate countywide municipal Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 66 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 stormwater permits with a regional permit for 77 Bay Area municipalities, including the City of Mountain View. Under provisions of the NPDES Municipal Permit, redevelopment projects that create or replace more than 10,000 sf of impervious surfaces are required to design and construct stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff. 4.9.2.2 Water Quality The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as non-point source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain. Stormwater runoff water quality is regulated by the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from surface water discharge. Locally, the NPDES program is administered by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB worked with cities and counties throughout the region to prepare and adopt a Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit (Regional Permit). This Regional Permit identifies minimum standards and provisions that the City of Palo Alto, as a permittee, must require of new development and redevelopment projects within the City limits. Compliance with the NPDES Regional Permit is mandated by state and federal statutes. The project site is the existing Rinconada Park with JMZ, which is located in a developed suburban area. Stormwater runoff from the project site currently drains into the Palo Alto storm drain system, which eventually empties into the San Francisco Bay10. 4.9.2.3 Flooding The project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain or a groundwater recharge area.11 4.9.2.4 Dam Failure The Association of Bay Area Governments compiled the dam failure inundation hazard maps submitted to the State Office of Emergency Services by dam owners throughout the Bay Area. The project site is located in the Searsville inundation area.12 10 City of Palo Alto, Storm Drain Master Plan. Accessed: July 8, 2016. Available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org. 11 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Community-Panel Number 06085C0010H, May, 18 2009. 12 San Mateo County, Dam Failure Inundation Areas. Accessed on August 11, 2015. Available at: http://planning.smcgov.orgf. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 67 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.9.2.5 Seiches, Tsunamis, and Mudflows A seiche is an oscillation of the surface of a lake or landlocked sea varying in period from a few minutes to several hours. There are no landlocked bodies of water near the project site that, in the event of a seiche, will affect the site. A tsunami or tidal wave is a series of water waves caused by the displacement of a large volume of water in a large body of water, such as an ocean or a large lake. Due to the immense volumes of water and energy involved, tsunamis can devastate coastal regions. There are no large bodies of water near the project site and the site does not lie within a tsunami inundation area.13 A mudflow is the rapid movement of a large mass of mud formed from loose soil and water. The project area is relatively flat and there are no mountains near the site that in the event of a mudflow, will affect the site. 4.9.3 Impacts Evaluation a., g. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Provide substantial additional sources of pollutants associated with urban runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The City’s standard conditions of approval include a requirement that a project develop and implement best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion during construction and permanent features to treat stormwater runoff, such as swales. Such BMPs include, but are not limited to the following measures:  Implement site-specific erosion and sediment control methods during demolition and construction periods.  Cover soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute non-visible pollution prior to rainfall events.  Cover stockpiles and disturbed surfaces with secure plastic sheeting or tarp.  Clean sediments from streets, driveways, and paved areas using dry sweeping methods.  Dispose of all wastes properly and keep site clear of trash and litter. Clean up leaks, drips, and other spills immediately. Implementation of Construction BMPs and compliance with the City’s standard conditions of approval and compliance with provisions of the NPDES permit would ensure that adverse effects on water quality associated with stormwater runoff during construction and operation of the project area avoided and/or reduced to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact] 13 California Emergency Management Agency, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning San Francisco Bay Area, < http://www.conservation.ca.gov> June 15, 2009. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 68 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there will be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells will drop to a level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The project is the implementation of the Rinconada Park LRP and the construction of a new JMZ facility in the same location as the existing JMZ facility. The amount of pervious surfaces on the project site after buildout of the project would be similar to existing conditions. Implementation of both the LRP and proposed JMZ would not result in the depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. [Less Than Significant Impact] c., d. Would the project substantially increase the rate, volumes, or flow duration of stormwater runoff or alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Result in stream bank instability? San Francisquito Creek is approximately 0.9 miles northeast of the project site; however, the project area is not in the floodplain of the creek and does not propose any alterations or impacts to the creek. The projects would not cause stream bank instability in or near San Francisquito Creek. [No Impact] e. Would the project significantly increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of storm water runoff in a manner which would result in new or increased flooding on-or off-site? The proposed project would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area and does not include any alterations to a waterway. Implementation of Construction BMPs and erosion control measures would reduce surface runoff impacts during construction and project operation to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact] f. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surface or increase stormwater runoff such that it would have the potential to exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems. The project would be required to comply with Section 16.11.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which mandates permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures for new development projects. Applicable measures to the proposed project include:  Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates other appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs such as bay-friendly landscaping; Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 69 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017  Efficient irrigation systems;  Conservation of natural areas, including existing trees, other vegetation, and soils;  Minimization of impervious surfaces;  Minimization of stormwater runoff by implementation of one or more of the following site design measures: o Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. o Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. o Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. o Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. o Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. Compliance with Section 16.11.030 of the Municipal Code would ensure that any runoff generated from project implementation would not be a substantial source of pollution. [Less Than Significant Impact] h. - k. Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which will impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project area is not located in a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the one percent chance flood. The one percent annual flood (100- year flood), is the flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.14 [No Impact] Reservoirs whose failure would affect the City of Palo Alto include Felt Lake, Searsville Lake, Lagunita Reservoir, and Foothills Park. Based on the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services, the project site is not within a dam failure inundation area.15 [No Impact] There are no landlocked bodies of water nor large bodies of water near the project site that, in the event of a seiche or tsunami, would affect the site. The project area is relatively flat and there are no mountains near the site that in the event of a mudflow, will affect the site. [No Impact] 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 060850010H. Map. Effective Date: May 18, 2009. 15 City of Palo Alto, Office of Emergency Services. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Report. August 2014. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 70 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.9.4 Conclusion With implementation of the best management practices and conformance with the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, the project would result in a less than significant impact to hydrology and stormwater quality. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 71 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.10 LAND USE 4.10.1 Land Use Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Physically divide an established community? 1,2 b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1-3 i. Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use patterns in the area? 1,2 ii. Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? 1,2 iii. Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? 1,2 c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1-3,9 4.10.2 Existing Setting The project site is located centrally in the City of Palo Alto in an area developed with residential and public facility uses. The site consists of the Rinconada Park and JMZ properties. The 11.8-acre Rinconada Park is designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as Public Park and currently contains various recreational amenities, including two children’s playgrounds, turf area for activities, picnic areas, nine tennis courts, backboard, picnic area with barbecues, municipal swimming pool and children’s pool, shuffle board and horse shoe pit, redwood grove, multipurpose concrete bowl, benches, and jogging/walking paths. The Public Park land use designation is defined as open lands whose primary purpose is active recreation and whose character is essentially urban. These areas have been planted with non-indigenous landscaping and are regularly maintained by City Park’s staff. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 72 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 JMZ is designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as a Major Institutions/Special Facilities and is currently used for community education and recreational activities. This land use designation is defined as institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations. Examples are hospitals and City facilities. The entire project site is located within the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. The PF public facilities district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. Rinconada Park is bounded by Hopkins Avenue to the north, Newell Road to the east, Embarcadero Road to the southeast. The JMZ is located adjacent to the southwest corner of Rinconada Park and is bounded by Middlefield Road to the southwest. Walter Hays Elementary School is located on the eastern boundary of the JMZ and the southern boundary of Rinconada Park. Palo Alto Fire Station 3 is located adjacent to Rinconada Park at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and Newell Road. Surrounding land uses consist primarily of single family residences and public use facilities. An aerial photograph of the project site and the surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 3.1-3. 4.10.3 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The proposed project is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP and the construction of the JMZ at the site of the existing JMZ. The project would not change the existing uses of Rinconada Park or JMZ and would, therefore, not physically divide an established community. [No Impact] b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed uses and intensity of the project is consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation for the sites, and it would replace, modify, and expand existing sites’ uses with similar uses. [No Impact] bi). Would the project substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use patterns in the area? Implementation of the Rinconada Park LRP would guide future development and renovation of Rinconada Park. Proposed renovations and improvements would maintain the type and intensity of existing uses in the park. The proposed JMZ building would be slightly larger than the existing facility; however, it would maintain the uses of the existing facility. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 73 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 For these reasons, the proposed projects would not substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area. [Less Than Significant Impact] bii – iii.) Would the project be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? Would the project conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? The proposed JMZ facility would be consist of a one-story JMZ building (Phase I) reaching a maximum height of 27 feet, and a two-story Outdoor Zoo Building (Phase II) reaching a maximum height of 25 feet. The highest point of the combined museum and zoo facility would be 36 feet at the netted enclosure. The project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural Review process, which ensures compliance with City standards to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety. The proposed project would maintain the existing land uses and would be compliant with the activities and building densities of each respective General Plan designations and zoning district. For these reasons, implementation of the project would not result in incompatible land uses or conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of the surrounding area. [Less Than Significant Impact] c. Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project site is outside of the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, Stanford Conservation Plan, or any other adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. [No Impact] 4.10.4 Conclusion The proposed projects would not result in a significant land use impact. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 74 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 4.11.1 Existing Setting The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There are no known locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. 4.11.2 Mineral Resources Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that will be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1-3 b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1-3 4.11.3 Impacts Evaluation a. – b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that will be of value to the region and the residents of the state or in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The project is in eastern Palo Alto, and is not located in an area containing known mineral resources. There are no known mineral recovery sites in the vicinity of the project site. [No Impact] 4.11.4 Conclusion The project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. [No Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 75 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.12 NOISE The following discussion is based upon the noise assessment prepared for the proposed project by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., noise consultants, in June 2015. The report analyzed the impacts of a larger JMZ facility based on previous site plans than the proposed site plans analyzed in this Initial Study. Therefore, noise impacts described below represent a conservative analysis. This report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix E. 4.12.1 Noise Environmental Checklist Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 1-3,21 b. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1-3,21 c. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,2 d. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1,2 e. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 4.12.2 Background Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Acceptable levels of noise are relative to the designated land use. In any one location, the noise level will vary over time, from the lowest background or ambient noise level to temporary increases caused by traffic or other sources. State and federal standards have been established as guidelines for determining the compatibility of a particular use with its noise environment. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 76 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- weighted sound level or dBA.16 This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Typical noise descriptors include maximum noise level (Lmax), the energy-equivalent noise level (Leq), and the day-night average noise level (Ldn). The Ldn noise descriptor is commonly used in establishing noise exposure guidelines for specific land uses. For the energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor called Leq the most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening hours, 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, Ldn (sometimes also referred to as DNL), is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of 10 dB to noise levels measured in the nighttime between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour A-weighted noise level from midnight to midnight after the addition of five dBA to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. 4.12.3 Existing Setting An ambient noise monitoring survey was conducted by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. on March 17, 2015 and included three long-term (120-hour) and three short-term (10-minute) measurements. Measurement locations are shown in Figure 4.12-1. A summary of the long-term and short-term measurement results are shown in Table 4.12-1. Long-term measurement LT-1 was located across from 1290 Cedar Street roughly 55 feet north of the center of Hopkins Avenue. The predominant noise source at this location was traffic on Hopkins Avenue. Daytime hourly average noise levels typically ranged from about 52 to 56 dBA Leq, with nighttime noise levels as low as 37 dBA Leq. The day/night average noise level at this location ranged from 55 to 56 dBA Ldn. Measurement LT-2 was situated in front of 1108 Fulton Street, roughly 60 feet southeast of the center of Embarcadero Road. The predominant noise source at this location was traffic along Embarcadero Road, although the loudspeaker at the adjacent school was occasionally audible during the attended portion of this measurement. Daytime hourly average noise levels typically ranged from about 61 to 64 dBA Leq, with nighttime noise levels as low as 50 dBA Leq. The day/night average noise level at this location ranged from 63 to 66 dBA Ldn. 16 The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. All sound levels in this discussion are A-weighted, unless otherwise stated. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 77 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Long-term noise measurement LT-3 was situated across from 685 Kellogg Avenue, roughly 50 feet southwest of the center of Middlefield Road. The predominant noise source at this location was traffic along Middlefield Road. Daytime hourly average noise levels typically ranged from about 60 to 64 dBA Leq, with nighttime noise levels as low as 42 dBA Leq. The day/night average noise level at this location ranged from 61 to 63 dBA Ldn. Short-term noise measurement ST-1 was located across from 12808 Pine Street, roughly 30 feet north of the center of Hopkins Avenue. Traffic along Hopkins Avenue was the predominant noise source at this location. The 10-minute average noise level, measured from 11:30 AM to 11:40 AM on Thursday, March 17th, 2015 was 52 dBA Ldn. Noise measurement ST-2 was situated in front of 1249 Harriet Street, roughly 20 feet from the center of the roadway and across the street from the library. The primary noise source at this location was local traffic, which generated a 10-minute average noise level of 55 dBA Leq from 11:20 AM to 11:30 AM on Thursday, March 17, 2015. Measurement ST-3 was located across from 1722 Newell Road, near Embarcadero Road. The primary noise source at this location was traffic on Embarcadero Road, with some jet noise occurring during the measurement interval. The 10-minute average noise level, measured from 11:50 AM to 12:00 PM on Thursday, March 17, 2015 was 61 dBA Leq. Table 4.12-1: Summary of Long and Short-Term Noise Measurement Data Noise Measurement Location Daytime Measure Leq Ldn* Primary Noise Sources LT-1: Front of 1290 Cedar St (3/12/15 to 3/15/15) 52-56 55-56 Traffic on Hopkins Avenue LT-2: Front of 1108 Fulton St (3/12/15 to 3/15/15) 61-64 63-66 Traffic on Embarcadero Road LT-3: Front of 685 Kellog Ave (3/12/15 to 3/15/15) 60-64 61-63 Traffic on Middlefield Road ST-1: Front of 1280 Pine St (3/17/15, 11:30 AM – 11:40 AM) 52 57 Traffic on Hopkins Avenue ST-2: Front of 1249 Harriett St (3/17/15, 11:20 AM – 11:30 AM) 55 55 Local Traffic ST-3: Front of 1722 Newell Rd (3/16/15, 11:50 AM – 12 PM) 61 64 Traffic on Embarcadero Rd * Ldn for short-term noise measurements calculated by comparing short-term data to data collected during a corresponding time period at long-term measurement site. NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS FIGURE 4.12-1 Parkinson AvenueParkinson Avenue Community LaneCommunity Lane Harriet Street Ha r r i e t S t r e e t Cedar Street Ce d a r S t r e e t Pine Street Pi n e S t r e e t Newell Road Ne w e l l R o a d Coleridge Avenue Cole r i d g e A v e n u e Byron Street By r o n S t r e e t Guinda Street Gui n d a S t r e e t Middlefield Road Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Hopkins AvenueHopkins Avenue E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Embarca d e r o R o a d Fulton Street Ful t o n S t r e e t LT-3ST-2 LT-3ST-3 LT-3ST-2 LT-3LT-1 LT-3ST-1 LT-3LT-3 Photo Date: Apr. 2016 Short-Term Noise Measurement Location Project Boundary Long-Term Noise Measurement Location Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, July 28, 2016. 0 50 200 400 Feet LT-# ST-# Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 79 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.12.4 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project result in the exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction of the LRP would occur over a period of 25 years. Construction of the proposed JMZ would include the demolition of the existing museum and zoo to construct a new, larger museum and zoo facility over a period of 18 to 24 months. The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) are used in areas adjacent to developed properties. A significant impact would be identified if the construction of the project would expose persons to groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) because of the potential to result in cosmetic damage to buildings of normal conventional construction. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. The closest residences are located approximately 80 feet north of the tennis courts and approximately 120 feet from the proposed JMZ building. Construction of the JMZ would be as close as 25 feet from Walter Hays Elementary School structures. During construction of the JMZ, vibration levels at the nearest Walter Hays Elementary School structures could reach 0.21 in/sec PPV during the use of heavy equipment (vibratory rollers, clam shovel drops), but would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for architectural damage. At a distance of 80 feet, approximately at the location of residences across Middlefield Road, vibration levels would be expected to be less than 0.06 in/sec PPV, which is well below the significance threshold. Vibration levels would be less as activities move further from the school. Vibration generated by construction activities near the common property lines would at times be perceptible, however, would not be expected to result in architectural damage to these buildings. [Less than Significant Impact] b. Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Project Exposure to Noise The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan designates Rinconada Park as Public Park and the JMZ as Major Institution/Special Facilities. Current uses of Rinconada Park include outdoor sports and recreation areas (pool area, tennis courts, bocce court), neighborhood parks and playgrounds (park, picnic areas, children play areas, fire pit, paths), and an outdoor multi-use performance area and stage (concrete bowl). The JMZ includes museum and outdoor recreational uses (i.e., the zoo). Based on standards established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, a significant noise and land use compatibility impact would be identified if exterior noise levels at new project Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 80 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 development areas would exceed 65 dBA Ldn at outdoor sports and recreation, neighborhood parks and playgrounds; 60 dBA Ldn at schools, museums, libraries, hospitals, personal care, meeting halls, and churches; or 75 dBA Ldn at auditoriums, concert halls, and amphitheaters. Based on a review of the traffic volumes prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., traffic noise levels at the project site are anticipated to increase by one dBA Ldn above existing levels under cumulative plus project conditions.17 With this one dB increase, cumulative traffic noise levels are calculated to exceed 60 dBA Ldn within 180 feet of the center of Embarcadero Road and within 80 feet of the center of Middlefield Road. Cumulative traffic noise levels are calculated to exceed 65 dBA Ldn within 80 feet of the center of Embarcadero Road. Portions of the proposed JMZ would be located within 80 feet of the center of Middlefield Road and would therefore be exposed to exterior noise levels that exceed the exterior noise and land use compatibility guideline for museum uses. Noise levels at the exterior façade of the museum facing Middlefield Road, at a distance of 60 feet from the center of the roadway, would reach 66 dBA Ldn. It should be noted that the existing JMZ building is currently exposed to these noise levels. There are no unshielded outdoor use areas associated with the museum in this area. A typical museum structure would provide 25 to 30 dBA of noise reduction from exterior noise sources with windows in the closed position. Interior noise levels would, therefore, be below 45 dBA Ldn throughout the museum and would be considered compatible with the proposed use. A small portion of Rinconada Park located within 80 feet of the center of Embarcadero Road would exceed the 65 dBA Ldn guideline for parks under cumulative conditions. The project would not introduce new recreational land uses in this area. All other uses on the site would have noise levels that are considered compatible with their land use. [Less Than Significant Impact] Project Generated Noise Existing operational noise sources at the site include vehicular traffic noise and recreational activity noise. Future usage is anticipated to be similar to the existing usage. A significant impact would occur if project operations or traffic would increase noise levels at noise sensitive receptors by three dBA Ldn or greater where exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard or by five dBA Ldn or greater where exterior noise levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the project. 17 It should be noted that the projected noise levels of future traffic conditions were based on a report prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. in May 2015. Since completion of the noise report, an updated traffic report was prepared to reflect changes in the site plans of the JMZ (July 2017). Such changes do not affect the results of the original noise report, thus results and conclusions made in the noise report are still applicable to the updated project. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 81 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Project Traffic Noise The traffic report analyzed traffic volumes at seven intersections in the vicinity of the project. The report found that traffic noise levels are anticipated to increase by less than one dBA at all study intersections with project implementation. Project Operational Noise Improvements to the JMZ, outdoor playground areas, concrete multi-use bowl, and sports and recreation areas on the site are not anticipated to change the noise generation of these facilities because the general layout and programming would not change. The relocation of the tot-lot adjacent to the children’s play area to the west would not result in detectable changes to noise levels at the nearest residences, which are located across Hopkins Avenue and more than 100 feet north of the playground areas. The addition of picnic tables and group picnic areas would not generate substantial noise at residences north of the site across Hopkins Avenue. The shifting of the tennis courts to the west would bring the courts slightly closer to some residences and slightly further from others. During extensive measurements of noise levels generated by tennis that were conducted for a facility in Palo Alto, tennis generates an hourly-average noise level of about 48 dBA Leq at a distance of 40 feet from the end of the court. Noise levels during volleying are lower. Based on the data collected at sites LT-1 and ST-1 during the noise monitoring survey, the primary noise source at these residences is currently traffic on Hopkins Avenue, which generated noise levels in the range of 55 to 57 dBA Ldn at the residences. The closest residences are located about 140 feet from the center of the nearest tennis court. At this distance, tennis would generate noise levels of about 37 dBA Leq. Maximum noise levels generated by tennis would continue to be audible during lulls in traffic, but would not generally be measurable above the existing ambient noise environment. Programming for the concrete bowl is regulated to 10:00 PM, which eliminates any increase in nighttime hourly average noise levels and thus, will not result in a noise impact. Noise levels generated by proposed uses are not anticipated to change substantially from existing noise levels and will comply with the City’s Municipal Code. [Less Than Significant Impact] d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Construction is limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with no construction permitted on Sundays or holidays. Project-generated construction noise is required to meet the following standards established in the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10): 1) no individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the piece of equipment or, when applicable, outside the equipment housing structure; and 2) the noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 110 dBA. Temporary noise increases from construction activities would be considered significant if hourly average noise levels received at noise sensitive residential land uses would be 60 dBA Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 82 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Leq and at least five dBA Leq above the ambient noise environment when the duration of the noise-generating activities last for more than one year. Construction equipment noise varies greatly depending on the construction activity performed, type and specific model of equipment, and the condition of equipment used. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors, any shielding provided by intervening barriers or structures, and existing ambient noise levels. Each construction activity would include a different mix of equipment operating. Construction noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and location where the equipment is operating. LRP Construction of the LRP would occur over a 25-year period. However, construction activity would be very limited with the main noise generating components coming from the expansion of the existing pool building by 2,200 sf, shifting the tennis courts over by removing roughly 6,000 sf on one side and adding 6,000 sf to the other side, and repaving internal pathways and plazas. The only construction near existing residences would be at the tennis courts. Residences are located as close as 80 and 300 feet to the north of the proposed tennis court and pool building improvements, respectively. At a distance of 80 feet, tennis court construction activities are calculated to generate noise levels in the range of about 65 to 80 dBA Leq. Pool building construction activities are calculated to generate noise levels in the range of about 52 to 68 dBA Leq at the nearest residences. Construction noise associated with the LRP improvements could exceed 60 dBA Leq and at least 5 dBA Leq above the ambient noise environment at adjacent residences. However, the overall construction period would be less than 12 months at any one location and predicted construction noise levels are not anticipated to exceed the Municipal Code limits of 110 dBA at the property line of the park. JMZ Construction of the proposed JMZ project would include the demolition of the existing zoo to construct a new, larger zoo facility over a period of 18 to 24 months. Construction phasing would include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, trenching, exterior building construction, interior building construction, and paving. Walter Hays Elementary School is located directly adjacent to the JMZ with structures as close as 25 feet, and the closest residences are roughly 120 feet from proposed construction activities. Construction activities are anticipated to generate hourly average noise levels of 74 to 86 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet during busy construction periods. Maximum instantaneous noise levels would be roughly 78 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels would typically drop off at a rate of approximately six decibels per doubling of distance from the Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 83 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 construction noise source. At the school, noise levels would be about six dBA higher when activities are located adjacent to the school, resulting in hourly average noise levels of about 80 to 92 dBA Lmax and maximum instantaneous noise levels of about 84 to 96 dBA Lmax. At the closest residences, located 120 feet from construction activities, construction noise levels would be about eight dB lower, generating hourly average noise levels of about 66 to 78 dBA Leq and the maximum instantaneous noise levels of roughly 70 to 82 dBA Lmax. At the school, which is located directly adjacent to construction activities, interior noise levels could be as high as 65 to 72 dBA Leq with windows open (assumes a 15 dB noise reduction) and 55 to 62 dBA Leq with windows closed (assumes a 25 dB noise reduction). These noise levels are likely to be disruptive to the learning environment. As construction moves away from noise sensitive receptors or into shielded locations, noise levels would be reduced. Construction noise is not anticipated to exceed the Municipal Code limits of 110 dBA at the property lines of the JMZ. However, construction noise could exceed 60 dBA Leq and at least five dBA Leq above the ambient noise environment at adjacent residences and the school for a period of greater than 12 months. Impact NOI-1: Construction activities associated with the JMZ could result in significant noise impacts. [Significant Impact] Mitigation Measures: MM NOI-1: With the implementation of the following measures, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level:  Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with no construction occurring on Sundays or holidays (consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code).  Construction of the JMZ shall be undertaken with consideration for school activities and hours:  Schedule high noise generating construction activities (such as the use of the concrete saws) that are located directly adjacent to school structures during periods when school is not in session, such as summer, school breaks, weekends, and after school dismissal. Coordination of construction activity times with school officials may be necessary.  Construct portions of the museum located directly adjacent to the school first, where practical, in an effort to provide shielding to the school from construction activities located further to the west and south. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 84 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017  Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers to shield on- site construction and demolition noise from the school. To be most effective, the barrier should be placed as close as possible to the noise source or the sensitive receptor. Examples of barriers include portable acoustically lined enclosure/housing for specific equipment (e.g., jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which generate the loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences or portable panel systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or acoustical blankets.  Establish construction staging areas at locations that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.  Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical.  Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.  Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines and equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.  Locate all stationary noise-generation equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from businesses or noise-sensitive land uses.  Notify all adjacent noise sensitive land uses of the construction schedule in writing.  Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences or the school bordering the project site.  Designate a disturbance coordinator, responsible for responding to complaints about construction noise. The name and telephone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and made available to noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to the construction site. [Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 85 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 e-f. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not yet been adopted, within two miles of a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Palo Alto Airport is located roughly 1.8 miles northeast of the project area. There are no private airstrips in the site vicinity. Although aircraft-related noise is occasionally audible at the project site, the project site does not lie within the land use plan area, or within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of the airports. Noise levels resulting from aircraft would be compatible with the proposed project. The project site is located in a developed area of Palo Alto, and there are no reasonably foreseeable projects in the site vicinity which, when considered together, are anticipated to compound or increase the noise impacts resulting from the project. A review of the data contained in the traffic report indicates that cumulative traffic noise levels without the project would be increased by zero to one dB above existing levels by the year 2035. Cumulative plus project traffic noise levels are not calculated to be substantially increased over cumulative no project conditions (increase would be less than one dBA). Construction noise impacts or operational noise impacts resulting from the project would not combine with noise from other projects in the vicinity, or increased noise levels resulting from the general growth of the area, to increase the severity of project noise impacts as discussed above. [No Impact] 4.12.5 Conclusion With compliance with the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and implementation of mitigation measure MM NOI-1, noise impacts would be less than significant. [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 86 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.13.1 Population and Housing Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1,2 b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,2 c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,2 d. Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1,2 4.13.2 Existing Setting According to the California Department of Finance, the 2015 population of Palo Alto was 66,932 residents18. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the population of Palo Alto will increase to 73,700 residents by 2025 in 30,370 households19. 4.13.3 Impacts Evaluation a.,d. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? The proposed project is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP and the demolition and construction of a new JMZ facility in the existing facility’s area. The project does not propose residential uses. The projects would have staffing needs similar to that of existing uses (i.e. park grounds staff, JMZ maintenance and zoo staff, etc.). The project, therefore, would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the area or create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs. [No Impact] 18 California Department of Finance, E-1 Data Population Estimates for the City, County, and the State January 1, 2014 and 2015. July 18, 2016. 19 Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Plan Projections 2013, 2013. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 87 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 b., c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project would occur within the existing Rinconada Park and JMZ site, which do not contain housing or other residential uses. The project would, therefore, not result in the displacement of a substantial number of residences and would not result in the need to construct replacement housing. [No Impact] 4.13.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not induce unplanned growth or result in significant adverse impacts to the existing housing supply. [No Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 88 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.14.1 Public Services Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional school facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1,2 b. Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional fire protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1,2 c. Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional police protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1,2 d. Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional parks and recreation facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1,2 e. Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional library facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1,2 4.14.2 Existing Setting 4.14.2.1 Fire Services The City of Palo Alto Fire Department is located at City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. The nearest fire station to the project site is Fire Station #3, located adjacent to the park’s southeastern border. 4.14.2.2 Police Services The Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) provides law enforcement services within the City limits. The PAPD headquarters is located adjacent to City Hall at 275 Forest Avenue, roughly one mile west of the site. 4.14.2.3 Public Schools All public schools in Palo Alto are operated by the Palo Alto Unified School District. The nearest public school is Walter Hays Elementary School, adjacent to the site’s southern border. The nearest middle school is Jordan Middle School (0.5 miles southeast), and the nearest high school is Castilleja High School (0.7 miles southwest). Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 89 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.14.2.4 Parks The City of Palo Alto has 29 neighborhood and district parks that total approximately 190 acres, including the 11.8-acre Rinconada Park. The project site is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP, within the existing 11.8-acre park. 4.14.3 Impacts Evaluation a.-e. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of construction of new school, fire protection, police protection, parks and recreation, or library facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? The proposed project is located in an urban area that is currently served by the City Police and Fire Departments. The projects would not cause an increase in population that would demand additional services. Given that the projects would include renovations to an existing park and the construction of a new JMZ facility to replace the existing facility, the projects would not generate new or increased demands upon City services. [Less Than Significant Impact] 4.14.4 Conclusion The proposed projects would result in a less than significant impact to public services. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 90 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.15 RECREATION 4.15.1 Recreation Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated? 1,3 b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1 4.15.2 Existing Setting The City of Palo Alto has 29 neighborhood and district parks that total approximately 190 acres. These parks vary in size and features, but recreational facilities generally include playground and grass areas. The City also owns and manages several open space preserves, including Foothills Park, Baylands Preserve, and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Other parkland managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is also located within the city limits. The project site is Rinconada Park, an existing City park that was established in 1922. 4.15.3 Impacts Evaluation a., b. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project would renovate the existing Rinconada Park over the course of 25 years, and construct a new JMZ facility in place of the existing one. The planned future development of the park could increase the use of the park because of new and improved facilities; however, this increase would not accelerate physical deterioration of the park. [Less Than Significant Impact] The project itself includes recreational facilities, the effects of which are identified in this Initial Study. Mitigation measures are included in the project and impacts are therefore, less than significant. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 91 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.15.4 Conclusion The projects would not adversely impact recreation facilities within the City of Palo Alto. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 92 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The discussion in this section is based in part on a transportation impact analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. in July 2017. This report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix F. 4.16.1 Transportation Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Cause an intersection to drop below its level of service standard, or if it is already operating at a substandard level of service, deteriorate by more than a specified amount? 1,2,24 b. Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1 percent of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1,2,24 c. Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1,2,24 d. Increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that cannot be met by current or planned services? 1,2,24 e. Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities? 1,2,24 f. Create demand for transit services that cannot be met by current or planned services? 1,2,24 g. Create the potential demand for through traffic to use local residential streets? i. Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1,2,24 h. Create an operational safety hazard? 1,2,24 i. Result in inadequate emergency access? 1-3,24 j. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1-3 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 93 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.16.2 Existing Setting 4.16.2.1 Roadway Network Regional Access Regional access to the project site is provided via US 101 and SR 82 (El Camino Real). These facilities are described below: US 101 is a primarily north-south freeway extending north through San Francisco and south through San Jose and Gilroy. In the vicinity of the project area, US 101 provides four travel lanes (with one HOV lane) in each direction. Access to the site from US 101 is provided via Embarcadero Road. SR 82 (El Camino Real) is a six-lane, north-south arterial street that extends south towards Mountain View and Santa Clara and north towards Redwood City, Millbrae, and San Bruno. El Camino Real provides access to local and regional commercial areas. Access to the site, from El Camino Real is provided via its intersections at Page Mill Road and Embarcadero Road. Local Access Local access to the site is provided via Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road, Embarcadero Road, Middlefield Road, University Avenue, Alma Street, Louis Road, Newell Road, and Hopkins Avenue. These roadways are described below. Oregon Expressway is a four-lane, east-west expressway that extends from US 101 to El Camino Real. Oregon Expressway becomes Page Mill Road west of El Camino Real. Page Mill Road is a four- lane, east-west divided arterial road that extends west to Los Altos Hills. Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway is part of the County expressway system and provides access to local residential areas as well as freeway access. Embarcadero Road is a four-lane east-west arterial street that extends from the vicinity of the Palo Alto Municipal Airport to El Camino Real. Embarcadero Road becomes Galvez Road west of El Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) k. Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spill back queues on ramps. 1,2,24 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 94 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Camino Real. Embarcadero Road provides access to local residential areas as well as access to US 101 from the project site. Middlefield Road is an east-west arterial that runs parallel to US 101. It begins at the intersection of Central Expressway in Mountain View and traverses west through Redwood City. Within the vicinity of the project site, Middlefield Road is two to four lanes wide, with sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking on Middlefield Road varies within the study area, with parking permitted on both sides of the street near the project site. University Avenue is a two- to four-lane, east-west, road that extends from Bayfront Expressway to El Camino Real, where it becomes Palm Drive. Bicycle lanes and on-street parking are present for most of the section between US 101 and Middlefield Road. University Avenue is the main street through downtown Palo Alto. Alma Street is primarily a four-lane, north-south, roadway that extends from San Antonio Road to Lytton Avenue. It continues north of Lytton Avenue as a two-lane roadway and terminates at its intersection with Oak Grove Avenue. Alma Street is located west of the project site and provides access to residential and commercial uses. Louis Road is a two-lane local collector in the vicinity of the project. It extends from Embarcadero Road southeast to Charleston Road, where it changes designation to Montrose Avenue. Louis Road has bicycle lanes and on-street parking for its full length. Newell Road is a two-lane local collector adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site. It extends from Woodland Avenue south to California Avenue. Newell Road features bicycle lanes and limited on-street parking for its full length Hopkins Avenue is a short local street adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site. It includes a significant amount of on-street parking. Hopkins Avenue also provides access to the parking lot that serves the Lucie Stern Community Center and the JMZ. 4.16.2.2 Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Facilities Transit Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the VTA and the City of Palo Alto. The transit service is described below and shown on Figure 3. There are local bus and/or free shuttle stops on Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, and Newell Road within walking distance of the project site. Route 35 provides service between the Downtown Mountain View Transit Center and Stanford Shopping Center via Middlefield Road, with 20-minute commute hour headways. The nearest stops to the project are located on Middlefield Road at the intersection with Embarcadero Road. The City of Palo Alto operates two free shuttle routes to serve commuters and visitors within the study area. All shuttles are wheelchair accessible and are equipped with bicycle racks on the exterior of the vehicle that can accommodate up to two conventional bikes. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 95 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 The Crosstown Shuttle (Line C) operates with 40- to 60-minute headways from 7:40 AM to 5:26 PM Monday through Friday. The Crosstown Shuttle provides service between Downtown Palo Alto and numerous libraries, schools, recreation centers, and commercial districts. Line C also provides direct service to Caltrain. In the vicinity of the project site, the Crosstown shuttles operates on Newell Road. The nearest stops to the project site are adjacent to Rinconada Park, on Newell Road at the intersection with Hopkins Avenue. The Embarcadero Shuttle operates with approximately 15-minute headways from 6:51 AM to 9:49 AM and 3:10 PM to 6:48 PM Monday through Friday. The Embarcadero Shuttle provides service between Downtown Palo Alto and numerous libraries, schools, recreation centers, and commercial districts. Line E also provides direct service to Caltrain. In the vicinity of the project area, the Embarcadero shuttle operates on Embarcadero Road. The nearest stops to the JMZ are located on Embarcadero Road at the intersection with Middlefield Road, less than 500 feet from the project area. The nearest stops to Rinconada Park are located on Embarcadero Road at the intersection with Newell Road, at the southeast corner of the park. Pedestrian Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist of sidewalks and crosswalks. Sidewalks are found along all previously described local roadways in the study area. Crosswalks are located across all of the legs of the study intersections. Pedestrian signal heads are present at all signalized intersections in and around the study area. Bicycle According to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) Bikeways Map, there are numerous bike lanes in the vicinity of the project site. The following roadways have either bike lanes or shared lane bicycle markings:  Newell Road, between Woodland Avenue and California Avenue  Channing Avenue, between Addison Avenue and California Avenue  Addison Avenue, between Alma Street and Channing Avenue  Coleridge Avenue, between Middlefield Road and Bryant Street  California Avenue, between Alma Street and Louis Road  Louis Road, between Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road  Bryant Street (Bike Boulevard), between Palo Alto Avenue and East Meadow Drive While there are numerous bicycle facilities in the vicinity of Rinconada Park, neither Middlefield Road nor Embarcadero Road have bike lanes, making these roadways a less than ideal route option for bicyclists traveling around the perimeter of Rinconada Park. STUDY INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 4.16-1 Source: Hexagon Transportation Consults, Inc. EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITATES FIGURE 4.16-2 Source: Hexagon Transportation Consults, Inc. EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITATES FIGURE 4.16-3 Source: Hexagon Transportation Consults, Inc. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 99 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.16.2.3 Existing Intersection Operations Methodology The potential transportation impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Palo Alto. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) administers the County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The following intersections in the project area were evaluated: 1. Middlefield Road and University Avenue 2. Middlefield Road and Melville Avenue 3. Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road 4. Newell Road and Embarcadero Road 5. Newell Road and Hopkins Avenue (unsignalized) 6. Louis Road and Embarcadero Road 7. Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway (CMP)* * Denotes a VTA CMP Intersection Traffic conditions at the intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average weekday. All study intersections are located in the City of Palo Alto and are therefore subject to the City of Palo Alto level of service standards. The City of Palo Alto evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology using TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Since TRAFFIX also is the CMP- designated intersection level of service methodology, the City employs the CMP default values for the analysis parameters. The City of Palo Alto level of service standard for signalized non-CMP intersections is LOS D or better. For CMP intersections, the City’s level of service standard is LOS E or better. The methodology used to determine the level of service for unsignalized intersections is based on the 2000 HCM. This method is applicable for both two-way and all-way stop-controlled intersections. For the analysis of stop-controlled intersections, the 2000 HCM methodology evaluates intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles on the stop-controlled approaches. For the purpose of reporting level of service for one- and two-way stop-controlled intersections, the delay and corresponding level of service for the stop-controlled minor street approach with the highest delay is reported. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, the reported average delay and corresponding level of service is the average for all approaches at the intersection. The City uses a minimum acceptable level of service standard of LOS D for unsignalized intersections, in accordance with its adopted threshold of significance in its Guidelines for Preparation of Transportation Impact Reports. Table 4.16-1 shows the intersection level of service definitions. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 100 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Table 4.16.1: Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Description Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec) A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 15.0 F Extreme traffic delays Greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2. Existing LOS of Study Intersections Table 4.16-2 below, shows the LOS of study intersections under existing conditions. Background traffic conditions are defined as traffic conditions in the area when the project construction is near completion. The background scenario predicts the traffic conditions which would occur as approved but not yet constructed development gets constructed and occupied. The results of the existing intersection operations analysis show that six of the seven study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under existing conditions. Table 4.16-2: Existing and Background Conditions Levels of Service Existing Background Intersection Peak Hour Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS 1. Middlefield Rd & University Ave AM 28.8 C 29.9 C PM 29.4 C 30.1 C 2. Middlefield Rd & Melville Ave AM 15.4 B 15.3 B PM 8.4 A 8 A 3. Middlefield Rd & Embarcadero Rd AM 49.9 D 52.3 D PM 54.6 D 60.4 E 4. Newell Rd & Embarcadero Rd AM 15.4 B 15.5 B PM 20.2 C 20.5 C 5. Newell Rd & Hopkins Ave (unsignalized) AM 10.7 B 10.9 B PM 10.6 B 10.7 B 6. Louis Rd & Embarcadero Rd AM 25 C 25.4 C PM 25.1 C 25.5 C 7. Middlefield Rd & Page Mill Rd/Oregon Expwy* AM 39.5 D 40.6 D PM 58.1 E 59.8 E Notes: * Denotes a VTA CMP Intersection Bold denotes an unacceptable level of service under City of Palo Alto LOS standards. 4.16.2.4 Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions in the field were observed to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 101 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of services, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service calculation does not accurately reflect level of service in the field. Overall, the study intersections operate adequately during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, and the level of service analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. While no significant traffic-related problems were observed during field observations, some operational issues do occur as described below. Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway During the AM peak hour, most movements operate adequately. However, the northbound left turns on Middlefield Road and eastbound left turns on Oregon Expressway do not always clear the intersection in one signal cycle. During the PM peak hour, southbound traffic on Middlefield Road is heavy and occasionally queues back to California Avenue. All other movements operate adequately. Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road During the AM peak hour, all approaches of this intersection carry heavy traffic volumes. As a result, none of the approaches clear the intersection in one signal cycle. During the PM peak hour, traffic on Middlefield Road is heavy in both directions. The southbound vehicle queues on Middlefield Road at Embarcadero Road occasionally back up just past Melville Avenue (about 0.25 miles northwest of the intersection of Middlefield and Embarcadero Road) affecting traffic operations at that intersection as well. As a result of the long queue, if often takes two signal cycles for all of the queued vehicles on southbound Middlefield Road to clear the intersection. Middlefield Road and University Avenue During the PM peak hour, the intersection generally operates adequately. However, the westbound vehicle queues on University Avenue were observed to extend all the way to US 101. 4.16.2.5 Existing Freeway Operations According to CMP guidelines, an analysis of freeway segment levels of service is only required if a project is estimated to add trips to a freeway segment equal to or greater than one percent of the capacity of that segment. Since the number of project trips added to the freeways in the area is estimated to be well below the one percent threshold, a detailed analysis of freeway segment levels of service was not performed. A simple freeway segment capacity evaluation to substantiate this determination is presented in Table 4.16-3, below. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 102 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Table 4.16-3: Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation Freeway Segment Direction # of Mixed Flow Lanes Capacity1 (vph) Peak Hour 1% of Capacity Project Trips US 101 San Antonio Rd. to Oregon Expwy. NB 3 6900 AM 69 1 PM 1 US 101 Oregon Expwy. to Embarcadero Rd. NB 3 6900 AM 69 1 PM 1 US 101 Embarcadero Rd. to University Ave. NB 3 6900 AM 69 0 PM 1 US 101 University Ave. to Willow Rd. NB 3 6900 AM 69 0 PM 2 US 101 Willow Rd. to University Ave. SB 3 6900 AM 69 1 PM 1 US 101 University Ave. to Embarcadero Rd. SB 3 6900 AM 69 1 PM 1 US 101 Embarcadero Rd. to Oregon Expwy. SB 3 6900 AM 69 0 PM 2 US 101 Oregon Expwy. to San Antonio Rd. SB 3 6900 AM 69 0 PM 2 Notes: 1 Capacity was based on the ideal capacity cited in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual 4.16.2.6 Background Intersection Operations Background peak-hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing peak hour volumes the projected growth in traffic due to approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments. The projected annual growth in traffic due to most of the approved development in the City of Palo Alto was obtained from the Santa Clara County VTA Travel Demand Model (2035) and was applied over three years. In addition, a list of more recently approved developments was obtained from the City of Palo Alto. That list includes recent developments that have been approved within approximately the last year and, therefore, were not included in the VTA model growth estimates. Trips associated with the more recently approved developments were estimated and were also added to existing peak hour volumes in order to develop background peak hour traffic volumes. The results of the intersection LOS analysis under background conditions are summarized in Table 4.16-2. The results show that all but one of the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service. The intersection of Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour under background conditions. 4.16.3 Impacts Evaluation a.. Would the project cause an intersection to drop below its level of service standard, or if it is Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 103 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 already operating at a substandard level of service, deteriorate by more than a specified amount? 4.16.3.1 Project-Generated Traffic The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets. These procedures are described below. Trip Generation Existing trip generation for Rinconada Park and JMZ were derived based on counts conducted on March 31 and April 1, 2015. Based on the counts, Rinconada Park is generating 29 trips during the AM peak hour and 65 trips during the PM peak hour. The JMZ is generating five trips during the AM peak hour and 21 trips during the PM peak hour. The existing trip generation is shown in Table 4.16- 3. The proposed LRP for Rinconada Park involves expanding the existing pool deck area and adding a 2,200 sf building on the west end of the pool for a new public restroom, food concession and supplies, as well as increasing the seating capacity of the existing outdoor multi-use concrete bowl and stage. Several other improvements to park facilities are planned, including the addition of group picnic areas, playgrounds, exercise areas, shaded areas, picnic tables, and bike racks, as well as renovations to the existing tennis courts on Hopkins Avenue. Numerous pedestrian access improvements, including crosswalk and ADA improvements are also planned as part of the LRP. The proposed expansion of the JMZ would increase the total lot coverage of the facility from 21,500 sf to 34,248 sf. New trips generated by the museum and zoo expansion were estimated based on the proportional increase in square footage. The expansion project would generate three trips during the AM peak hour and 12 trips during the PM peak hour.20 New trips generated by the proposed improvements to the Rinconada Park were estimated based on population forecasts provided by the City of Palo Alto. Population in the City of Palo Alto is projected to increase by approximately 10 percent by the year 2030. Based on the projected growth in population, improvements to Rinconada Park would produce three new trips during the AM peak hour and seven trips during the PM peak hour. When the two components of the project are combined, the JMZ and Rinconada Park LRP would generate six new trips during the AM peak hour and 19 new trips during the PM peak hour. Applying the inbound/outbound splits (based on existing counts), the project would produce four inbound trips 20 Please note that the trip generation estimates in the TIA are based on a previous site plan which resulted in an increase in lot coverage of 11,950 sf for the JMZ facility compared to existing conditions. The current site plan results in a lot coverage increase of 12,478 sf. While the proposed lot coverage increase is slightly larger than what is described in the TIA, the 528 sf difference is not large enough to affect the trip generation estimates. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 104 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 and two outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and nine inbound trips and 10 outbound trips during the PM peak hour compared to the existing museum, zoo and park. The project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 4.16-4, below. Trip Distribution The trip distribution pattern for Rinconada Park was developed based on existing traffic patterns and the locations of complementary land uses, most notably the surrounding neighborhoods. The trip distribution pattern for the JMZ was developed based on JMZ visitor survey data provided by the City of Palo Alto. The peak hour trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system in accordance with the trip distribution pattern. 4.16.3.2 Existing Plus Project Conditions The results of the intersection LOS analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 4.16-5, below. The results show that all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under existing plus project conditions. [Less Than Significant Impact] Table 4.16-5: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Existing Existing + Project Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS 1 Middlfield Rd. & University Ave. AM 28.8 C 28.8 C PM 29.4 C 29.4 C 2 Middlefield Rd. & Melville Ave. AM 15.4 B 15.4 B Table 4.16-4: Existing and Estimated Weekday Trip Generation Land Use Existing Trip Generation Project Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total Trips In Out Total Trips In Out Total Trips In Out Total Trips Rinconada Park (and associated uses)1 17 12 29 39 26 65 2 1 3 4 3 7 Palo Alto JMZ 2 4 1 5 9 12 21 2 1 3 5 7 12 Totals: 21 13 34 48 38 86 4 2 6 9 10 19 Notes: Existing site trip generation based on counts conducted on March 31 and April 1, 2015 (highest counts were used). The AM peak hour is 7:45-8:45AM and the PM peak hour is 4-5 PM, based on the count data. 1New trips associated with the improvements to Rinconada Park were calculated based on applying a growth factor of 10% to the existing trips. This increase in trips is consistent with the projected population increase of 10% that is being used for the current Comprehensive Plan update 2New trips associated with the improvements to the Junior Museum and Zoo were calculated based on the total increase in lot coverage square footage of 11,950. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 105 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Table 4.16-5: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Existing Existing + Project Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS PM 8.4 A 8.4 A 3 Middlefield Rd. & Embarcadero Rd.1 AM 49.9 D 49.2 D PM 54.6 D 53.6 D 4 Newell Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 15.4 B 15.4 B PM 20.2 C 20.3 C 5 Newell Rd. & Hopkins Ave. (unsignalized) AM 10.7 B 10.8 B PM 10.6 B 10.6 B 6 Louis Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 25.0 C 25.0 C PM 25.1 C 25.2 C 7 Middlefield Rd. & Page Mill Rd./Oregon Expwy* AM 39.5 D 39.5 D PM 58.1 E 58.1 E Notes: * Denotes a VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection Bold denotes an unacceptable level of service under City of Palo Alto LOS standards. 1 The average vehicle delay at this intersection will improve with the project due to the planned addition of a westbound right-turn lane on Embarcadero Road. 4.16.3.3 Background Plus Project Conditions The net project trips were added to background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project traffic volumes. The results of the intersection level of service analysis under background plus project conditions are summarized in Table 4.16-6, below. Using City of Palo Alto standards, the results show that none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project. While the intersection of Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS E during PM peak hour under background plus project conditions, none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project. [Less Than Significant Impact] Table 4.16-6: Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Background Background + Project Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Incr. In Crit. Delay (sec) Incr. In Crit. V/C 1 Middlefield Rd. & University Ave. AM 29.9 C 29.9 C 0.0 0.001 PM 30.1 C 30.1 C 0.0 0.001 2 Middlefield Rd. & Melville Ave. AM 15.3 B 15.3 B 0.0 0.001 PM 8.0 A 8.0 A 0.0 0.001 3 Middlefield Rd. & Embarcadero Rd.1 AM 52.3 D 51.1 D -0.1 -0.050 PM 60.4 E 59.2 E 0.3 0.002 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 106 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Table 4.16-6: Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Background Background + Project Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Incr. In Crit. Delay (sec) Incr. In Crit. V/C 4 Newell Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 15.5 B 15.5 B 0.0 0.001 PM 20.5 C 20.5 C 0.0 0.000 5 Newell Rd. & Hopkins Ave. (unsignalized) AM 10.9 B 10.9 B 0.0 0.001 PM 10.7 B 10.8 B 0.1 0.003 6 Louis Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 25.4 C 25.4 C 0.0 0.001 PM 25.5 C 25.6 C 0.1 0.002 7 Middlefield Rd. & Page Mill Rd./Oregon Expwy* AM 40.6 D 40.6 D 0.0 0.000 PM 59.8 E 59.8 E 0.0 0.000 Notes: * Denotes a VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection 1 The average vehicle delay at this intersection will improve with the project due to the planned addition of a westbound right- turn lane on Embarcadero Rd. 4.16.3.4 Saturday Conditions At the request of City of Palo Alto staff, a discussion of Saturday peak traffic conditions at and around the JMZ and Rinconada Park is provided for informational purposes. The evaluation of Saturday conditions includes a description of existing traffic conditions along Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road, a discussion of general parking conditions at the JMZ during a typical Saturday afternoon, and Saturday peak hour trip generation estimates due to the expansion of the JMZ and planned Rinconada Park improvements. Existing Saturday Traffic Conditions Existing Saturday traffic conditions along Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road were observed in the field on a typical Saturday between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM, which is considered the peak hour for park and JMZ uses. Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road Intersection Operations Vehicles traveling northbound or southbound were able to clear the intersection in one signal cycle. Westbound vehicles on Embarcadero Road consistently queued back to Fulton Street, with some vehicles unable to clear the intersection in one signal cycle. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 107 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Eastbound vehicles on Embarcadero Road queued past the eastbound left-turn pocket taper. As a result, the queue often blocked one or two vehicles from entering the left-turn pocket. All vehicles traveling eastbound on Embarcadero Road cleared the intersection in one cycle. Existing bicycle traffic along Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road was relatively low. Saturday Project Trip Generation Estimates Based on visitor data in February and March 2016, weekend visitation at the JMZ is approximately 2.3 times greater than a typical weekday visitation. To provide the most conservative trip estimate, Saturday peak trip generation due to the JMZ expansion was calculated by applying this factor to the weekday PM peak hour trips, which are three times higher than the weekday AM peak hour trips. Similar to the increase visitation at the JMZ facility on Saturdays, Rinconada Park was assumed to experience a similar increase in weekend visitors, thus the same factor of 2.3 was applied to determine Saturday peak trip generation at Rinconada Park. Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that the JMZ and Rinconada Park LRP would generate 44 new trips during the Saturday peak period of traffic. Implementation of the proposed projects would result in an additional 21 inbound trips and 23 outbound trips during the Saturday peak period of traffic compared to the existing park and JMZ. The trip generation estimates are provided in Table 4.16-7, below. Table 4.16-7: Saturday Project Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Saturday Peak Hour In Out Total New Trips Rinconada Park (and associated uses) 9 7 16 JMZ 12 16 28 Totals: 21 23 44 4.16.3.5 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Cumulative Traffic Volumes Cumulative conditions represent traffic conditions that are expected to occur in the future year 2035. The cumulative no project peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from the Santa Clara County VTA Travel Demand Model. Cumulative traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to cumulative no project peak hour traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Cumulative plus project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions in order to identify whether the project’s contribution to any potential cumulative impacts would be significant. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 108 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service The results of the intersection level of service under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions are summarized in Table 4.16-8, below. The result shows that, measured against the City of Palo Alto standards, none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project. However, the intersections of Middlefield Road/Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour under cumulative conditions both with and without the project. As shown in the above analysis, the project would not cause an intersection to drop below its level of service standard, or if it is already operating at a substandard level of service, deteriorate by more than a specified amount. [Less Than Significant Impact] Table 4.16-8: Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service Cumulative Cumulative + Project Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Incr. In Crit. Delay (sec) Incr. In Crit. V/C 1 Middlefield Rd. & University Ave. AM 28.6 C 28.6 C 0.0 0.001 PM 46.1 D 46.2 D 0.2 0.001 2 Middlefield Rd. & Melville Ave. AM 16.6 B 16.6 B 0.0 0.001 PM 9.4 A 9.4 A 0.0 0.001 3 Middlefield Rd. & Embarcadero Rd.1 AM 51.3 D 50.2 D -0.3 -0.043 PM 203.1 F 192.4 F 0.9 0.002 4 Newell Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 15.5 B 15.6 B 0.0 0.001 PM 24.2 C 24.2 C 0.1 0.002 5 Newell Rd. & Hopkins Ave. (unsignalized) AM 11.9 B 11.9 B 0.0 0.002 PM 11.6 B 11.7 B 0.1 0.002 6 Louis Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 28.1 C 28.2 C 0.0 0.001 PM 28.3 C 28.4 C 0.1 0.002 7 Middlefield Rd. & Page Mill Rd./Oregon Expwy* AM 50.6 D 50.6 D 0.1 0.001 PM 87.4 F 87.5 F 0.1 0.000 Notes: * Denotes a VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection BOLD indicates a deficient level of service. 1 The average vehicle delay at this intersection will improve with the project due to the planned addition of a westbound right- turn lane on Embarcadero Rd. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 109 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 b. Would the project cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? The proposed project would not result in impacts to freeway segments as shown in Table 4.16-3. [No Impact] c., d. Would the project impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? Would the project increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that cannot be met by current or planned services? The Rinconada Park LRP proposes numerous improvements to pedestrian facilities, including updated sidewalks, new and improved crosswalks, and expanded bus access and shuttle stops. The project will improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. A new crosswalk is already planned to be added on Middlefield Road at Kellogg Avenue, and an improved crosswalk is proposed on Newell Road at Hopkins Avenue. Other pedestrian improvements include updating and retrofitting park paths and sidewalks to be ADA compliant, and improved crosswalks across Hopkins Avenue. Bicycle racks would be provided at key locations. These improvements would help to accommodate all existing and future park visitors who walk, bike or take transit. Crosswalks would be provided on-site between the JMZ entry plaza and the reconfigured parking lot. A raised pedestrian crossing also would be provided through the parking lot providing a direct connection between the Lucie Stern Community Center and Rinconada Park. A new pedestrian path would connect the sidewalk on Middlefield Road to the entry plaza. The project also includes a new pedestrian path that would bisect the JMZ and Walter Hays Elementary School, providing a direct connection between Middlefield Road and Rinconada Park. Additional paths would provide pedestrian connections between the JMZ and Hopkins Avenue and Rinconada Park. There are no bicycle facilities along Embarcadero Road or Middlefield Road. The City of Palo Alto’s Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (adopted July 2012) includes proposed bicycle facilities in the study area. Planned future bicycle facilities within a one mile radius of Rinconada Park include the following:  Rinconada Park- Class I pathway between the intersection of Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road through Rinconada Park, connecting to Newell Road in the vicinity of Newell Road and Hopkins Avenue.  Middlefield Road – Class II bike lanes between Loma Verde Avenue and Moreno Avenue, and Sharrows between Moreno Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue  Greer Road – Bike Boulevard between Louis Road and Edgewood Drive  Ross Road – Bike Boulevard between Louis Road and Oregon Expressway  Webster Street – Bike Boulevard between California Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue  Amarillo Avenue & Moreno Avenue – Bike Boulevard between W. Bayshore Road and Middlefield Road  Seale Avenue – Bike Boulevard between Embarcadero Road and Alma Street  Kingsley Avenue – Bike Boulevard between Guinda Street and Embarcadero Road  Guinda Street – Bike Boulevard between Melville Avenue and Homer Avenue  Boyce Avenue & Chaucer Street – Bike Boulevard between Guinda Street and Palo Alto Avenue  Center Drive – Sharrows between Channing Avenue and University Avenue Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 110 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with planned bicycle facility improvements, as described in the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan or other programs regarding public bicycle or pedestrian facilities. [Less Than Significant Impact] e., f. Would the project impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities? Would the project create demand for transit services that cannot be met by current or planned services? As described previously, the project would not result in the generation of substantial new vehicle trips, nor would it result in impacts to nearby intersections. The project, therefore, would not result in congestion that would impede the operation of a transit system, nor would it decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The project site is well-served by existing transit facilities in the project area. No improvements beyond those already planned as part of the LRP would be necessary to serve the demand created by the project. [Less Than Significant Impact] g., h. Would the project create the potential demand for through traffic to use local residential streets? Would the project cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? Vehicles coming to and from the site would primarily utilize major thoroughfares such as Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road, and are not expected to spillover onto nearby residential streets. Based on the minimal amount of trip generation resulting from the project, as well as the anticipated distribution of those trips, the proposed project would not increase the TIRE index by 0.1 or more. [No Impact] i., j. Would the project create an operational safety hazard? Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Site Access and Circulation The project proposes reconfiguration of the parking lot that currently serves the JMZ and Lucie Stern Community Center. The existing parking lot configuration, which includes mostly one-way drive aisles and diagonal parking, will be reconfigured to include two-way drive aisles and 90-degree parking. The existing driveway on Middlefield Road located adjacent to Walter Hays Elementary School will be closed to make room for the new JMZ Education Wing and entry plaza. Additionally, the driveway at the Kellogg Avenue intersection will be removed and replaced with a new bicycle and pedestrian entry pathway, providing an entrance for cyclists and pedestrians separate from motorized vehicles. A new 24-foot wide driveway for motorized vehicles will be located approximately 50 feet north of the closed driveway adjacent to Walter Hays Elementary School. A striped pedestrian crosswalk will be included at this driveway. The existing driveway on Hopkins Avenue will remain in place and a second driveway will be added on Hopkins Avenue approximately 40 feet east of the existing driveway. The eastern driveway will be gated and will provide emergency vehicle access (EVA) and Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 111 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 bus access only. Both driveways will be 20 feet wide, measured at the throat. Striped pedestrian crosswalks will be added at both driveways. The reconfigured JMZ parking lot will be an improved design over the existing lot, though the new layout will result in one less parking space. The redesign includes removing the raised curb that currently serves as a barrier between the northern and southern portions of the parking lot, and realigning all the drive aisles in a north-south orientation. The realignment will significantly improve vehicle ingress and egress at the Hopkins Avenue driveway location. An on-site passenger drop-off area would be located adjacent to the new entry plaza. The drop-off lane is shown to be approximately 90 feet in length, which will provide enough queuing space for four average length passenger vehicles. Overall on-site circulation will be efficient with no dead-end drive aisles within the parking lot. School Bus Parking and On-Site Circulation Due to the JMZ expansion project, City staff anticipates an increase in field trip buses at the JMZ during the weekday midday period. An on-site passenger drop-off area would be located adjacent to the new entry plaza. The drop-off lane would be approximately 90 feet in length, which will provide enough space for two school buses parked end to end. Thus, field trip buses will have an adequate area to park for loading and unloading of passengers and are not expected to have a negative effect on parking conditions or circulation within the JMZ parking lot. School buses will enter the parking lot via the Middlefield Road driveway, utilize the on-site drop-off lane, and ultimately exit the parking lot via the gated Hopkins Avenue driveway. Use of the gated exit will require coordination with JMZ staff. The project does not include any other roadway improvements, modifications, or changes, and would not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible land uses. Parking Weekday AM and PM peak hour observations of existing parking conditions at the JMZ and along the roadways surrounding Rinconada Park show that the existing parking supply is adequate to accommodate weekday JMZ and park visitors. The weekday parking surveys included observations of the JMZ parking lot and street parking along Hopkins Avenue, Embarcadero Road, and Middlefield Road. The total available parking in the area, including the JMZ lot and all the streets surrounding the park that provide parking, was never more than approximately 50 percent occupied during both the weekday AM and PM peak hour observation periods. The project proposes several improvements to parking facilities that serve the site. First, the parking lot on Middlefield Road will be reconfigured to eliminate one driveway, simplify circulation, and provide accessible parking stalls that meet current standards. As a result of the reconfiguration, two standard parking stalls will be eliminated and one accessible parking stall will be added. The 90- degree parking on Hopkins Avenue also will be expanded to add 10 new parking stalls, increasing the total there to 39 standard stalls and three ADA stalls. In addition, the City is exploring shifting the sidewalk along Embarcadero Road into the park between Middlefield Road and the fire station. This would create a new parking lane with 17 stalls. Based on existing weekday field observations, it can be concluded that the proposed parking facilities, in combination with existing parking facilities, Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 112 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 would be sufficient to accommodate any additional weekday parking demand generated by the project. Saturday Parking The existing parking lot on Middlefield Road serves Rinconada Park patrons, and visitors of the JMZ and Lucie Stern Community Center. Based on the traffic report observations, the parking lot provides adequate parking to accommodate weekend visitors of the park, JMZ, and community center. Between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM, there were consistently three to eight vacant parking spaces in the JMZ parking lot. The Walter Hays Elementary School parking lot was also being utilized during this time period, with approximately four to 14 vehicles opting to park there. Street parking along Middlefield Road adjacent to the JMZ and Rinconada Park was approximately 50 percent occupied during the Saturday observation period. Based on existing Saturday field observations, it can be concluded that the proposed parking facilities, in combination with existing parking facilities, would be sufficient to accommodate any additional Saturday parking demand generated by the project. Emergency Access As described previously, the existing driveway on Hopkins Avenue will remain in place and a second driveway will be added on Hopkins Avenue approximately 40 feet east of the existing driveway. The eastern driveway will be gated and will provide emergency vehicle access (EVA) and bus access only. The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. [Less Than Significant Impact] k. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Palo Alto Airport is located approximately 2.3 miles east of the project site. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns or obstruct airport operations. [No Impact] m. Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spill back queues on ramps. Based on the limited number of new vehicle trips generated by the project (six AM peak hour trips and 19 PM peak hour trips), and the distribution of those trips (refer to Figure 7 in Appendix F), the project would not result in significant queuing impacts. [Less Than Significant Impact] 4.16.4 Conclusion The project would not result in a significant impact to transportation or traffic. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 113 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.17.1 Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Need new or expanded entitlements to water supply? 1-3 b. Result in adverse physical impacts from new or expanded utility facilities due to increase use as a result of the project? 1-3 c. Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a utility facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1-3 d. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1-3 e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1-3 f. Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1-3 g. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1-3 h. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1-3, 25 i. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1-3 j. Result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands that would require the new construction of energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities? 1-3 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 114 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.17.2 Existing Setting The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is the only municipal utility in California that operates city- owned utility services that include electric, fiber optic, natural gas, water, and sewer services. The project site is currently developed and electricity, gas, water, sanitary sewer, and solid waste collection services are provided to the site. 4.17.2.1 Water Services The City’s drinking water is provided by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) and is purchased from the San Francisco Public Utility Commission, which obtains most of its water from the Hetch Hetchy system. The City also owns five groundwater wells, three of which are currently operational. The wells are available in case the Hetch Hetchy system cannot meet the City’s needs in times of drought or emergency. Water lines are available in the area to serve the project site. The City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance incorporates a set of standards that are applied to any new or renovated landscape for commercial, industrial, multi-family common area, or City Facility projects with 1,000 sf or more of landscaped area. The ordinance requires projects to meet the requirements of the City’s water efficiency standards before a building or grading permit is issued. 4.17.2.2 Wastewater Services The CPAU is responsible for the existing wastewater collection system. There are existing sanitary sewer lines in the area that serve the project site. The City of Palo Alto operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University. The RWQCP is on the shore of San Francisco Bay in Palo Alto adjacent to the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve. The RWQCP discharges treated wastewater effluent to a man-made channel, which empties into the southern reach of San Francisco Bay. In 2013, the plant treated an average of 18 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater during the dry season, well below its permitted dry-weather capacity of 39 MGD.21 4.17.2.3 Storm Drainage The City’s Department of Public Works is responsible for approval, construction and maintenance of the storm drain system in Palo Alto. The system consists of approximately 126 miles of pipe, 5,684 nodes (manholes, inlets and outfalls) and nine pump stations. Local storm drains are designed to convey the runoff from a 10-year storm.22 21 Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan. 2015 Pollution Prevention Plan. Available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1527&TargetID=65. Accessed July 29, 2015. 22 City of Palo Alto. Storm Drain System Facts and Figures. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2806. Accessed July 30, 2015. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 115 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Stormwater runoff from the existing site flows into catch basins throughout the park and drains into storm lines in the surrounding roadways. The site is within the San Francisquito Creek storm drain watershed of Palo Alto, which flows to San Francisco Bay.23 4.17.2.4 Solid Waste Solid waste collection and disposal services are provided under exclusive franchises overseen by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. The majority of the City’s solid waste is taken to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMaRT® Station) where recyclables and yard trimmings are recovered, processed, and marketed. The remaining solid waste is sent to the Kirby Canyon Landfill, or several secondary landfills. The City has an agreement with Waste Management, Inc. to dispose of waste at Kirby Canyon until 2031. In 2013, residents of Palo Alto generated an average of 3.9 pounds of solid waste per person per day, with a diversion rate of 78 percent.24 The City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance (Chapter 5.24 of the PAMC) requires the diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills. Under this ordinance, project-related construction and demolition waste shall be diverted to an approved recycling/transformation facility or by salvage. The City passed the Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance in 2004, and updated the ordinance in 2009.25 The ordinance requirements are currently enforced through the City’s Green Building Program and require projects to salvage, and/or divert at least 75 percent of project debris from landfills. 4.17.2.5 Electricity and Natural Gas Electricity The electricity supply in California involves a complex grid of power plants and transmission lines. In 2016, California produced approximately 93 percent of the electricity it consumed and the rest was imported. California’s non CO2-emitting electric generation (from nuclear, large hydroelectric, solar, wind, and other renewable sources) accounted for 50 percent of total in-state generation for 2016, compared to 40 percent in 2015.26 Electricity supplied from out-of-state, coal-fired power plants has continued to decrease since 2006, following the enactment of a state law requiring California utilities to limit new long-term financial investments to power plants that meet California emissions standards.27 23 City of Palo Alto. Watersheds Map. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2816. Accessed July 14, 2016. 24 City of Palo Alto. Zero Waste Program, Progress Report. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/about/progress.asp. Accessed July 14, 2016. 25 City of Palo Alto. Construction and Demolition Debris. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/whatgoeswhere/debris.asp. Accessed July 14, 2016. 26 CEC. “Total System Electric Generation”. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html. 27 EIA. “California State Profile and Energy Estimates Profile Analysis”. Accessed July 13, 2017. https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA#40. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 116 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 California’s total system electric generation was 290,567 gigawatt-hours (GWh), which was down 1.6 percent from 2015’s total generation of 295,405 GWh. California's in-state electric generation was up by approximately one percent at 198,227 GWh compared to 196,195 GWh in 2015, and energy imports were down by 6,869 GWh to 92,341 GWh.28 In 2016, total in-state solar generation increased 31.5 percent from 2015 levels and wind generation increased 10.8 percent. Growth in annual electricity consumption from traditional power plants declined reflecting increased energy efficiency and higher self-generation from solar photovoltaic power systems. Per capita drops in electrical consumption are predicted through 2027 as a result of energy efficiency gains and increased self-generation (particularly for photovoltaic systems).29 Due to population increases, however, it is estimated that future demand in California for electricity will grow at approximately one percent each year through 2027, and that 319,256 GWh of electricity would be utilized in the state in 2027.30 Electricity usage for differing land uses varies substantially by the type of uses in a building, the type of construction materials used, and the efficiency of the electricity-consuming devices. Electricity in Santa Clara County in 2015 was consumed primarily by the commercial sector (77 percent), with the residential sector consuming 23 percent. In 2015, a total of approximately 16,812 GWh of electricity was consumed in Santa Clara County.31 Natural Gas In 2016, approximately three percent of California’s natural gas supply came from in-state production, while 97 percent was imported from other western states and Canada.32 California’s natural gas is supplied by interstate pipelines, including the Mojave Pipeline, Transwestern Pipeline, Questar Southern Trails Pipeline, Tuscarora Pipeline, and the Baja Norte/North Baja Pipeline.33 As a result of improved access to supply basins, as well as pipeline expansion and new projects, these pipelines currently have excess capacity. In 2016, approximately 32 percent of the natural gas delivered for consumption in California was for electricity generation, 37 percent for industrial uses, 19 percent for residential uses, 11 percent for commercial uses, and less than one percent for vehicle fuel. As with electricity usage, natural gas usage depends on the type of uses in a building, the type of construction materials used, and the efficiency of gas-consuming devices. In 2016, California consumed approximately 2.03 billion 28 CEC. “Total System Electric Generation”. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html 29 CEC. California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2017-2027. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-IEPR- 05/TN214635_20161205T142341_California_Energy_Demand_Updated_Forecast.pdf. 30 Ibid. 31 CEC. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County”. Accessed July 13, 2016. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. 32 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2016 California Gas Report. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-BSTD- 06/TN212364_20160720T111050_2016_California_Gas_Report.pdf. 33 Ibid. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 117 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 MBtu of natural gas (or 2.03 quadrillion Btu); a decrease from 2015 when 2.12 billion MBtu were consumed.34 In Santa Clara County, a total of 41.1 MBtu of natural gas were consumed in 2015.35 Natural gas demand in California is anticipated to continue to decrease approximately one percent per year through 2035. This decline is due to on-site residential, commercial, and industrial electricity generation; aggressive energy efficiency programs; and a decrease in demand for electrical power generation as a result of the implementation of state-mandated RPS targets (as the state moves to power generation resources that result in less GHG emissions than natural gas).36 The CPAU is responsible for electricity and natural gas service in the City of Palo Alto. Electric lines and gas lines are present in the project area that currently serve the site. 4.17.3 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project need new or expanded entitlements to water supply? The proposed project would not require new or expanded entitlements to water supply, since the increase in water use and wastewater generation would be minimal, if at all. [Less Than Significant Impact] b., c., Would the project result in adverse physical impacts from new or expanded utility facilities due to increase use as a result of the project? Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a utility facility due to increased use? The proposed project would be similar in size to the existing JMZ facility and would have similar operations. The proposed project would not require new or expanded utility facilities for project construction or operation, and therefore, would not result in adverse impacts resulting from new or expanded utility facilities. Since the proposed project would be similar to the existing JMZ facility, the project would not result in a substantial physical deterioration of a utility facility due to increase use by the project. [Less Than Significant Impact] d. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The proposed project is the renovation of an existing park and redevelopment of the existing JMZ. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase the generation of wastewater on the project site, and would not exceed existing wastewater treatment requirements. [Less Than Significant Impact] 34 EIA. “Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in California”. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_lsum_dcu_SCA_a.htm. 35 CEC. “Natural Gas Consumption by County”. Santa Clara County 2015 Data. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. 36 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2016 California Gas Report. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-BSTD- 06/TN212364_20160720T111050_2016_California_Gas_Report.pdf. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 118 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 e. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The RWQCP would have sufficient capacity to serve the project, since the increase in wastewater generation would be minimal, if at all. [Less Than Significant Impact] f. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The stormwater drainage facilities that serve the existing Rinconada Park and JMZ facility would be adequate in serving the future LRP developments and the proposed JMZ facility. No other storm drains would be required for project implementation. [Less Than Significant Impact] g., h. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Solid waste generated by the proposed project would continue to be hauled to the City’s designated recycling facility in Sunnyvale. Unrecoverable refuse would be transported to Kirby Canyon Landfill in San José for disposal. The proposed project would not generate additional solid waste beyond the capacity of the existing disposal facilities and would comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste. [Less Than Significant Impact] i. Would the project result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands that would require the new construction of energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities? The proposed project is the renovation of an existing park and redevelopment of the existing JMZ. The project would maintain similar operations as the existing park and JMZ facility, and would therefore not result in substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demand. [Less Than Significant Impact] 4.17.4 Conclusion The project would not result in any utility or service facility exceeding its current capacity or require the construction of new infrastructure or service facilities. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 119 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.18 ENERGY CONSERVATION 4.18.1 Energy Conservation Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a) Have an energy impact? Energy impacts may include: i. Impacts resulting from amount and fuel type used for each stage of the project 1-3 ii. Impacts on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity 1-3 iii. Impacts on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy 1-3 iv. Impacts to energy resources 1-3 v. Impacts resulting from the project’s projected transportation energy use requirements 1-3 4.18.2 Existing Setting 4.18.2.1 Regulatory Setting Federal At the federal level, energy standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) apply to numerous consumer and commercial products (e.g., the EnergyStar™ program). The EPA also sets fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and other modes of transportation. State Renewable Energy Standards In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2010. In 2006, California's 20 percent by 2010 RPS goal was codified under Senate Bill (SB) 107. Under the provisions of SB 107, investor‐owned utilities were required to generate 20 percent of their retail electricity using qualified renewable energy technologies by the end of 2010. In 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 was signed into law and required that retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 120 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 (PG&E’s) is the electricity provider to the project site. PG&E’s 2016 electricity mix was 33 percent renewable; thus, they have already met the requirements of Executive Order S-14-08.37 In October 2015, Governor Brown signed SB 350 to codify California’s climate and clean energy goals. A key provision of SB 350 for retail sellers and publicly owned utilities, requires them to procure 50 percent of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030. Building Codes The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately every three years, and the 2016 Title 24 updates went into effect on January 1, 2017.38 Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county governments.39 In January 2010, the state adopted the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which established mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. CALGreen was also updated and went in to effect on January 1, 2017. The code covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. 4.18.2.2 Existing Conditions Energy consumption is analyzed in Initial Studies because of the environmental impacts associated with its production and usage. Such impacts include the depletion of nonrenewable resources (e.g., oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) and emissions of pollutants during both the production and consumption phases of energy use. Energy usage is typically quantified using British thermal units (Btu).40 As points of reference, the approximate amount of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, a cubic foot of natural gas, and a kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity are 123,000 Btu, 1,000 Btu, and 3,400 Btu respectively. Utility providers measure gas usage in therms. One therm is approximately equal to 100,000 Btu. Electrical energy is expressed in units of kilowatts (kW) and kilowatt hour (kWh). One kW, a measurement of power (energy used over time), equals one thousand joules41 per second. A kWh is 37 PG&E. “Exploring Clean Energy Solutions”. Accessed July 13, 2017. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about- pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy-solutions.page. 38 California Building Standards Commission. “Welcome to the California Building Standards Commission”. Accessed July 13, 2017. http://www.bsc.ca.gov. 39 California Energy Commission (CEC). “2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards”. Accessed July 13, 2017. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/index.html. 40 A Btu is the amount of energy that is required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. 41 As defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, the joule is a unit of energy or work. One joule equals the work done when one unit of force (a Newton) moves through a distance of one meter in the direction of the force. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 121 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 a measurement of energy. If run for one hour, a 1,000 watt (one kW) hair dryer would use one kWh of electrical energy. Other measurements of electrical energy include the megawatt (1,000 kW) and the gigawatt (1,000,000 kW). Total energy usage in California was approximately 7,300 trillion Btu in the year 2015 (the most recent year for which this specific data was available).42 The breakdown by sector was approximately 18 percent for residential uses, 19 percent for commercial uses, 24 percent for industrial uses, and 39 percent for transportation.43 Existing energy use associated with operation of the structures and uses at the project site primarily consists of fuel for vehicle trips to and from the site, electricity for lighting and cooling, and natural gas for operations within the existing buildings. Gasoline for Motor Vehicles California crude oil production levels have been declining over the last 30 years; however, the state still accounts for six percent of the United States’ crude oil production and petroleum refining capacity.44 In 2016, 143.4 billion gallons of gasoline were consumed in the United States (setting an annual gasoline consumption record) and 15.5 billion gallons were consumed in California.45,46 The United States has seen low gasoline prices and high demand in the last few years, though forecast growth in demand is expected to slow as retail prices begin to increase.47 The average fuel economy for light-duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United States has steadily increased from about 13.1 miles-per-gallon (mpg) in the mid-1970s to 22.0 mpg in 2015.48 Federal fuel economy standards have changed substantially since the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007. That standard, which originally mandated a national fuel economy standard of 35 mpg by the year 2020, applies to cars and light trucks of Model Years 2011 42 United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). California Energy Consumption Estimates 2015. Accessed July 13, 2017. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. 43 EIA. “California Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector, 2015”. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.eia.gov/beta/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/sum_btu_1.html&sid=CA. 44 EIA. “California State Profile and Energy Estimates Profile Analysis”. Accessed July 13, 2017. https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA#40. 45 EIA. Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed July 14, 2017. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10. 46 California State Board of Equalization. Taxable Gasoline, Diesel Fuel, Jet Fuel Ten Year Reports. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/reports/MVF_10_Year_Report.pdf. 47 EIA. “Short-Term Energy Outlook, U.S. Liquid Fuels”. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm. 48 EPA. Table 4-23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_2 3.html. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 122 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 through 2020. 49,50 In 2012, the federal government raised the fuel economy standard to 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025.51 4.18.3 Impacts Evaluation a. i-v) Would the project have an energy impact? Impacts include the amount and fuel type used for each stage of the project, impacts on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity, impacts on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy, impacts to energy resources, and impacts resulting from the project’s projected transportation energy use requirements. Construction Construction activities related to the JMZ would take approximately 18-24 months and would consist of demolition of the existing building and landscaping, site preparation, grading, construction of the new facility, and installation of landscaping. Implementation of the LRP would occur over 25 years, and construction would occur intermittently depending on the project component under construction. Energy would be consumed during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. The construction phase would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g., demolition and grading), and the actual construction of the building. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks. The overall construction schedule and process for the JMZ is already designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. That is, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully on the site because of the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for efficiency gains during construction are limited. The proposed project does, however, include several measures that will improve the efficiency of the construction process. Implementation of the BAAQMD BMPs, as described in Section 4.3 Air Quality would restrict excessive equipment use by reducing idling times to five minutes or less and would require the applicant to post signs on the project site reminding workers to shut off idle equipment. There will be adverse effects caused by construction because the use of fuels and building materials are fundamental to construction of new buildings; however, with implementation of BMPs, the short-term energy impacts of construction, including impacts to energy resources, would be less than significant. [Less than Significant Impact] 49 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed December 7, 2016. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa. 50 Public Law 110–140—December 19, 2007. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Page 1449. Accessed December 7, 2016. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/pdf/PLAW-110publ140.pdf. 51 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standards. Accessed July 14, 2017. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/obama-administration- finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standards. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 123 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Operation The proposed project would be constructed to conform to CALGreen guidelines, which include design and operational and efficiency provisions to minimize wasteful energy consumption. Though the proposed project does not include on-site renewable energy resources, the proposed JMZ building would include orientation of the buildings and windows to optimize daylight to interiors, low-emissivity glazing, and use of energy-efficient LED lighting. The project would also comply with existing Title 24 state energy standards. Thus, the project would not waste energy as part of normal operations and any impact would be less than significant. Additionally, the proposed project would provide at least 25 short term bicycle parking spaces and 10 long term spaces which would incentivize the use of an alternative transportation method. Since the proposed JMZ facility would be similar in size to the existing facility and would offer a comparable experience (i.e. zoo tours, classroom visits etc.) as the existing facility, the proposed project would result in only a minor increase in vehicle trips, and the transportation impacts would be similar to existing conditions. For these reasons, it is not anticipated that fuel or energy would be used in a wasteful manner, and potential impacts related to operational energy use and transportation energy use would be less than significant. [Less Than Significant Impact] The size and operations of the proposed JMZ facility would be similar to that of the existing JMZ facility. Since the design of the proposed facility would include CALGreen measures that would help reduce the amount of energy the building would consume during routine operation. The proposed facility would have comparable if not reduced peak and base demands on energy as the existing JMZ and would not, therefore, result in significant energy impacts related to peak and base demands, supply, capacity, or resources. [Less Than Significant Impact] 4.18.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to energy resources. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 124 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4.19.1 Mandatory Findings Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1-25 b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 1-25 c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1-25 4.19.2 Impacts Evaluation a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities or service systems. With the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the proposed project and described in the biological resources, cultural resources, and noise and vibration section of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 125 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As identified elsewhere in this Initial Study, the potential environmental impacts from the proposed project are primarily limited to the construction period. The construction projects associated with the LRP are expected to occur over a 25 year period, and the demolition and construction of the JMZ would take approximately 18 to 24 months. Given the size and duration of the projects, the projects would not significantly contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. As described in Section 4.16, project implementation would not degrade future level of service of intersections in the project area. [Less than Significant Impact] c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Under this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor must be treated as significant if it would cause substantial adverse effects to humans, either directly or indirectly. This factor relates to adverse changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on particular individuals. While changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be represented by all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those that could directly affect human beings include air quality and noise. Due to the short construction schedule, limited areal extent of the project, and mitigation measures included in the project, impacts to human beings resulting from construction-related air and noise impacts would be less than significant. No other direct or indirect adverse effects of the project on human beings have been identified. [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 126 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Checklist Sources: 1. CEQA Guidelines - Environmental Thresholds (Professional judgment and expertise and review of project plans). 2. Palo Alto, City of. Comprehensive Plan. 1998-2010. 3. Palo Alto, City of. Municipal Code. 4. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2012. Map. August 2014. 5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. 6. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Construction TAC Assessment. April 27, 2015. 7. Hort Science. Arborist Report, Junior Museum & Zoo, Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, CA. June 2017. 8. Hort Science. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed, Long-Range Plan Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, CA. June 2017. 9. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. (Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP)). 10. Holman & Associates. Results of an Archaeological literature search for Rinconada Park and Junior Museum & Zoo Project at 777 Embarcadero, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County (APN: 003- 46-006). February 17, 2015. 11. Page & Turnbull. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo 1451 Middlefield Road Historic Resource Evaluation. July 20, 2016. 12. Page & Turnbull. Rinconada Park Historic Resource Evaluation. June 8, 2017. 13. Silicon Valley Soil Engineering. Geotechnical investigation. January 2015. 14. State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Accessed July 8, 2016. 15. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Final Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Palo Alto Airport. November 19, 2008. 16. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 060850010H. Map. Effective Date: May 18, 2009. 17. San Mateo, County of. Planning and Building. Dam Failure Inundation Areas. Available at: <http://planning.smcgov.org/documents/san-mateo-county-hazards-dam-failure-inundation- areas> August 2014. 18. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara County. October 8, 2008. 19. California Emergency Management Agency, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning San Francisco Bay Area, < http://www.conservation.ca.gov> June 15, 2009. 20. Palo Alto, City of. Storm Drain System Facts and Figures. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2806. 21. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Park Long Range Plan, Environmental Noise Assessment, Palo Alto, California. June 3, 2015. 22. Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Police. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/ 23. Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Fire Department. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/fir/. 24. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo and Rinconada Park Long Range Plan Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. July 27, 2017. 25. Palo Alto, City of. Zero Waste Program, Progress Report. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/about/progress.asp. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 127 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. California Building Standards Commission. 2013 California Green Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen). California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. Available at: http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/Free_Resources/2013California/13Green/13Green_main.html Effective Date: January 1, 2014. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2012. Map. August 2014. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara County. October 8, 2008. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php. Accessed July 28, 2015. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Santa Clara County. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed June 21, 2015. California State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Accessed July 29, 2015. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara County. October 8, 2008. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php. Accessed July 28, 2015. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/. Accessed July 30, 2015. County of Santa Clara, City of San José, City of Morgan Hill, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. August 2012. Available at: <http://www.scv-habitatplan.org/www/default.aspx. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 060850010H. Map. Effective Date: May 18, 2009. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo and Rinconada Park Long Range Plan Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. July 27, 2017. Holman & Associates. Results of an Archaeological literature search for Rinconada Park and Junior Museum & Zoo Project at 777 Embarcadero, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County (APN: 003-46-006). February 17, 2015. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Construction TAC Assessment. April 27, 2015. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 128 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Hort Science. Arborist Report, Junior Museum & Zoo, Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, CA. June 2017. Hort Science. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed, Long-Range Plan Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, CA. June 2017. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Park Long Range Plan, Environmental Noise Assessment, Palo Alto, California. June 3, 2015. One Bay Area. “Plan Bay Area.” 2012. Available at: http://onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan- bay-area.html#.USz_lKK-qzk . Accessed July 30, 2015. Page & Turnbull. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo 1451 Middlefield Road Historic Resource Evaluation. July 20, 2016. Page & Turnbull. Rinconada Park Historic Resource Evaluation. June 28, 2017. Palo Alto, City of. City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, City of Palo Alto. June 2001. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6436 Palo Alto, City of. Comprehensive Plan. 1998-2010. Palo Alto, City of. Historic Preservation website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/preservation.asp Accessed July 30, 2015. Palo Alto, City of. Municipal Code. Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Police. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/ Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Fire Department. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/fir/. Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Green Building Program. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. Accessed July 28, 2015. Palo Alto, City of. Rinconada Long Range Plan Report. July 2017 Palo Alto, City of. Storm Drain System Facts and Figures. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2806. Accessed July 30, 2015. Palo Alto, City of. Office of Emergency Services. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Report. August 2014. Palo Alto, City of. Zero Waste Program, Progress Report. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/about/progress.asp. Accessed July 29, 2015. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan. 2015 Pollution Prevention Plan. Available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1527&TargetID=65. Accessed July 29, 2015. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 129 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 PAST Consultants, LLC. “Re: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Review (SISR) for 411 Lytton Ave., Palo Alto, CA, APN. 120-014-076.” March 13, 2015. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Shoreline Areas Potentially Exposed to Sea Level Rise: South Bay. 2008, updated 2012. Map. Available at: http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/pdf/bayplan/Plan_Map_7.pdf. Accessed July 28, 2015. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Final Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Palo Alto Airport. November 19, 2008. Available at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Commissions/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx. Silicon Valley Soil Engineering. Geotechnical investigation. January 2015. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 130 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS LEAD AGENCY City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment CONSULTANTS David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants and Planners Jodi Starbird, Principal Project Manager Mike Lisenbee, Project Manager Caroline Weston, Assistant Project Manager Zach Dill, Graphic Artist 1 TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: AUGUST 22, 2017 SUBJECT: BUCKEYE CREEK HYDROLOGY STUDY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) review and provide feedback on the draft Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study report (Attachment A). BACKGROUND Buckeye Creek, which originates in Foothills Park and flows to Los Trancos Creek, has long standing erosion and flooding problems. During heavy storms, the creek down-cuts causing erosion. The eroded sediments wash downstream and deposit in various locations along the creek, especially along the 7.7 acre parcel which can lead to flooding and can obstruct downstream culverts on private properties during heavy rain events. Past erosion control measures using gabions and check dams have not been effective at reducing erosion. Buckeye Creek was heavily modified by grading related to agricultural activities that took place prior to ownership by the City. The creek was also modified when underground utilities were installed in the 1960s. These modifications straightened and channelized the creek for approximately one mile through the park. Based on review of historic United States Geologic Survey (USGS) maps between 1898 and 1960, it appears that the alignment of Buckeye Creek is substantially different now than before agricultural uses were introduced to the area in the early 1900s. The channel was likely more centered in the Wildhorse and Las Trampas Valleys, and the entire valley floor was likely used as alluvial floodplain, which dissipated energy and allowed for moderate deposition and erosion processes for the creek system. The City contracted with ENGEO in July 2016 to study the hydrology of Buckeye Creek and to provide recommendations to reduce erosion, sediment deposition, and flooding conditions in Foothill Park and the 7.7 acres parcel of parkland located in the northern boundary of Foothills Park. On December 6, 2016, staff hosted a community meeting to discuss the project and initial concepts. Approximately 25 people, including stakeholders from Grassroots Ecology and Audubon Society, attended the meeting. There was broad support for the initial concepts developed to solve the creek’s erosion and sediment deposition issues. On February 8, 2017, ENGEO and staff attended an inter-agency meeting with representatives from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This informal meeting was an opportunity for collecting feedback on the preliminary restoration concepts from the regulatory agencies. The agency representatives generally 2 supported the initial restoration concepts, and provided helpful feedback that helped guide further development of the concepts. The key elements of the feedback were that the creek should be restored to its historic alignment to the extent practicable, and that a less engineered approach to solving issues associated with the historic modifications to the creek channel are preferred. DISCUSSION On March 28, 2017, staff provided an update to the Commission on the initial concepts developed to help solve the creek’s erosion issues (Attachment B). The Commission supported the concepts; and suggested that staff and consultant further develop the concepts, host another community meeting, and return to the Commission with the draft report. The consultant completed the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, and refined the concepts of creek reconfiguration, which are designed to improve sediment transport conditions, resolve erosion issues, and restore geomorphic and biological function of the channel to historic conditions as much as possible. On June 12, 2017, staff hosted a community meeting to discuss the refined concepts. Although the number of participants was low (four members of the public), there was unanimous support for the recommended solutions to solve the creek’s erosion problem. Preferred Alternative Using the feedback from community meetings, stakeholders, regulatory agencies, Commission, and the Ad Hoc Committee, the consultant developed a preferred alternative design. While there are other options to consider regarding solutions to the creek’s issues, the focus of the draft report is the preferred alternative, which would restore and modify portions of Buckeye Creek by widening the creek channel to create seasonal wetland floodplains in the lower reach (Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acres parcel), and create a new creek channel in the upper reach (Wildhorse Valley). The new creek channel would allow the creek to more closely follow its historic alignment and floodplain. The preferred alternative would also retrofit the existing grade control structures, which have exceeded their useful lifespans. The cost of the preferred alternative (including design, environmental review, permitting, and construction of the project) is approximately $9.7 million. The draft report includes a detailed, itemized cost estimate for the preferred alternative. The draft report recommends that the entire project be funded at once, due to the severe condition of most portions of the channel, and the complex permitting processes associated with creek restoration activities. It is estimated that it would take approximately five years to complete the design, environmental review, permitting, and construction of the project. Lower Reach (Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acres parcel) The recommended improvements to the lower reach of creek would create approximately 4.6 acres of additional floodplain and wetlands. This reach is divided into two sub-reaches for purposes of discussion- Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acres parcel. 3 Widening the creek in the 7.7 acres of undeveloped parkland would create a 1.2-acre floodplain at approximately the ordinary high water mark and extend westerly at a 2% slope approximately to the extent of the 100-year water surface elevation. Based on hydraulic modeling performed, creating a floodplain by lowering portions of the parcel adjacent to the current creek channel would help dissipate peak flows, equilibrate sediment transport, and enhance habitat. Energy dissipation consisting of rock rip-rap would be installed at both expansion and contraction locations. Trails could be built within the floodplain area, to allow park visitors access to the creek to learn about riparian habitat, with the understanding that they would need to be maintained after large rain events. Widening the section of creek along the Las Trampas Valley would create approximately 3 acres of floodplain by removing soil material in the existing grass field, which appears to consist of fill material placed in the historic floodplain. The existing channel would be moved closer to its historic alignment, and the grade adjusted to create an extensive floodplain above the ordinary high water mark. As in the 7.7 acre area, energy dissipation consisting of rock rip-rap would be installed at both expansion and contraction locations, which would help with flow reduction, sediment transport equilibrium, and habitat enhancement. Some tree removals are required in this reach of creek to create the floodplain. a) Upper Reach (Wildhorse Valley): The recommended improvements to the upper reach of creek involve creating a new creek channel that would meander through the historic floodplain (current grass meadow) in Wildhorse Valley. Approximately 2,655 linear feet of new creek channel and 5.5 acres of floodplain would be created. The improvements recreate the historic floodplain by re-routing flows entering the westerly portion of the upper Buckeye Creek into the new channel. The new channel would be designed using geomorphic principles, including a low flow channel, a stable slope and a floodplain. The upper westerly tributary to Buckeye Creek would need to be re-routed near the existing sediment basin at the upper end of Wildhorse Valley to capture flows and a stabilized confluence would also be installed where the new creek would meet the existing channel. The existing channel would remain, and the aging grade control structures would be retrofitted to meet current restoration standards. Due to the significantly reduced flow in the existing channel, there would be minimal erosion expected once the new channel is constructed. The existing sediment basin located at the base of the creek system at the top of Wildhorse Valley would be eliminated. The preferred alternative would create the following habitat improvements: Reach 1 - 7.7 acre parcel. Create 523 linear feet of floodplain habitat Reach 2 - Las Trampas Valley. Create 1470 linear feet of floodplain Reach 3 - Wildhorse Valley. Create 2655 linear feet of creek, and 2000 linear feet of floodplain. 4 Alternative Options The draft report recommends the preferred alternative as solution to Buckeye Creek’s erosion and sediment deposition issues. However, there are other options that can be considered. The following is a list of the options and their implications: 1. The City could propose to take no action. The creek will continue to down cut, and the existing grade control structures, which are at the end of their useful life, will likely fail in 5 to 10 years. This would lead to severe erosion problems in several areas of the Park, especially in Wildhorse Valley where the utility corridor would be threatened. The utility corridor consists of electric, phone, sanitary sewer, a pressurized water main, and fiber optic communication lines that are positioned along the edge of the Buckeye Creek channel in Wildhorse Valley. Thousands of cubic yards of sediment per winter could be deposited into the 7.7 acre parcel, and eventually into Los Trancos and San Francisquito Creeks. Excess sediment can negatively impact creeks. The soil particles cover spawning areas, smothering trout eggs, aquatic insects, and oxygen producing plants. Increased turbidity levels (suspended sediment) in a stream will increase water temperatures, reduce light penetration and plant growth, and affect the ability of fish to locate and capture prey by greatly reducing visibility. Steelhead trout and other fish can die from the abrasive, gill clogging effects of suspended sediment, which interferes with their breathing. There would likely be substantially more down cutting in the creek channel; up to 30’ below grade in some areas. In the mid-1970s the deepest section of the creek was measured at 7.4’ below grade, and currently it is 20-22’ (upper reach). With the deep down cut creek channel, the water table in the meadows (in all reaches of the creek) will continue to prematurely drain with less mid/late season water for shrubs/trees. The exposed creek banks will allow water to seep out of the horizontal layers like poking a hole in the side of a barrel. Several bridge structures would also become unusable. If no action was taken, the pedestrian bridges will likely fail in the next 5 to 10 years as the creek banks, where the bridge footings are located, erode. Eventually the City would have to propose some structural improvements in the creek channel to protect the existing utility corridor from being undermined. This would require the same federal and state permits that would be required for the preferred alternative. The USACE/RWQCB and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) would likely ask the City to provide a more holistic intervention approach to managing issues in the watershed, and potentially deny permitting clearances for activities where continued regular maintenance of the channel is proposed solely to prevent disruption of utility services. 5 2. The City could propose to retrofit existing grade control structures and the pedestrian bridges as a minimum project. This would not solve the erosion, sediment deposition, or flooding issues. Given the current state of the channel, retrofitted grade control structures would need to be geotechnically designed to withstand additional scour and very large sediment loads, making them significantly more expensive to build and maintain than if the whole channel were re- configured. This scenario would also be difficult to permit from the USACE/RWQCB and CDFW who would again ask for a less engineered approach to solve issues associated with the historic modifications to the creek channel with minimal in-channel maintenance requirements. Approximate Cost for Grade Control Structures: $1,320,500 Grade Control Structures (50% increase due to standalone project) $976,350 Pedestrian Bridge $100,000 Permitting and Design (25%) $244,087 Total: $1,320,437 3. The City could elect to split the project into multiple separate projects for the Wildhorse Valley, Las Trampas Valley and 7.7-acre parcel respectively, and elect to do only one project, or consider phasing multiple projects over time. Because the majority of excess sediment appears to be generated in the upper reach of Wildhorse Valley, implementation of that project first would provide the greatest benefit to the creek channel downstream. Only doing the Wildhorse Valley project (and the grade control structures and pedestrian bridges) would help protect the utility corridor, and resolve the erosion and sediment transfer in Wildhorse Valley; and help reduce those problems downstream. Though, there would still be some continued creek erosion in the Las Trampas Valley and some sediment deposition in the 7.7 acre area. Approximate Cost for Wildhorse Valley and Grade Control Structures: $3,092,500 Wildhorse Valley $1,743,100 Grade Control Structures $650,900 Pedestrian Bridge $100,000 Permitting, Design, Admin. (25%) $598,500 Total: $3,092,500 If the City elects to do more than the Wildhorse Valley project, and take a phased approach to doing one or both of the other projects (Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acre parcel) at 6 future dates, there would be added cost and time of repeating the regulatory permitting and construction costs inflation. Based on the amount of time required to implement the project, the severity of the existing condition, and the cost and time savings associated with one set of permitting clearances to implement a comprehensive solution, the draft report recommends funding the project in its entirety and completing the entire project in one concurrent phase. Summary of itemized project costs: Reach 1 - 7.7 acre parcel $838,000 Reach 2 - Las Trampas Valley $3,408,000 Reach 3 - Wildhorse Valley $1,743,100 Retrofit of Existing Grade Control Structures *$650,900 *Add 50% to this cost if performed as standalone project Typically, for a large restoration project with significant Federal and State Permitting, permitting, design and administrations costs run approximately 20% of construction. Add 25% for permitting, design, and administration costs to each of these cost estimates if performed as a standalone project. Estimates above do not include a projected 4% annual increase in construction costs. Impacts and Challenges: While the proposed improvements would have a number of benefits, including resolving the erosion and sedimentation issues, creating more (and vastly improved) riparian habitat, providing public access to the creek areas, enhanced environmental education opportunities, and reduced ornamental turf and potable water savings, there are some impacts from the proposed preferred alternative. Recreation Impacts: The grass field in Las Trampas Valley is used for recreation activities. In addition to individual park visitors and families relaxing and recreating on the field, the area is also frequently used by park visitors picnicking at the adjacent Orchard Glen picnic area and by people who have rented the Oak Grove picnic area. The Oak Grove picnic area accommodates up to 150 people. The lawn area is also used by City’s Recreation Division to host Foothills Park summer camps. Staff have evaluated the amount of use on the grass field, and have determined that half of the grass field could be used for restoring the creek, and the remaining half of the turf (approximately 5 acres) could still meet the recreational needs for the park visitors. Recreation staff believes the proposed improvements to the creek 7 would allow them to incorporate more nature elements into the curriculum for the camps. Improved access to riparian areas next to the turf will be a helpful addition. There are 16 acres of turf grass in Foothills Park, including 10 acres in Las Trampas Valley and 6 acres near the park entrance and lake area. If the section of creek in Las Trampas Valley were widened as proposed, there would still be 11 acres of turf grass in the park. Wildlife Impacts: During construction there will be significant efforts to protect nesting birds and threatened plant species. However, some wildlife (deer, coyote, bobcats, etc.) will likely avoid the area during construction. Post construction there will be a settling period where plants grow in. Wildlife will be attracted to the natural stream channel. Visitors will have additional viewing potential of native riparian plants, multiple bird species, and larger wildlife like raccoons, rabbits and deer. More information about wildlife impacts will be known during the permitting and environmental review process of the project. Park Visitor Impacts: There may be certain areas of the park that are closed to public access during construction. It is possible that the project could be completed in one summer. It could take 3 to 5 years for the vegetation to fully establish. This project would be similar to the Boronda Lake Dam reconstruction project, which occurred in summer of 1987. Park visitors concentrated towards the lower section of the park and Vista Hill. The Buckeye Creek project would likely result in greater concentration of park visitors in the upper sections of the park near Boronda Lake/dam and Vista Hill. The Foothills Park Interpretive Center should still be accessible along with most of the roadways and hiking trails in the park. Towle Camp may have access issues during phases of the construction in Wildhorse Valley. Funding Challenges: Staff will likely need to find multiple funding sources to finance the preferred alternative, which costs approximately $9.7 million. The draft report highlights several grant funding sources that may be available to assist in the financing of the project. In addition to grant funding, it is also possible that the project may be used as a mitigation bank to offset unavoidable wetland or stream impacts created by projects elsewhere in the City of Palo Alto area, preferably in the San Francisquito Creek watershed. If unavoidable project impacts to wetland or stream areas are acceptable to the RWQCB or USACE as part of the 401/404 permitting process, the permittee may be able to purchase created wetlands or stream features from the Buckeye Creek project to offset their unavoidable impacts as compensatory mitigation. Implementation of the restoration plan for Buckeye Creek would generate stream, riparian, and/or freshwater wetland mitigation credits that would be marketed to permittees in order to offset up-front funding costs for the project. 8 Permitting: In order to implement the initial concepts of restoring portions of the creek, the project would likely require the following permits: United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): The project would need to also complete a document to show compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to receive permitting clearances from CDFW and RWQCB. Overall, the permitting review is expected to take approximately 18 to 36 months to complete. NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE PRC recommendation to Council to adopt the report September 2017 Finalize report and present to Council for approval October 2017 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study Report Attachment B: March 28, 2017 Parks and Recreation Staff Report Regarding the Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study Copyright © 2017 by ENGEO Incorporated. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated. BUCKEYE CREEK FOOTHILLS PARK CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS AND RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY SUBMITTED TO Mr. Daren Anderson Community Services City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 PREPARED BY ENGEO Incorporated August 11, 2017 PROJECT NO. 13010.000.000 ATTACHMENT A GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 2010 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 250  San Ramon, CA 94583  (925) 866-9000  Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com Project No. 13010.000.000 August 11, 2017 Daren Anderson Community Services City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Buckeye Creek Foothills Park City of Palo Alto, California HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS AND RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Dear Mr. Anderson: In accordance with your request, we are providing this hydrologic analysis and restoration feasibility study for a portion of Buckeye Creek passing through Foothills Park in the City of Palo Alto. Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the creek is included in this report and form the basis of the creek restoration recommendations in this document. Our services included research and evaluation of creek form and restoration potential, attendance at several public meetings, and one meeting with State and Federal regulators, in accordance with our contract with the City of Palo Alto. This report discusses our findings and the recommended solutions. We have developed these recommendations in conjunction with the project biologist, WRA Incorporated. We expect these recommendations will be reviewed by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the City of Palo Alto as project planning progresses. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. If you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, ENGEO Incorporated Sean Cleary, PE Jonathan D Buck, GE sc/jdb/pcg/dt cc: Mr. Sean Avent – WRA Inc. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study i of iii August 11, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter of Transmittal EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT REASONING ................................................. 2 1.1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 FEASIBILITY STUDY GOALS ............................................................................................ 4 2.0 EXISTING SETTING ............................................................................................ 5 2.1 HISTORIC SETTING .......................................................................................................... 5 2.2 EXISTING SETTING ........................................................................................................... 6 2.3 BASELINE HYDROLOGIC SETTING ............................................................................... 11 2.3.1 Hydrologic Calculations ....................................................................................... 11 2.3.2 Watershed Characteristics ................................................................................... 12 2.3.3 Time of Concentration and Lag Time................................................................... 13 2.3.4 Base Flow ............................................................................................................ 13 2.3.5 Results of Hydrologic Modeling ........................................................................... 14 2.4 BASELINE HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS ...................................................................... 15 2.4.1 Channel Geometry ............................................................................................... 15 2.4.2 Input of Channel Flow Rate ................................................................................. 15 2.4.3 Input of Hydraulic Coefficients ............................................................................. 15 2.4.4 Flow Regime ........................................................................................................ 15 2.4.5 Boundary Condition ............................................................................................. 16 2.4.6 Results ................................................................................................................. 16 2.5 BASELINE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS ........................................................... 16 2.5.1 Sediment Grain Size Distribution ......................................................................... 17 2.5.2 Sediment Transport ............................................................................................. 17 2.5.3 Mobile Bed Function and Quasi-Steady State Analysis ...................................... 17 2.5.4 Results ................................................................................................................. 18 2.6 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 18 3.0 PRELIMINARY PROJECT CONSTRAINTS ...................................................... 18 3.1 UTILITY AND ROADS ...................................................................................................... 18 3.2 MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS ........................................................................................... 18 3.3 PARK USES ...................................................................................................................... 18 3.4 OTHER CONSTRAINTS/LIMITATIONS ........................................................................... 19 4.0 RESTORATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 19 4.1 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES AND STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK .................................... 19 4.2 PREFERRED ALTERATIVE RECOMMENDATION ......................................................... 20 4.2.1 Lower Reach ........................................................................................................ 21 4.2.2 Upper Reach ........................................................................................................ 22 4.3 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC RESULTS .................................................................. 24 4.3.1 Preferred Alternative Hydrology ........................................................................... 24 4.3.2 Preferred Alternative Hydraulics .......................................................................... 26 4.3.3 Preferred Alternative Sediment Transport ........................................................... 27 City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study ii of iii August 11, 2017 4.4 DESIGN OF FLOODPLAINS ............................................................................................ 27 4.5 DESIGN AND RETROFIT OF GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES / BANK STABILIZATION ................................................................................................................ 28 5.0 PERMITTING AND IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................... 28 5.1 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................ 28 5.2 REGULATORY APPROACH ............................................................................................ 29 5.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE RESTORATION RECOMMENDATION ................................. 29 6.0 COST ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 30 6.1 RESULTS OF COST ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 30 6.2 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES .................................................................................. 31 6.2.1 Grant Funding ...................................................................................................... 31 6.2.2 Mitigation Matching .............................................................................................. 32 7.0 MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................ 33 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 34 8.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 34 8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 34 9.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ....................................... 35 SELECTED REFERENCES TABLES TABLE 1: Summary of Watershed Parameters ....................................................................... 13 TABLE 2: Summary of Lag Time Calculations ........................................................................ 13 TABLE 3: Coefficients Used in the Modeling .......................................................................... 15 TABLE 4: Coefficients Used in the Modeling .......................................................................... 24 TABLE 5: Results of Hydrologic Modeling .............................................................................. 26 TABLE 6: Results of Hydraulic Modeling ................................................................................ 27 TABLE 7: Results of Hydraulic Modeling ................................................................................ 27 TABLE 8: Buckeye Creek Rough Construction Costs and Quantities ..................................... 30 FIGURES FIGURE 1: Buckeye Creek in larger San Francisquito Creek Watershed. Source: San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority ............................................................... 3 FIGURE 2: Study Area within Foothills Park. Source: City of Palo Alto ..................................... 4 FIGURE 3: Buckeye Creek in 1953. Source: Google Earth ........................................................ 5 FIGURE 4: Buckeye Creek Alignment as shown on United States Geologic Survey Map dated 1955. Note the alignment of the creek in the middle of Las Trampas and Wildhorse Valleys .............................................................................................. 6 FIGURE 5: Watershed map and results of Hydrologic Analysis ................................................ 14 FIGURE 6: Results of Post-Project Hydrologic Modeling .......................................................... 25 FIGURE 7: Potential Stockpile Areas near Boronda Lake; Source: City of Palo Alto ................ 33 ILLUSTRATIVE FIGURE 1: Conceptual Design Plan of Preferred Alternative .......................... 21 ILLUSTRATIVE GRAPHICS APPENDIX A – History of Buckeye Creek in Foothills Park City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study iii of iii August 11, 2017 APPENDIX B – Hydrologic Analysis APPENDIX C – Hydraulic Analysis APPENDIX D – Sediment Transport Analysis APPENDIX E – Biological Recourses Constraints Assessment– WRA, Inc. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 1 August 11, 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Buckeye Creek is a tributary of Los Trancos Creek and then San Francisquito Creek, located within Foothills Park (Park) in the City of Palo Alto (City). This report presents a study of the creek channel in portions of the Park where the watercourse has been substantially anthropomorphically modified over the last 120 years, and severe erosion and sediment deposition issues are taking place during storms events. The City funded this study to seek recommendations to improve the operation of the creek channel within the constraints of the existing adjacent land uses located in the Park. Based on the results of the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses presented in this report, creek reconfiguration is recommended to improve sediment transport conditions, resolve erosion issues, and restore geomorphic and biological function of the channel to historic conditions as much as possible. The re-configuration would involve the addition of floodplain areas, retrofitting of existing grade control structures, re-routing of creek flows through portions of Wildhorse Valley, and the elimination of an existing sediment basin. This study included several community meetings as well as a presentation to Federal and State regulators of the proposed recommendations. The consensus was that the overall concepts presented herein would greatly improve the current condition of the creek resource located within the Park. The study estimates that the cost of improving the entire 1 mile of creek channel in the Park to be approximately $9.7 million. It is recommended that the entire project be funded at once, due to the severe condition of most portions of the channel, and the complex permitting processes associated with creek restoration activities. It is estimated that design, environmental review, permitting, and construction of the project would take approximately 5 years to be implemented. In the meantime, additional maintenance recommendations have been provided to continue management of excess sediment deposits that require desilting within the Park limits. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 2 August 11, 2017 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT REASONING 1.1 PURPOSE Buckeye Creek is a tributary of Los Trancos Creek and then San Francisquito Creek, which eventually drains into the San Francisco Bay (Figure 1). Approximately 1 mile of Buckeye Creek flows through Foothills Park in the City of Palo Alto (City) (Figure 2). In Foothills Park, the valleys formed by Buckeye Creek are referred to as Wildhorse Valley for the upper ½-mile portion and Las Trampas Valley for the lower portion. The creek also flows through a 7.7-acre parcel at the downstream side of the Las Trampas Valley and a series of culverts on private properties before discharging into Los Trancos Creek. The 7.7-acre parcel was added to Foothills Park in 2014. A significant portion of Buckeye Creek is channelized and deeply incised. During heavy storms, severe down cutting and bank erosion occurs along the creek, and the eroded sediments are conveyed downstream and deposited in various locations along the creek. Sedimentation issues are especially acute along the 7.7-acre parkland where the creek bed gradient becomes more flat. At some locations, the creek overflows during heavy rain events. Currently, Park staff is engaged in de-silting the creek during and after larger storms, as well as off-hauling sediment in order to prevent clogging of several in-line hydraulic structures with sediment and storm debris. If the de-silting is not performed, the clogged structures can obstruct creek flow and cause localized flooding issues in several areas of the Park. The City entered into a contract with ENGEO to study the hydrology of Buckeye Creek and to receive recommendations on resolving the creek’s existing erosion and flooding problems. This report summarizes the results of hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, and provides recommendations to reduce existing erosion and flooding issues within Foothills Park while restoring certain elements of the creek’s historic geomorphic characteristics and enhancing its biological function. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 3 August 11, 2017 FIGURE 1: Buckeye Creek in larger San Francisquito Creek Watershed. Source: San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 4 August 11, 2017 FIGURE 2: Study Area within Foothills Park. Source: City of Palo Alto 1.2 FEASIBILITY STUDY GOALS The objective of this report is to provide the following: 1. Study the existing hydrologic and hydraulic conditions of Buckeye Creek within Foothills Park. 2. Identify constraints and opportunities along Buckeye Creek where modifications to the existing channel could take place in order to reduce existing erosion potential. 3. Develop a restoration scheme to ameliorate existing sedimentation, erosion and flooding issues to the maximum extent while enhancing habitat values of the creek. 4. Provide a preliminary cost analysis of the preferred alternative and discuss funding sources. 5. Discuss Federal and State regulatory permitting requirements in order to implement recommendations. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 5 August 11, 2017 6. Outline maintenance measures that need to be performed prior to implementation of the preferred alternative. 2.0 EXISTING SETTING 2.1 HISTORIC SETTING Historically Buckeye Creek was heavily anthropomorphically modified by grading related to agricultural activities that took place prior to ownership by the City, and the subsequent development of park facilities within the watershed. Based on our review of historic photographs and available park records, these modifications appear to have straightened and channelized the creek for approximately 1 mile through the current parklands; most likely, the centerline of the creek was moved from its historical location. Based on our review of historic United States Geologic Survey (USGS) maps between 1898 and 1960, it appears that the alignment of Buckeye Creek is substantially different now from before agricultural were introduced to the area in the early 1900s. The channel was likely more centered in the Wildhorse and Las Trampas Valleys and moreover, the entire valley floor was likely used as alluvial floodplain, which dissipated energy and allowed for moderate deposition and erosion processes for the creek system. Figures 3 and 4 depict the approximate creek alignment in the mid-1950s based on historic photographs and mapping prepared by the United States Geologic Survey. FIGURE 3: Buckeye Creek in 1953. Source: Google Earth City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 6 August 11, 2017 FIGURE 4: Buckeye Creek Alignment as shown on United States Geologic Survey Map dated 1955. Note the alignment of the creek in the middle of Las Trampas and Wildhorse Valleys 2.2 EXISTING SETTING Since realignment of the channel has occurred, severe erosion has taken place in Buckeye Creek. The channelized creek has experienced significant down-cutting resulting in severe erosion. The eroded sediments wash down the creek with sediment depositing into a desilting basin in upper Wildhorse Valley and finally depositing in the 7.7-acre parcel during the rainy season. The collected sediments must be removed two to three times every year to prevent flooding or obstructing the private culverts downstream of the 7.7-acre parcel. According to Park Staff, the adjacent Open Space Maintenance Shop in Foothills Park was flooded in 1969, 1983, and 1998. The City created a raised berm along Buckeye Creek, adjacent to the shop, to protect it from the creek overflowing. The shop area last flooded in 1998, but still has issues with poor drainage away from the shop and road. Based on our visual inspection, the engineered grade control structures installed at the time of channel realignment are reaching the end of their lifespan. The following seven photos summarize issues the creek is currently experiencing in its re-aligned configuration. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 7 August 11, 2017 PHOTO 1: Existing timber grade control structure and wire gabion bank stabilization on Buckeye Creek. Timber structures are at the end of their useful life span. Gabion wire traps wildlife and is considered an obsolete method of bank stabilization. PHOTO 2: Flanking of existing grade control structure on Buckeye Creek near Orchard Glen Picnic Area. Stream flows have eroded the far bank and low flows currently circumvent the structure rendering it obsolete. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 8 August 11, 2017 PHOTO 3: Existing erosion near Foothills Park Interpretive Center undermining trail bridge. The creek continues to downcut and erode in this area. PHOTO 4: Extremely turbid stream flows near the discharge point of Buckeye Creek from the 7.7-acre parcel to receiving waters downstream of Foothills Park. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 9 August 11, 2017 PHOTO 5: Park staff routinely de-silt and off-haul sediment from the 7.7-acre parcel to prevent clogging of downstream culverts, which flood the area when clogged with debris. A typical sediment pile (approximately 30 cubic yards) is shown to the left. PHOTO 6: A sediment trap has been constructed at the top of Wildhorse Valley near the Towle Campground to collect sediment deposition originating from steep slopes at the top of the watershed. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 10 August 11, 2017 PHOTO 7: Gabion Structures and Grade Control Structures in Wildhorse Valley are at the end of their lifespan Las Trampas Valley has approximately 106 acres of grass lawn field adjacent to the creek, an interpretive center, Orchard Glen Picnic Area and Oak Grove Picnic Area, and a maintenance facility (Photo 8). PHOTO 8: 10-acre grass lawn in Las Trampas Valley, Buckeye Creek has been realigned in a narrow channel to the right. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 11 August 11, 2017 The 7.7-acre parcel at the outfall of the creek currently has a native plant nursery used by Grassroots Ecology, a local non-profit agency. The rest of the 7.7-acre parcel is undeveloped. Wildhorse Valley is generally open space, although a pump station is located at the top of the valley. Since the creek has been realigned to the eastern side of the valley, the areas consists of a utility corridor, a paved road and a large open field. PHOTO 9: Looking upstream in Wildhorse Valley, Buckeye Creek has been realigned in a narrow channel to the left. The Orchard Glen picnic area lies roughly between the top of Las Trampas Valley and the bottom of Wildhorse Valley. The proposed improvements to the creek outlined in this feasibility study are intended to reduce severe erosion that has occurred in the channel since the historic modifications were implemented and to reduce flooding in downstream areas. A historical summary of Foothills Park uses is provided in Appendix A, based on information provided by Park Staff. 2.3 BASELINE HYDROLOGIC SETTING 2.3.1 Hydrologic Calculations In order to understand baseline hydrologic conditions of the channel, a hydrologic analysis was performed on the Buckeye Creek watershed. The intent of the hydrologic analysis was to estimate various flow rates at certain points of flow concentration in the creek watershed during peak recurrence interval storm events. The methodology used is as summarized below. The hydrology study for this project follows the criteria specified in the County of Santa Clara Drainage Manual (2007). The hydrologic model used a modified version of the National City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 12 August 11, 2017 Resources Conservation Service TR-55 (NRCS, 1986) methodology to transform precipitation into direct runoff and to evaluate watershed losses. The hydrologic model to estimate flow rates for the Buckeye Creek watersheds was created using the software HEC-HMS, which was developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and is used to perform precipitation-runoff simulation for watersheds based on estimated storm simulation data, watershed basin characteristics, and open-channel hydraulic routing. The precipitation model for the study used user-defined hyetographs for selected recurrence interval storms. A recurrence interval is a statistical way of expressing the probability of occurrence of a storm event in any given year. For example, a "100-year recurrence interval" storm event has a one in one hundred or 1% chance of happening in any given year. Likewise, a “2-year recurrence interval” storm event has a 50 in one hundred or 50% chance of happening in any given year. Rainfall depths for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 100-year 24-hour storm events were determined from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Mean Annual Precipitation Map (1998) and the methodology outlined in Section 3.5 of the Santa Clara County Drainage Manual. Hyetographs for each storm event were then generated using the method shown on Table D-1 of Santa Clara Drainage Manual. The hyetographs were entered manually into the HEC-HMS program to model rainfall. The SCVWD Mean Annual Precipitation Map and a summary of the rainfall depth calculations have been provided as an attachment to this report (Appendix B). The total rainfall depths for Buckeye Creek study area as determined using this methodology are as follows:  2-Year Rainfall Depth = 3.30 inches (in)  5-Year Rainfall Depth = 4.69 in  10-Year Rainfall Depth = 5.61 in  100-Year Rainfall Depth = 8.36 in 2.3.2 Watershed Characteristics The hydrologic methodology was performed in accordance with specifications provided by the County of Santa Clara, including watershed soil type determinations, time of concentration and lag time calculations, and precipitation model generation. The watershed parameters were determined using Section 4.6 of the Santa Clara Drainage Manual. The Buckeye Creek watershed is divided into five subwatersheds, as shown on the Watershed Map (Figure 5 below), which shows the limits of the watershed. Note that Subwatershed 3 has been subdivided into two subwatersheds to provide a better pre-project and post-project comparison of the flows in Wildhorse Valley. Watershed runoff and losses were calculated in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) runoff methodology using runoff Curve Numbers (CNs). Curve Numbers (CNs) are an index of the watersheds Hydrologic Soils Group (HSG) classification, land use, and land surface characteristics. Losses are also a function of the HSG of the watershed. The United States Department of Agriculture NRCS Web Soil Survey was used to determine the soil type and HSG classification (The project soil type is primarily sandy clay and footpath-mouser complex), which is considered to be HSG soil Type “C.” Since the watershed is primarily characterized by HSG soil Type ‘C,’ which have rapid runoff characteristics when saturated, losses for the watershed are not expected to be substantial. The land surface characteristics, land use classification, and soils groups are used to estimate CN numbers using Table E-1 of the Santa Clara Drainage Manual. The CN numbers are then adjusted according to antecedent moisture condition (AMC) using Table E-2 from the Santa Clara Valley Drainage Manual. The initial abstraction is calculated using the adjusted curve number and the City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 13 August 11, 2017 methodology outlined in Section 4.6.3 of the Santa Clara Valley Drainage Manual. Table 1 below presents a summary of watershed parameters for the selected design storms. TABLE 1: Summary of Watershed Parameters DESIGN STORM AMC CN INITIAL ABSTRACTION - (in) 2-Year II1/4 67.5 0.96 5-Year II1/4-II1/2 69.19 0.89 10-Year II1/2 72 0.78 100-Year II1/2 72 0.78 The Buckeye Creek watershed is primarily a mixed forest area. The watershed, totaling approximately 858 acres, was broken up into five subwatersheds to be used as an input in to the HEC-HMS model. The subwatersheds are shown on the Watershed Map (Figure 5). 2.3.3 Time of Concentration and Lag Time Time lag is a parameter that is required as an input into the HEC-HMS Model. The methodology used to estimate watershed lag time was based on the County of Santa Clara Drainage Manual Section 4.6.6. The Basin Lag equation is shown below. This study assumed that the watershed functions hydrologically similar to a natural watershed since the land use is primarily mixed forest with very low impervious percentage. The equation for time of concentration is as follows: tlag = (0.862)24N (LLc/√s) 0.38+ D/2 Where N is the watershed roughness value (0.075); L is the longest flow path from the catchment divide to outlet; Lc is the length along flow path from a point perpendicular with the basin centroid to its outlet; S is the effective slope along the main watercourse; and D is the duration of the unit hydrograph (5 minutes). Table 2 below summarizes the results of the lag time calculations for each subwatershed. TABLE 2: Summary of Lag Time Calculations SUBWATERSHED L (miles) Lc (miles) S (ft/mile) Tlag (minutes) 1 0.60 0.37 1,447 10.7 2 0.52 0.34 1,124 10.1 3 0.87 0.36 830 14.2 4 0.43 0.39 331 13.0 5 0.76 0.35 124 20.1 2.3.4 Base Flow The base flow is assumed insignificant relative to the peak flow rates in the creek due to the slope and size of the watershed and the rapid runoff characteristics of the soil. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 14 August 11, 2017 2.3.5 Results of Hydrologic Modeling The hydrologic model provided 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm events flows for each of the five subwatersheds, which are used as input into the hydraulic model described in Section 2.4. These results are graphically shown in Figure 5 below. Appendix B includes detailed hydrologic calculations and reference materials. FIGURE 5: Watershed map and results of Hydrologic Analysis City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 15 August 11, 2017 2.4 BASELINE HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS Baseline hydraulic analysis was also performed to evaluate flooding and erosion potential using the Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) 4.0 Beta computer program published by the USACE. HEC-RAS enables us to perform one-dimensional hydraulic analyses for natural channels and is intended for calculating water surface profiles and velocities in steady, gradually varied flow conditions. The basic HEC-RAS computational procedure is based on the solution of the one-dimensional energy equation. Energy losses consist of friction losses based on Manning's equation. The development of the HEC-RAS model specific to this study is described in detail below. Survey data provided by PLS Surveys conducted in September 2016 were used to determine the existing cross-sections of the creek, which were input into the model. 2.4.1 Channel Geometry Cross-sections were drawn perpendicular to the direction of flow for the subject reach. Appendix C provides figures showing exact locations of cross-sections used in the model. 2.4.2 Input of Channel Flow Rate Flow rates obtained from the hydrologic model in Section 2.3 were used as input into the hydraulic model. 2.4.3 Input of Hydraulic Coefficients The value of the Manning’s roughness coefficient (n) establishes frictional resistance in the channel and is thus related to the modeling of channel velocity and water surface profile by the HEC-RAS program. The roughness coefficients previously input into the model were used for this analysis. These values are based on recommended minimum, maximum and normal values developed for a variety of vegetative and morphological conditions similar to those found in the channel and banks of Buckeye Creek. Table 3 summarizes the coefficients used in the model. TABLE 3: Coefficients Used in the Modeling MANNING'S 'N' VALUE DESCRIPTION 0.035 (main channel) Clean, straight, full, no rifts or deep pools, with some stones and weeds 0.05 – 0.065 (channel banks) Floodplain, scattered brush 2.4.4 Flow Regime Based on the preliminary results of the modeling, subcritical flow was encountered in the creek channel within the majority of the study reach. Therefore, the final results of the study are based on a subcritical flow regime analysis. Subcritical flow is considered gradual flow in areas of the creek outside of where existing grade controls structures, or other sharp elevation drops are located. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 16 August 11, 2017 2.4.5 Boundary Condition A normal depth boundary condition was entered at the upstream and downstream ends of the study reach using a bed slope of 0.02% and 0.003, respectively, based on information survey provided by PLS surveys. 2.4.6 Results The results of the baseline hydraulic evaluation are attached for the above four flow rates with cross sections shown on the HEC-RAS map in Appendix C. The model was run as a steady-state model as no significant in-line detention structures or flow attenuation features that would significantly change the regional hydrologic calculations are apparent in the channel. In terms of water surface profiles, the results do not indicate flood flows breaching channel banks during a 100-year storm event in lower portions of the channel near the Grassroots Ecology Native Plant Nursery, nor downstream in other portions of the 7.7-acre parcel. However, based on discussion with park staff, this area has flooded several times in the last 30 years due to clogging of in-line structures with sediment and debris. The hydraulic analysis indicates that 100-year flood flows breach channel banks and flow into the surrounding valley floor at few cross-sections near the Orchard Glen Picnic Area. However, for the majority of the creek, the 100-year flood flows are contained within the existing channel banks. Based on the USACE erosion threshold guidance for flood control channels, the allowable mean velocity for a channel comprised of an unvegetated clayey soil, typical of what is found in the Buckeye Creek channel, is approximately 6 feet per second (fps). Based on the hydraulic analysis, this threshold has exceeded in many areas along Buckeye Creek, as indicated in the baseline results provided in Appendix C. Areas with 2-year flows greater than 6 fps require further study and corrective actions to reduce erosion potential. 2.5 BASELINE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS A baseline sediment transport analysis was also conducted on Buckeye Creek where hydrology and hydraulic information were studied above. Based on information provided by Park staff, sediment deposition in the lower reaches of the creek has been a major problem where the 7.7-acre parcel exists, and the sediment sources appear to be from portions of the creek located within Foothills Park. According to the Park staff, the amount of sediment that accumulates in the 7.7-acre parcel that needs to be removed varies greatly year to year. Some years, when it is fairly dry, no sediment is removed from the culverts. In years with average rainfall, it can vary between 30 to 100 cubic yards of sediment. In extremely rainy years, there can be as much as 500 to 600 cubic yards of sediment removed. The baseline sediment transport model was used for the following: 1. Estimate the amount of sediment flux leaving the project, which is approximately equivalent to the amount of sediment being deposited in the 7.7-acre parcel where sediment deposition is problematic. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 17 August 11, 2017 2. Using the mobile bed function, identify upstream areas where erosional processes are dominant for inclusion in a potential preferred alternative. 2.5.1 Sediment Grain Size Distribution We collected one grab sample near the Orchard Glen Picnic Area in August 2016, as a representative sample of typical sediment that flows through the Buckeye Creek study reach. We performed a grain size distribution evaluation conforming to ASTM D6913 test procedure for input into the HEC-RAS sediment transport analysis module. The sample was well-graded, contained particles up to ¾-inch in diameter, and was relatively uniform across the particle size distribution. At least 10 percent of the material collected was very fine clay or silt material. 2.5.2 Sediment Transport HEC-RAS contains several standard methods to evaluate sediment transport in open erodible channels. For this feasibility study, we used the Ackers-White (1973) method, which was developed for channels with relatively uniform grain size distribution from fine sands to gravels. Our experience using sediment transport methods in HEC-RAS is that they can under-represent suspended load sediment transport for finer particles. Therefore, the results should be interpreted as representing sand and gravel erosional and depositional processes in the creek channel, which are typically large enough to scour creek banks and bottoms and can be collected and off-hauled. 2.5.3 Mobile Bed Function and Quasi-Steady State Analysis HEC-RAS requires users to define several parameters in the hydraulic model in order to perform sediment transport calculations. The following parameters were used: 1. Based on preliminary results, erosion was allowed to occur up to a maximum of 5 feet in depth for the selected 5-year recurrence interval design storm in portions of the creek channel where soil materials are present. This is the approximate maximum depth of erosion, which could occur in the channel, as existing grade control structures prevent greater downcutting. After calibrating the model and determining areas where deposition was occurring, the maximum erosional depth number was reduced for areas where erosional processes appeared to be unlikely. 2. We assumed existing grade control structures were fixed points in the model where bed degradation could not occur. 3. We assumed the erosional and depositional processes would generally occur in areas below defined left and right channel banks, which generally represent flows up to about the 5-year recurrence interval event. 4. We used a quasi-steady 24-hour 5-year recurrence interval flow to evaluate sediment transport. 2-year flow, which is generally the minimum that is evaluated in sediment transport analyses, did not yield a result where the erodible bed materials exhibited significant movement. Flows larger than the 5-year recurrence interval storm went unstable in the model due to the hydrodynamic condition of the existing system, which contains many areas of flow that are not gradual or steady. The 5-year flow peaks for approximately 1 hour in the model and has an ascending and receding hydrograph on either side of the peak. This approximates the shape of the peak hydrographs used in the HEC-HMS model for the project. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 18 August 11, 2017 2.5.4 Results A summary of sediment movement in tons is provided in Appendix D. The model shows approximately 4,917 tons of sediment leaving the site in a 5-year 24-hour recurrence interval event with little ability for the creek to deposit any of the sediment accumulating upstream in lower reaches. The modeling demonstrates that erosional processes are not balanced with depositional processes in the existing condition of the project study area. 2.6 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION WRA, Incorporated performed a baseline biological evaluation for the project. The study was based on available records and database research but did not include field reconnaissance. It is included in Appendix E of this report. Potential species of concern for the project include the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii) and Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Four sensitive biological communities were identified within the Project Area. Eight special-status plant species and 11 special-status wildlife species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the Project Area. The evaluation concludes that species impacts are likely for a proposed project, which alters the current form of Buckeye Creek. However, appropriate mitigation measures may be taken to offset temporary impacts associated with any modifications to the creek channel. 3.0 PRELIMINARY PROJECT CONSTRAINTS 3.1 UTILITY AND ROADS Based on data collected in our topographic survey dated October 2016, information received from the City’s Utilities Department, and field verification from City’s Park Rangers, major utilities bisect both Las Trampas and Wildhorse Valley near where Buckeye Creek is currently located. These utilities include a sanitary sewer, a pressurized water main, and fiber optic communication cable, phone and electric lines. For purposes of this study, we assumed that relocation of the major utility corridor traversing the valley containing water, sewer, electric and fiber optic cables is cost prohibitive. In the Wildhorse Valley area, these utilities are located for the most part within a roadway alignment that bisects the valley. The roadway serves a pump station for municipal water supply located at the upper end of Wildhorse Valley and thus cannot be readily removed. The AT&T telephone lines, which were not installed in the city’s major utility corridor, are considered potentially relocatable for purposes of this study. Major utilities are shown on work maps furnished in Appendix C. 3.2 MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS The Foothills Park maintenance buildings and equipment yard, located in the Las Trampas Valley at the lower end of the project, appears to be located in an area that was once part of the historic creek alignment. For purposes of this study, we assumed that it is cost prohibitive to relocate the maintenance buildings. 3.3 PARK USES The large lawn area in Las Trampas Valley has been used for recreation activities since the park opened in 1965. In addition to individual park visitors and families relaxing and recreating, the area is also frequently used by people using the adjacent Orchard Glen picnic area and by people City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 19 August 11, 2017 who have rented the Oak Grove picnic area. The Oak Grove picnic area accommodates up to 150 people. The lawn area is also used by City’s Recreation Division to host children who participate in the Foothills Park summer camps. Staff have evaluated the amount of use on the lawn area, and believe that half of the lawn area could be used for restoring the creek, and the remaining half of the turf could still meet the recreational needs for park visitors. The existing Orchard Glen picnic area and adjacent historic redwood grove are also considered uses, which must remain in place after the project is implemented. There are 16 acres of turf grass lawn in Foothills Park, including 10 acres in Las Trampas Valley and 6 acres near the park entrance and lake area. If the section of creek in Las Trampas Valley is widened as proposed, there would still be 11 acres of lawn area in the park. 3.4 OTHER CONSTRAINTS/LIMITATIONS A comprehensive cultural resources study and field biological assessment were not conducted as a part of this study. Additional constraints may be identified when these studies are conducted in the preliminary engineering phase. 4.0 RESTORATION RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES AND STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK Based on our discussions with City staff, and our experience with several other projects, we prepared several preliminary alternatives for the project. The alternatives contained the basic concepts of: 1. Incorporating floodplains into the existing incised channel through Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7-acre parcel where practicable, to reduce in-channel velocities and reduce erosion potential along a wider creek channel. 2. Spreading flow across a wider portion of Wildhorse Valley where floodplain creation is impractical in the current channel configuration based on locations of utilities. A basic concept of creating a new channel to the west of the existing roadway through Wildhorse Valley was conceptually proposed to spread more water across the existing alluvial plain. We attended two stakeholder meetings to present these basic concepts and receive feedback in order to refine the concepts into a preferred alternative. The first was a community meeting conducted on December 6, 2016, at the Foothills Park Interpretive Center with approximately 25 members of the public in attendance. Given the generally positive feedback from this meeting, a second stakeholder meeting was conducted with Federal and State agencies on February 8, 2017. Representatives from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) provided feedback on the preliminary restoration concepts presented. Modifications to the basic concepts into a preferred alternative are noted as follows: 1. Although there was interest in incorporating habitat features for Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) into the proposed restoration project at the public meeting in December 2016, the general consensus from the USFWS and RWQCB was that the potential for this species was too low to consider into design elements. Therefore, several of the larger grade control structures in the creek channel could be replaced with retrofitted rock structures with equivalent vertical drops, generally in the 6- to 8-foot range. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 20 August 11, 2017 2. The RWQCB and the consensus of public stakeholders was that space in the Park should be allocated for the project to the maximum extent possible for the creek restoration effort in order for the project to be successful. 3. The preferred alternative takes into account the preference to eliminate a bifurcation and remove the sediment basin at the top of Wildhorse Valley by the RWQCB as compared to the alternative concept presented to them. The preferred alternative will realign western flows into a large area between the existing road alignment and the westerly toe of slope, thought to be the approximate historic creek alignment, and will leave the existing flows entering the valley from the east and south in the created channel. 4. The USFWS suggested that we incorporate a frog amenity for California Red-Legged Frogs (Rana draytonii), which are listed as endangered species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Another community meeting was held on June 12, 2017. Although, the number of participants was low, there was unanimous support for the recommended solutions to solve the creek’s erosion problem. In addition to stakeholder meeting feedback, City staff believe the proposed improvements to the creek would allow them to incorporate more nature elements into the curriculum for their camps at Foothills Park. The improved access to riparian areas next to the lawn will be a helpful addition in providing new opportunities for environmental education. 4.2 PREFERRED ALTERATIVE RECOMMENDATION The project intends to restore and modify portions of Buckeye Creek by connecting portions of the creek channel to create seasonal wetland floodplains in the lower reach (Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acre parcel), and by creating a new alluvial channel in the upper reach (Wildhorse Valley) in the historic Buckeye Creek channel alignment, which would allow the creek full utilization of its historic floodplain. Minor modifications have been made to the preferred alternatives based on stakeholder feedback received and discussed below. Below is an Illustrative graphic of the preferred alternative. Full sized plates are located in an appendix of the report, graphically depicting the preferred alternative and details. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 21 August 11, 2017 ILLUSTRATIVE FIGURE 1: Conceptual Design Plan of Preferred Alternative (Full size figure located in Rear of Report). 4.2.1 Lower Reach The lower reach would create approximately 4.2 acres of additional floodplain and wetlands (as shown on the Project plans). This reach is divided into two sub-reaches for purposes of discussion. The lower sub-reach, part of the 7.7 acres of undeveloped parkland, would create a 1.2-acre floodplain at approximately the ordinary high water mark and extend westerly at a 2 percent slope approximately to the extent of the 100-year water surface elevation. Based on hydraulic modeling performed, the area of the proposed floodplain is currently above the current 100-year water surface elevation and therefore lowering of this area would dissipate peak flows, equilibrate sediment transport and provide the opportunity to enhance habitat. Energy dissipation consisting of rock rip-rap would be installed at both expansion and contraction locations. Trails could be built within the floodplain area, to allow park visitors access to the creek to learn about riparian habitat, with the understanding that they would need to be maintained after large rain events. The upper sub-reach would create approximately 3.0 acres of floodplain by removing soil material in the existing grass field in Las Trampas Valley, which appears to consist of fill material placed in the historic floodplain. The current proposal would move the existing channel thalweg (low flow channel) to approximately its historic alignment and grade in an extensive floodplain above the ordinary high water mark. This would involve filling in the existing creek channel adjacent to the lawn area. As in the lower subreach, energy dissipation consisting of rock rip-rap and step-pools City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 22 August 11, 2017 would be installed at both expansion and contraction locations and the general stream benefits (flood flow reduction, sediment transport equilibrium, habitat enhancement) would be the same. Note that significant tree removal is required in this reach of creek to create the floodplain. It appears that approximately 100 trees would be removed that are currently protected under the City of Palo Alto tree ordinance. The existing grass lawn area would be reduced as the creek floodway is expanded in this area. As mentioned above, in terms of the lawn area, there are 16 acres of turf grass in Foothills Park. There are 10 acres in Las Trampas Valley and 6 acres near the park entrance and lake area. If the section of creek in Las Trampas Valley were widened as proposed, there would still be 11 acres of grass in the park. The reduction in turf area will also help conserve water. 4.2.2 Upper Reach Given the constraint of existing major utility lines that bisect the Wildhorse Valley in the upper reach area, the project would recreate certain historic floodplain functions by re-routing flows entering the westerly portion of the upper Buckeye Creek within Wildhorse Valley in a recreated channel. The channel would meander through the historic floodplain in an alignment more similar to its historic state. The new channel would be designed using geomorphic principles, including a low flow channel, a stable slope and a floodplain. The upper westerly tributary to Buckeye Creek would need to be re-routed near the existing sediment basin at the upper end of Wildhorse Valley to capture flows and a stabilized confluence would also be installed where the new creek would meet the existing channel. Based on our preliminary analysis, some grade control structures would also be required in the new channel to reduce flow velocities below established erosion thresholds. Several aging wooden and gabion grade control structures in the existing channel would also be retrofitted to meet current restoration standards as shown on the Project plans. The existing sediment basin located at the base of the creek system at the top of Wildhorse Valley would also be eliminated and the existing tributary of Buckeye Creek coming from the south would directly connect to the new Wildhorse Valley channel. Approximately 2,655 linear feet of channel creation and 5.5 acres of floodplain creation are estimated in this area. Photo 10 and 11 show examples of a creek restoration project during and after construction, respectively. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 23 August 11, 2017 PHOTO 10: A typical creek restoration project during construction with grade control structures and temporary erosion control matting placed immediately after grading PHOTO 11: Photo taken from same vantage point, 10 years later City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 24 August 11, 2017 4.3 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC RESULTS 4.3.1 Preferred Alternative Hydrology The preferred alternative would create two large floodplains in the lower reaches of Buckeye Creek in the Las Trampas Valley area and 7.7-acre area, as well as create a new channel in Wildhorse Valley to the south of the road and utility corridor where the creek historically flowed. The effect of re-routing flows and creating floodplains was studied in the existing conditions HEC-HMS model by remodeling subwatershed flow and adding roughness and storage areas to existing reaches. It is expected that the addition of floodplain storage, lessening the bed slope of the creek and slowing the velocity of the creek by implementation of the preferred alternative would attenuate peak flow hydrographs. The modifications are summarized in Table 4 below: TABLE 4: Coefficients Used in the Modeling REACH SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO REACH ROUTING Wildhorse Valley Added new creek to route runoff from Watershed 1 to Watershed 3 outlet. Watershed 2 continues to be routed through the existing channel. Hydraulically rough overbank with Manning’s ‘n’ value of 0.065 added to new creek. Las Trampas Valley Modified creek geometry including the addition of two new proposed floodplains. Two idealized cross sections were used, each to represent the two sections of channel and floodplain located within Watershed 5. Hydraulically rough overbank with Manning’s ‘n’ value of 0.065 added to new creek. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 25 August 11, 2017 Results Figure 6 below summarizes the hydrologic results of the preferred alternative: FIGURE 6: Results of Post-Project Hydrologic Modeling City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 26 August 11, 2017 The following table summarizes the differences of pre- and post-project flows at two significant nodes. TABLE 5: Results of Hydrologic Modeling NODE Q2 (existing) cfs Q2 (final) cfs Q5 (existing) cfs Q5 (final) cfs Q10 (existing) cfs Q10 (final) cfs Q100 (existing) cfs Q100 (final) cfs 3 (Orchard Glen Picnic Area) 44 43.5 83 82.4 336 328.1 683 655.8 5 (Project Outfall) 78 77.3 143 141.6 579 572.6 1163 1142.5 As noted above, our preliminary analysis estimates that the preferred alternative would reduce flow rates at the project outfall by approximately 2 percent during the 100-year storm event. This reduction is not substantial because the project is not proposing to detain flows in detention structures or provide other engineered control features, which would further reduce post-project flow rates. Flow attenuation is only being provided by spreading flows onto floodplain areas. However, this reduction may be beneficial to the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority who maintain flood control structures downstream of the project including several levees as previously shown on Figure 1. 4.3.2 Preferred Alternative Hydraulics Hydraulics Modeling was performed in the HEC-RAS program of the areas where modifications were proposed for the preferred alternative. For the new creek in Wildhorse Valley, a new low flow channel was designed to carry approximately the 2-year flow. In order to reduce erosional velocities, grade control structures and floodplains were added so that 5-year flows in the new reach achieved velocities less than approximately 5 fps except in stabilized areas and 100-year velocities similarly were computed below 10 fps, which is slightly less than the USACE criteria. Ultimately, the bed slope of the new creek was graded at approximately 2 percent to achieve the velocity parameters described above. By using the 2% bed slope, adding grade control structures and floodplains, the post-project modeling shows great potential to reduce the erosion potential of the creek channel. For the modified reach in Las Trampas Valley, a floodplain was created based on area available to the project in both the 7.7-acre undeveloped park parcel area and in the larger grassy area upstream. Based on the preliminary results of the HEC-RAS analysis, some meandering of the channel was performed to reduce 5-year velocities below 5 fps, reduce 100-year velocities below 10 fps, and reduce the overall channel bed-slope to approximately 2 percent. Again, the post-project modeling shows considerable improvement in reducing erosive flows through implementation of the preferred alternative. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 27 August 11, 2017 The following table summarizes the results of our study: TABLE 6: Results of Hydraulic Modeling REACH MODIFICATIONS Las Trampas 7.7-acre parcel Added 1.2 acres of floodplain Las Trampas – Upper Area Added 3.0 acres of floodplain and lengthened channel by 163 L.F. Wildhorse Creek Added new creek with 2655L.F. of channel, 7 grade control structures, and 5.5 acres of floodplain 4.3.3 Preferred Alternative Sediment Transport After modifications were made in the HEC-RAS model as described above, sediment transport modeling was also performed for the watershed using the same methodology described in Section 2.4. The modeling results indicate approximately 55% reduction in sediment flux as presented in Table 7 below. Detailed output from the model is provided in Appendix D. TABLE 7: Results of Hydraulic Modeling MODEL 5-YEAR SEDIMENT FLUX AT OUTFALL (TONS) Existing Conditions 4917 tons Proposed Conditions 2196 tons The additional floodplains in both Las Trampas and Wildhorse Valley appear to capture the majority of the sediment flux created at the top of the watershed and create a much better equilibrium condition throughout the Foothills Park study area. 4.4 DESIGN OF FLOODPLAINS Floodplains incorporated into the preferred alternative are intended to be hydraulically rough and slow velocities in reaches of Buckeye Creek where they can be installed. We recommend the following for floodplain areas incorporated into the preferred alternative. 1. Floodplains should be graded such that flows over approximately the 2-year recurrence interval can spread onto them during very large storm events. 2. Floodplains should be graded at a longitudinal slope between 2 and 5 percent, such that positive drainage is directed back into the creek channel after flood flows are dissipated. 3. Pathways may be incorporated onto floodplains as necessary, with the understanding that minor maintenance may be necessary after large storms. 4. Planting of native grass and forbs species that can withstand flood flows and create a hydraulically rough surface are encouraged. As project planning progresses, a planting palette should be developed based on appropriate grass and shrubs species that are native and thrive in this ephemeral type of environment. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 28 August 11, 2017 5. Seasonal wetlands can also be installed on floodplains. However, some sedimentation of the wetlands may be expected. 4.5 DESIGN AND RETROFIT OF GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES / BANK STABILIZATION The existing creek channel contains several grade control structures within Las Trampas and Wildhorse Valleys. Grade control structures are intended to reduce in-channel bed slopes to more stable gradients. For this creek, the flatter gradients mimic those of a more historically sinuous channel that likely existed prior to straightening of the channel and removal of surrounding floodplains. Based on our site reconnaissance of the project, the existing timber and gabion-basket grade control structures are at the end of their useful life cycle and will likely need to be replaced within the next 10 years. The wire in many of the gabion baskets is worn to the point of failing, which will compromise the integrity of the installation. Moreover, gabion baskets may harm certain types of terrestrial wildlife and are no longer the standard of practice in restoration design. In terms of the timber grade control structures, the integrity of the aged wood does not appear to be high at this point in their lifespan. Based on our experience, these type of timber structures last approximately 40 years. We understand these structures were installed in 1967/1968 and are therefore beyond their expected life span. Current restoration practice is to install grade control structures made of very durable rock. We recommend that existing timber and gabion grade control structures and bank stabilization be replaced with rock structures that are more permanent in nature. Since most of the existing structures lie outside of the limits of the work proposed by the preferred alternative, the replacement of these structures is also included in the final cost estimate of the project as a separate line item. 5.0 PERMITTING AND IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS The preliminary Biological Assessment for the project defines waters of the United States and waters of the State of California for the project, as well as potential for species to occur on site that are protected under State of Federal wildlife codes. In order to move forward, we expect this project will require the following permits. USACE According to the feedback received at the interagency meeting, we expect that the project will require a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27 for Aquatic Habitat Restoration, which has no impact limit. If there is infrastructure maintenance work as well, the project would likely be classified under a NWP 3, with limits of ½-acre impact to waters of the United States. USFWS Based on discussions with the USFWS, they would provide Section 7 consultation to the USACE in terms of impacts to species covered under the Federal Endangered Species act listed in the preliminary Biological Assessment. This would occur as part of the USACE permitting process. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 29 August 11, 2017 RWQCB The project would need to apply for a 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB for impacts to waters of the State of California. The RWQCB will be the lead agency in terms of creek restoration technical guidance in the San Francisco Bay Area. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) The project would also need to apply for a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) from CDFW since the project involves grading within their jurisdiction. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) The project would not need to apply to this agency for a permit unless there is an easement or right-of-way that encumbers Buckeye Creek where the project intends to work. Based on a discussion with the agency, it is unlikely that there are easements or rights-of-way dedicated to SCVWD in this part of Palo Alto. A title report could confirm this. The project would need to also complete a document to show compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to receive permitting clearances from CDFW and RWQCB. Overall, we expect the time frame to run between 18 to 36 months to complete all of the permitting requirements required. 5.2 REGULATORY APPROACH The City of Palo Alto may develop California Environmental Quality Act studies and approvals alongside the USASE, CDFW and USACE applications. However, we recommend that the RWQCB and CDFW applications be submitted prior to circulation of a CEQA document. With this approach, any feedback from these agencies can be incorporated into the project before the Draft CEQA document is circulated. 5.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE RESTORATION RECOMMENDATION The consultant and City staff recommend the preferred alternative as solution to Buckeye Creek’s hydrology issues. However, there are other options you may wish to pursue. The following is a list of the options and their implications: 1. The City could propose to do nothing. With the grade control structures on-site at the end of their useful life span; we expect failures of many of the structures in 5 to 10 years. This would lead to severe erosional problems in several areas of the Park, especially in Wildhorse Valley where the utility corridor would be threatened. Several bridge structures would also become unusable. Eventually the City would have to propose some structural improvements in the creek channel to protect the existing utility corridor from being undermined. This would require Federal and State permits as described above. The USACE/RWQCB and CDFW would likely ask the City to provide a more holistic intervention approach to managing issues in the watershed and potentially deny permitting clearances for activities where continued regular maintenance of the channel is proposed solely to prevent disruption of utility services. 2. The City could propose to retrofit existing grade control structures as a minimum project. This would not solve sediment issues at the top of the project, nor depositional and flooding issues near the 7.7-acre parcel. Given the current state of the channel, retrofitted grade control City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 30 August 11, 2017 structures would need to be geotechnically designed to withstand additional scour and very large sediment loads, making them significantly more expensive to build and maintain than if the whole channel were re-configured. This scenario would also be difficult to permit from the USACE/RWQCB and CDFW who would again ask for a less engineered approach to solve issues associated with the historic modifications to the creek channel with minimal in-channel maintenance requirements. 3. The City could split the project into two or three separate projects for the Wildhorse Valley, Las Trampas Valley and 7.7-acre parcel, respectively. Because the majority of excess sediment appears to be created at the top of Wildhorse Valley, implementation of that project first would provide the greatest benefit to the creek channel downstream. However, given the effort of regulatory permitting and time lag associated with implementation of a phased approach, splitting the larger project into several smaller projects would add substantial cost and duration to address the current situation. 4. Based on the amount of time required to implement the project, the severity of the existing condition, and the cost savings associated with one set of permitting clearances to implement a comprehensive solution, we recommend funding the project in its entirety and completing the entire project in one concurrent phase. 6.0 COST ANALYSIS 6.1 RESULTS OF COST ANALYSIS The preliminarily construction cost for the project is estimated to be around $9,700,000. Generally, costs associated with design and permitting, and post-construction monitoring for projects with this level of Federal and State involvement are approximately 15 percent of the construction costs. This cost also depends on phasing of the project, which would break up the project into multiple permitting timelines. Estimated Costs are shown in the table below: TABLE 8: Buckeye Creek Rough Construction Costs and Quantities ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL Reach 1 - 7.7 acre parcel 523 linear feet of floodplain creation Excavation 10,100 C.Y. $20 $202,000 Floodplain Revegetation 54,340 S.F. $10 $543,400 Erosion Control 2,000 S.Y. $9 $18,000 Cofferdams 1 L.S. $10,000 $10,000 Trail/Boardwalk/Signs 1 L.S. $50,000 $50,000 Tree Removal 1 L.S. $15,000 $15,000 Subtotal $838,400 Reach 2 - (Las Trampas Valley) 1470 linear feet of floodplain creation near interpretive center Excavation 36,000 C.Y. $20 $720,000 Floodplain Revegetation 244,713 S.F. $10 $2,447,130 Erosion Control 9,000 S.Y. $9 $81,000 Cofferdams 1 L.S. $10,000 $10,000 City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 31 August 11, 2017 ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL New Pedestrian Bridge 1 L.S. $60,000 $100,000 Tree Removal 1 L.S. $50,000 $50,000 Subtotal $3,408,130 Reach 3 - (Wildhorse Valley) 2655 linear feet of creek creation and 2000 linear feet of floodplain creation Excavation 15,000 C.Y. $20 $300,000 Floodplain Revegetation 95,160 S.F. $10 $951,600 Erosion Control 3,500 S.Y. $9 $31,500 Cofferdams 1 L.S. $10,000 $10,000 Diversion Structure 1 L.S. $60,000 $60,000 Drop Structures 7 L.S. $35,000 $245,000 Transition Structure 1 L.S. $60,000 $60,000 Tree Removal 1 L.S. $30,000 $30,000 Sediment Pond Fill and Revegetation 1 L.S. $55,000 $55,000 Subtotal $1,743,100 Retrofit of Existing Grade Control Structures* Replace 3 grade control structures - Reach 2 (Las Trampas Valley) $300,000 Replace 6 grade control structures - Existing Channel (Wildhorse Valley) $200,000 Revegetation of Existing Creek Wildhorse Valley $150,000 Erosion Control 100 S.Y. $9 $900 Subtotal $650,900 *Add 50% to this cost if performed as standalone project Total - Construction $6,640,530 Assume construction costs are current with 4% annual increase for 5-years For permitting / entitlements $8,079,220 Permitting / Design Costs Typically, for a large restoration project with significant Federal and State Permitting, permitting, design and administrations costs run approximately 20% of construction. If the project is phased, or a smaller project is envisioned, assume soft costs will run 25% for each smaller project $1,615,844 Grand Total $9,695,064 6.2 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES 6.2.1 Grant Funding A myriad of grant funding sources may be available from the following agencies to assist in the financing of the project. We list several potential likely sources of grant funding for which this project is likely to be eligible, assuming these grant programs continue: 1. Santa Clara Valley Water District Measure Priority D Grant program. 2. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Proposition 1 Restoration Grant Program. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 32 August 11, 2017 3. California State Coastal Conservancy – Climate Ready Program or Proposition 1 Restoration Grant Program. 4. United States Environmental Protection Agency - San Francisco Bay Area Water Quality Improvement Fund. 5. Natural Resources Conservation Service - Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). 6. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Wells Fargo - Resilient Communities Program. Once project planning progresses, we recommend consulting with the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture prior to verify these grant programs are still available and to inquire about any new grant opportunities. 6.2.2 Mitigation Matching Outside of grant funding, it is also possible that the project may be used as a mitigation bank to offset unavoidable wetland or stream impacts created by projects elsewhere in the City of Palo Alto area, preferably in the San Francisquito Creek watershed. If unavoidable project impacts to wetland or stream areas are acceptable to the RWQCB or USACE as part of the 401/404 permitting process, the permittee may be able to purchase created wetlands or stream features from the Buckeye Creek project to offset their unavoidable impacts as compensatory mitigation. This type of arrangement is often used for bridge widening projects or other structural creek bank improvements near roadways performed by Public Works Agencies. Implementation of the restoration plan for Buckeye Creek would generate stream, riparian, and/or freshwater wetland mitigation credits that would be marketed to permittees in order to offset up-front funding costs for the project. Typical marketing consists of posting of potential offset mitigation opportunities on existing web sites, so that permittees are aware of the opportunity. Once a potential permittee has been identified, a third party generally helps the City vet that permittee to ensure that the restoration site will meet their mitigation needs. If so, the permittee will work with the City and the regulatory agencies to identify a section of the restoration site that is suitable for mitigation credits. Once the City and permittee vet the project and receive permitting clearances from the RWQCB and USACE, the permittee pays a non-refundable deposit to City. The deposit covers City staff time and any third party costs. Then as the process progresses, the permittee pays the City additional deposits as milestones are met and the total agreed cost is paid in full (typically 5 years for wetlands and ten years for streams and riparian corridors). Once the agencies determine that the permittee’s mitigation obligation can be satisfied at the restoration site, a long-term management plan for the selected mitigation area is prepared as well as a conservation easement to hold the easement and endowment that will be used to manage the property in perpetuity. Once the restoration has been completed and the easement is recorded the City, an approved non-profit or a third party can serve the role as the land manager. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 33 August 11, 2017 7.0 MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS When necessary, Foothills Park staff removes sediment from the creek and stockpiles the material in the park near the areas where it was removed. We recommend moving the existing stockpiled sediment and any future sediment generated, prior to implementing the project, to areas where sediment material can be permanently placed in the park. The two areas shown on the map below area are areas where the stockpiled sediment can be integrated without impact the aesthetics or drainage of the park. Potential Stockpile Area #1 is located near Fire Station 8, and is a low area that was graded for development when Foothills Park was first built. Potential Stockpile Area #2 is an area where soil had been removed in the 1980s to help rebuild the Boronda Lake Dam (see map below). It should be noted that the private resident whose property borders the 7.7 acres has managed the creek sediment removal process up until now at his cost. The City will now be responsible for that work unless an agreement between the City and the private resident is obtained. FIGURE 7: Potential Stockpile Areas near Boronda Lake; Source: City of Palo Alto During the permitting process, an operations and maintenance manual will be drafted for incorporation into project permits for the permanent operations and maintenance of the creek systems within the park, with the USACE, CDFW and RWQCB. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 34 August 11, 2017 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 CONCLUSIONS The result of this hydrologic and feasibility analysis are summarized as follows: 1. Based on historic knowledge and a review of historic photographs of the reach of Buckeye Creek located within Foothills Park, major alterations to the watercourse and adjacent valley floodplains have taken place in the last 100 years. 2. Detrimental erosion issues that currently exist are the result of many previous modifications to the creek channel. Erosional processes are currently undermining several in-line structures and bridges that span the creek. Moreover, the generation of excess sediment is likely impairing downstream watercourses in the San Francisquito Creek watershed, and Park Staff is exhausting resources on continued desilting activities associated with excessive deposition at the creek outfall. If the City does nothing, our opinion is that the existing grade control structures and trail bridges will ultimately fail, and large areas of erosion will engulf portions of the Orchard Glen Picnic Area and portions of the existing 10-acre lawn area in Las Trampas Valley, and ultimately undermine the existing utility and road corridor in Wildhorse Valley. 3. The creek cannot be restored back to the pre 1900s condition without disrupting many existing land uses in the park and modifying several utility corridors that have been installed, which is cost prohibitive. 8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Several areas exist in the Park where modifications to the existing creek could be made to better equilibrate sediment transport processes in the channel and provide additional riparian habitat. 2. Based on our hydrologic and feasibility study, modifications to the creek channel as proposed in the recommended preferred alternative, such as floodplain enhancement and re-routing creek flows in Wildhorse Valley, would greatly improve the habitat, and help resolve issues of erosion, flooding, and excessive sediment transport processes in the creek. 3. Select additional biological and cultural resource studies would need to take place before a final alternative could ultimately be designed and permitted. However, the general recommendations in this report provide a framework that can be incorporated into a design-level study. 4. Temporary impacts to the creek will occur if the project is constructed. This will involve tree removals, and disruption of the creek bed in areas in Las Trampas Valley where the creek is proposed to be filled in. These temporary impacts can be mitigated through pre-construction biological surveys and a restoration plan to replace loss of tree canopy. However, the overall long-term benefits to the creek include enhancing downstream water quality for aquatic habitat, creating a more robust riparian corridor in the Park itself, reducing flood flows, reducing irrigation water use, and stabilizing all areas of the creek. These benefits outweigh the temporary impacts associated with completion of the project. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study Page | 35 August 11, 2017 5. The project should be implemented, if possible, in one phase. This would accelerate a comprehensive solution to the existing condition and reduce the additional cost associated with breaking up the project into multiple phases. 9.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner to transmit the information and recommendations of this report to developers, contractors, buyers, architects, engineers and designers for the project so that the necessary steps can be taken by the contractors and subcontractors to carry out such recommendations in the field. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are solely professional opinions. This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse; that is, reuse without written authorization of ENGEO. Such authorization is essential because it requires ENGEO to evaluate the document's applicability given new circumstances, not the least of which is passage of time. Actual field or other conditions will necessitate clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes to ENGEO's work. Therefore, ENGEO must be engaged to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications or other changes before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. If ENGEO's scope of services does not include onsite construction observation, or if other persons or entities are retained to provide such services, ENGEO cannot be held responsible for any or all claims, including, but not limited to claims arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities, and any or all claims arising from or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications, discrepancies or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions. City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek – Foothills Park 13010.000.000 Hydrologic Analysis and Restoration Feasibility Study August 11, 2017 SELECTED REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); 1995, Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Chow, V. T.; 1959, “Open Channel Hydraulics,” McGraw-Hill, New York. Georgia Stormwater Manual; Energy Dissipation, April 2007. Gray, D. H., and A. Leiser; 1977, Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control, John Wiley and Sons, New York. International Erosion Control Association (ICEA); 1996, Design Procedures for Channel Protection and Creekbank Improvement. Leopold, L. B., Wolman, M. G., and Miller J. P.; 1964, Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco. Nixon M. A study of Bankfull Discharges in Rivers in England and Wales. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 12-157, 1959. National Resource Conservation Service. Streambank Soil Bioengineering, Technical Supplement 14I (210–VI–NEH, August 2007). Riley, Ann. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Technical Reference Circular W.D. 02 - #1. A Primer on Stream and River Protection for the Regulator and program Manager. Rosgen, Dave; 1996, Applied River Morphology, Second Edition, Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Santa Clara County, Drainage Manual, 2007. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Hydraulic Stability of Natural Channels EM 1110 2-1418, 1994.United States Army Corps of Engineers (AC0E); Flood Control Engineering Manual. www.historicaerials.com, Images from 1956 and 1968, Palo Alto, California. ILLUSTRATIVE GRAPHICS Trancos Trail Valley V i e w Fire Road Coyot e T r a i l Madera Point Chamise Trail Arbolejo Overlook Vista Hill Wood r a t Trail Toyon Trail Orchard Glen Picnic Area Toyon Trail Fire R o a d Charlie Br o w nLos Tr a n c o s Trail Sunrise Trail Steep H o l l o w Trail Fire Roa d Madron e Los T r a n c o s Trail Fer n L o o p Tr a i l Towle Campground Los Foothill s P a r k Private P r o p e r t y Foot h i l l s P a r k Priva t e P r o p e r t y Boronda Lake Quarry Lakes Exis�ng alignment of Buckeye Creek, to be replaced New floodplain approximately 3 acres Interpre�ve Center & Parking Buckeye Creek Exis�ng alignment of Buckeye Creek, to be replaced New floodplain approximately 1.2 acres Exis�ng alignment of Buckeye Creek, to remain New Buckeye Creek channel New foot bridge Wildh o r s e V a l l e y Las T r a m p a s V a l l e y Las Tra m p a s V a l l e y W i l d h o r s e V a l l e y New foot bridge Nursery to Los Trancas New foot bridge Exis�ng bridge New foot bridge New floodplain approximately 5.5 acres existin g t r i b u t a r y exist i n g t r i b u t a r y exi s t i n g tri b u t a r y Exis�ng reach to remain New park area 7.7 acres Emergency access and egress route Maintenance shop buildings Exis�ng bridge existingtrib u t a r y existing tributary Existing Buckeye Creek channel, to remain Existing Buckeye Creek channel to be removed New channel of Buckeye Creek Other waterways & tributaries Water body New floodplain Energy disspating structure 2017 survey area boundary Paved roads Trails Fire road LEGEND Figure 1. Conceptual Design Plan Buckeye Creek Restoration Project Not For Construction N 0 100 200 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Bridge (existing) Bridge (new) Building Topography Park boundary Figure 2. Conceptual Detail Plans Buckeye Creek Restoration Project Not For Construction 2.1 7.7 Acre New Floodplain and Picnic Area N 0 25 50 parking road new pedestrian bridge Buckey e Cre e k visitors’ center 2017 survey area boundary new floodplain boundary exis�ng Buckeye Creek alignment to be removed new riparian plan�ngsnew interpre�ve sign Los Trancos Trail C h e m i s e T r a i l 5 acres of grass lawn 2.2 Interpretive Center Vicinity Quarry Lakes Buckey e exis�ng bridge Cre e k 2017 survey area boundary roa dro a d nursery area exis�ng creek channel to remain new floodplain boundary emergency access and egress route bo u n d a r y o f n e w 7 . 7 a c r e p a r k p r o p e r t y NOTE: Trees shown are illustrative only, and do not represent final proposed plantings. PUBLIC ACCESSUPLAND GRASSLAND UPLAND GRASSLANDNEW RIPARIAN CORRIDOR NEW RIPARIAN CORRIDOR NEW CHANNEL 60% of existing flow ENHANCED EXISTING RIPARIAN WETLAND EXISTING CHANNEL UPLAND WOODLAND & GRASSLAND PR O J E C T A R E A B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T A R E A B O U N D A R Y NE W C R E E K C H A N N E L F L O O D P L A I N A R E A roads and trails Figure 3. Conceptual Cross Section: Wildhorse Valley (Looking North) Buckeye Creek Restoration Project Not For Construction existing grade proposed grade new pedestrian bridge 40% of existing flow NE W C R E E K C H A N N E L F L O O D P L A I N A R E A EN- HANCED EXISTING RIPARIAN WET- LAND 4.2 Drop Structure (A-A’)4.3 Drop Structure Example Figure 4. Stream Details Buckeye Creek Restoration Project Not For Construction 4.1 Typical Stream Reach Plan View A A’ Pool: Areas of slow flowing deep water, often on the outside of bends Run: Smooth, unbroken flow connecting riffle and pool areas Riffle: Fast, shallow flow over boulders and cobbles which break the water surface Grade control structure with scour pool (see 4.2) A A’ Direction of flow STEP POOL STEP APPENDIX A HISTORY OF BUCKEYE CREEK IN FOOTHILLS PARK 13010.000.000 June 13, 2017 HISTORY OF BUCKEYE CREEK IN FOOTHILLS PARK A brief summary of the history of Buckeye Creek in Foothills Park as compiled by Curt Dunn, Supervising Ranger, Fall 2017.  A Tea House was placed in the current Orchard Glen picnic area 1915 with a drinking well. The well is likely the one in the eastern end of Las Trampas Valley found in the park today. This was the first inhabitation of what is now Foothills Park.  The area was used as a Pig Farm for 25-years until mid/late 1930’s.  During the Early 1940s, a property owner (Dr. Lee) first cleared the vegetation in Wildhorse Valley and dug a ditch halfway up the valley to drain water on the eastern side of Wildhorse Valley.  During the Early 1950s, SRI International and the Army experimented with anti-tank mines in Wildhorse Valley. Workers developing the park and installing utilities found mines in the early 1960s. Bulldozers were brought in to locate and dislodge mines without detonators.  Development of Wildhorse Valley with heavy equipment starts in early to mid-1960s after the land was purchased by the City of Palo Alto. The Wildhorse Valley portion of Buckeye Creek appears to be filled in on a 1960 aerial photograph. By 1963, the channel reestablishes from Fern gully to Los Trancos gully and along the valley’s eastern side. The deepest section in Wildhorse Valley is 7.4 feet in 1963, according to plans prepared at that time.  In 1968, an improved road and underground utilities were installed in Wildhorse Valley. An August 1968 aerial photograph shows the main channel as a deep continuous gully, connected to the Los Trancos and Fern gullies. Fern gully appears as a straight-engineered channel with a culvert 188 ft. from its confluence with the main gully. The pump station appears at the southern end of Wildhorse Valley with a road extending out to the valley entrance. The upper valley appears to have been leveled. Los Trancos gully has been straightened and connected via a culvert to the main gully (other literature states 500 ft. culvert for Los Trancos gully). Eight grade control structures were installed in the main gully to slow erosion following heavy rain ‘67/’68. Max depth is 13 ft. Los Trancos gully is 9 ft. deep (’68).  Maintenance shop in Los Trampas Valley constructed in 1968. The 1968/69 rainfall year was produced 40 inches of rainfall. Pictures show that the maintenance shop was inundated with sediment. Buckeye Creek was subsequently channelized and culverted past the maintenance shop in what is now the 7.7-acre parcel. This culverted section of Buckeye Creek clogged with sediment in the ‘82/’83 el Niño storms causing downstream flooding. This section was day lighted when all the gabion work in done in Wildhorse Valley in the mid-1980’s. APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS   Drainage Manual 2007  County of Santa Clara, California    8/14/2007 A‐4       Figure A‐2: Mean Annual Precipitation, Santa Clara County  Location of Map: http://www.scvurppp- w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/C3_Handbook/Handbook_ May_2006-Oct_update.pdf XT,D =AT,D + (BT,DMAP)inches XT,D = precipitation depth inches T = return period years D = storm duration (24 hours) hours AT,D,BT,D,= coefficients from Table B‐1 and ‐2 MAP = Mean Annual Precipitation inches Return Period A B 2‐Yr 0.314185 0.096343 5‐Yr 0.474528 0.136056 10‐Yr 0.567017 0.16255 100‐Yr 0.814046 0.243391 MAP = 31 inches X2yr,24hr = 3.30 in X5yr,24hr = 4.69 in X10yr,24hr = 5.61 in X100yr,24hr = 8.36 in Rainfall Depth Determination Rainfall Depth Equation Parameters Rainfall Depth       Drainage Manual 2007  County of Santa Clara, California    8/14/2007 E‐2     Table E‐1: Curve Numbers for AMC II  Land Use Type A B C D Open Water good (100% Impervious) fairpoor Low Density Residential good 35 48 66 70 (25% Impervious) fair 44587174 poor 64 68 78 79 High Density Residential good 35 48 65 70 (50% Impervious) fair 44587174 poor 64 68 78 79 Commercial/Industrial good 35 48 65 70(80% Impervious) fair 44587174 poor 64 68 78 79 Bare Rock/Sand/Clay (Imperviousness Varies) Quarries/Gravel Pits good 0 0 0 0 (0 % Impervious) fair 0 0 0 0poor 0 0 0 0 Deciduous Forest good 27 30 41 48 (0% Impervious) fair 35 48 57 63 poor 48 66 74 79 Evergreen Forest good 37 43 62 70 (0% Impervious) fair 45 57 69 80 poor 58 71 85 90 Mixed Forest good 32 36 51 59fair 40 52 63 72 poor 53 68 80 85 Shrub Land good 27 43 60 68 (0% Impervious) fair 35 51 65 72 poor 48 62 72 78 Orchards good 39 52 66 71 (1% Impervious) fair 43 65 76 82poor 57 73 82 86 Vineyards good64707780 (1% Impervious) fair 67 75 82 85 poor 71 80 87 90 Grassland good 38 50 69 76 (0% Impervious) fair 48 60 74 80 poor 58 70 80 84 Pasture/Hay good 34 50 69 76(0% Impervious) fair 44 60 74 80 poor 64 70 80 84 Row Crops good64707780 (1% Impervious) fair 67 75 82 85 poor 71 80 87 90 Small Grains good 48 58 70 74 (0% Impervious) fair 49 59 71 75poor 50 60 71 75 Fallow good64687879 (1% Impervious) fair 70 77 84 86 poor 77 86 91 94 Urban Recreational good 34 48 66 70 (10% Impervious) fair 44587174 poor 64 64 78 79 Hydrologic Soil GroupHydrologic Condition Drainage Manual 2007 County of Santa Clara, California    E‐3 8/14/2007    Table E‐2: Conversion of AMC II Curve Numbers to Other AMC Values  AMC II AMC I AMC III AMC II-1/4 AMC II-1/2 AMC II AMC I AMC III AMC II-1/4 AMC II-1/2 100 100 100 100 100 61 41 78 65.5 70 99 97 100 99.5 100 60 40 78 64.5 6998 94 99 98.5 99 59 39 77 63.5 68 97 91 99 97.5 98 58 38 76 62.5 67 96 89 99 97 98 57 37 75 61.5 6695 87 98 96 97 56 36 75 61 66 94 85 98 95 96 55 35 74 60 65 93 83 98 94.5 96 54 34 73 59 64 92 81 97 93.5 95 53 33 72 58 63 91 80 97 92.5 94 52 32 71 57 62 90 78 96 91.5 93 51 31 70 56 61 89 76 96 91 93 50 31 70 55 60 88 75 95 90 92 49 30 69 54 5987 73 95 89 91 48 29 68 53 58 86 72 94 88 90 47 28 67 52 57 85 70 94 87.5 90 46 27 66 51 5684 68 93 86.5 89 45 26 65 50 55 83 67 93 85.5 88 44 25 64 49 54 82 66 92 84.5 87 43 25 63 48 53 81 64 92 84 87 42 24 62 47 52 80 63 91 83 86 41 23 61 46 51 79 62 91 82 85 40 22 60 45 50 78 60 90 81 84 39 21 59 44 49 77 59 89 80 83 38 21 58 43 48 76 58 89 79.5 83 37 20 57 42 47 75 57 88 78.5 82 36 19 56 41 46 74 55 88 77.5 81 35 18 55 40 4573 54 87 76.5 80 34 18 54 39 44 72 53 86 75.5 79 33 17 53 38 43 71 52 86 75 79 32 16 52 37 4270 51 85 74 78 31 16 51 36 41 69 50 84 73 77 30 15 50 35 40 68 48 84 72 76 25 12 43 29.5 3467 47 83 71 75 20 9 37 24.5 29 66 46 82 70 74 15 6 30 19 23 65 45 82 69.5 74 10 4 22 13 16 64 44 81 68.5 73 5 2 13 7 9 63 43 80 67.5 72 0 0 0 0 0   APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS Existing Conditions Model Post-Project Model Existing Conditions Model 1+0 0 2+00 3+ 0 0 4+0 0 5+0 0 6+0 0 7 + 0 0 8 + 0 0 9 + 0 0 1 0 + 0 0 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+ 0 0 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+ 0 0 28+0 0 29+ 0 0 30+ 0 0 31+0 0 32+00 33+ 0 0 3 4 + 0 0 35+0 0 36+ 0 0 37 + 0 0 3 8 + 0 0 3 9 + 0 0 4 0 + 0 0 41 + 0 0 1+2 01+11 1+ 3 0 1+ 5 8 14+ 3 0 22+ 8 0 24+94 22 + 0 3 21+ 0 7 20 + 3 3 19+ 5 9 19+ 4 9 19+ 3 218+ 5 9 17+ 5 1 16+ 8 1 15 + 8 2 13 + 1 6 12 + 4 5 11 + 5 4 10+ 1 5 9+25 8+34 7+58 6+93 6+63 6+3 66+1 8 5+9 95+6 9 5+2 4 4+8 0 4+3 2 3+ 6 6 4+0 03+3 2 2+9 0 2+1 6 40+3 5 40+8 0 39+8 1 39+ 2 0 37+ 2 1 38+2 6 38+10 37+90 37+ 7 5 36+ 6 7 36+ 2 4 35+ 3 5 34+48 33+ 6 2 32+ 3 5 31 + 2 6 30+ 7 9 29+93 28+40 29+0 9 27+53 26+79 25+83 9+20 10+ 7 5 23+ 8 3 37+ 8 0 FIGU R E 1 FIGU R E 2 FIGU R E 1 FIGU R E 2 NN HEC RAS CROSS SECTION AND STATION LABEL FACING DOWNSTREAM10+00 BUCKEYE CREEK Expect Excellence PRE-PROJECT HEC-RAS WORK MAP BUCKEYE CREEK PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 13010.000.000 AS SHOWN C1 0 0 FEET METERS 100 50 EXPLANATION 32+00 33+00 34+0 0 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+0 0 39+0 0 40+ 0 0 4 1 + 0 0 4 2 + 0 0 43+0 0 44+00 45 + 0 0 46 + 0 0 47+00 48 + 0 0 49+0 0 50+ 0 0 51+ 0 0 52+0 0 53+00 54+ 0 0 55+ 0 0 56+ 0 0 57 + 0 0 5 8 + 0 0 59+00 60+00 61+00 62+00 63 + 0 0 64 + 0 0 65 + 0 0 6 6 + 0 0 67 + 0 0 6 8 + 0 0 69 + 0 0 70 + 0 0 70+08 69+69 69+30 68+9168+59 68+49 67+85 66+97 66+06 65+42 65+10 64+52 63+95 63+07 63+31 62 + 7 9 62+4 8 62 + 0 8 61 + 8 6 58+ 5 1 61 + 4 2 60+ 5 1 60+ 7 8 61 + 0 2 60+ 3 0 60 + 1 1 58+ 9 6 59 + 5 8 58+ 0 1 56+98 57+40 56+ 6 556+ 3 4 55+ 7 5 55 + 8 0 55+ 7 2 55+ 5 5 54+ 5 1 53 + 7 7 51+ 1 8 46+3 5 45+8 8 45+ 4 8 45+ 4 6 4 5 + 3 4 4 5 + 1 9 45 + 0 4 44+ 9 7 44+ 8 2 44 + 3 1 43 + 5 4 42+7 7 40+ 3 5 41+36 41+9 0 40+ 8 0 39 + 8 1 39 + 2 0 37 + 2 1 38+ 2 6 38+1037+90 37 + 7 5 36 + 6 7 36 + 2 4 35 + 3 5 34+ 4 8 33 + 6 2 32 + 3 5 53+ 0 4 52+ 4 8 51+ 9 0 51 + 9 6 51+ 8 3 50+ 6 5 50+ 0 8 49+ 4 6 47+ 8 3 47+ 2 2 48+5 6 37 + 8 0 64+15 FIG U R E 1 FIG U R E 2 FIG U R E 1 FIG U R E 2 BUCKEYE CREEK NN HEC RAS CROSS SECTION AND STATION LABEL FACING DOWNSTREAM10+000 0 FEET METERS 100 50 Expect Excellence PRE-PROJECT HEC-RAS WORK MAP BUCKEYE CREEK PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 13010.000.000 AS SHOWN C2 EXPLANATION HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 05 River: BEC Reach: BEC Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC 7008. Q2 28.00 804.67 806.21 806.21 806.75 0.027055 5.91 4.74 4.45 1.01 BEC 7008. Q5 56.00 804.67 806.88 806.88 807.62 0.025767 6.89 8.13 5.63 1.01 BEC 7008. Q10 228.00 804.67 809.18 809.18 810.16 0.016054 8.22 31.46 18.97 0.87 BEC 7008. Q100 458.00 804.67 810.58 810.38 811.69 0.011842 9.29 63.03 26.35 0.80 BEC 7004 Q2 28.00 804.50 805.48 805.80 806.53 0.067799 8.25 3.40 4.11 1.60 BEC 7004 Q5 56.00 804.50 806.06 806.45 807.41 0.055831 9.31 6.01 4.87 1.48 BEC 7004 Q10 228.00 804.50 808.78 808.98 810.06 0.021678 9.17 26.50 14.64 0.98 BEC 7004 Q100 458.00 804.50 810.35 810.35 811.63 0.014004 9.79 57.82 24.25 0.84 BEC 6969. Q2 28.00 803.47 804.69 804.69 805.12 0.023309 5.24 5.34 6.35 1.01 BEC 6969. Q5 56.00 803.47 805.17 805.23 805.79 0.024486 6.31 8.88 8.31 1.07 BEC 6969. Q10 228.00 803.47 806.07 806.87 808.57 0.063060 12.70 17.96 11.95 1.83 BEC 6969. Q100 458.00 803.47 807.00 808.20 810.45 0.053634 15.00 31.76 18.55 1.78 BEC 6930 Q2 28.00 799.54 800.52 801.09 802.88 0.226822 12.33 2.27 4.25 2.97 BEC 6930 Q5 56.00 799.54 800.92 801.69 803.63 0.162781 13.22 4.23 5.47 2.65 BEC 6930 Q10 228.00 799.54 802.24 803.22 805.57 0.094565 14.65 15.56 11.53 2.22 BEC 6930 Q100 458.00 799.54 803.10 804.49 807.77 0.084920 17.34 26.41 13.75 2.21 BEC 6891 Q2 28.00 796.78 797.95 798.15 798.65 0.052316 6.72 4.17 6.67 1.50 BEC 6891 Q5 56.00 796.78 798.26 798.63 799.47 0.062215 8.84 6.33 7.54 1.70 BEC 6891 Q10 228.00 796.78 799.37 800.28 802.28 0.070386 13.68 16.66 11.04 1.96 BEC 6891 Q100 458.00 796.78 800.18 801.50 804.70 0.070586 17.15 27.66 16.15 2.07 BEC 6859 Q2 28.00 794.90 795.65 795.93 796.56 0.077969 7.66 3.66 6.34 1.78 BEC 6859 Q5 56.00 794.90 796.02 796.42 797.33 0.068245 9.18 6.10 7.06 1.74 BEC 6859 Q10 228.00 794.90 797.33 798.22 800.09 0.061035 13.34 17.09 9.67 1.77 BEC 6859 Q100 458.00 794.90 798.37 799.65 802.38 0.062680 16.06 28.51 12.37 1.86 BEC 6849 Q2 28.00 794.26 795.15 795.36 795.86 0.060838 6.76 4.14 7.29 1.58 BEC 6849 Q5 56.00 794.26 795.45 795.81 796.66 0.066805 8.83 6.34 7.80 1.72 BEC 6849 Q10 228.00 794.26 796.63 797.52 799.50 0.065627 13.59 16.77 9.87 1.84 BEC 6849 Q100 458.00 794.26 797.68 799.08 801.78 0.062458 16.24 28.19 11.72 1.85 BEC 6785 Q2 28.00 789.85 790.96 791.23 791.82 0.063802 7.44 3.77 6.04 1.66 BEC 6785 Q5 56.00 789.85 791.34 791.73 792.55 0.060551 8.80 6.36 7.56 1.69 BEC 6785 Q10 228.00 789.85 792.45 793.08 794.58 0.080466 11.73 19.44 19.04 2.05 BEC 6785 Q100 458.00 789.85 792.93 794.05 796.72 0.096851 15.63 29.48 23.26 2.35 BEC 6697 Q2 28.00 785.14 786.26 786.45 786.92 0.048737 6.54 4.28 6.94 1.47 BEC 6697 Q5 56.00 785.14 786.60 786.91 787.59 0.052119 7.98 7.01 8.86 1.58 BEC 6697 Q10 228.00 785.14 787.81 788.37 789.54 0.041708 10.55 21.62 15.13 1.55 BEC 6697 Q100 458.00 785.14 788.68 789.39 791.10 0.040510 12.48 36.70 19.48 1.60 BEC 6606 Q2 28.00 780.68 781.60 781.82 782.34 0.051414 6.89 4.06 6.20 1.50 BEC 6606 Q5 56.00 780.68 782.01 782.32 783.03 0.047756 8.12 6.90 7.68 1.51 BEC 6606 Q10 228.00 780.68 783.22 783.92 785.40 0.048089 11.94 20.21 18.20 1.66 BEC 6606 Q100 458.00 780.68 783.97 785.01 787.03 0.047417 14.68 36.25 23.39 1.74 BEC 6542 Q2 28.00 777.99 778.96 779.09 779.48 0.037517 5.78 4.84 7.74 1.29 BEC 6542 Q5 56.00 777.99 779.29 779.51 780.10 0.042071 7.22 7.76 9.71 1.42 BEC 6542 Q10 228.00 777.99 780.20 780.80 782.07 0.053004 11.15 23.03 31.23 1.73 BEC 6542 Q100 458.00 777.99 780.67 781.57 783.57 0.060487 14.63 40.05 39.58 1.95 BEC 6508 Q2 28.00 776.55 777.30 777.48 777.92 0.056418 6.33 4.42 8.62 1.56 BEC 6508 Q5 56.00 776.55 777.61 777.89 778.51 0.051936 7.59 7.38 10.24 1.57 BEC 6508 Q10 228.00 776.55 778.63 779.32 780.48 0.041560 11.10 22.71 23.53 1.59 BEC 6508 Q100 458.00 776.55 779.32 780.08 781.85 0.037984 13.64 45.19 47.76 1.62 BEC 6500 Q2 28.00 775.55 776.50 776.31 776.67 0.009996 3.34 8.38 11.69 0.70 BEC 6500 Q5 56.00 775.55 776.87 776.68 777.16 0.009883 4.34 13.24 14.56 0.74 BEC 6500 Q10 228.00 775.55 778.12 778.02 778.87 0.009992 7.31 37.72 24.57 0.85 BEC 6500 Q100 458.00 775.55 779.11 779.09 780.22 0.010015 9.27 65.90 32.47 0.90 BEC 6499 Q2 28.00 774.55 775.50 775.67 0.010090 3.35 8.35 11.67 0.70 BEC 6499 Q5 56.00 774.55 775.86 776.16 0.010053 4.36 13.17 14.51 0.74 BEC 6499 Q10 228.00 774.55 777.12 777.02 777.87 0.010012 7.31 37.69 24.56 0.85 BEC 6499 Q100 458.00 774.55 778.12 778.09 779.22 0.009929 9.24 66.13 32.53 0.89 BEC 6497 Q2 28.00 772.55 773.50 773.67 0.009909 3.33 8.40 11.70 0.69 BEC 6497 Q5 56.00 772.55 773.87 774.16 0.009936 4.34 13.22 14.54 0.74 BEC 6497 Q10 228.00 772.55 775.12 775.02 775.87 0.009995 7.31 37.72 24.57 0.85 BEC 6497 Q100 458.00 772.55 776.11 776.09 777.22 0.010049 9.28 65.81 32.45 0.90 BEC 6495 Q2 28.00 770.55 771.49 771.67 0.010129 3.36 8.34 11.66 0.70 BEC 6495 Q5 56.00 770.55 771.86 772.16 0.010083 4.36 13.15 14.51 0.75 BEC 6495 Q10 228.00 770.55 773.12 773.02 773.87 0.009947 7.30 37.79 24.59 0.84 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 05 River: BEC Reach: BEC (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC 6495 Q100 458.00 770.55 774.12 774.09 775.22 0.009911 9.24 66.18 32.54 0.89 BEC 6493 Q2 28.00 768.55 769.50 769.67 0.009874 3.33 8.41 11.70 0.69 BEC 6493 Q5 56.00 768.55 769.87 770.16 0.009905 4.34 13.23 14.55 0.74 BEC 6493 Q10 228.00 768.55 771.12 771.02 771.87 0.010032 7.32 37.66 24.55 0.85 BEC 6493 Q100 458.00 768.55 772.10 772.09 773.22 0.010073 9.29 65.75 32.43 0.90 BEC 6491 Q2 28.00 766.55 767.49 767.67 0.010176 3.36 8.33 11.66 0.70 BEC 6491 Q5 56.00 766.55 767.86 768.16 0.010124 4.37 13.13 14.50 0.75 BEC 6491 Q10 228.00 766.55 769.12 769.02 769.87 0.009986 7.31 37.73 24.57 0.85 BEC 6491 Q100 458.00 766.55 770.12 770.09 771.22 0.009871 9.22 66.29 32.57 0.89 BEC 6489 Q2 28.00 764.55 765.50 765.67 0.009848 3.32 8.42 11.71 0.69 BEC 6489 Q5 56.00 764.55 765.87 766.16 0.009858 4.33 13.25 14.56 0.74 BEC 6489 Q10 228.00 764.55 767.12 767.02 767.87 0.009936 7.29 37.81 24.59 0.84 BEC 6489 Q100 458.00 764.55 768.10 768.09 769.22 0.010107 9.30 65.66 32.41 0.90 BEC 6487 Q2 28.00 762.55 763.49 763.67 0.010228 3.37 8.31 11.65 0.70 BEC 6487 Q5 56.00 762.55 763.86 764.16 0.010192 4.38 13.10 14.48 0.75 BEC 6487 Q10 228.00 762.55 765.11 765.02 765.87 0.010094 7.33 37.57 24.52 0.85 BEC 6487 Q100 458.00 762.55 766.13 766.09 767.22 0.009812 9.20 66.45 32.61 0.89 BEC 6485 Q2 28.00 760.55 761.50 761.67 0.009773 3.32 8.45 11.72 0.69 BEC 6485 Q5 56.00 760.55 761.87 762.16 0.009797 4.32 13.28 14.58 0.74 BEC 6485 Q10 228.00 760.55 763.13 763.02 763.87 0.009852 7.27 37.93 24.64 0.84 BEC 6485 Q100 458.00 760.55 764.10 764.09 765.22 0.010157 9.31 65.53 32.38 0.90 BEC 6483 Q2 28.00 758.55 759.49 759.67 0.010375 3.39 8.27 11.63 0.71 BEC 6483 Q5 56.00 758.55 759.86 760.15 0.010283 4.39 13.06 14.46 0.75 BEC 6483 Q10 228.00 758.55 761.12 761.02 761.87 0.010090 7.33 37.58 24.52 0.85 BEC 6483 Q100 458.00 758.55 762.13 762.09 763.22 0.009729 9.18 66.68 32.66 0.89 BEC 6481 Q2 28.00 756.55 757.51 757.68 0.009528 3.29 8.52 11.76 0.68 BEC 6481 Q5 56.00 756.55 757.88 758.16 0.009670 4.31 13.34 14.61 0.73 BEC 6481 Q10 228.00 756.55 759.12 759.02 759.87 0.009961 7.30 37.77 24.58 0.84 BEC 6481 Q100 458.00 756.55 760.09 760.09 761.22 0.010228 9.33 65.34 32.33 0.91 BEC 6479 Q2 28.00 754.55 755.48 755.66 0.010691 3.42 8.18 11.58 0.72 BEC 6479 Q5 56.00 754.55 755.85 756.15 0.010530 4.42 12.96 14.40 0.76 BEC 6479 Q10 228.00 754.55 757.12 757.02 757.87 0.010017 7.31 37.68 24.56 0.85 BEC 6479 Q100 458.00 754.55 758.20 758.09 759.22 0.008989 8.94 68.85 33.19 0.85 BEC 6477 Q2 28.00 752.55 753.41 753.58 0.010068 3.37 8.31 11.42 0.70 BEC 6477 Q5 56.00 752.55 753.82 754.09 0.010028 4.19 13.37 13.08 0.73 BEC 6477 Q10 228.00 752.55 755.16 754.91 755.85 0.009981 6.71 34.86 19.65 0.81 BEC 6477 Q100 458.00 752.55 756.19 756.05 757.32 0.009931 8.73 58.22 25.82 0.87 BEC 6475 Q2 28.00 750.55 751.41 751.58 0.009907 3.35 8.36 11.44 0.69 BEC 6475 Q5 56.00 750.55 751.82 752.09 0.009959 4.18 13.40 13.09 0.73 BEC 6475 Q10 228.00 750.55 753.16 753.86 0.009935 6.70 34.91 19.67 0.81 BEC 6475 Q100 458.00 750.55 754.18 754.05 755.32 0.010054 8.76 57.95 25.76 0.87 BEC 6473 Q2 28.00 748.55 749.41 749.58 0.010030 3.36 8.32 11.43 0.69 BEC 6473 Q5 56.00 748.55 749.82 750.09 0.010054 4.19 13.36 13.07 0.73 BEC 6473 Q10 228.00 748.55 751.16 750.91 751.85 0.010044 6.73 34.78 19.63 0.82 BEC 6473 Q100 458.00 748.55 752.18 752.05 753.32 0.009959 8.73 58.16 25.80 0.87 BEC 6471 Q2 28.00 746.55 747.41 747.58 0.009961 3.36 8.34 11.43 0.69 BEC 6471 Q5 56.00 746.55 747.82 748.09 0.009918 4.17 13.42 13.09 0.73 BEC 6471 Q10 228.00 746.55 749.16 748.91 749.85 0.009981 6.71 34.86 19.65 0.81 BEC 6471 Q100 458.00 746.55 750.18 750.05 751.32 0.010031 8.75 58.00 25.77 0.87 BEC 6469 Q2 28.00 744.55 745.41 745.58 0.010045 3.37 8.32 11.43 0.69 BEC 6469 Q5 56.00 744.55 745.82 746.09 0.010045 4.19 13.36 13.07 0.73 BEC 6469 Q10 228.00 744.55 747.16 747.86 0.009935 6.70 34.91 19.67 0.81 BEC 6469 Q100 458.00 744.55 748.19 748.05 749.32 0.009931 8.73 58.22 25.82 0.87 BEC 6467 Q2 28.00 742.55 743.41 743.58 0.009951 3.35 8.35 11.44 0.69 BEC 6467 Q5 56.00 742.55 743.82 744.09 0.009932 4.17 13.42 13.09 0.73 BEC 6467 Q10 228.00 742.55 745.16 744.91 745.85 0.010044 6.73 34.78 19.63 0.82 BEC 6467 Q100 458.00 742.55 746.18 746.05 747.32 0.010054 8.76 57.95 25.76 0.87 BEC 6465 Q2 28.00 740.55 741.41 741.58 0.010068 3.37 8.31 11.42 0.70 BEC 6465 Q5 56.00 740.55 741.82 742.09 0.010038 4.19 13.37 13.07 0.73 BEC 6465 Q10 228.00 740.55 743.16 742.91 743.85 0.009981 6.71 34.86 19.65 0.81 BEC 6465 Q100 458.00 740.55 744.18 744.05 745.32 0.009959 8.73 58.16 25.80 0.87 BEC 6463 Q2 28.00 738.55 739.41 739.58 0.009907 3.35 8.36 11.44 0.69 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 05 River: BEC Reach: BEC (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC 6463 Q5 56.00 738.55 739.82 740.09 0.009940 4.18 13.41 13.09 0.73 BEC 6463 Q10 228.00 738.55 741.16 741.86 0.009935 6.70 34.91 19.67 0.81 BEC 6463 Q100 458.00 738.55 742.18 742.05 743.32 0.010031 8.75 58.00 25.77 0.87 BEC 6461 Q2 28.00 736.55 737.41 737.58 0.010030 3.36 8.32 11.43 0.69 BEC 6461 Q5 56.00 736.55 737.82 738.09 0.010033 4.19 13.37 13.07 0.73 BEC 6461 Q10 228.00 736.55 739.16 738.91 739.85 0.010044 6.73 34.78 19.63 0.82 BEC 6461 Q100 458.00 736.55 740.19 740.05 741.32 0.009931 8.73 58.22 25.82 0.87 BEC 6459 Q2 28.00 734.55 735.41 735.58 0.009961 3.36 8.34 11.43 0.69 BEC 6459 Q5 56.00 734.55 735.82 736.09 0.009949 4.18 13.41 13.09 0.73 BEC 6459 Q10 228.00 734.55 737.16 736.91 737.85 0.009981 6.71 34.86 19.65 0.81 BEC 6459 Q100 458.00 734.55 738.18 738.05 739.32 0.010054 8.76 57.95 25.76 0.87 BEC 6457 Q2 28.00 732.55 733.41 733.58 0.010045 3.37 8.32 11.43 0.69 BEC 6457 Q5 56.00 732.55 733.82 734.09 0.010028 4.19 13.37 13.08 0.73 BEC 6457 Q10 228.00 732.55 735.16 735.86 0.009943 6.71 34.90 19.67 0.81 BEC 6457 Q100 458.00 732.55 736.18 736.05 737.32 0.009959 8.73 58.16 25.80 0.87 BEC 6455 Q2 28.00 730.55 731.41 731.58 0.009949 3.35 8.35 11.44 0.69 BEC 6455 Q5 56.00 730.55 731.82 732.09 0.009959 4.18 13.40 13.09 0.73 BEC 6455 Q10 228.00 730.55 733.16 732.91 733.85 0.010039 6.73 34.79 19.63 0.82 BEC 6455 Q100 458.00 730.55 734.18 734.05 735.32 0.010031 8.75 58.00 25.77 0.87 BEC 6453 Q2 28.00 728.55 729.41 729.58 0.010065 3.37 8.32 11.42 0.70 BEC 6453 Q5 56.00 728.55 729.82 730.09 0.010054 4.19 13.36 13.07 0.73 BEC 6453 Q10 228.00 728.55 731.16 730.91 731.85 0.009983 6.71 34.86 19.65 0.81 BEC 6453 Q100 458.00 728.55 732.19 732.05 733.32 0.009931 8.73 58.22 25.82 0.87 BEC 6451 Q2 28.00 726.55 727.41 727.58 0.009929 3.35 8.35 11.44 0.69 BEC 6451 Q5 56.00 726.55 727.82 728.09 0.009918 4.17 13.42 13.09 0.73 BEC 6451 Q10 228.00 726.55 729.16 729.86 0.009945 6.71 34.90 19.67 0.81 BEC 6451 Q100 458.00 726.55 730.18 730.05 731.32 0.010054 8.76 57.95 25.76 0.87 BEC 6449 Q2 28.00 724.55 725.41 725.58 0.010095 3.37 8.31 11.42 0.70 BEC 6449 Q5 56.00 724.55 725.82 726.09 0.010045 4.19 13.36 13.07 0.73 BEC 6449 Q10 228.00 724.55 727.16 726.91 727.85 0.010037 6.73 34.79 19.63 0.82 BEC 6449 Q100 458.00 724.55 728.18 728.05 729.32 0.009959 8.73 58.16 25.80 0.87 BEC 6447 Q2 28.00 722.55 723.41 723.58 0.009914 3.35 8.36 11.44 0.69 BEC 6447 Q5 56.00 722.55 723.82 724.09 0.009932 4.17 13.42 13.09 0.73 BEC 6447 Q10 228.00 722.55 725.16 725.85 0.009984 6.71 34.85 19.65 0.81 BEC 6447 Q100 458.00 722.55 726.18 726.05 727.32 0.010031 8.75 58.00 25.77 0.87 BEC 6445 Q2 28.00 720.55 721.40 721.58 0.010126 3.37 8.30 11.42 0.70 BEC 6445 Q5 56.00 720.55 721.82 722.09 0.010038 4.19 13.37 13.07 0.73 BEC 6445 Q10 228.00 720.55 723.16 722.91 723.85 0.010007 6.72 34.83 19.64 0.82 BEC 6445 Q100 458.00 720.55 724.19 724.05 725.32 0.009931 8.73 58.22 25.82 0.87 BEC 6443 Q2 28.00 718.55 719.41 719.58 0.009877 3.35 8.37 11.44 0.69 BEC 6443 Q5 56.00 718.55 719.82 720.09 0.009940 4.18 13.41 13.09 0.73 BEC 6443 Q10 228.00 718.55 721.16 721.86 0.009899 6.70 34.96 19.68 0.81 BEC 6443 Q100 458.00 718.55 722.18 722.05 723.32 0.010054 8.76 57.95 25.76 0.87 BEC 6441 Q2 28.00 716.55 717.40 717.58 0.010161 3.38 8.29 11.42 0.70 BEC 6441 Q5 56.00 716.55 717.82 718.09 0.010033 4.19 13.37 13.07 0.73 BEC 6441 Q10 228.00 716.55 719.15 718.91 719.85 0.010068 6.73 34.75 19.62 0.82 BEC 6441 Q100 458.00 716.55 720.18 720.05 721.32 0.009959 8.73 58.16 25.80 0.87 BEC 6439 Q2 28.00 714.55 715.41 715.58 0.009868 3.34 8.37 11.44 0.69 BEC 6439 Q5 56.00 714.55 715.82 716.09 0.009959 4.18 13.40 13.09 0.73 BEC 6439 Q10 228.00 714.55 717.16 716.91 717.85 0.009970 6.71 34.87 19.66 0.81 BEC 6439 Q100 458.00 714.55 718.18 718.05 719.32 0.010031 8.75 58.00 25.77 0.87 BEC 6437 Q2 28.00 712.55 713.40 713.58 0.010197 3.38 8.28 11.41 0.70 BEC 6437 Q5 56.00 712.55 713.82 714.09 0.010055 4.19 13.36 13.07 0.73 BEC 6437 Q10 228.00 712.55 715.16 714.91 715.85 0.009981 6.71 34.86 19.65 0.81 BEC 6437 Q100 458.00 712.55 716.19 716.05 717.32 0.009931 8.73 58.22 25.82 0.87 BEC 6435 Q2 28.00 710.55 711.41 711.59 0.009804 3.34 8.39 11.45 0.69 BEC 6435 Q5 56.00 710.55 711.82 712.09 0.009925 4.17 13.42 13.09 0.73 BEC 6435 Q10 228.00 710.55 713.15 712.91 713.85 0.010064 6.73 34.76 19.62 0.82 BEC 6435 Q100 458.00 710.55 714.18 714.05 715.32 0.010054 8.76 57.95 25.76 0.87 BEC 6433 Q2 28.00 708.55 709.40 709.58 0.010317 3.40 8.25 11.40 0.70 BEC 6433 Q5 56.00 708.55 709.82 710.09 0.010102 4.20 13.34 13.06 0.73 BEC 6433 Q10 228.00 708.55 711.17 711.86 0.009879 6.69 34.98 19.69 0.81 BEC 6433 Q100 458.00 708.55 712.18 712.05 713.32 0.009959 8.73 58.16 25.80 0.87 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 05 River: BEC Reach: BEC (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC 6431 Q2 28.00 706.55 707.42 707.59 0.009684 3.32 8.42 11.46 0.68 BEC 6431 Q5 56.00 706.55 707.82 708.09 0.009870 4.17 13.44 13.10 0.72 BEC 6431 Q10 228.00 706.55 709.15 708.91 709.85 0.010082 6.73 34.74 19.62 0.82 BEC 6431 Q100 458.00 706.55 710.18 710.05 711.32 0.010031 8.75 58.00 25.77 0.87 BEC 6429 Q2 28.00 704.55 705.40 705.58 0.010466 3.41 8.21 11.39 0.71 BEC 6429 Q5 56.00 704.55 705.81 706.09 0.010183 4.21 13.30 13.05 0.74 BEC 6429 Q10 228.00 704.55 707.16 706.91 707.86 0.009964 6.71 34.88 19.66 0.81 BEC 6429 Q100 458.00 704.55 708.19 708.05 709.32 0.009932 8.73 58.22 25.82 0.87 BEC 6427 Q2 28.00 702.55 703.42 703.59 0.009433 3.29 8.50 11.49 0.68 BEC 6427 Q5 56.00 702.55 703.83 704.10 0.009784 4.15 13.49 13.11 0.72 BEC 6427 Q10 228.00 702.55 705.16 704.91 705.85 0.009977 6.71 34.86 19.66 0.81 BEC 6427 Q100 458.00 702.55 706.17 706.05 707.32 0.010066 8.76 57.92 25.75 0.87 BEC 6425 Q2 28.00 700.55 701.39 701.57 0.010788 3.45 8.12 11.36 0.72 BEC 6425 Q5 56.00 700.55 701.81 702.09 0.010320 4.23 13.24 13.03 0.74 BEC 6425 Q10 228.00 700.55 703.15 702.91 703.85 0.010077 6.73 34.74 19.62 0.82 BEC 6425 Q100 458.00 700.55 704.19 704.05 705.32 0.009854 8.70 58.39 25.86 0.87 BEC 6423 Q2 28.00 698.55 699.43 699.60 0.009060 3.25 8.62 11.53 0.66 BEC 6423 Q5 56.00 698.55 699.84 700.10 0.009583 4.12 13.58 13.14 0.71 BEC 6423 Q10 228.00 698.55 701.17 700.91 701.86 0.009864 6.69 35.00 19.70 0.81 BEC 6423 Q100 458.00 698.55 702.17 702.05 703.32 0.010145 8.78 57.75 25.71 0.88 BEC 6421 Q2 28.00 696.55 697.38 697.57 0.011364 3.51 7.98 11.31 0.74 BEC 6421 Q5 56.00 696.55 697.80 698.08 0.010694 4.28 13.08 12.99 0.75 BEC 6421 Q10 228.00 696.55 699.15 698.91 699.85 0.010184 6.76 34.61 19.58 0.82 BEC 6421 Q100 458.00 696.55 700.21 700.05 701.32 0.009695 8.66 58.76 25.94 0.86 BEC 6419 Q2 28.00 694.55 695.45 695.61 0.008386 3.17 8.84 11.61 0.64 BEC 6419 Q5 56.00 694.55 695.86 696.11 0.009043 4.04 13.86 13.22 0.70 BEC 6419 Q10 228.00 694.55 697.18 696.91 697.86 0.009678 6.65 35.23 19.77 0.80 BEC 6419 Q100 458.00 694.55 698.15 698.05 699.32 0.010334 8.84 57.34 25.61 0.88 BEC 6417 Q2 28.00 692.55 693.35 693.56 0.012867 3.66 7.66 11.19 0.78 BEC 6417 Q5 56.00 692.55 693.77 694.07 0.011514 4.39 12.75 12.88 0.78 BEC 6417 Q10 228.00 692.55 695.13 694.91 695.85 0.010447 6.81 34.31 19.49 0.83 BEC 6417 Q100 458.00 692.55 696.24 696.05 697.33 0.009346 8.56 59.59 26.14 0.84 BEC 6415 Q2 28.00 690.55 691.48 691.63 0.007409 3.04 9.22 11.74 0.60 BEC 6415 Q5 56.00 690.55 691.90 692.13 0.008081 3.89 14.41 13.39 0.66 BEC 6415 Q10 228.00 690.55 693.21 692.91 693.87 0.009254 6.56 35.79 19.94 0.79 BEC 6415 Q100 458.00 690.55 694.12 694.05 695.32 0.010756 8.95 56.47 25.41 0.90 BEC 6413 Q2 28.00 688.55 689.31 689.23 689.54 0.015520 3.89 7.19 11.02 0.85 BEC 6413 Q5 56.00 688.55 689.71 690.05 0.013693 4.66 12.01 12.65 0.84 BEC 6413 Q10 228.00 688.55 691.09 690.91 691.84 0.011124 6.94 33.58 19.26 0.86 BEC 6413 Q100 458.00 688.55 692.30 692.05 693.34 0.008683 8.36 61.30 26.53 0.82 BEC 6411 Q2 28.00 686.55 687.54 687.23 687.66 0.006119 2.84 9.84 11.95 0.55 BEC 6411 Q5 56.00 686.55 687.98 687.59 688.18 0.006590 3.62 15.47 13.70 0.60 BEC 6411 Q10 228.00 686.55 689.28 688.91 689.89 0.008299 6.34 37.18 20.35 0.75 BEC 6411 Q100 458.00 686.55 690.05 690.05 691.31 0.011699 9.19 54.70 24.99 0.94 BEC 6409 Q2 28.00 684.55 685.23 685.23 685.53 0.022325 4.40 6.37 10.72 1.00 BEC 6409 Q5 56.00 684.55 685.60 685.60 686.03 0.019808 5.29 10.58 12.19 1.00 BEC 6409 Q10 228.00 684.55 687.00 686.91 687.82 0.013128 7.30 31.74 18.68 0.92 BEC 6409 Q100 458.00 684.55 688.82 688.05 689.54 0.005031 7.02 75.82 29.63 0.64 BEC 6407 Q2 28.00 682.55 684.03 683.23 684.08 0.001440 1.73 16.22 13.92 0.28 BEC 6407 Q5 56.00 682.55 684.71 683.59 684.78 0.001344 2.10 26.70 16.98 0.29 BEC 6407 Q10 228.00 682.55 686.91 687.08 0.001141 3.40 78.51 30.17 0.30 BEC 6407 Q100 458.00 682.55 688.79 689.01 0.000981 4.10 145.46 40.00 0.30 BEC 4482 Q2 28.00 681.24 683.08 683.08 683.55 0.025003 5.49 5.10 5.59 1.01 BEC 4482 Q5 56.00 681.24 683.67 683.67 684.28 0.022538 6.27 8.93 7.45 1.01 BEC 4482 Q10 228.00 681.24 685.42 685.42 686.59 0.019337 8.67 26.28 11.54 1.01 BEC 4482 Q100 458.00 681.24 686.85 686.85 688.52 0.018387 10.38 44.11 13.45 1.01 BEC 4431. Q2 28.00 679.93 680.98 681.21 681.78 0.049508 7.16 3.91 5.30 1.47 BEC 4431. Q5 56.00 679.93 681.42 681.77 682.59 0.049252 8.67 6.46 6.38 1.52 BEC 4431. Q10 228.00 679.93 682.98 683.63 685.12 0.041089 11.73 19.44 10.16 1.49 BEC 4431. Q100 458.00 679.93 684.20 685.10 687.10 0.038502 13.66 33.53 13.00 1.50 BEC 4354 Q2 28.00 677.76 679.35 679.06 679.52 0.008773 3.35 8.35 9.50 0.63 BEC 4354 Q5 56.00 677.76 679.91 679.51 680.14 0.007860 3.87 14.46 11.90 0.62 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 05 River: BEC Reach: BEC (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC 4354 Q10 228.00 677.76 682.04 680.97 682.47 0.005510 5.27 43.25 15.73 0.56 BEC 4354 Q100 458.00 677.76 683.91 682.28 684.47 0.004614 6.02 76.06 18.97 0.53 BEC 4277 Q2 28.00 676.74 678.03 678.03 678.44 0.024078 5.17 5.42 6.62 1.01 BEC 4277 Q5 56.00 676.74 678.52 678.52 679.14 0.022567 6.30 8.89 7.37 1.01 BEC 4277 Q10 228.00 676.74 680.40 680.40 681.65 0.019947 8.96 25.44 10.21 1.00 BEC 4277 Q100 458.00 676.74 681.98 681.98 683.71 0.019040 10.54 43.44 12.59 1.00 BEC 4190 Q2 28.00 671.65 672.54 672.93 673.93 0.165535 9.47 2.96 6.62 2.50 BEC 4190 Q5 56.00 671.65 672.80 673.33 674.78 0.166900 11.30 4.96 8.57 2.62 BEC 4190 Q10 228.00 671.65 673.62 674.65 677.53 0.162711 15.86 14.38 14.60 2.82 BEC 4190 Q100 458.00 671.65 674.26 675.69 679.79 0.136912 18.88 24.26 16.31 2.73 BEC 4136 Q2 28.00 670.68 671.97 671.90 672.25 0.017666 4.27 6.56 9.21 0.89 BEC 4136 Q5 56.00 670.68 672.44 672.33 672.80 0.015072 4.85 11.54 11.63 0.86 BEC 4136 Q10 228.00 670.68 673.87 673.72 674.79 0.014921 7.72 29.54 13.38 0.92 BEC 4136 Q100 458.00 670.68 675.01 675.01 676.58 0.017283 10.05 45.58 14.58 1.00 BEC 4080 Q2 28.00 669.41 670.71 670.71 671.13 0.022678 5.20 5.38 6.52 1.01 BEC 4080 Q5 56.00 669.41 671.25 671.25 671.80 0.020775 6.00 9.34 8.42 1.00 BEC 4080 Q10 228.00 669.41 672.87 672.87 673.88 0.017649 8.08 28.22 14.22 1.01 BEC 4080 Q100 458.00 669.41 673.91 674.14 675.54 0.020496 10.25 44.69 17.43 1.13 BEC 4035 Q2 28.00 668.85 669.84 669.72 670.01 0.011930 3.33 8.40 13.32 0.74 BEC 4035 Q5 56.00 668.85 669.87 670.03 670.50 0.041710 6.38 8.77 13.37 1.39 BEC 4035 Q10 228.00 668.85 670.73 671.28 672.56 0.047399 10.86 21.00 14.97 1.62 BEC 4035 Q100 458.00 668.85 671.68 672.43 674.19 0.038979 12.71 36.04 16.90 1.53 BEC 3981 Q2 28.00 667.85 669.13 669.33 0.013503 3.59 7.80 12.01 0.78 BEC 3981 Q5 56.00 667.85 669.57 669.39 669.82 0.012257 3.97 14.09 17.37 0.78 BEC 3981 Q10 228.00 667.85 671.02 670.47 671.40 0.006296 4.90 46.50 24.83 0.63 BEC 3981 Q100 458.00 667.85 672.31 671.35 672.81 0.005027 5.69 80.51 28.21 0.59 BEC 3920 Q2 28.00 666.63 667.91 667.91 668.27 0.023032 4.77 5.87 8.53 1.01 BEC 3920 Q5 56.00 666.63 668.34 668.34 668.84 0.020689 5.66 9.90 10.17 1.01 BEC 3920 Q10 228.00 666.63 669.83 669.83 670.75 0.016990 7.73 29.50 16.22 1.01 BEC 3920 Q100 458.00 666.63 671.01 671.01 672.25 0.015212 8.91 51.39 20.85 1.00 BEC 3826 Q2 28.00 664.51 665.32 665.39 665.78 0.030550 5.45 5.14 7.63 1.17 BEC 3826 Q5 56.00 664.51 665.68 665.85 666.42 0.032393 6.91 8.10 8.66 1.26 BEC 3826 Q10 228.00 664.51 667.03 667.45 668.60 0.030952 10.07 22.65 12.91 1.34 BEC 3826 Q100 458.00 664.51 668.17 668.74 670.27 0.027806 11.63 39.39 16.49 1.33 BEC 3810 Q2 28.00 664.06 664.48 664.64 665.02 0.073827 5.92 4.73 12.52 1.70 BEC 3810 Q5 56.00 664.06 664.67 664.95 665.62 0.077465 7.79 7.19 12.89 1.84 BEC 3810 Q10 228.00 664.06 665.52 666.22 667.81 0.065238 12.15 18.76 14.47 1.88 BEC 3810 Q100 458.00 664.06 668.65 667.37 669.25 0.004691 6.23 79.84 44.39 0.57 BEC 3790 Q2 28.00 663.63 664.29 664.29 664.60 0.023247 4.45 6.29 10.33 1.01 BEC 3790 Q5 56.00 663.63 664.65 664.65 665.13 0.021069 5.54 10.11 10.74 1.01 BEC 3790 Q10 228.00 663.63 666.12 666.13 667.20 0.017996 8.31 27.43 12.94 1.01 BEC 3790 Q100 458.00 663.63 668.10 667.51 669.08 0.009903 7.95 59.49 25.47 0.79 BEC 3780 Q2 28.00 662.83 663.41 663.59 664.02 0.069350 6.28 4.46 9.84 1.64 BEC 3780 Q5 56.00 662.83 663.70 663.96 664.60 0.056645 7.62 7.35 10.02 1.57 BEC 3780 Q10 228.00 662.83 665.15 665.48 666.79 0.032315 10.28 22.17 10.49 1.25 BEC 3780 Q100 458.00 662.83 667.01 667.01 668.79 0.021006 10.72 42.71 12.08 1.00 BEC 3775 Q2 28.00 659.83 660.47 660.59 660.95 0.045984 5.52 5.07 9.88 1.36 BEC 3775 Q5 56.00 659.83 660.71 660.96 661.59 0.054225 7.51 7.45 10.03 1.54 BEC 3775 Q10 228.00 659.83 661.71 662.48 664.30 0.063180 12.90 17.67 10.35 1.74 BEC 3775 Q100 458.00 659.83 662.75 664.01 666.74 0.062702 16.04 28.56 10.67 1.73 BEC 3721 Q2 28.00 657.97 658.76 658.77 659.13 0.024701 4.86 5.76 8.12 1.02 BEC 3721 Q5 56.00 657.97 659.31 659.19 659.77 0.016809 5.45 10.28 8.45 0.87 BEC 3721 Q10 228.00 657.97 661.74 660.90 662.30 0.007823 6.01 37.96 14.07 0.64 BEC 3721 Q100 458.00 657.97 663.68 662.33 664.34 0.006070 6.48 70.63 19.66 0.60 BEC 3667 Q2 78.00 656.33 658.18 657.68 658.45 0.006522 4.14 18.85 12.45 0.59 BEC 3667 Q5 143.00 656.33 658.88 659.28 0.007165 5.08 28.15 14.45 0.64 BEC 3667 Q10 579.00 656.33 661.74 662.02 0.002818 4.85 155.87 60.10 0.45 BEC 3667 Q100 1163.00 656.33 663.77 664.10 0.001931 5.39 280.88 63.03 0.40 BEC 3624 Q2 78.00 655.72 657.67 658.07 0.011351 5.09 15.34 12.00 0.79 BEC 3624 Q5 143.00 655.72 658.19 658.06 658.84 0.013989 6.44 22.21 14.19 0.91 BEC 3624 Q10 579.00 655.72 660.33 660.33 661.68 0.014427 9.31 62.20 23.14 1.00 BEC 3624 Q100 1163.00 655.72 662.32 662.32 663.82 0.010260 9.91 126.12 58.20 0.89 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 05 River: BEC Reach: BEC (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC 3535 Q2 78.00 654.96 656.30 656.30 656.78 0.019110 5.50 14.18 15.14 1.00 BEC 3535 Q5 143.00 654.96 656.81 656.81 657.43 0.017771 6.33 22.58 18.39 1.01 BEC 3535 Q10 579.00 654.96 658.22 658.65 659.96 0.025656 10.60 54.63 26.85 1.31 BEC 3535 Q100 1163.00 654.96 659.23 660.68 662.22 0.030207 13.87 83.84 30.80 1.48 BEC 3448 Q2 78.00 643.91 645.05 646.24 651.66 0.406828 20.63 3.78 4.88 4.13 BEC 3448 Q5 143.00 643.91 645.56 647.03 652.78 0.295098 21.56 6.63 6.15 3.66 BEC 3448 Q10 579.00 643.91 647.82 649.90 655.27 0.116062 21.90 26.43 11.23 2.52 BEC 3448 Q100 1163.00 643.91 649.72 652.13 657.72 0.078460 22.70 51.24 14.84 2.15 BEC 3362 Q2 78.00 641.88 644.12 644.15 644.89 0.022092 7.04 11.08 7.74 1.04 BEC 3362 Q5 143.00 641.88 644.79 644.93 645.91 0.024143 8.52 16.78 9.26 1.12 BEC 3362 Q10 579.00 641.88 647.26 647.79 649.65 0.025636 12.40 46.70 14.93 1.24 BEC 3362 Q100 1163.00 641.88 649.01 649.93 652.61 0.027983 15.23 76.38 19.00 1.34 BEC 3235 Q2 78.00 639.64 641.08 641.40 641.81 0.026412 6.87 11.36 10.77 1.18 BEC 3235 Q5 143.00 639.64 641.96 641.79 642.18 0.012083 3.71 38.58 53.56 0.77 BEC 3235 Q10 579.00 639.64 644.09 642.77 644.19 0.001184 2.50 232.68 104.24 0.29 BEC 3235 Q100 1163.00 639.64 647.10 643.38 647.17 0.000288 2.10 565.09 116.10 0.16 BEC 3126 Q2 78.00 637.76 639.70 639.39 640.08 0.010090 5.00 15.61 11.13 0.74 BEC 3126 Q5 143.00 637.76 640.40 640.94 0.010246 5.91 24.19 13.41 0.78 BEC 3126 Q10 579.00 637.76 644.09 644.12 0.000243 1.33 437.19 152.75 0.14 BEC 3126 Q100 1163.00 637.76 647.12 647.14 0.000091 1.29 914.13 162.08 0.09 BEC 3079 Q2 78.00 637.38 639.27 639.61 0.009239 4.73 16.48 12.15 0.72 BEC 3079 Q5 143.00 637.38 640.05 640.48 0.007966 5.29 27.01 14.89 0.69 BEC 3079 Q10 579.00 637.38 643.39 644.03 0.004533 6.41 90.27 22.97 0.57 BEC 3079 Q100 1163.00 637.38 646.31 647.06 0.003424 6.93 167.73 29.96 0.52 BEC 2993 Q2 78.00 636.09 638.10 638.63 0.013744 5.85 13.32 8.90 0.84 BEC 2993 Q5 143.00 636.09 638.98 639.64 0.011781 6.52 21.93 10.81 0.81 BEC 2993 Q10 579.00 636.09 642.60 643.52 0.007013 7.70 75.24 18.54 0.67 BEC 2993 Q100 1163.00 636.09 645.59 646.66 0.005413 8.32 139.82 24.66 0.62 BEC 2909 Q2 78.00 634.81 636.76 636.61 637.36 0.016214 6.25 12.47 7.96 0.88 BEC 2909 Q5 143.00 634.81 637.50 637.37 638.41 0.017381 7.64 18.71 8.77 0.92 BEC 2909 Q10 579.00 634.81 640.48 640.48 642.49 0.019265 11.36 50.99 12.89 1.01 BEC 2909 Q100 1163.00 634.81 643.01 643.01 645.73 0.018396 13.22 87.96 16.37 1.01 BEC 2840 Q2 78.00 633.91 635.67 635.56 636.23 0.016397 6.04 12.91 9.35 0.91 BEC 2840 Q5 143.00 633.91 636.26 636.25 637.16 0.019163 7.62 18.76 10.47 1.00 BEC 2840 Q10 579.00 633.91 638.43 639.00 640.89 0.026982 12.61 45.93 14.59 1.25 BEC 2840 Q100 1163.00 633.91 640.12 641.17 643.99 0.031404 15.80 73.61 18.41 1.39 BEC 2753 Q2 78.00 632.67 634.09 634.09 634.68 0.019334 6.15 12.68 10.93 1.01 BEC 2753 Q5 143.00 632.67 634.70 634.70 635.52 0.018042 7.25 19.72 12.22 1.01 BEC 2753 Q10 579.00 632.67 637.16 637.20 638.92 0.016624 10.64 54.44 16.12 1.02 BEC 2753 Q100 1163.00 632.67 639.34 639.37 641.74 0.015404 12.43 93.59 19.84 1.01 BEC 2679 Q2 78.00 631.52 632.87 632.70 633.25 0.012329 4.99 15.63 13.37 0.81 BEC 2679 Q5 143.00 631.52 633.10 633.23 634.00 0.023876 7.62 18.76 13.79 1.15 BEC 2679 Q10 579.00 631.52 634.90 635.50 637.30 0.027726 12.44 46.54 17.09 1.33 BEC 2679 Q100 1163.00 631.52 636.49 637.45 640.12 0.028183 15.28 76.10 19.82 1.37 BEC 2583 Q2 78.00 629.16 630.98 630.98 631.68 0.021101 6.73 11.59 8.47 1.01 BEC 2583 Q5 143.00 629.16 631.86 631.77 632.14 0.016549 4.24 33.71 46.85 0.88 BEC 2583 Q10 579.00 629.16 634.20 632.78 634.27 0.001186 2.06 281.62 164.69 0.28 BEC 2583 Q100 1163.00 629.16 635.22 633.47 635.32 0.001065 2.47 471.11 193.84 0.28 BEC 2494 Q2 78.00 627.84 629.14 629.18 629.75 0.021911 6.29 12.40 11.51 1.07 BEC 2494 Q5 143.00 627.84 629.76 629.76 630.56 0.017797 7.16 19.98 12.65 1.00 BEC 2494 Q10 579.00 627.84 632.20 632.20 633.85 0.015582 10.31 56.13 17.07 1.00 BEC 2494 Q100 1163.00 627.84 634.50 634.50 635.09 0.005427 7.47 286.84 207.01 0.62 BEC 2383 Q2 78.00 625.64 627.00 627.00 627.48 0.020588 5.54 14.09 14.99 1.01 BEC 2383 Q5 143.00 625.64 627.69 627.48 628.21 0.012231 5.79 24.68 15.94 0.82 BEC 2383 Q10 579.00 625.64 628.96 629.60 631.40 0.030953 12.53 46.19 17.71 1.37 BEC 2383 Q100 1163.00 625.64 631.07 632.17 633.83 0.020738 13.35 92.31 65.70 1.15 BEC 2280 Q2 78.00 622.73 624.86 624.75 625.51 0.017532 6.47 12.05 7.81 0.92 BEC 2280 Q5 143.00 622.73 625.53 625.53 626.55 0.020418 8.10 17.65 8.78 1.01 BEC 2280 Q10 579.00 622.73 628.81 628.85 629.41 0.007938 7.36 144.18 150.85 0.66 BEC 2280 Q100 1163.00 622.73 628.84 629.51 631.11 0.030355 14.42 148.77 153.35 1.29 BEC 2203 Q2 78.00 621.74 624.05 624.05 624.42 0.010139 5.24 21.39 36.78 0.74 BEC 2203 Q5 143.00 621.74 624.25 624.48 624.95 0.018806 7.58 29.83 46.54 1.02 BEC 2203 Q10 579.00 621.74 626.64 625.52 626.73 0.001991 3.66 279.93 163.13 0.36 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 05 River: BEC Reach: BEC (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC 2203 Q100 1163.00 621.74 627.62 626.19 627.75 0.002088 4.39 462.68 202.63 0.39 BEC 2107 Q2 78.00 619.77 621.09 621.51 622.49 0.053936 9.50 8.21 7.60 1.61 BEC 2107 Q5 143.00 619.77 622.38 622.25 623.21 0.015981 7.31 19.55 10.09 0.93 BEC 2107 Q10 579.00 619.77 625.67 625.67 626.36 0.006675 7.35 123.34 108.96 0.65 BEC 2107 Q100 1163.00 619.77 626.60 626.60 627.36 0.007110 8.74 251.33 168.28 0.70 BEC 2033 Q2 78.00 618.27 620.37 620.32 621.00 0.017772 6.39 12.20 8.88 0.96 BEC 2033 Q5 143.00 618.27 621.04 621.04 621.94 0.018406 7.61 18.80 10.65 1.01 BEC 2033 Q10 579.00 618.27 622.96 623.65 625.32 0.026845 12.59 62.01 133.08 1.30 BEC 2033 Q100 1163.00 618.27 623.51 624.26 626.19 0.032903 15.50 137.62 142.91 1.48 BEC 1959. Q2 78.00 617.31 619.05 619.05 619.63 0.018804 6.13 12.71 10.95 1.00 BEC 1959. Q5 143.00 617.31 619.55 619.68 620.46 0.021989 7.64 18.71 12.94 1.12 BEC 1959. Q10 579.00 617.31 621.25 622.14 623.48 0.022110 12.48 62.65 63.14 1.27 BEC 1959. Q100 1163.00 617.31 622.18 622.83 624.17 0.018744 13.74 170.58 158.59 1.22 BEC 1949 Q2 78.00 614.70 615.86 616.46 618.89 0.355604 13.96 5.59 12.94 3.75 BEC 1949 Q5 143.00 614.70 616.16 616.96 619.68 0.223889 15.07 9.49 13.67 3.19 BEC 1949 Q10 579.00 614.70 617.60 619.07 622.79 0.094132 18.27 31.69 17.03 2.36 BEC 1949 Q100 1163.00 614.70 619.71 621.43 623.73 0.031981 16.10 72.98 22.68 1.50 BEC 1932 Q2 78.00 614.40 615.91 615.60 616.09 0.006985 3.48 22.43 22.09 0.61 BEC 1932 Q5 143.00 614.40 616.52 615.98 616.76 0.005146 3.93 36.38 23.27 0.55 BEC 1932 Q10 579.00 614.40 616.42 617.66 620.91 0.103496 17.00 34.06 23.08 2.47 BEC 1932 Q100 1163.00 614.40 617.63 619.22 622.87 0.062683 18.37 63.30 25.34 2.05 BEC 1859 Q2 78.00 613.27 614.70 614.70 615.27 0.019012 6.06 12.88 11.46 1.01 BEC 1859 Q5 143.00 613.27 615.29 615.29 616.07 0.017550 7.09 20.18 13.11 1.01 BEC 1859 Q10 579.00 613.27 617.63 617.63 619.16 0.015038 9.90 58.47 19.60 1.01 BEC 1859 Q100 1163.00 613.27 619.78 619.78 620.61 0.006228 8.20 224.45 148.18 0.70 BEC 1751 Q2 78.00 610.40 612.94 612.54 613.31 0.009027 4.89 15.94 10.55 0.70 BEC 1751 Q5 143.00 610.40 613.21 613.24 614.10 0.018899 7.55 18.93 11.28 1.03 BEC 1751 Q10 579.00 610.40 615.74 615.83 617.43 0.016809 10.44 55.48 17.88 1.04 BEC 1751 Q100 1163.00 610.40 617.07 617.87 619.39 0.018581 12.82 122.32 91.08 1.14 BEC 1681 Q2 78.00 609.58 611.59 611.59 612.36 0.020447 7.61 12.19 9.04 1.05 BEC 1681 Q5 143.00 609.58 612.54 612.61 612.99 0.010595 6.69 39.63 52.80 0.77 BEC 1681 Q10 579.00 609.58 612.98 613.66 615.34 0.059269 16.96 67.96 75.25 1.84 BEC 1681 Q100 1163.00 609.58 613.43 614.32 616.81 0.088516 22.01 106.51 97.84 2.27 BEC 1582 Q2 78.00 607.43 609.19 609.35 610.01 0.027778 7.24 10.77 9.58 1.20 BEC 1582 Q5 143.00 607.43 609.57 610.01 611.06 0.040221 9.79 14.60 10.80 1.48 BEC 1582 Q10 579.00 607.43 611.62 611.74 612.38 0.013848 8.49 116.93 116.80 0.95 BEC 1582 Q100 1163.00 607.43 612.28 612.46 613.14 0.014545 9.95 210.27 152.05 1.00 BEC 1430 Q2 78.00 605.46 606.94 606.94 607.49 0.018895 5.96 13.10 12.05 1.01 BEC 1430 Q5 143.00 605.46 607.53 607.53 608.25 0.017429 6.84 20.90 14.58 1.01 BEC 1430 Q10 579.00 605.46 609.17 609.51 610.13 0.015593 8.81 109.24 152.52 1.03 BEC 1430 Q100 1163.00 605.46 609.72 610.01 610.78 0.016495 10.44 205.47 184.09 1.09 BEC 1316 Q2 78.00 604.11 605.46 605.07 605.66 0.006099 3.58 21.77 18.65 0.58 BEC 1316 Q5 143.00 604.11 605.77 605.51 606.18 0.009652 5.15 27.77 19.24 0.76 BEC 1316 Q10 579.00 604.11 607.75 608.08 608.74 0.009913 8.05 82.03 95.32 0.83 BEC 1316 Q100 1163.00 604.11 608.92 608.94 609.51 0.006527 7.49 288.68 248.38 0.70 BEC 1245 Q2 78.00 603.18 605.10 604.49 605.28 0.004436 3.38 25.14 60.59 0.51 BEC 1245 Q5 143.00 603.18 605.74 605.81 0.001989 2.64 95.39 137.77 0.35 BEC 1245 Q10 579.00 603.18 606.73 606.11 606.84 0.002888 3.79 257.13 190.17 0.44 BEC 1245 Q100 1163.00 603.18 608.18 606.62 608.25 0.001308 3.11 585.82 264.89 0.31 BEC 1154 Q2 78.00 602.24 604.16 604.60 0.013294 5.32 14.66 12.13 0.85 BEC 1154 Q5 143.00 602.24 604.81 604.61 605.39 0.012374 6.13 23.34 14.66 0.86 BEC 1154 Q10 579.00 602.24 606.30 606.51 0.004596 5.03 212.00 179.10 0.55 BEC 1154 Q100 1163.00 602.24 608.05 608.13 0.001231 3.61 604.94 280.68 0.31 BEC 1075 Q2 78.00 601.34 603.28 603.66 0.010467 4.93 15.82 12.21 0.76 BEC 1075 Q5 143.00 601.34 603.86 604.43 0.012040 6.09 23.50 14.60 0.85 BEC 1075 Q10 579.00 601.34 605.54 605.54 606.01 0.008187 6.69 151.35 149.81 0.75 BEC 1075 Q100 1163.00 601.34 607.99 608.05 0.000806 3.04 710.71 316.78 0.26 BEC 1015 Q2 78.00 600.62 602.28 602.28 602.81 0.019024 5.87 13.29 12.68 1.01 BEC 1015 Q5 143.00 600.62 602.85 602.85 603.55 0.017292 6.76 21.20 16.19 1.00 BEC 1015 Q10 579.00 600.62 605.44 604.49 605.49 0.000889 2.76 402.88 244.26 0.26 BEC 1015 Q100 1163.00 600.62 607.99 608.02 0.000197 1.88 1115.79 313.44 0.14 BEC 925 Q2 78.00 598.99 600.23 600.27 600.85 0.022935 6.28 12.42 11.41 1.06 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 05 River: BEC Reach: BEC (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC 925 Q5 143.00 598.99 600.76 600.85 601.68 0.022612 7.70 18.58 11.93 1.09 BEC 925 Q10 579.00 598.99 603.57 603.57 605.12 0.017275 9.98 57.99 19.03 1.01 BEC 925 Q100 1163.00 598.99 605.45 605.45 607.73 0.015732 12.12 96.38 21.95 0.99 BEC 920 Q2 78.00 598.62 599.53 599.88 600.68 0.064877 8.61 9.06 12.07 1.75 BEC 920 Q5 143.00 598.62 599.93 600.41 601.51 0.056147 10.09 14.18 13.09 1.71 BEC 920 Q10 579.00 598.62 601.64 602.61 604.88 0.040975 14.50 41.01 19.34 1.62 BEC 920 Q100 1163.00 598.62 603.31 604.48 607.48 0.027557 16.74 75.09 21.36 1.45 BEC 834. Q2 78.00 597.72 599.59 599.18 599.82 0.006472 3.81 20.49 16.82 0.61 BEC 834. Q5 143.00 597.72 600.28 599.69 600.57 0.005571 4.28 33.38 20.37 0.59 BEC 834. Q10 579.00 597.72 602.86 601.63 603.35 0.004307 5.60 103.46 34.47 0.57 BEC 834. Q100 1163.00 597.72 604.29 603.19 605.11 0.004852 7.33 169.39 68.14 0.64 BEC 758 Q2 78.00 596.95 598.70 599.12 0.012614 5.24 14.89 12.10 0.83 BEC 758 Q5 143.00 596.95 599.26 599.14 599.89 0.013996 6.40 22.33 14.41 0.91 BEC 758 Q10 579.00 596.95 601.37 601.37 602.71 0.014584 9.29 62.29 23.46 1.01 BEC 758 Q100 1163.00 596.95 603.63 603.63 604.67 0.006527 8.52 183.32 129.64 0.73 BEC 693 Q2 78.00 596.50 597.59 597.59 598.10 0.020311 5.72 13.62 13.57 1.01 BEC 693 Q5 143.00 596.50 598.10 598.10 598.84 0.018837 6.93 20.64 14.00 1.01 BEC 693 Q10 579.00 596.50 600.34 600.46 601.83 0.012533 10.13 66.60 28.85 0.93 BEC 693 Q100 1163.00 596.50 601.50 602.51 603.90 0.015807 13.65 129.19 96.21 1.10 BEC 663 Q2 78.00 595.22 596.13 596.40 597.02 0.068724 7.58 10.29 18.01 1.77 BEC 663 Q5 143.00 595.22 596.39 596.81 597.78 0.070753 9.47 15.11 19.30 1.89 BEC 663 Q10 579.00 595.22 597.50 598.52 600.90 0.064062 14.78 39.17 23.17 2.00 BEC 663 Q100 1163.00 595.22 598.78 600.16 602.98 0.044177 16.44 70.75 26.18 1.76 BEC 636 Q2 78.00 594.37 596.23 595.35 596.34 0.002233 2.63 29.61 18.45 0.37 BEC 636 Q5 143.00 594.37 597.09 595.81 597.24 0.002010 3.08 46.45 20.79 0.36 BEC 636 Q10 579.00 594.37 599.82 597.78 600.19 0.002494 4.94 130.32 55.94 0.44 BEC 636 Q100 1163.00 594.37 601.22 599.82 601.79 0.002962 6.48 240.75 115.03 0.50 BEC 618 Q2 78.00 594.13 596.22 596.30 0.001434 2.25 34.61 19.49 0.30 BEC 618 Q5 143.00 594.13 597.08 597.20 0.001438 2.73 52.42 21.83 0.31 BEC 618 Q10 579.00 594.13 599.80 600.14 0.001889 4.75 129.66 40.68 0.39 BEC 618 Q100 1163.00 594.13 600.91 601.71 0.003416 7.37 185.41 72.51 0.54 BEC 599 Q2 78.00 594.10 596.23 596.27 0.000627 1.59 49.16 24.83 0.20 BEC 599 Q5 143.00 594.10 597.10 597.16 0.000678 2.00 71.39 26.25 0.21 BEC 599 Q10 579.00 594.10 599.85 600.08 0.001237 3.86 151.83 36.09 0.31 BEC 599 Q100 1163.00 594.10 601.07 601.55 0.003845 5.67 231.65 111.83 0.54 BEC 569 Q2 78.00 593.64 596.07 596.22 0.002834 3.12 24.98 13.80 0.41 BEC 569 Q5 143.00 593.64 596.88 597.11 0.003300 3.82 37.41 17.10 0.46 BEC 569 Q10 579.00 593.64 599.55 600.00 0.003538 5.47 118.02 65.22 0.52 BEC 569 Q100 1163.00 593.64 600.61 601.39 0.004727 7.55 206.28 100.91 0.62 BEC 524 Q2 78.00 593.23 595.28 595.28 595.91 0.019258 6.35 12.29 9.99 1.01 BEC 524 Q5 143.00 593.23 595.95 595.95 596.76 0.017904 7.20 19.85 12.57 1.01 BEC 524 Q10 579.00 593.23 598.63 598.63 599.69 0.009801 8.44 80.23 53.25 0.83 BEC 524 Q100 1163.00 593.23 600.14 600.14 601.12 0.006716 9.03 196.57 97.19 0.73 BEC 480 Q2 78.00 592.38 594.59 594.49 595.02 0.015331 5.24 14.90 13.80 0.89 BEC 480 Q5 143.00 592.38 594.83 595.01 595.79 0.028260 7.87 18.18 14.33 1.23 BEC 480 Q10 579.00 592.38 596.65 597.20 598.91 0.027631 12.08 47.95 18.41 1.32 BEC 480 Q100 1163.00 592.38 599.00 599.47 600.68 0.011070 10.93 142.11 86.44 0.90 BEC 432 Q2 78.00 591.95 593.83 593.70 594.31 0.014080 5.56 14.03 11.22 0.88 BEC 432 Q5 143.00 591.95 594.75 594.49 594.93 0.009602 3.47 41.27 53.14 0.69 BEC 432 Q10 579.00 591.95 597.22 595.52 597.27 0.000699 1.77 330.04 168.19 0.22 BEC 432 Q100 1163.00 591.95 599.48 596.20 599.52 0.000221 1.65 720.85 176.43 0.14 BEC 400 Q2 78.00 590.91 593.22 593.22 593.77 0.020055 5.96 13.08 11.96 1.00 BEC 400 Q5 143.00 590.91 593.83 593.83 594.46 0.019719 6.40 22.35 18.49 1.03 BEC 400 Q10 579.00 590.91 595.74 595.74 597.08 0.015192 9.28 62.37 23.41 1.00 BEC 400 Q100 1163.00 590.91 597.38 597.38 599.31 0.014203 11.16 104.17 27.63 1.01 BEC 366 Q2 78.00 589.63 591.34 591.71 592.56 0.064817 8.88 8.78 10.68 1.73 BEC 366 Q5 143.00 589.63 591.83 592.29 593.36 0.050940 9.94 14.38 12.12 1.61 BEC 366 Q10 579.00 589.63 594.18 594.66 596.36 0.021722 11.89 49.92 19.48 1.18 BEC 366 Q100 1163.00 589.63 596.28 596.66 598.77 0.013491 13.19 104.49 32.70 1.02 BEC 332 Q2 78.00 588.13 589.95 590.19 590.89 0.035138 7.79 10.02 9.13 1.31 BEC 332 Q5 143.00 588.13 590.48 590.85 591.82 0.037500 9.29 15.40 11.21 1.40 BEC 332 Q10 579.00 588.13 594.63 593.20 595.14 0.004447 5.70 101.49 30.89 0.55 BEC 332 Q100 1163.00 588.13 596.98 594.92 597.57 0.002906 6.20 207.16 83.10 0.48 HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 05 River: BEC Reach: BEC (Continued) Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC 290. Q2 78.00 587.38 589.43 589.43 590.16 0.020317 6.82 11.44 8.07 1.01 BEC 290. Q5 143.00 587.38 590.20 590.20 591.15 0.019103 7.83 18.27 9.77 1.01 BEC 290. Q10 579.00 587.38 593.11 593.11 594.71 0.016053 10.16 57.01 17.84 1.00 BEC 290. Q100 1163.00 587.38 595.18 595.18 597.21 0.011881 11.54 107.69 32.57 0.93 BEC 216 Q2 78.00 586.20 587.47 587.66 588.27 0.032011 7.20 10.84 11.17 1.29 BEC 216 Q5 143.00 586.20 587.95 588.29 588.90 0.054523 7.81 18.30 25.40 1.62 BEC 216 Q10 579.00 586.20 590.58 589.27 590.70 0.001299 2.69 216.54 93.16 0.31 BEC 216 Q100 1163.00 586.20 592.46 589.93 592.60 0.000752 2.98 397.83 102.19 0.26 BEC 158 Q2 78.00 585.50 586.68 586.68 587.18 0.019520 5.65 13.80 14.07 1.01 BEC 158 Q5 143.00 585.50 587.19 587.19 587.88 0.017896 6.67 21.44 15.75 1.01 BEC 158 Q10 579.00 585.50 589.23 589.23 590.41 0.014659 8.73 66.32 28.04 1.00 BEC 158 Q100 1163.00 585.50 590.72 590.72 592.34 0.013455 10.20 114.04 35.78 1.01 BEC 130 Q2 78.00 583.12 584.34 584.87 586.04 0.082513 10.47 7.45 8.80 2.01 BEC 130 Q5 143.00 583.12 584.86 585.50 586.87 0.064607 11.38 12.57 10.79 1.86 BEC 130 Q10 579.00 583.12 587.00 587.82 589.65 0.034301 13.07 44.31 18.78 1.50 BEC 130 Q100 1163.00 583.12 588.88 589.62 591.72 0.023254 13.53 85.99 25.61 1.30 BEC 120 Q2 78.00 582.25 583.53 584.07 585.25 0.079027 10.53 7.41 8.32 1.97 BEC 120 Q5 143.00 582.25 584.03 584.71 586.19 0.069912 11.80 12.12 10.41 1.93 BEC 120 Q10 579.00 582.25 585.97 586.99 589.21 0.045611 14.45 40.08 18.14 1.71 BEC 120 Q100 1163.00 582.25 587.66 588.82 591.37 0.032534 15.45 75.26 23.46 1.52 BEC 111 Q2 78.00 581.81 582.56 583.07 584.37 0.121751 10.79 7.23 10.88 2.33 BEC 111 Q5 143.00 581.81 582.92 583.65 585.40 0.101717 12.64 11.31 11.38 2.23 BEC 111 Q10 579.00 581.81 584.83 586.12 588.69 0.058634 15.76 36.73 16.58 1.87 BEC 111 Q100 1163.00 581.81 586.36 587.83 590.93 0.051560 17.15 67.80 24.89 1.83 BEC 101 Q2 78.00 581.25 583.42 582.93 583.71 0.007001 4.32 18.05 11.55 0.61 BEC 101 Q5 143.00 581.25 584.21 583.54 584.62 0.007000 5.14 27.83 13.46 0.63 BEC 101 Q10 579.00 581.25 587.06 586.12 587.75 0.007000 6.69 86.58 29.34 0.69 BEC 101 Q100 1163.00 581.25 586.81 587.83 590.13 0.035703 14.63 79.50 28.26 1.54 Post-Project Model 1+0 0 2+00 3 + 0 0 4+00 5+0 0 6+0 0 7 + 0 0 8 + 0 0 9 + 0 0 10 + 0 0 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+ 0 0 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+0 0 28+0 0 29+ 0 0 30+ 0 0 31+0 0 32+00 33+ 0 0 3 4 + 0 0 35+0 0 36+ 0 0 37 + 0 0 3 8 + 0 0 3 9 + 0 0 4 0 + 0 0 4 1 + 0 0 1+2 0 1+1 1 1+ 3 0 1+ 5 8 2+9 0 2+ 1 6 40+ 3 5 40+8 0 39+ 8 1 39+ 2 0 38+10 37+90 37+ 8 0 FIGU R E 2 FIGU R E 1 FIGU R E 2 14 + 3 0 22+ 8 0 24+94 22 + 0 3 21+ 0 7 20 + 3 3 19 + 5 9 19 + 4 9 19+ 3 2 18 + 5 9 17+ 5 1 16 + 8 1 15 + 8 2 13 + 1 6 12 + 4 5 11 + 5 4 10+ 1 5 9+2 5 8+34 7+58 6+93 6+63 6+3 66+ 1 8 5+9 95+6 9 5+2 4 4+8 0 4+3 2 3+ 6 6 4+0 03+3 2 37+ 2 1 38+2 6 37+ 7 5 36+ 6 7 36 + 2 4 35+ 3 5 34+4 8 33+ 6 2 32+ 3 5 31 + 2 6 30+ 7 9 29+93 28+40 29+0 9 27+53 26+79 25+8 3 9+2 0 10 + 7 5 23+ 8 3 FIGU R E 1 NN EXISTING BUCKEYE CREEK CHANNEL Expect Excellence 0 0 FEET METERS 100 50 PRE-PROJECT HEC-RAS WORK MAP BUCKEYE CREEK PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 13010.000.000 AS SHOWN C3 PROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATION AT CONTRACTION PROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATION AT EXPANSION PROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATION AT CONTRACTION PROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATION AT EXPANSION RETROFIT EXISTING GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES (3) NEW FLOODPLAIN NEW FLOODPLAIN APPROXIMATE CREEK HISTORIC ALIGNMENT REPLACE EXISTING FOOT BRIDGE RELOCATE LOW FLOW CHANNEL AWAY FROM TOE OF SLOPE PROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATION AT EXPANSION RELOCATE PHONE LINE NEW CREEK ALIGNMENT EXPLANATION 10+00 LIMITS OF GRADING CREEK HISTORIC ALIGNMENT HEC RAS CROSS SECTION AND STATION LABEL FACING DOWNSTREAM HEC RAS CROSS SECTION FINISHED GRADE AND STATION LABEL FACING DOWNSTREAM WATER MAIN SANITARY SEWER FIBER AND ELECTRIC 10+00 LAS TRAMPAS VALLEY APPROXIMATE 7.7 ACRE BOUNDARY NURSERY AREA EMERGENCY AND EVACUATION INGRESS/EGRESS FOOTHILLS PARK MAINTENANCE AREA 32+00 33+00 34+0 0 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+ 0 0 39+0 0 40+ 0 0 4 1 + 0 0 4 2 + 0 0 43+0 0 44+00 45 + 0 0 46 + 0 0 47 + 0 0 48 + 0 0 49+0 0 50+ 0 0 51+ 0 0 52+0 0 53+00 54 + 0 0 55+ 0 0 56+ 0 0 57 + 0 0 58 + 0 0 59+00 60+00 61+00 62+00 63 + 0 0 64 + 0 0 65 + 0 0 6 6 + 0 0 67+ 0 0 6 8 + 0 0 69 + 0 0 70 + 0 0 70+08 69+69 69+30 68+91 68+59 68+49 67+85 66+97 66+06 65+42 65+10 64+52 63+95 63+07 63+31 62 + 7 9 62+4 8 62 + 0 8 61 + 8 6 58+ 5 1 61 + 4 2 60 + 5 1 60+ 7 8 61 + 0 2 60 + 3 0 60 + 1 1 58+ 9 6 59 + 5 8 58+ 0 1 56+98 57+4 0 56 + 6 5 56+ 3 4 55 + 7 5 55 + 8 0 55+ 7 2 55+ 5 5 54+ 5 1 53 + 7 7 51+ 1 8 46+ 3 5 45+ 8 8 45+ 4 8 45+ 4 6 4 5 + 3 4 4 5 + 1 9 45 + 0 4 44+ 9 7 44 + 8 2 44 + 3 1 43 + 5 4 42+7 7 40 + 3 5 41+36 41+9 0 40+ 8 0 39 + 8 1 39 + 2 0 38+1037+90 53 + 0 4 52 + 4 8 51 + 9 0 51 + 9 6 51+ 8 3 50+ 6 5 50+ 0 8 49+ 4 6 47+ 8 3 47+ 2 2 48+5 6 37 + 8 0 64+15 FIG U R E 2 FIG U R E 1 FIG U R E 2 37 + 2 1 38 + 2 6 37 + 7 5 36 + 6 7 36 + 2 4 35 + 3 5 34+ 4 8 33 + 6 2 32 + 3 5 FIG U R E 1 42+77 43+00 43 + 2 6 43+52 43+57 43+81 43+ 9 9 44 + 5 0 45 + 0 0 45+ 5 0 46+00 46+50 47 + 5 0 48+ 0 0 48+50 49+0 0 50 + 0 0 50 + 5 3 50 + 5 7 50+ 8 2 51+5 0 52+00 52+ 4 0 52+ 5 8 52 + 8 7 52 + 6 3 53 + 0 0 53 + 4 8 53+9 9 54+50 54+99 55+ 4 9 5 5 + 9 9 56 + 4 4 56+9 8 57+48 57+96 58 + 5 9 58 + 6 4 58 + 8 8 59 + 0 0 60+00 60+48 59+ 4 7 60+ 9 9 61 + 5 8 61 + 6 3 62+ 0 0 61 + 8 6 62+5 0 62+99 62+95 63+4 9 63+3 1 64 + 1 6 64 + 2 1 64 + 4 1 64 + 5 9 64+ 9 9 65+49 EXISTING BUCKEYE CREEK CHANNEL NN Expect Excellence 0 0 FEET METERS 100 50 PRE-PROJECT HEC-RAS WORK MAP BUCKEYE CREEK PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 13010.000.000 AS SHOWN C4 OVERFLOW DIVERSION STRUCTURE TRANSITION TO EXISTING CREEK RETROFIT EXISTING GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES AND GABIONS (7) RESTORED CREEK CHANNEL APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HISTORIC CREEK ALIGNMENT REMOVE EXISTING SEDIMENT BASIN LIMITS OF GRADING GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES (TYPICAL) WILDHORSE VALLEY EXPLANATION 10+00 LIMITS OF GRADING CREEK HISTORIC ALIGNMENT HEC RAS CROSS SECTION AND STATION LABEL FACING DOWNSTREAM HEC RAS CROSS SECTION FINISHED GRADE AND STATION LABEL FACING DOWNSTREAM WATER MAIN SANITARY SEWER FIBER AND ELECTRIC 10+00 NEW FOOTBRIDGE NEW FOOTBRIDGE HEC-RAS Plan: fin River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) FGUP BEC 6616.91 Q2 40.40 783.93 784.77 784.77 785.06 0.044917 4.30 9.40 16.52 1.00 FGUP BEC 6616.91 Q5 77.80 783.93 785.11 785.11 785.50 0.041318 4.99 15.59 20.54 1.01 FGUP BEC 6616.91 Q10 316.00 783.93 786.24 786.24 786.96 0.031953 6.83 46.53 34.05 0.99 FGUP BEC 6616.91 Q100 639.00 783.93 787.15 787.15 788.15 0.024112 8.18 85.32 47.46 0.93 FGUP BEC 6549.96 Q2 40.40 780.21 781.34 781.34 781.76 0.042164 5.25 7.70 9.14 1.01 FGUP BEC 6549.96 Q5 77.80 780.21 781.83 781.83 782.41 0.038411 6.10 12.75 11.13 1.00 FGUP BEC 6549.96 Q10 316.00 780.21 783.32 783.32 783.84 0.016808 6.89 71.92 63.34 0.76 FGUP BEC 6549.96 Q100 639.00 780.21 783.95 783.95 784.71 0.020773 8.87 113.17 66.54 0.88 FGUP BEC 6500.01 Q2 40.40 777.88 779.82 779.85 0.001677 1.48 29.93 35.67 0.22 FGUP BEC 6500.01 Q5 77.80 777.88 780.37 780.41 0.001354 1.64 67.00 75.37 0.21 FGUP BEC 6500.01 Q10 316.00 777.88 781.72 781.79 0.001694 2.63 175.03 85.53 0.26 FGUP BEC 6500.01 Q100 639.00 777.88 782.75 782.87 0.002025 3.47 267.07 91.27 0.30 FGUP BEC 6460.99 Q2 40.40 777.99 779.18 779.18 779.63 0.042522 5.34 7.57 8.75 1.01 FGUP BEC 6460.99 Q5 77.80 777.99 779.76 779.76 780.22 0.030330 5.57 15.64 19.84 0.90 FGUP BEC 6460.99 Q10 316.00 777.99 780.94 780.94 781.57 0.023339 7.46 61.01 48.60 0.87 FGUP BEC 6460.99 Q100 639.00 777.99 781.79 781.79 782.61 0.023089 9.16 108.90 66.67 0.92 FGUP BEC 6442.86 Q2 40.40 770.00 772.83 772.84 0.000304 0.76 53.49 29.50 0.10 FGUP BEC 6442.86 Q5 77.80 770.00 773.27 773.29 0.000595 1.16 67.17 32.19 0.14 FGUP BEC 6442.86 Q10 316.00 770.00 774.69 774.80 0.002021 2.66 118.82 40.77 0.27 FGUP BEC 6442.86 Q100 639.00 770.00 775.76 775.98 0.003262 3.82 174.37 71.92 0.36 FGUP BEC 6422.28 Q2 40.40 770.00 772.82 772.83 0.000410 0.83 48.47 28.77 0.11 FGUP BEC 6422.28 Q5 77.80 770.00 773.25 773.28 0.000771 1.26 61.51 31.29 0.16 FGUP BEC 6422.28 Q10 316.00 770.00 774.62 774.75 0.002289 2.89 110.80 41.73 0.29 FGUP BEC 6422.28 Q100 639.00 770.00 775.63 775.91 0.003454 4.30 158.38 55.65 0.38 FGUP BEC 6417.2 Q2 40.40 771.49 772.61 772.48 772.80 0.025528 3.57 11.31 17.09 0.77 FGUP BEC 6417.2 Q5 77.80 771.49 772.92 772.83 773.24 0.030163 4.51 17.27 20.87 0.87 FGUP BEC 6417.2 Q10 316.00 771.49 773.99 773.99 774.67 0.034103 6.62 47.75 35.59 1.01 FGUP BEC 6417.2 Q100 639.00 771.49 774.84 774.84 775.80 0.030672 7.87 81.16 42.96 1.01 FGUP BEC 6350.85 Q2 40.40 769.22 770.24 770.24 770.47 0.051207 3.85 10.48 23.84 1.02 FGUP BEC 6350.85 Q5 77.80 769.22 770.49 770.49 770.82 0.044896 4.58 16.98 27.00 1.02 FGUP BEC 6350.85 Q10 316.00 769.22 771.46 771.46 772.11 0.035284 6.45 49.02 38.95 1.01 FGUP BEC 6350.85 Q100 639.00 769.22 772.29 772.29 773.16 0.030914 7.50 85.16 48.77 1.00 FGUP BEC 6332.7 Q2 40.40 760.00 762.92 762.93 0.000281 0.72 56.22 31.46 0.09 FGUP BEC 6332.7 Q5 77.80 760.00 763.36 763.37 0.000548 1.10 70.41 34.04 0.14 FGUP BEC 6332.7 Q10 316.00 760.00 764.81 764.91 0.001586 2.53 126.12 42.70 0.25 FGUP BEC 6332.7 Q100 639.00 760.00 765.89 766.11 0.002414 3.79 175.89 49.14 0.32 FGUP BEC 6305.16 Q2 40.40 760.00 762.91 762.92 0.000323 0.71 56.63 35.71 0.10 FGUP BEC 6305.16 Q5 77.80 760.00 763.34 763.36 0.000593 1.07 72.61 39.19 0.14 FGUP BEC 6305.16 Q10 316.00 760.00 764.78 764.86 0.001466 2.34 137.26 50.90 0.24 FGUP BEC 6305.16 Q100 639.00 760.00 765.86 766.04 0.002083 3.42 197.16 59.72 0.30 FGUP BEC 6300.12 Q2 40.40 761.51 762.66 762.60 762.89 0.033481 3.85 10.50 17.46 0.87 FGUP BEC 6300.12 Q5 77.80 761.51 763.03 762.94 763.32 0.030599 4.33 17.97 23.40 0.87 FGUP BEC 6300.12 Q10 316.00 761.51 764.21 764.79 0.025254 6.12 51.65 34.51 0.88 FGUP BEC 6300.12 Q100 639.00 761.51 765.11 764.98 765.95 0.025208 7.35 86.97 44.07 0.92 FGUP BEC 6250.3 Q2 40.40 759.77 760.88 760.82 761.21 0.033685 4.62 8.75 10.83 0.91 FGUP BEC 6250.3 Q5 77.80 759.77 761.40 761.31 761.76 0.031824 4.83 16.09 17.94 0.90 FGUP BEC 6250.3 Q10 316.00 759.77 762.60 762.60 763.34 0.033213 6.88 45.93 31.26 1.00 FGUP BEC 6250.3 Q100 639.00 759.77 763.53 763.53 764.54 0.030798 8.06 79.25 40.53 1.01 FGUP BEC 6199.76 Q2 40.40 757.60 758.86 758.86 759.30 0.042153 5.33 7.58 8.73 1.01 FGUP BEC 6199.76 Q5 77.80 757.60 759.37 759.37 759.97 0.038926 6.19 12.57 10.77 1.01 FGUP BEC 6199.76 Q10 316.00 757.60 761.03 761.03 761.86 0.023021 7.74 49.26 33.13 0.88 FGUP BEC 6199.76 Q100 639.00 757.60 762.09 762.09 763.19 0.020757 9.38 90.11 43.82 0.89 FGUP BEC 6187.31 Q2 40.40 750.00 753.21 753.22 0.000416 0.83 48.58 28.94 0.11 FGUP BEC 6187.31 Q5 77.80 750.00 753.75 753.77 0.000675 1.20 65.01 32.23 0.15 FGUP BEC 6187.31 Q10 316.00 750.00 755.44 755.54 0.001427 2.56 128.04 42.57 0.24 FGUP BEC 6187.31 Q100 639.00 750.00 756.64 756.85 0.002118 3.78 183.50 49.93 0.30 FGUP BEC 6164.13 Q2 40.40 750.00 753.20 753.21 0.000423 0.84 48.17 28.73 0.11 FGUP BEC 6164.13 Q5 77.80 750.00 753.73 753.76 0.000698 1.21 64.36 32.24 0.15 FGUP BEC 6164.13 Q10 316.00 750.00 755.40 755.50 0.001731 2.48 127.37 43.27 0.25 FGUP BEC 6164.13 Q100 639.00 750.00 756.60 756.79 0.002352 3.52 183.82 51.16 0.31 FGUP BEC 6159.3 Q2 40.40 751.49 752.81 752.81 753.17 0.043672 4.82 8.38 11.89 1.01 FGUP BEC 6159.3 Q5 77.80 751.49 753.24 753.24 753.70 0.038931 5.43 14.32 15.57 1.00 FGUP BEC 6159.3 Q10 316.00 751.49 754.62 754.62 755.41 0.032694 7.10 44.48 28.44 1.00 FGUP BEC 6159.3 Q100 639.00 751.49 755.62 755.62 756.68 0.030451 8.23 77.66 37.83 1.01 HEC-RAS Plan: fin (Continued) River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) FGUP BEC 6099.86 Q2 40.40 750.00 751.74 751.87 0.011415 2.86 14.10 15.65 0.53 FGUP BEC 6099.86 Q5 77.80 750.00 752.20 752.37 0.013056 3.34 23.27 22.91 0.58 FGUP BEC 6099.86 Q10 316.00 750.00 753.45 753.89 0.016391 5.27 59.95 35.60 0.72 FGUP BEC 6099.86 Q100 639.00 750.00 754.32 755.03 0.018930 6.79 94.33 44.34 0.81 FGUP BEC 6049.43 Q2 40.40 749.88 750.67 750.63 750.90 0.037000 3.85 10.49 18.82 0.91 FGUP BEC 6049.43 Q5 77.80 749.88 750.97 750.94 751.31 0.038148 4.70 16.56 22.53 0.97 FGUP BEC 6049.43 Q10 316.00 749.88 752.04 752.04 752.71 0.033897 6.60 47.91 35.99 1.01 FGUP BEC 6049.43 Q100 639.00 749.88 752.88 752.88 753.87 0.027116 8.03 81.59 44.27 0.97 FGUP BEC 6001.47 Q2 40.40 747.58 748.64 748.64 748.95 0.044719 4.47 9.03 14.87 1.01 FGUP BEC 6001.47 Q5 77.80 747.58 749.00 749.00 749.41 0.040904 5.15 15.11 18.81 1.01 FGUP BEC 6001.47 Q10 316.00 747.58 750.21 750.21 750.95 0.032381 6.90 45.91 31.81 1.00 FGUP BEC 6001.47 Q100 639.00 747.58 751.15 751.15 752.18 0.027758 8.20 80.11 41.08 0.98 FGUP BEC 5948.04 Q2 40.40 745.79 746.92 747.12 0.024302 3.62 11.17 15.96 0.76 FGUP BEC 5948.04 Q5 77.80 745.79 747.36 747.61 0.020616 4.05 19.20 20.41 0.74 FGUP BEC 5948.04 Q10 316.00 745.79 748.53 748.35 749.17 0.021881 6.44 50.22 32.45 0.84 FGUP BEC 5948.04 Q100 639.00 745.79 749.36 749.36 750.47 0.023853 8.64 80.42 40.84 0.94 FGUP BEC 5901.04 Q2 40.40 743.99 745.18 745.18 745.62 0.042129 5.31 7.60 8.79 1.01 FGUP BEC 5901.04 Q5 77.80 743.99 745.70 745.70 746.29 0.038685 6.17 12.61 10.84 1.01 FGUP BEC 5901.04 Q10 316.00 743.99 747.15 747.15 747.89 0.034352 6.90 45.77 31.44 1.01 FGUP BEC 5901.04 Q100 639.00 743.99 748.06 748.06 749.11 0.029723 8.20 78.71 40.67 1.00 FGUP BEC 5889.26 Q2 40.40 736.14 739.49 739.51 0.000691 0.99 40.76 25.60 0.14 FGUP BEC 5889.26 Q5 77.80 736.14 740.02 740.05 0.001123 1.40 55.62 30.34 0.18 FGUP BEC 5889.26 Q10 316.00 736.14 741.70 741.82 0.002368 2.78 113.64 38.91 0.29 FGUP BEC 5889.26 Q100 639.00 736.14 743.04 743.26 0.002809 3.79 170.43 45.77 0.33 FGUP BEC 5865.04 Q2 40.40 736.00 739.48 739.49 0.000501 0.90 44.71 27.02 0.12 FGUP BEC 5865.04 Q5 77.80 736.00 740.00 740.03 0.000872 1.29 60.20 32.35 0.17 FGUP BEC 5865.04 Q10 316.00 736.00 741.65 741.77 0.001654 2.72 122.30 42.71 0.26 FGUP BEC 5865.04 Q100 639.00 736.00 742.98 743.20 0.002152 3.84 185.81 53.76 0.31 FGUP BEC 5860.04 Q2 40.40 737.95 739.29 739.47 0.016689 3.34 12.08 14.45 0.64 FGUP BEC 5860.04 Q5 77.80 737.95 739.74 739.99 0.017407 4.02 19.33 18.04 0.69 FGUP BEC 5860.04 Q10 316.00 737.95 740.97 740.79 741.69 0.020768 6.85 48.78 30.24 0.84 FGUP BEC 5860.04 Q100 639.00 737.95 741.92 741.92 743.08 0.021649 8.97 81.96 40.02 0.91 FGUP BEC 5797.78 Q2 40.40 736.82 738.10 738.29 0.021572 3.54 11.41 15.13 0.72 FGUP BEC 5797.78 Q5 77.80 736.82 738.52 738.78 0.022407 4.05 19.22 21.60 0.76 FGUP BEC 5797.78 Q10 316.00 736.82 739.56 739.50 740.24 0.025819 6.65 49.62 35.12 0.90 FGUP BEC 5797.78 Q100 639.00 736.82 740.42 740.42 741.48 0.024291 8.50 83.59 43.97 0.94 FGUP BEC 5749.49 Q2 40.40 735.94 736.76 736.71 736.99 0.034999 3.86 10.47 17.98 0.89 FGUP BEC 5749.49 Q5 77.80 735.94 737.06 737.03 737.41 0.036554 4.71 16.50 21.65 0.95 FGUP BEC 5749.49 Q10 316.00 735.94 738.13 738.13 738.86 0.031354 6.85 46.79 34.36 0.99 FGUP BEC 5749.49 Q100 639.00 735.94 739.05 739.05 740.09 0.024468 8.32 82.60 43.57 0.94 FGUP BEC 5699.87 Q2 40.40 733.71 734.72 734.72 735.03 0.044820 4.49 8.99 14.72 1.01 FGUP BEC 5699.87 Q5 77.80 733.71 735.09 735.09 735.50 0.040441 5.15 15.12 18.64 1.01 FGUP BEC 5699.87 Q10 316.00 733.71 736.32 736.32 737.13 0.027863 7.38 45.91 31.25 0.96 FGUP BEC 5699.87 Q100 639.00 733.71 737.35 737.35 738.47 0.022460 8.91 83.52 41.59 0.93 FGUP BEC 5645.22 Q2 40.40 731.85 733.31 733.41 0.008135 2.47 16.35 18.13 0.46 FGUP BEC 5645.22 Q5 77.80 731.85 733.76 733.90 0.009255 3.07 25.37 22.38 0.51 FGUP BEC 5645.22 Q10 316.00 731.85 734.98 735.45 0.012474 5.59 59.92 34.44 0.66 FGUP BEC 5645.22 Q100 639.00 731.85 735.73 735.54 736.69 0.017672 8.09 88.94 42.05 0.82 FGUP BEC 5600.25 Q2 40.40 731.43 732.49 732.44 732.73 0.035775 3.92 10.30 17.54 0.90 FGUP BEC 5600.25 Q5 77.80 731.43 732.81 732.77 733.15 0.035862 4.66 16.68 21.92 0.94 FGUP BEC 5600.25 Q10 316.00 731.43 733.89 733.89 734.57 0.032651 6.66 47.95 36.49 0.99 FGUP BEC 5600.25 Q100 639.00 731.43 734.74 734.74 735.73 0.026035 8.08 83.11 45.36 0.96 FGUP BEC 5549.93 Q2 40.40 729.92 730.75 730.69 730.97 0.034148 3.82 10.58 18.08 0.88 FGUP BEC 5549.93 Q5 77.80 729.92 731.07 731.01 731.39 0.033957 4.59 16.95 21.88 0.92 FGUP BEC 5549.93 Q10 316.00 729.92 732.13 732.13 732.85 0.032024 6.82 46.79 34.20 0.99 FGUP BEC 5549.93 Q100 639.00 729.92 733.01 733.01 734.05 0.026893 8.26 80.93 42.79 0.97 FGUP BEC 5499.93 Q2 40.40 727.89 728.79 728.77 729.08 0.042233 4.33 9.32 15.43 0.98 FGUP BEC 5499.93 Q5 77.80 727.89 729.13 729.13 729.53 0.040574 5.12 15.20 18.96 1.01 FGUP BEC 5499.93 Q10 316.00 727.89 730.34 730.31 731.09 0.029911 6.99 45.70 31.38 0.97 FGUP BEC 5499.93 Q100 639.00 727.89 731.29 731.29 732.40 0.024250 8.58 80.16 40.76 0.94 FGUP BEC 5450.26 Q2 40.40 725.97 727.23 727.47 0.025078 3.96 10.26 13.88 0.78 FGUP BEC 5450.26 Q5 77.80 725.97 727.65 727.51 728.00 0.023138 4.82 17.08 18.62 0.79 FGUP BEC 5450.26 Q10 316.00 725.97 728.89 728.89 729.74 0.024528 7.91 48.26 31.42 0.92 FGUP BEC 5450.26 Q100 639.00 725.97 729.98 729.98 731.11 0.021510 9.57 88.30 42.49 0.92 HEC-RAS Plan: fin (Continued) River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) FGUP BEC 5399.89 Q2 40.40 724.64 726.00 726.26 0.023451 4.03 10.02 11.54 0.76 FGUP BEC 5399.89 Q5 77.80 724.64 726.41 726.34 726.78 0.025732 4.99 16.89 20.81 0.83 FGUP BEC 5399.89 Q10 316.00 724.64 727.62 727.56 728.29 0.027403 7.12 51.84 34.89 0.93 FGUP BEC 5399.89 Q100 639.00 724.64 728.44 728.44 729.50 0.028951 9.09 84.00 43.05 1.01 FGUP BEC 5350.05 Q2 40.40 723.52 724.61 724.55 724.85 0.034079 3.93 10.28 16.78 0.89 FGUP BEC 5350.05 Q5 77.80 723.52 724.94 724.89 725.29 0.034900 4.74 16.43 20.62 0.94 FGUP BEC 5350.05 Q10 316.00 723.52 726.05 726.05 726.77 0.034105 6.78 46.60 33.49 1.01 FGUP BEC 5350.05 Q100 639.00 723.52 726.97 726.97 727.93 0.029955 7.85 81.38 42.54 1.00 FGUP BEC 5300.48 Q2 40.40 721.26 722.59 722.59 722.93 0.044530 4.66 8.67 13.24 1.02 FGUP BEC 5300.48 Q5 77.80 721.26 722.98 722.98 723.42 0.040639 5.29 14.72 17.39 1.01 FGUP BEC 5300.48 Q10 316.00 721.26 724.27 724.27 725.00 0.032980 6.86 46.05 31.49 1.00 FGUP BEC 5300.48 Q100 639.00 721.26 725.22 725.22 726.19 0.030192 7.91 80.77 41.80 1.00 FGUP BEC 5288.21 Q2 40.40 714.00 717.43 717.43 0.000166 0.67 64.22 32.50 0.08 FGUP BEC 5288.21 Q5 77.80 714.00 717.90 717.91 0.000327 1.06 80.11 35.08 0.11 FGUP BEC 5288.21 Q10 316.00 714.00 719.46 719.55 0.001114 2.60 141.53 43.66 0.22 FGUP BEC 5288.21 Q100 639.00 714.00 720.57 720.79 0.001957 4.00 193.63 49.77 0.30 FGUP BEC 5264.03 Q2 40.40 714.00 717.42 717.43 0.000129 0.54 74.50 35.54 0.07 FGUP BEC 5264.03 Q5 77.80 714.00 717.89 717.90 0.000267 0.85 91.92 38.74 0.10 FGUP BEC 5264.03 Q10 316.00 714.00 719.46 719.52 0.000917 1.97 160.82 49.42 0.19 FGUP BEC 5264.03 Q100 639.00 714.00 720.59 720.72 0.001490 2.93 221.90 58.99 0.25 FGUP BEC 5258.48 Q2 40.40 715.82 717.31 717.42 0.009783 2.64 15.31 17.62 0.50 FGUP BEC 5258.48 Q5 77.80 715.82 717.71 717.88 0.011998 3.36 23.16 21.63 0.57 FGUP BEC 5258.48 Q10 316.00 715.82 719.08 719.47 0.014242 5.01 63.13 36.92 0.67 FGUP BEC 5258.48 Q100 639.00 715.82 720.08 720.66 0.013649 6.09 105.91 48.53 0.70 FGUP BEC 5241.43 Q2 40.40 715.90 716.78 716.78 717.08 0.044771 4.42 9.14 15.34 1.01 FGUP BEC 5241.43 Q5 77.80 715.90 717.19 717.13 717.54 0.033911 4.79 16.25 19.61 0.93 FGUP BEC 5241.43 Q10 316.00 715.90 718.37 718.34 719.09 0.032021 6.81 46.40 31.50 0.99 FGUP BEC 5241.43 Q100 639.00 715.90 719.30 719.30 720.29 0.029805 7.95 80.36 40.94 1.00 FGUP BEC 5199.89 Q2 40.40 714.00 715.57 715.77 0.014290 3.59 11.26 10.37 0.61 FGUP BEC 5199.89 Q5 77.80 714.00 716.20 716.44 0.020235 3.89 20.00 21.72 0.71 FGUP BEC 5199.89 Q10 316.00 714.00 717.43 717.95 0.021487 5.80 54.50 34.30 0.81 FGUP BEC 5199.89 Q100 639.00 714.00 718.22 718.10 719.10 0.024971 7.54 84.88 42.28 0.92 FGUP BEC 5150.17 Q2 40.40 713.49 714.57 714.78 0.029763 3.65 11.07 18.25 0.83 FGUP BEC 5150.17 Q5 77.80 713.49 714.90 714.81 715.20 0.031452 4.42 17.62 22.75 0.88 FGUP BEC 5150.17 Q10 316.00 713.49 715.90 715.90 716.60 0.034044 6.72 47.03 34.25 1.01 FGUP BEC 5150.17 Q100 639.00 713.49 716.79 716.79 717.77 0.028356 7.97 81.32 43.07 0.98 FGUP BEC 5099.93 Q2 40.40 711.60 712.64 712.64 712.94 0.045186 4.40 9.17 15.59 1.01 FGUP BEC 5099.93 Q5 77.80 711.60 712.99 712.99 713.39 0.041188 5.07 15.36 19.72 1.01 FGUP BEC 5099.93 Q10 316.00 711.60 714.15 714.15 714.89 0.033437 6.93 45.65 31.94 1.01 FGUP BEC 5099.93 Q100 639.00 711.60 715.07 715.07 716.14 0.026221 8.37 79.39 41.31 0.97 FGUP BEC 5082.12 Q2 40.40 705.96 707.35 707.50 0.010985 3.09 13.08 12.66 0.54 FGUP BEC 5082.12 Q5 77.80 705.96 707.86 708.06 0.016213 3.58 21.75 22.92 0.65 FGUP BEC 5082.12 Q10 316.00 705.96 709.24 709.66 0.014504 5.23 60.47 33.13 0.68 FGUP BEC 5082.12 Q100 639.00 705.96 710.35 710.96 0.013462 6.28 101.92 41.41 0.69 FGUP BEC 5057.86 Q2 40.40 705.70 707.05 707.19 0.014053 3.00 13.46 16.85 0.59 FGUP BEC 5057.86 Q5 77.80 705.70 707.47 707.68 0.014956 3.65 21.33 20.85 0.64 FGUP BEC 5057.86 Q10 316.00 705.70 708.84 708.42 709.29 0.015855 5.37 58.89 33.61 0.71 FGUP BEC 5057.86 Q100 639.00 705.70 710.07 709.40 710.63 0.012907 5.99 106.65 44.48 0.68 FGUP BEC 5052.78 Q2 40.40 705.64 706.74 706.74 707.06 0.044210 4.56 8.86 14.02 1.01 FGUP BEC 5052.78 Q5 77.80 705.64 707.11 707.11 707.54 0.040309 5.24 14.85 17.76 1.01 FGUP BEC 5052.78 Q10 316.00 705.64 708.36 708.36 709.15 0.032192 7.14 44.53 29.80 1.00 FGUP BEC 5052.78 Q100 639.00 705.64 709.34 709.34 710.48 0.025028 8.66 78.19 38.69 0.96 FGUP BEC 5000.05 Q2 40.40 703.94 705.11 705.25 0.015424 3.06 13.21 17.26 0.62 FGUP BEC 5000.05 Q5 77.80 703.94 705.49 705.71 0.017198 3.80 20.46 20.88 0.68 FGUP BEC 5000.05 Q10 316.00 703.94 706.76 707.28 0.019724 5.75 54.96 33.35 0.79 FGUP BEC 5000.05 Q100 639.00 703.94 707.56 707.42 708.46 0.023044 7.59 84.84 41.31 0.90 FGUP BEC 4900.1 Q2 40.40 701.92 702.67 702.64 702.91 0.039263 3.91 10.34 19.02 0.93 FGUP BEC 4900.1 Q5 77.80 701.92 703.00 702.95 703.32 0.035060 4.53 17.18 23.23 0.93 FGUP BEC 4900.1 Q10 316.00 701.92 704.03 704.03 704.70 0.034392 6.58 48.03 36.47 1.01 FGUP BEC 4900.1 Q100 639.00 701.92 704.86 704.86 705.81 0.030612 7.81 81.90 44.79 1.01 FGUP BEC 4849.72 Q2 40.40 699.69 700.68 700.65 700.96 0.038237 4.19 9.64 15.56 0.94 FGUP BEC 4849.72 Q5 77.80 699.69 701.00 701.00 701.41 0.040619 5.12 15.19 18.98 1.01 FGUP BEC 4849.72 Q10 316.00 699.69 702.14 702.14 702.89 0.033402 6.93 45.70 32.62 1.01 FGUP BEC 4849.72 Q100 639.00 699.69 703.07 703.07 704.14 0.025451 8.39 80.26 41.91 0.96 HEC-RAS Plan: fin (Continued) River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) FGUP BEC 4799.96 Q2 40.40 697.78 698.83 698.78 699.10 0.036561 4.22 9.58 14.79 0.92 FGUP BEC 4799.96 Q5 77.80 697.78 699.22 699.15 699.58 0.032626 4.82 16.14 18.68 0.91 FGUP BEC 4799.96 Q10 316.00 697.78 700.44 700.37 701.17 0.027382 6.88 46.59 31.09 0.93 FGUP BEC 4799.96 Q100 639.00 697.78 701.37 701.37 702.50 0.024058 8.65 79.88 40.25 0.94 FGUP BEC 4749.82 Q2 40.40 695.98 697.29 697.13 697.59 0.025218 4.39 9.21 9.67 0.79 FGUP BEC 4749.82 Q5 77.80 695.98 697.83 697.66 698.13 0.025453 4.42 17.59 18.78 0.81 FGUP BEC 4749.82 Q10 316.00 695.98 698.96 698.96 699.80 0.026784 7.52 45.78 30.66 0.94 FGUP BEC 4749.82 Q100 639.00 695.98 700.05 700.05 701.17 0.021446 9.00 85.17 41.59 0.90 FGUP BEC 4650.52 Q2 40.40 693.57 694.72 694.61 694.94 0.027930 3.71 10.88 16.66 0.81 FGUP BEC 4650.52 Q5 77.80 693.57 695.06 694.97 695.38 0.030239 4.54 17.12 20.51 0.88 FGUP BEC 4650.52 Q10 316.00 693.57 696.14 696.14 696.92 0.029702 7.14 45.89 32.33 0.97 FGUP BEC 4650.52 Q100 639.00 693.57 697.12 697.12 698.22 0.023552 8.65 82.33 42.04 0.94 FGUP BEC 4600.04 Q2 40.40 691.96 692.86 692.86 693.18 0.043816 4.50 8.97 14.36 1.00 FGUP BEC 4600.04 Q5 77.80 691.96 693.25 693.23 693.65 0.038108 5.11 15.23 18.13 0.98 FGUP BEC 4600.04 Q10 316.00 691.96 694.46 694.46 695.28 0.030030 7.26 44.39 30.03 0.98 FGUP BEC 4600.04 Q100 639.00 691.96 695.51 695.51 696.63 0.022723 8.68 81.33 40.67 0.92 FGUP BEC 4549.97 Q2 40.40 689.96 691.52 691.71 0.013278 3.47 11.65 10.74 0.59 FGUP BEC 4549.97 Q5 77.80 689.96 692.08 692.32 0.018377 3.90 20.05 21.80 0.69 FGUP BEC 4549.97 Q10 316.00 689.96 693.14 693.09 693.91 0.023979 7.23 48.62 32.31 0.89 FGUP BEC 4549.97 Q100 639.00 689.96 694.13 694.13 695.25 0.022101 9.03 85.56 42.17 0.91 FGUP BEC 4500 Q2 40.40 689.40 690.44 690.38 690.68 0.036151 3.94 10.26 17.41 0.90 FGUP BEC 4500 Q5 77.80 689.40 690.79 690.72 691.10 0.033434 4.50 17.29 22.67 0.91 FGUP BEC 4500 Q10 316.00 689.40 691.86 691.82 692.52 0.030945 6.49 48.69 34.71 0.97 FGUP BEC 4500 Q100 639.00 689.40 692.67 692.67 693.70 0.027824 8.18 79.83 42.98 0.98 FGUP BEC 4450.29 Q2 40.40 687.81 688.76 688.69 688.99 0.032066 3.83 10.54 17.09 0.86 FGUP BEC 4450.29 Q5 77.80 687.81 689.09 689.03 689.43 0.033571 4.67 16.66 20.76 0.92 FGUP BEC 4450.29 Q10 316.00 687.81 690.20 690.20 690.90 0.034326 6.71 47.12 34.60 1.01 FGUP BEC 4450.29 Q100 639.00 687.81 691.08 691.08 692.05 0.030641 7.90 80.92 42.62 1.01 FGUP BEC 4399.82 Q2 40.40 685.77 686.78 686.78 687.09 0.044672 4.48 9.01 14.74 1.01 FGUP BEC 4399.82 Q5 77.80 685.77 687.14 687.14 687.56 0.040859 5.17 15.06 18.60 1.01 FGUP BEC 4399.82 Q10 316.00 685.77 688.33 688.33 689.14 0.031302 7.25 44.04 29.68 0.99 FGUP BEC 4399.82 Q100 639.00 685.77 689.36 689.36 690.49 0.023628 8.70 79.93 40.10 0.94 FGUP BEC 4381.46 Q2 40.40 679.99 681.73 681.82 0.004947 2.33 17.31 13.94 0.37 FGUP BEC 4381.46 Q5 77.80 679.99 682.28 682.39 0.006825 2.70 28.94 25.44 0.44 FGUP BEC 4381.46 Q10 316.00 679.99 683.93 684.21 0.005578 4.35 79.98 36.51 0.45 FGUP BEC 4381.46 Q100 639.00 679.99 685.34 685.76 0.005145 5.47 138.19 45.97 0.47 FGUP BEC 4356.95 Q2 40.40 679.96 681.67 681.71 0.002928 1.66 24.33 22.79 0.28 FGUP BEC 4356.95 Q5 77.80 679.96 682.20 682.27 0.003331 2.06 37.80 28.26 0.31 FGUP BEC 4356.95 Q10 316.00 679.96 683.91 684.06 0.003814 3.10 101.98 46.59 0.37 FGUP BEC 4356.95 Q100 639.00 679.96 685.40 685.60 0.002745 3.70 180.86 59.41 0.34 FGUP BEC 4351.94 Q2 40.40 679.95 681.65 681.70 0.003007 1.67 24.14 22.81 0.29 FGUP BEC 4351.94 Q5 77.80 679.95 682.18 682.25 0.003368 2.07 37.62 28.43 0.32 FGUP BEC 4351.94 Q10 316.00 679.95 683.86 684.04 0.003307 3.38 100.87 46.64 0.35 FGUP BEC 4351.94 Q100 639.00 679.95 685.34 685.59 0.002853 4.16 181.16 61.50 0.35 FGUP BEC 4326.06 Q2 40.40 679.91 681.12 681.12 681.47 0.045499 4.74 8.52 12.21 1.00 FGUP BEC 4326.06 Q5 77.80 679.91 681.53 681.53 682.00 0.042860 5.46 14.24 15.71 1.01 FGUP BEC 4326.06 Q10 316.00 679.91 682.87 682.87 683.77 0.031563 7.63 41.99 24.72 0.98 FGUP BEC 4326.06 Q100 639.00 679.91 683.98 683.98 685.31 0.025581 9.39 72.80 30.46 0.96 FGUP BEC 4300.02 Q2 40.40 678.00 679.48 679.66 0.012805 3.39 11.92 11.11 0.58 FGUP BEC 4300.02 Q5 77.80 678.00 680.00 680.26 0.019912 4.09 19.03 18.90 0.72 FGUP BEC 4300.02 Q10 316.00 678.00 681.09 681.02 681.97 0.030574 7.56 41.78 21.69 0.96 FGUP BEC 4300.02 Q100 639.00 678.00 682.17 682.17 683.63 0.031533 9.70 65.87 22.92 1.01 FGUP BEC 4284.28 Q2 40.40 678.00 678.95 678.95 679.30 0.044412 4.71 8.57 12.62 1.01 FGUP BEC 4284.28 Q5 77.80 678.00 679.37 679.37 679.81 0.040630 5.32 14.62 16.86 1.01 FGUP BEC 4284.28 Q10 316.00 678.00 680.62 680.62 681.48 0.031718 7.45 43.12 27.02 0.99 FGUP BEC 4284.28 Q100 639.00 678.00 681.69 681.69 682.93 0.026211 9.06 75.11 32.49 0.95 BEC BEC 7008. Q2 26.60 804.67 806.17 806.17 806.70 0.027059 5.83 4.56 4.38 1.01 BEC BEC 7008. Q5 50.20 804.67 806.76 806.76 807.46 0.025858 6.71 7.48 5.42 1.01 BEC BEC 7008. Q10 205.40 804.67 809.00 809.00 809.96 0.016530 8.04 28.33 16.96 0.88 BEC BEC 7008. Q100 418.00 804.67 810.44 810.25 811.47 0.011348 8.89 59.38 25.18 0.78 BEC BEC 7004 Q2 26.60 804.50 805.76 805.76 806.28 0.026280 5.78 4.60 4.47 1.01 BEC BEC 7004 Q5 50.20 804.50 806.33 806.33 807.05 0.025572 6.79 7.40 5.23 1.01 BEC BEC 7004 Q10 205.40 804.50 808.76 808.76 809.82 0.017598 8.35 26.15 14.25 0.88 BEC BEC 7004 Q100 418.00 804.50 810.17 810.17 811.41 0.014116 9.54 53.48 23.35 0.84 HEC-RAS Plan: fin (Continued) River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC BEC 6969. Q2 26.60 803.47 804.66 804.66 805.08 0.023381 5.19 5.13 6.21 1.01 BEC BEC 6969. Q5 50.20 803.47 805.14 805.14 805.67 0.021708 5.87 8.56 8.15 1.01 BEC BEC 6969. Q10 205.40 803.47 806.73 806.73 807.65 0.016411 7.71 27.17 16.27 0.97 BEC BEC 6969. Q100 418.00 803.47 807.98 807.98 809.16 0.011815 9.00 53.47 26.54 0.89 BEC BEC 6930 Q2 26.60 799.54 801.06 801.06 801.49 0.022759 5.27 5.05 5.90 1.00 BEC BEC 6930 Q5 50.20 799.54 801.59 801.59 802.10 0.021411 5.73 8.77 8.75 1.01 BEC BEC 6930 Q10 205.40 799.54 803.08 803.08 804.04 0.017484 7.84 26.19 13.71 1.00 BEC BEC 6930 Q100 418.00 799.54 804.29 804.29 805.65 0.016375 9.34 44.75 16.86 1.01 BEC BEC 6891 Q2 26.60 796.78 798.12 798.12 798.51 0.022696 4.96 5.36 7.16 1.01 BEC BEC 6891 Q5 50.20 796.78 798.54 798.54 799.07 0.020837 5.81 8.64 8.44 1.01 BEC BEC 6891 Q10 205.40 796.78 800.15 800.15 801.09 0.014988 7.82 27.13 16.08 0.95 BEC BEC 6891 Q100 418.00 796.78 801.30 801.30 802.72 0.013054 9.79 47.12 18.35 0.96 BEC BEC 6859 Q2 26.60 794.90 795.90 795.90 796.29 0.023378 5.03 5.29 6.83 1.01 BEC BEC 6859 Q5 50.20 794.90 796.33 796.33 796.88 0.021475 5.95 8.44 7.69 1.00 BEC BEC 6859 Q10 205.40 794.90 798.04 798.04 799.13 0.018708 8.36 24.58 11.48 1.01 BEC BEC 6859 Q100 418.00 794.90 799.48 799.48 800.84 0.016531 9.33 45.05 17.85 1.00 BEC BEC 6849 Q2 26.60 794.26 795.33 795.33 795.70 0.023635 4.87 5.46 7.60 1.01 BEC BEC 6849 Q5 50.20 794.26 795.73 795.73 796.26 0.021712 5.83 8.61 8.29 1.01 BEC BEC 6849 Q10 205.40 794.26 797.35 797.35 798.45 0.018846 8.44 24.34 11.13 1.01 BEC BEC 6849 Q100 418.00 794.26 798.83 798.83 800.24 0.015139 9.58 45.04 18.88 0.95 BEC BEC 6785 Q2 26.60 789.85 791.20 791.20 791.59 0.022446 5.02 5.30 6.95 1.01 BEC BEC 6785 Q5 50.20 789.85 791.64 791.64 792.15 0.020590 5.72 8.77 8.83 1.01 BEC BEC 6785 Q10 205.40 789.85 792.99 792.99 793.68 0.016846 6.70 30.95 23.88 0.99 BEC BEC 6785 Q100 418.00 789.85 793.90 793.90 794.85 0.012484 7.97 58.03 35.73 0.92 BEC BEC 6697 Q2 26.60 785.14 786.43 786.43 786.78 0.022121 4.80 5.54 7.88 1.01 BEC BEC 6697 Q5 50.20 785.14 786.83 786.83 787.30 0.020313 5.46 9.20 10.13 1.01 BEC BEC 6697 Q10 205.40 785.14 788.21 788.21 789.04 0.016844 7.33 28.01 17.11 1.01 BEC BEC 6697 Q100 418.00 785.14 789.26 789.26 790.42 0.014444 8.63 48.68 22.15 0.99 BEC BEC 6606 Q2 26.60 780.68 781.79 781.79 782.18 0.022230 5.02 5.30 6.89 1.01 BEC BEC 6606 Q5 50.20 780.68 782.23 782.23 782.75 0.020543 5.79 8.67 8.48 1.01 BEC BEC 6606 Q10 205.40 780.68 783.80 783.80 784.56 0.012917 7.27 32.39 22.40 0.90 BEC BEC 6606 Q100 418.00 780.68 784.73 784.73 785.88 0.012631 9.23 55.78 27.86 0.94 BEC BEC 6542 Q2 26.60 777.99 779.06 779.06 779.40 0.022402 4.71 5.65 8.35 1.01 BEC BEC 6542 Q5 50.20 777.99 779.45 779.45 779.90 0.020471 5.38 9.32 10.53 1.01 BEC BEC 6542 Q10 205.40 777.99 780.70 780.70 781.25 0.011298 6.40 41.28 39.94 0.84 BEC BEC 6542 Q100 418.00 777.99 781.44 781.44 782.17 0.010607 7.80 74.07 55.26 0.87 BEC BEC 6508 Q2 26.60 776.55 777.46 777.46 777.78 0.022242 4.52 5.88 9.42 1.01 BEC BEC 6508 Q5 50.20 776.55 777.81 777.81 778.24 0.020285 5.25 9.56 11.34 1.01 BEC BEC 6508 Q10 205.40 776.55 779.15 779.15 779.81 0.010687 6.86 37.93 38.53 0.85 BEC BEC 6508 Q100 418.00 776.55 780.00 780.00 780.70 0.008649 7.77 80.76 53.15 0.81 BEC BEC 6452 Q2 26.60 771.83 772.72 772.72 773.01 0.022534 4.31 6.17 10.89 1.01 BEC BEC 6452 Q5 50.20 771.83 773.05 773.05 773.43 0.020239 4.95 10.14 13.36 1.00 BEC BEC 6452 Q10 205.40 771.83 774.17 774.17 774.99 0.017101 7.30 28.14 17.34 1.01 BEC BEC 6452 Q100 418.00 771.83 775.26 775.26 776.38 0.015595 8.50 49.20 22.36 1.01 BEC BEC 6415 Q2 26.60 771.47 772.32 771.96 772.39 0.003666 2.10 12.68 16.86 0.43 BEC BEC 6415 Q5 50.20 771.47 772.63 772.21 772.75 0.004486 2.78 18.08 18.27 0.49 BEC BEC 6415 Q10 205.40 771.47 773.87 773.27 774.17 0.004958 4.50 51.11 40.07 0.57 BEC BEC 6415 Q100 418.00 771.47 774.88 774.23 775.23 0.004027 5.15 101.77 56.66 0.55 BEC BEC 6395 Q2 26.60 771.04 772.00 772.00 772.22 0.024365 3.77 7.06 16.24 1.01 BEC BEC 6395 Q5 50.20 771.04 772.24 772.24 772.56 0.020882 4.53 11.09 17.15 0.99 BEC BEC 6395 Q10 205.40 771.04 773.26 773.26 773.97 0.015183 6.73 31.18 26.06 0.96 BEC BEC 6395 Q100 418.00 771.04 774.23 774.23 775.06 0.010125 7.64 67.27 48.58 0.85 BEC BEC 6331 Q2 26.60 768.69 769.02 769.00 769.10 0.022464 2.39 11.13 48.29 0.88 BEC BEC 6331 Q5 50.20 768.69 769.11 769.11 769.27 0.026010 3.20 15.67 48.86 1.00 BEC BEC 6331 Q10 205.40 768.69 769.61 769.61 770.00 0.019525 5.04 40.79 51.90 1.00 BEC BEC 6331 Q100 418.00 768.69 770.18 770.09 770.71 0.013489 5.82 71.76 55.41 0.90 BEC BEC 6307 Q2 26.60 768.05 768.37 768.37 768.46 0.031974 2.45 10.85 59.09 1.01 BEC BEC 6307 Q5 50.20 768.05 768.47 768.47 768.60 0.027720 2.88 17.41 66.76 1.00 BEC BEC 6307 Q10 205.40 768.05 769.23 769.36 0.004920 2.94 69.97 71.04 0.52 BEC BEC 6307 Q100 418.00 768.05 770.39 770.50 0.001590 2.66 157.02 78.72 0.33 BEC BEC 6279 Q2 26.60 767.29 767.75 767.78 0.005946 1.42 18.76 65.79 0.47 BEC BEC 6279 Q5 50.20 767.29 767.98 768.01 0.003011 1.43 35.03 72.58 0.36 BEC BEC 6279 Q10 205.40 767.29 769.26 769.29 0.000621 1.43 143.76 91.22 0.20 BEC BEC 6279 Q100 418.00 767.29 770.42 770.46 0.000438 1.65 254.01 100.14 0.18 HEC-RAS Plan: fin (Continued) River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC BEC 6248 Q2 26.60 766.60 767.19 767.19 767.43 0.023579 3.91 6.81 14.50 1.01 BEC BEC 6248 Q5 50.20 766.60 767.45 767.45 767.79 0.021200 4.67 10.75 16.12 1.01 BEC BEC 6248 Q10 205.40 766.60 768.49 768.49 769.17 0.016781 6.65 30.89 22.66 1.00 BEC BEC 6248 Q100 418.00 766.60 769.37 769.37 770.33 0.015218 7.85 53.23 28.12 1.01 BEC BEC 6208 Q2 26.60 763.87 764.61 764.61 764.86 0.024965 4.03 6.61 13.43 1.01 BEC BEC 6208 Q5 50.20 763.87 764.87 764.87 765.25 0.022134 4.92 10.21 13.74 1.01 BEC BEC 6208 Q10 205.40 763.87 766.03 766.03 766.90 0.018416 7.50 27.40 15.92 1.01 BEC BEC 6208 Q100 418.00 763.87 767.11 767.11 768.40 0.016781 9.08 46.03 18.23 1.01 BEC BEC 6186 Q2 26.60 762.29 763.45 763.45 763.75 0.023509 4.43 6.00 10.19 1.02 BEC BEC 6186 Q5 50.20 762.29 763.78 763.78 764.20 0.020727 5.17 9.71 11.84 1.01 BEC BEC 6186 Q10 205.40 762.29 765.03 765.03 765.94 0.017191 7.63 26.92 15.20 1.01 BEC BEC 6186 Q100 418.00 762.29 766.14 766.14 767.51 0.014498 9.39 45.06 17.46 0.99 BEC BEC 6142 Q2 26.60 759.80 760.88 760.88 761.27 0.022673 4.97 5.35 7.12 1.01 BEC BEC 6142 Q5 50.20 759.80 761.30 761.30 761.84 0.020838 5.86 8.57 8.17 1.01 BEC BEC 6142 Q10 205.40 759.80 762.92 762.92 763.96 0.017801 8.19 25.07 12.22 1.01 BEC BEC 6142 Q100 418.00 759.80 764.25 764.25 765.70 0.015001 9.68 43.76 16.69 0.98 BEC BEC 6102 Q2 26.60 757.44 758.82 758.82 759.18 0.023860 4.79 5.56 8.05 1.02 BEC BEC 6102 Q5 50.20 757.44 759.21 759.21 759.70 0.021339 5.65 8.89 9.12 1.01 BEC BEC 6102 Q10 205.40 757.44 760.71 760.71 761.73 0.018056 8.13 25.28 12.57 1.01 BEC BEC 6102 Q100 418.00 757.44 762.02 762.02 763.40 0.013825 9.52 46.30 18.53 0.95 BEC BEC 6078 Q2 26.60 756.44 757.21 757.21 757.52 0.023041 4.50 5.91 9.51 1.01 BEC BEC 6078 Q5 50.20 756.44 757.54 757.54 758.01 0.021180 5.49 9.14 9.87 1.01 BEC BEC 6078 Q10 205.40 756.44 759.00 759.00 760.07 0.018460 8.28 24.81 11.77 1.01 BEC BEC 6078 Q100 418.00 756.44 760.35 760.35 761.88 0.017205 9.92 42.18 14.51 1.00 BEC BEC 6051 Q2 26.60 756.02 756.60 756.60 756.83 0.024309 3.84 6.92 15.31 1.01 BEC BEC 6051 Q5 50.20 756.02 756.85 756.85 757.17 0.021791 4.53 11.09 17.58 1.01 BEC BEC 6051 Q10 205.40 756.02 757.82 757.82 758.55 0.017296 6.86 29.96 20.77 1.01 BEC BEC 6051 Q100 418.00 756.02 759.27 759.96 0.007682 6.68 62.82 25.62 0.72 BEC BEC 6030 Q2 26.60 752.93 754.87 754.96 0.002419 2.34 11.35 7.99 0.35 BEC BEC 6030 Q5 50.20 752.93 755.47 755.61 0.003116 3.05 16.48 9.27 0.40 BEC BEC 6030 Q10 205.40 752.93 757.57 757.96 0.004619 5.05 40.64 13.76 0.52 BEC BEC 6030 Q100 418.00 752.93 759.19 759.83 0.004717 6.41 65.90 17.53 0.55 BEC BEC 6011 Q2 26.60 752.87 754.85 754.91 0.001647 1.95 13.64 9.50 0.29 BEC BEC 6011 Q5 50.20 752.87 755.45 755.55 0.002081 2.58 19.47 10.12 0.33 BEC BEC 6011 Q10 205.40 752.87 757.51 757.87 0.003925 4.84 42.47 12.15 0.46 BEC BEC 6011 Q100 418.00 752.87 759.09 759.73 0.005563 6.41 65.17 16.22 0.56 BEC BEC 5958 Q2 26.60 752.80 754.26 754.26 754.66 0.022743 5.11 5.21 6.58 1.01 BEC BEC 5958 Q5 50.20 752.80 754.71 754.71 755.25 0.020675 5.91 8.49 7.90 1.01 BEC BEC 5958 Q10 205.40 752.80 756.37 756.37 757.42 0.017502 8.22 24.97 11.89 1.00 BEC BEC 5958 Q100 418.00 752.80 757.73 757.73 759.18 0.016269 9.64 43.37 15.04 1.00 BEC BEC 5897 Q2 26.60 752.18 753.01 752.97 753.26 0.017810 4.00 6.65 10.98 0.91 BEC BEC 5897 Q5 50.20 752.18 753.29 753.29 753.69 0.020162 5.04 9.96 12.71 1.00 BEC BEC 5897 Q10 205.40 752.18 754.51 754.51 755.19 0.016926 6.63 30.96 22.86 1.01 BEC BEC 5897 Q100 418.00 752.18 755.38 755.38 756.30 0.015301 7.71 54.38 31.02 1.01 BEC BEC 5851 Q2 26.60 751.55 752.08 752.08 752.30 0.024297 3.71 7.16 16.94 1.01 BEC BEC 5851 Q5 50.20 751.55 752.32 752.32 752.62 0.021414 4.38 11.47 19.24 1.00 BEC BEC 5851 Q10 205.40 751.55 753.24 753.24 753.83 0.017304 6.19 33.20 28.12 1.00 BEC BEC 5851 Q100 418.00 751.55 753.99 753.99 754.83 0.015225 7.36 57.21 37.21 1.00 BEC BEC 5801 Q2 26.60 750.20 750.77 750.77 750.98 0.023868 3.73 7.14 16.57 1.00 BEC BEC 5801 Q5 50.20 750.20 751.01 751.01 751.30 0.021894 4.37 11.49 19.68 1.01 BEC BEC 5801 Q10 205.40 750.20 751.90 751.90 752.49 0.017543 6.14 33.44 28.94 1.01 BEC BEC 5801 Q100 418.00 750.20 752.65 752.65 753.46 0.015978 7.25 57.66 36.17 1.01 BEC BEC 5740 Q2 26.60 744.20 745.16 745.16 745.43 0.023216 4.16 6.39 12.17 1.01 BEC BEC 5740 Q5 50.20 744.20 745.45 745.45 745.82 0.021071 4.91 10.23 14.09 1.02 BEC BEC 5740 Q10 205.40 744.20 746.49 746.49 747.07 0.018224 6.11 33.61 30.00 1.02 BEC BEC 5740 Q100 418.00 744.20 747.22 747.22 748.02 0.016063 7.19 58.10 36.87 1.01 BEC BEC 5698 Q2 26.60 738.00 738.98 738.98 739.32 0.022004 4.67 5.69 8.52 1.01 BEC BEC 5698 Q5 50.20 738.00 739.36 739.36 739.81 0.020167 5.39 9.32 10.49 1.01 BEC BEC 5698 Q10 205.40 738.00 740.72 740.72 741.53 0.016727 7.26 28.30 17.52 1.01 BEC BEC 5698 Q100 418.00 738.00 741.79 741.79 742.84 0.015377 8.21 50.92 24.66 1.01 BEC BEC 5665 Q2 26.60 732.93 733.74 733.74 733.97 0.024739 3.81 6.98 16.00 1.02 BEC BEC 5665 Q5 50.20 732.93 733.98 733.98 734.31 0.021629 4.63 10.84 16.59 1.01 BEC BEC 5665 Q10 205.40 732.93 735.00 735.00 735.78 0.017329 7.09 28.96 18.85 1.01 BEC BEC 5665 Q100 418.00 732.93 735.97 735.97 737.14 0.015834 8.68 48.15 20.84 1.01 HEC-RAS Plan: fin (Continued) River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC BEC 5580 Q2 26.60 726.06 726.59 726.59 726.85 0.024291 4.08 6.52 12.74 1.01 BEC BEC 5580 Q5 50.20 726.06 726.86 726.86 727.25 0.021878 5.01 10.02 12.95 1.00 BEC BEC 5580 Q10 205.40 726.06 728.07 728.07 729.02 0.018605 7.83 26.22 13.89 1.01 BEC BEC 5580 Q100 418.00 726.06 730.25 731.05 0.007447 7.16 58.40 15.59 0.65 BEC BEC 5575 Q2 26.60 725.15 725.93 725.93 726.24 0.024631 4.47 5.95 9.78 1.01 BEC BEC 5575 Q5 50.20 725.15 726.26 726.26 726.72 0.022659 5.49 9.15 9.91 1.01 BEC BEC 5575 Q10 205.40 725.15 727.70 727.70 728.85 0.020960 8.60 23.89 10.50 1.01 BEC BEC 5575 Q100 418.00 725.15 729.11 729.11 730.89 0.021418 10.69 39.09 11.08 1.00 BEC BEC 5572 Q2 26.60 724.76 725.40 725.58 0.014486 3.42 7.78 13.29 0.79 BEC BEC 5572 Q5 50.20 724.76 725.73 725.99 0.011997 4.08 12.29 13.53 0.76 BEC BEC 5572 Q10 205.40 724.76 727.29 727.84 0.008645 5.98 34.33 14.97 0.70 BEC BEC 5572 Q100 418.00 724.76 728.76 729.56 0.007949 7.15 58.50 17.67 0.69 BEC BEC 5555 Q2 26.60 724.30 724.96 724.96 725.26 0.023005 4.35 6.11 10.55 1.01 BEC BEC 5555 Q5 50.20 724.30 725.28 725.28 725.71 0.020739 5.26 9.54 11.21 1.01 BEC BEC 5555 Q10 205.40 724.30 726.61 726.61 727.60 0.017586 7.98 25.75 13.18 1.01 BEC BEC 5555 Q100 418.00 724.30 727.84 727.84 729.30 0.016645 9.68 43.17 15.00 1.01 BEC BEC 5451 Q2 26.60 721.00 722.10 722.10 722.50 0.022252 5.11 5.21 6.50 1.01 BEC BEC 5451 Q5 50.20 721.00 722.55 722.55 723.09 0.020673 5.93 8.47 7.88 1.01 BEC BEC 5451 Q10 205.40 721.00 724.18 724.18 725.21 0.017577 8.13 25.25 12.48 1.01 BEC BEC 5451 Q100 418.00 721.00 725.51 725.51 726.91 0.016176 9.48 44.07 15.98 1.01 BEC BEC 5377 Q2 26.60 719.36 720.29 720.46 0.012080 3.30 8.06 13.30 0.75 BEC BEC 5377 Q5 50.20 719.36 720.61 720.85 0.012033 3.96 12.67 15.81 0.78 BEC BEC 5377 Q10 205.40 719.36 721.86 722.34 0.009094 5.54 37.06 22.28 0.76 BEC BEC 5377 Q100 418.00 719.36 723.03 723.65 0.007267 6.34 65.91 26.99 0.72 BEC BEC 5304 Q2 26.60 718.30 718.98 718.98 719.27 0.022749 4.32 6.16 10.78 1.01 BEC BEC 5304 Q5 50.20 718.30 719.30 719.30 719.71 0.020485 5.16 9.72 11.89 1.01 BEC BEC 5304 Q10 205.40 718.30 720.57 720.57 721.42 0.016640 7.41 27.71 16.38 1.00 BEC BEC 5304 Q100 418.00 718.30 721.66 721.66 722.85 0.015196 8.76 47.73 20.24 1.01 BEC BEC 5248 Q2 26.60 714.80 715.78 715.78 716.16 0.022923 4.93 5.39 7.25 1.01 BEC BEC 5248 Q5 50.20 714.80 716.19 716.19 716.73 0.021205 5.90 8.51 7.98 1.01 BEC BEC 5248 Q10 205.40 714.80 717.85 717.85 718.97 0.018514 8.49 24.19 10.96 1.01 BEC BEC 5248 Q100 418.00 714.80 719.30 719.30 720.83 0.017137 9.94 42.05 13.71 1.00 BEC BEC 5196 Q2 26.60 711.90 712.94 712.94 713.36 0.022737 5.23 5.08 6.03 1.00 BEC BEC 5196 Q5 50.20 711.90 713.41 713.41 714.00 0.021260 6.15 8.16 6.99 1.00 BEC BEC 5196 Q10 205.40 711.90 715.21 715.21 716.35 0.018651 8.56 23.99 10.66 1.01 BEC BEC 5196 Q100 418.00 711.90 716.68 716.68 718.23 0.017409 9.99 41.86 13.66 1.01 BEC BEC 5190 Q2 26.60 711.56 712.58 712.58 713.01 0.022857 5.26 5.06 5.97 1.01 BEC BEC 5190 Q5 50.20 711.56 713.06 713.06 713.65 0.021457 6.17 8.14 6.97 1.01 BEC BEC 5190 Q10 205.40 711.56 714.86 714.86 715.99 0.018817 8.54 24.05 10.74 1.01 BEC BEC 5190 Q100 418.00 711.56 716.32 716.32 717.86 0.017614 9.96 41.96 13.81 1.01 BEC BEC 5183 Q2 26.60 711.39 712.47 712.47 712.82 0.022879 4.72 5.64 8.31 1.01 BEC BEC 5183 Q5 50.20 711.39 712.85 712.85 713.33 0.020982 5.60 8.97 9.39 1.01 BEC BEC 5183 Q10 205.40 711.39 714.31 714.31 715.35 0.018026 8.20 25.06 12.24 1.01 BEC BEC 5183 Q100 418.00 711.39 715.61 715.61 717.16 0.017310 9.99 41.85 13.67 1.01 BEC BEC 5118 Q2 26.60 709.74 710.88 711.08 0.009573 3.56 7.47 8.72 0.68 BEC BEC 5118 Q5 50.20 709.74 711.38 711.65 0.008355 4.14 12.13 9.94 0.66 BEC BEC 5118 Q10 205.40 709.74 713.37 713.85 0.006384 5.59 36.76 14.82 0.63 BEC BEC 5118 Q100 418.00 709.74 715.06 715.70 0.005580 6.40 65.34 18.97 0.61 BEC BEC 5065 Q2 26.60 708.76 709.88 709.88 710.31 0.022536 5.25 5.07 5.99 1.01 BEC BEC 5065 Q5 50.20 708.76 710.36 710.36 710.95 0.021179 6.15 8.16 7.05 1.01 BEC BEC 5065 Q10 205.40 708.76 712.14 712.14 713.25 0.018442 8.48 24.22 11.00 1.01 BEC BEC 5065 Q100 418.00 708.76 713.51 713.51 715.13 0.016204 10.21 41.29 13.72 1.00 BEC BEC 5008 Q2 26.60 707.70 708.48 708.41 708.71 0.015395 3.84 6.93 10.67 0.84 BEC BEC 5008 Q5 50.20 707.70 708.75 708.72 709.15 0.018522 5.12 9.81 11.01 0.96 BEC BEC 5008 Q10 205.40 707.70 710.10 710.10 711.07 0.017547 7.89 26.02 13.53 1.00 BEC BEC 5008 Q100 418.00 707.70 711.35 711.35 712.64 0.015979 9.09 45.98 18.08 1.00 BEC BEC 4946 Q2 26.60 706.52 707.09 707.09 707.33 0.023741 3.90 6.82 14.59 1.01 BEC BEC 4946 Q5 50.20 706.52 707.36 707.36 707.68 0.021311 4.58 10.95 16.90 1.00 BEC BEC 4946 Q10 205.40 706.52 708.35 708.35 708.99 0.017414 6.40 32.12 25.65 1.01 BEC BEC 4946 Q100 418.00 706.52 709.16 709.16 710.04 0.015743 7.52 55.61 32.23 1.01 BEC BEC 4856 Q2 26.60 700.42 701.64 701.64 702.06 0.022823 5.22 5.10 6.13 1.01 BEC BEC 4856 Q5 50.20 700.42 702.11 702.11 702.67 0.021234 6.02 8.34 7.53 1.01 BEC BEC 4856 Q10 205.40 700.42 703.81 703.81 704.83 0.017805 8.13 25.27 12.32 1.00 BEC BEC 4856 Q100 418.00 700.42 705.12 705.12 706.54 0.016795 9.56 43.70 15.81 1.01 HEC-RAS Plan: fin (Continued) River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC BEC 4783 Q2 26.60 698.72 699.92 699.86 700.26 0.017760 4.69 5.68 6.92 0.91 BEC BEC 4783 Q5 50.20 698.72 700.32 700.30 700.84 0.019581 5.79 8.67 8.15 0.99 BEC BEC 4783 Q10 205.40 698.72 701.91 701.91 702.85 0.016852 7.76 26.48 14.16 1.00 BEC BEC 4783 Q100 418.00 698.72 703.14 703.14 704.39 0.015432 8.95 46.70 18.78 1.00 BEC BEC 4722 Q2 26.60 697.63 698.67 698.67 699.06 0.021988 5.00 5.32 6.97 1.01 BEC BEC 4722 Q5 50.20 697.63 699.10 699.10 699.62 0.020168 5.77 8.70 8.49 1.01 BEC BEC 4722 Q10 205.40 697.63 700.67 700.67 701.62 0.017014 7.84 26.21 13.93 1.01 BEC BEC 4722 Q100 418.00 697.63 701.89 701.89 703.19 0.015066 9.15 45.78 18.38 1.00 BEC BEC 4635 Q2 26.60 696.08 696.76 696.76 697.05 0.022865 4.31 6.18 10.85 1.01 BEC BEC 4635 Q5 50.20 696.08 697.07 697.07 697.49 0.020621 5.19 9.67 11.69 1.01 BEC BEC 4635 Q10 205.40 696.08 698.36 698.36 699.24 0.016862 7.50 27.37 15.87 1.01 BEC BEC 4635 Q100 418.00 696.08 699.61 699.61 700.66 0.013318 8.28 52.72 30.48 0.94 BEC BEC 4588 Q2 26.60 695.04 695.57 695.57 695.81 0.023695 3.93 6.76 14.20 1.01 BEC BEC 4588 Q5 50.20 695.04 695.82 695.82 696.18 0.021073 4.78 10.50 14.92 1.00 BEC BEC 4588 Q10 205.40 695.04 697.40 697.87 0.007551 5.46 37.63 19.45 0.69 BEC BEC 4588 Q100 418.00 695.04 699.23 699.70 0.003365 5.49 78.35 25.62 0.51 BEC BEC 4548 Q2 26.60 693.75 694.42 694.42 694.74 0.023572 4.49 5.92 9.56 1.01 BEC BEC 4548 Q5 50.20 693.75 694.75 694.75 695.23 0.021846 5.51 9.10 9.76 1.01 BEC BEC 4548 Q10 205.40 693.75 696.21 696.21 697.35 0.019981 8.55 24.03 10.69 1.01 BEC BEC 4548 Q100 418.00 693.75 697.75 697.75 699.33 0.017459 10.10 42.21 16.99 0.94 BEC BEC 4546 Q2 26.60 693.08 693.97 693.97 694.27 0.023433 4.41 6.03 10.11 1.01 BEC BEC 4546 Q5 50.20 693.08 694.29 694.29 694.74 0.021553 5.40 9.29 10.46 1.01 BEC BEC 4546 Q10 205.40 693.08 695.68 695.68 696.73 0.018560 8.23 24.95 11.99 1.01 BEC BEC 4546 Q100 418.00 693.08 697.01 697.01 698.56 0.016798 9.98 42.36 15.68 0.99 BEC BEC 4534 Q2 26.60 689.78 690.66 690.66 690.93 0.025291 4.13 6.43 12.52 1.02 BEC BEC 4534 Q5 50.20 689.78 690.94 690.94 691.33 0.022667 5.07 9.90 12.71 1.01 BEC BEC 4534 Q10 205.40 689.78 692.17 692.17 693.12 0.018740 7.82 26.26 13.99 1.01 BEC BEC 4534 Q100 418.00 689.78 693.36 693.36 694.77 0.017024 9.54 43.87 15.79 1.00 BEC BEC 4519 Q2 26.60 688.67 689.47 689.47 689.74 0.023026 4.16 6.39 11.86 1.00 BEC BEC 4519 Q5 50.20 688.67 689.75 689.75 690.16 0.021295 5.12 9.81 12.25 1.01 BEC BEC 4519 Q10 205.40 688.67 691.01 691.01 691.99 0.018405 7.91 25.95 13.49 1.01 BEC BEC 4519 Q100 418.00 688.67 692.21 692.21 693.68 0.014761 9.77 44.46 16.47 0.98 BEC BEC 4504 Q2 26.60 687.22 687.94 687.94 688.26 0.023274 4.54 5.86 9.25 1.01 BEC BEC 4504 Q5 50.20 687.22 688.28 688.28 688.75 0.021463 5.55 9.05 9.59 1.01 BEC BEC 4504 Q10 205.40 687.22 689.75 689.75 690.87 0.019180 8.47 24.24 10.98 1.01 BEC BEC 4504 Q100 418.00 687.22 691.13 691.13 692.81 0.019097 10.40 40.18 12.09 1.01 BEC BEC 4497 Q2 26.60 685.60 686.74 686.74 687.07 0.024468 4.60 5.79 9.12 1.02 BEC BEC 4497 Q5 50.20 685.60 687.09 687.09 687.57 0.022138 5.55 9.05 9.65 1.01 BEC BEC 4497 Q10 205.40 685.60 688.54 688.54 689.63 0.019427 8.36 24.56 11.51 1.01 BEC BEC 4497 Q100 418.00 685.60 689.90 689.90 691.51 0.018657 10.18 41.08 12.77 1.00 BEC BEC 4482 Q2 26.60 681.24 683.05 683.05 683.50 0.024702 5.40 4.93 5.49 1.00 BEC BEC 4482 Q5 50.20 681.24 683.57 683.57 684.15 0.022757 6.12 8.20 7.13 1.01 BEC BEC 4482 Q10 205.40 681.24 685.27 685.27 686.36 0.019143 8.38 24.51 11.33 1.00 BEC BEC 4482 Q100 418.00 681.24 686.63 686.63 688.23 0.018437 10.14 41.24 13.16 1.01 BEC BEC 4431. Q2 26.60 679.93 681.18 681.18 681.62 0.022388 5.31 5.01 5.79 1.01 BEC BEC 4431. Q5 50.20 679.93 681.67 681.67 682.26 0.020981 6.17 8.14 7.00 1.01 BEC BEC 4431. Q10 205.40 679.93 683.45 683.45 684.55 0.018167 8.43 24.38 11.23 1.01 BEC BEC 4431. Q100 418.00 679.93 684.87 684.87 686.36 0.016837 9.79 42.68 14.55 1.01 BEC BEC 4354 Q2 26.60 677.76 679.31 679.48 0.008652 3.28 8.11 9.68 0.63 BEC BEC 4354 Q5 50.20 677.76 679.80 680.02 0.007889 3.73 13.44 12.13 0.63 BEC BEC 4354 Q10 205.40 677.76 681.80 682.20 0.005250 5.06 40.58 15.48 0.55 BEC BEC 4354 Q100 418.00 677.76 683.62 684.14 0.004416 5.80 72.08 18.72 0.52 BEC BEC 4277 Q2 26.60 676.74 678.00 678.00 678.40 0.024281 5.10 5.22 6.58 1.01 BEC BEC 4277 Q5 50.20 676.74 678.43 678.43 679.01 0.022775 6.11 8.22 7.23 1.01 BEC BEC 4277 Q10 205.40 676.74 680.20 680.20 681.40 0.020390 8.79 23.37 9.90 1.01 BEC BEC 4277 Q100 418.00 676.74 681.75 681.75 683.40 0.019128 10.32 40.50 12.24 1.00 BEC BEC up 4190 Q2 66.60 671.65 673.47 673.46 673.93 0.021021 5.45 12.22 13.30 1.00 BEC BEC up 4190 Q5 128.20 671.65 674.02 673.98 674.63 0.018002 6.29 20.39 15.70 0.97 BEC BEC up 4190 Q10 521.40 671.65 677.01 677.60 0.005524 6.14 84.99 26.92 0.61 BEC BEC up 4190 Q100 1051.20 671.65 679.50 680.20 0.003757 6.74 156.00 30.25 0.52 BEC BEC up 4136 Q2 66.60 670.68 672.57 672.44 672.97 0.014523 5.09 13.09 11.84 0.85 BEC BEC up 4136 Q5 128.20 670.68 673.18 673.00 673.78 0.013857 6.24 20.53 12.65 0.86 BEC BEC up 4136 Q10 521.40 670.68 675.32 675.32 677.00 0.017172 10.41 50.08 14.90 1.00 BEC BEC up 4136 Q100 1051.20 670.68 677.59 677.59 679.70 0.016018 11.63 90.37 21.77 1.01 HEC-RAS Plan: fin (Continued) River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC BEC up 4080 Q2 66.60 669.41 671.42 671.42 672.00 0.020584 6.10 10.92 9.64 1.01 BEC BEC up 4080 Q5 128.20 669.41 672.08 672.08 672.87 0.018922 7.10 18.07 11.81 1.01 BEC BEC up 4080 Q10 521.40 669.41 674.42 674.42 675.87 0.015923 9.65 54.03 19.02 1.01 BEC BEC up 4080 Q100 1051.20 669.41 676.27 676.27 678.19 0.014442 11.12 94.50 24.70 1.00 BEC BEC up 4035 Q2 66.60 668.85 670.30 670.62 0.012081 4.56 14.62 14.16 0.79 BEC BEC up 4035 Q5 128.20 668.85 670.67 670.63 671.31 0.017013 6.37 20.12 14.86 0.97 BEC BEC up 4035 Q10 521.40 668.85 672.70 672.70 674.13 0.015644 9.59 54.40 19.30 1.01 BEC BEC up 4035 Q100 1051.20 668.85 674.68 674.68 676.32 0.014388 10.28 102.23 31.16 1.00 BEC BEC up 3981 Q2 66.60 667.85 669.70 669.96 0.011800 4.03 16.51 19.37 0.77 BEC BEC up 3981 Q5 128.20 667.85 670.28 670.59 0.008303 4.43 28.96 22.51 0.69 BEC BEC up 3981 Q10 521.40 667.85 672.60 673.13 0.004907 5.87 88.79 28.98 0.59 BEC BEC up 3981 Q100 1051.20 667.85 673.84 674.91 0.007178 8.28 127.02 32.27 0.74 BEC BEC up 3920 Q2 66.60 666.63 668.48 668.48 669.02 0.020214 5.90 11.29 10.68 1.01 BEC BEC up 3920 Q5 128.20 666.63 669.11 669.11 669.83 0.018233 6.79 18.87 13.34 1.01 BEC BEC up 3920 Q10 521.40 666.63 671.27 671.27 672.58 0.014993 9.16 56.92 21.91 1.00 BEC BEC up 3920 Q100 1051.20 666.63 673.28 673.28 674.46 0.007369 9.14 148.14 74.22 0.77 BEC BEC up 3826 Q2 66.60 664.51 665.99 665.99 666.57 0.019645 6.11 10.91 9.53 1.01 BEC BEC up 3826 Q5 128.20 664.51 666.66 666.66 667.44 0.018096 7.09 18.09 11.75 1.01 BEC BEC up 3826 Q10 521.40 664.51 669.23 669.23 670.42 0.011992 8.79 62.43 38.91 0.90 BEC BEC up 3826 Q100 1051.20 664.51 670.78 670.78 671.92 0.008205 9.35 152.63 67.53 0.79 BEC BEC up 3820.28 Q2 66.60 657.08 658.37 658.57 0.019490 3.63 18.36 22.07 0.70 BEC BEC up 3820.28 Q5 128.20 657.08 658.79 659.12 0.019596 4.56 28.09 23.86 0.74 BEC BEC up 3820.28 Q10 521.40 657.08 660.49 660.12 661.23 0.018799 6.92 75.39 32.74 0.80 BEC BEC up 3820.28 Q100 1051.20 657.08 661.84 661.43 662.96 0.018752 8.52 123.41 38.75 0.84 BEC BEC up 3810 Q2 66.60 656.88 658.11 657.98 658.35 0.024212 3.89 17.12 21.83 0.77 BEC BEC up 3810 Q5 128.20 656.88 658.49 658.35 658.88 0.025459 4.97 25.77 23.45 0.84 BEC BEC up 3810 Q10 521.40 656.88 659.93 659.92 660.96 0.030415 8.16 63.89 31.15 1.00 BEC BEC up 3810 Q100 1051.20 656.88 661.23 661.23 662.70 0.027096 9.73 108.08 36.74 1.00 BEC BEC up 3800 Q2 66.60 656.58 657.68 657.68 658.02 0.043697 4.70 14.18 21.25 1.01 BEC BEC up 3800 Q5 128.20 656.58 658.05 658.05 658.56 0.038493 5.69 22.51 22.85 1.01 BEC BEC up 3800 Q10 521.40 656.58 659.62 659.62 660.66 0.030741 8.19 63.66 31.11 1.01 BEC BEC up 3800 Q100 1051.20 656.58 660.93 660.93 662.40 0.027125 9.73 108.04 36.74 1.00 BEC BEC up 3792.03 Q2 66.60 656.30 657.42 657.62 0.017708 3.63 18.32 20.48 0.68 BEC BEC up 3792.03 Q5 128.20 656.30 657.89 658.20 0.018273 4.45 28.80 24.25 0.72 BEC BEC up 3792.03 Q10 521.40 656.30 659.48 659.14 660.23 0.019036 6.91 75.41 33.44 0.81 BEC BEC up 3792.03 Q100 1051.20 656.30 660.74 660.41 661.91 0.018881 8.67 121.66 39.96 0.85 BEC BEC up 3782.03 Q2 66.60 656.10 656.98 656.98 657.35 0.041222 4.87 13.66 18.55 1.00 BEC BEC up 3782.03 Q5 128.20 656.10 657.41 657.41 657.92 0.037553 5.75 22.30 21.99 1.01 BEC BEC up 3782.03 Q10 521.40 656.10 658.93 658.93 659.96 0.030369 8.14 64.05 31.64 1.01 BEC BEC up 3782.03 Q100 1051.20 656.10 660.22 660.22 661.67 0.026834 9.63 109.16 38.32 1.00 BEC BEC up 3739.04 Q2 66.60 654.22 655.01 655.23 0.027874 3.77 17.69 26.57 0.81 BEC BEC up 3739.04 Q5 128.20 654.22 655.32 655.25 655.68 0.031054 4.83 26.57 29.78 0.90 BEC BEC up 3739.04 Q10 521.40 654.22 656.54 656.54 657.39 0.031558 7.39 70.60 42.12 1.01 BEC BEC up 3739.04 Q100 1051.20 654.22 657.58 657.58 658.83 0.027956 8.99 116.98 47.12 1.01 BEC BEC up 3699.43 Q2 66.60 653.14 653.98 653.89 654.15 0.025932 3.24 20.59 36.94 0.76 BEC BEC up 3699.43 Q5 128.20 653.14 654.26 654.15 654.52 0.026312 4.10 31.26 39.66 0.81 BEC BEC up 3699.43 Q10 521.40 653.14 655.23 655.23 656.01 0.031973 7.07 73.71 47.57 1.00 BEC BEC up 3699.43 Q100 1051.20 653.14 656.18 656.18 657.33 0.028706 8.63 121.74 53.47 1.01 BEC BEC up 3661.69 Q2 66.60 651.91 652.59 652.59 652.87 0.044721 4.21 15.83 28.76 1.00 BEC BEC up 3661.69 Q5 128.20 651.91 652.91 652.91 653.30 0.040249 5.02 25.51 32.78 1.00 BEC BEC up 3661.69 Q10 521.40 651.91 654.20 654.10 654.89 0.026322 6.64 78.65 49.28 0.92 BEC BEC up 3661.69 Q100 1051.20 651.91 655.39 656.29 0.016764 7.63 142.27 57.72 0.80 BEC BEC up 3612.85 Q2 66.60 650.53 651.57 651.71 0.013518 2.98 22.36 27.75 0.59 BEC BEC up 3612.85 Q5 128.20 650.53 652.02 652.22 0.012664 3.55 36.11 32.75 0.60 BEC BEC up 3612.85 Q10 521.40 650.53 653.67 654.09 0.009399 5.21 102.53 47.58 0.59 BEC BEC up 3612.85 Q100 1051.20 650.53 655.00 655.65 0.008396 6.58 173.78 59.19 0.59 BEC BEC up 3564.79 Q2 66.60 649.67 650.54 650.79 0.028182 4.04 16.50 22.44 0.83 BEC BEC up 3564.79 Q5 128.20 649.67 650.90 650.82 651.31 0.029733 5.13 24.98 24.57 0.90 BEC BEC up 3564.79 Q10 521.40 649.67 652.31 652.31 653.29 0.030409 7.94 65.69 33.86 1.00 BEC BEC up 3564.79 Q100 1051.20 649.67 653.53 653.53 654.94 0.023736 9.56 113.91 45.00 0.96 BEC BEC up 3518.81 Q2 66.60 648.25 649.37 649.59 0.024227 3.79 17.55 23.45 0.77 BEC BEC up 3518.81 Q5 128.20 648.25 649.81 650.11 0.021900 4.41 29.06 28.67 0.77 BEC BEC up 3518.81 Q10 521.40 648.25 651.20 650.96 651.89 0.019905 6.70 79.93 44.34 0.83 BEC BEC up 3518.81 Q100 1051.20 648.25 652.36 652.01 653.37 0.018173 8.21 140.33 66.53 0.84 HEC-RAS Plan: fin (Continued) River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC BEC up 3429.26 Q2 66.60 646.93 648.04 648.16 0.010866 2.75 24.19 28.66 0.53 BEC BEC up 3429.26 Q5 128.20 646.93 648.43 648.63 0.012482 3.54 36.23 32.64 0.59 BEC BEC up 3429.26 Q10 521.40 646.93 649.70 650.29 0.015490 6.22 87.70 49.92 0.74 BEC BEC up 3429.26 Q100 1051.20 646.93 650.53 650.46 651.66 0.019891 8.72 134.20 61.38 0.88 BEC BEC up 3346.03 Q2 66.60 645.38 646.23 646.23 646.52 0.044147 4.32 15.41 26.67 1.00 BEC BEC up 3346.03 Q5 128.20 645.38 646.60 646.56 646.97 0.035450 4.92 26.06 31.45 0.95 BEC BEC up 3346.03 Q10 521.40 645.38 647.88 647.79 648.59 0.027841 6.75 77.23 48.16 0.94 BEC BEC up 3346.03 Q100 1051.20 645.38 648.89 648.82 649.84 0.022637 7.88 140.17 79.39 0.90 BEC BEC up 3292.05 Q2 66.60 643.95 645.08 645.21 0.012400 2.94 22.69 26.93 0.56 BEC BEC up 3292.05 Q5 128.20 643.95 645.42 645.66 0.016709 3.94 32.53 31.00 0.68 BEC BEC up 3292.05 Q10 521.40 643.95 646.89 647.39 0.016457 5.69 91.60 49.60 0.74 BEC BEC up 3292.05 Q100 1051.20 643.95 647.82 648.65 0.020093 7.33 143.46 61.73 0.85 BEC BEC up 3224.21 Q2 66.60 643.05 643.88 643.75 644.07 0.023820 3.49 19.06 28.53 0.75 BEC BEC up 3224.21 Q5 128.20 643.05 644.42 644.61 0.013907 3.55 36.16 35.28 0.62 BEC BEC up 3224.21 Q10 521.40 643.05 646.32 646.57 0.007835 4.06 128.34 66.23 0.51 BEC BEC up 3224.21 Q100 1051.20 643.05 647.29 647.71 0.008121 5.24 210.16 87.20 0.56 BEC BEC up 3128.09 Q2 66.60 640.70 642.11 642.34 0.014153 3.85 17.29 14.28 0.62 BEC BEC up 3128.09 Q5 128.20 640.70 642.56 642.26 643.00 0.020050 5.34 23.99 15.55 0.76 BEC BEC up 3128.09 Q10 521.40 640.70 644.48 644.48 645.14 0.035588 6.53 79.86 61.08 1.01 BEC BEC up 3128.09 Q100 1051.20 640.70 645.27 645.27 646.29 0.030833 8.08 130.14 64.75 1.00 BEC BEC up 3056.23 Q2 66.60 639.76 640.44 640.42 640.71 0.041549 4.18 15.95 27.71 0.97 BEC BEC up 3056.23 Q5 128.20 639.76 640.80 640.75 641.16 0.032643 4.79 26.76 31.51 0.92 BEC BEC up 3056.23 Q10 521.40 639.76 642.13 641.97 642.84 0.023148 6.75 77.77 45.36 0.88 BEC BEC up 3056.23 Q100 1051.20 639.76 643.04 643.02 644.26 0.023780 8.94 123.51 55.22 0.95 BEC BEC up 2993.01 Q2 66.60 637.96 639.21 639.35 0.012584 2.98 22.37 26.28 0.57 BEC BEC up 2993.01 Q5 128.20 637.96 639.64 639.85 0.013489 3.67 34.97 31.63 0.61 BEC BEC up 2993.01 Q10 521.40 637.96 641.02 641.54 0.016958 5.77 90.40 49.09 0.75 BEC BEC up 2993.01 Q100 1051.20 637.96 641.91 641.64 642.81 0.019409 7.61 139.28 60.57 0.84 BEC BEC up 2930.06 Q2 66.60 637.24 638.27 638.08 638.41 0.017566 3.02 22.06 32.73 0.65 BEC BEC up 2930.06 Q5 128.20 637.24 638.58 638.82 0.020707 3.94 32.57 36.70 0.74 BEC BEC up 2930.06 Q10 521.40 637.24 639.80 640.36 0.020677 5.96 87.54 52.74 0.82 BEC BEC up 2930.06 Q100 1051.20 637.24 640.81 640.47 641.64 0.017069 7.35 147.04 65.51 0.80 BEC BEC up 2878.12 Q2 66.60 635.94 636.72 636.72 637.03 0.043844 4.43 15.03 24.87 1.00 BEC BEC up 2878.12 Q5 128.20 635.94 637.14 637.07 637.50 0.031387 4.81 26.65 30.26 0.90 BEC BEC up 2878.12 Q10 521.40 635.94 638.45 638.32 639.18 0.024143 6.87 76.91 46.96 0.89 BEC BEC up 2878.12 Q100 1051.20 635.94 639.39 639.39 640.58 0.023179 8.88 126.98 59.08 0.94 BEC BEC up 2806.1 Q2 66.60 634.07 635.31 635.45 0.012198 2.96 22.49 26.02 0.56 BEC BEC up 2806.1 Q5 128.20 634.07 635.68 635.92 0.015683 3.88 33.01 30.68 0.66 BEC BEC up 2806.1 Q10 521.40 634.07 637.01 637.60 0.018780 6.16 84.85 47.07 0.79 BEC BEC up 2806.1 Q100 1051.20 634.07 637.99 637.75 638.98 0.018409 8.05 136.80 63.11 0.84 BEC BEC up 2751.74 Q2 66.60 633.55 634.40 634.57 0.022323 3.35 19.87 30.16 0.73 BEC BEC up 2751.74 Q5 128.20 633.55 634.83 635.05 0.016231 3.79 34.04 35.81 0.67 BEC BEC up 2751.74 Q10 521.40 633.55 636.33 636.80 0.010877 5.68 105.09 64.88 0.63 BEC BEC up 2751.74 Q100 1051.20 633.55 637.63 638.19 0.008496 6.63 220.55 123.02 0.60 BEC BEC up 2710.38 Q2 66.60 632.39 633.65 633.82 0.015116 3.29 20.25 23.47 0.62 BEC BEC up 2710.38 Q5 128.20 632.39 634.02 634.31 0.019677 4.31 29.77 28.04 0.74 BEC BEC up 2710.38 Q10 521.40 632.39 635.16 635.16 636.08 0.027263 7.77 69.89 42.64 0.96 BEC BEC up 2710.38 Q100 1051.20 632.39 636.29 636.29 637.59 0.022091 9.42 126.81 57.41 0.94 BEC BEC up 2664.54 Q2 66.60 631.87 632.74 632.94 0.024870 3.54 18.80 28.45 0.77 BEC BEC up 2664.54 Q5 128.20 631.87 633.21 633.44 0.017347 3.82 33.56 34.54 0.68 BEC BEC up 2664.54 Q10 521.40 631.87 634.59 634.17 635.07 0.014064 5.62 100.61 84.67 0.69 BEC BEC up 2664.54 Q100 1051.20 631.87 635.81 636.23 0.007794 5.73 256.98 162.34 0.56 BEC BEC up 2603.7 Q2 66.60 630.26 631.39 631.20 631.59 0.020092 3.58 18.60 23.51 0.71 BEC BEC up 2603.7 Q5 128.20 630.26 631.68 631.59 632.06 0.029825 4.95 25.89 27.04 0.89 BEC BEC up 2603.7 Q10 521.40 630.26 632.94 632.94 633.85 0.028321 7.71 69.53 41.72 0.98 BEC BEC up 2603.7 Q100 1051.20 630.26 634.05 634.05 635.38 0.023208 9.45 122.11 52.86 0.95 BEC BEC up 2551.95 Q2 66.60 629.43 630.17 630.09 630.35 0.028725 3.36 19.81 36.21 0.80 BEC BEC up 2551.95 Q5 128.20 629.43 630.56 630.77 0.019874 3.63 35.31 43.58 0.71 BEC BEC up 2551.95 Q10 521.40 629.43 631.70 632.13 0.016560 5.26 100.79 75.59 0.73 BEC BEC up 2551.95 Q100 1051.20 629.43 632.45 632.32 633.09 0.016146 6.68 190.90 151.82 0.77 BEC BEC up 2492.33 Q2 66.60 628.06 629.29 629.41 0.009641 2.87 23.58 26.88 0.51 BEC BEC up 2492.33 Q5 128.20 628.06 629.69 629.91 0.010841 3.83 35.50 32.08 0.57 BEC BEC up 2492.33 Q10 521.40 628.06 630.98 631.35 0.010040 5.71 141.89 120.84 0.62 BEC BEC up 2492.33 Q100 1051.20 628.06 631.58 631.46 632.18 0.014023 7.72 220.40 145.68 0.75 HEC-RAS Plan: fin (Continued) River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC BEC up 2430.15 Q2 66.60 627.38 628.32 628.50 0.025575 3.42 19.45 31.71 0.77 BEC BEC up 2430.15 Q5 128.20 627.38 628.63 628.91 0.026221 4.27 30.05 35.81 0.82 BEC BEC up 2430.15 Q10 521.40 627.38 629.83 629.83 630.48 0.019710 6.64 91.55 85.34 0.82 BEC BEC up 2430.15 Q100 1051.20 627.38 630.69 630.69 631.29 0.014325 7.18 230.75 194.88 0.75 BEC BEC up 2367.51 Q2 66.60 625.97 626.84 627.02 0.021726 3.40 19.61 28.54 0.72 BEC BEC up 2367.51 Q5 128.20 625.97 627.24 627.49 0.019729 4.01 31.96 33.68 0.73 BEC BEC up 2367.51 Q10 521.40 625.97 628.25 628.25 628.72 0.020524 5.94 114.07 122.31 0.81 BEC BEC up 2367.51 Q100 1051.20 625.97 628.82 628.82 629.50 0.022641 7.58 186.88 135.36 0.90 BEC BEC up 2276 Q2 66.60 623.90 624.88 625.06 0.020890 3.44 19.38 26.91 0.71 BEC BEC up 2276 Q5 128.20 623.90 625.22 625.51 0.023602 4.37 29.32 31.35 0.79 BEC BEC up 2276 Q10 521.40 623.90 626.52 626.52 626.93 0.014347 5.59 134.99 170.80 0.70 BEC BEC up 2276 Q100 1051.20 623.90 627.08 627.03 627.60 0.015797 6.91 234.05 184.75 0.77 BEC BEC up 2195.54 Q2 66.60 621.99 622.97 623.20 0.025594 3.81 17.46 24.11 0.79 BEC BEC up 2195.54 Q5 128.20 621.99 623.44 623.72 0.020996 4.27 30.04 30.15 0.75 BEC BEC up 2195.54 Q10 521.40 621.99 624.64 624.64 625.29 0.021147 6.66 92.08 87.47 0.84 BEC BEC up 2195.54 Q100 1051.20 621.99 625.51 625.51 626.26 0.017040 7.67 187.92 127.28 0.81 BEC BEC up 2091.2 Q2 66.60 619.96 621.10 621.24 0.014049 3.06 21.75 26.63 0.60 BEC BEC up 2091.2 Q5 128.20 619.96 621.45 621.70 0.017881 4.01 31.94 31.17 0.70 BEC BEC up 2091.2 Q10 521.40 619.96 622.57 622.57 623.12 0.019068 6.32 105.75 108.94 0.80 BEC BEC up 2091.2 Q100 1051.20 619.96 623.28 623.28 623.99 0.018766 7.71 190.26 129.28 0.84 BEC BEC up 2063.85 Q2 66.60 619.62 620.36 620.34 620.63 0.039545 4.13 16.12 27.45 0.95 BEC BEC up 2063.85 Q5 128.20 619.62 620.77 620.67 621.09 0.028194 4.52 28.39 32.76 0.86 BEC BEC up 2063.85 Q10 521.40 619.62 622.01 622.01 622.54 0.019146 6.11 105.72 119.23 0.80 BEC BEC up 2063.85 Q100 1051.20 619.62 622.67 622.67 623.37 0.019281 7.54 192.35 142.54 0.84 BEC BEC up 2017.8 Q2 66.60 618.34 619.62 619.74 0.010535 2.83 23.52 26.05 0.53 BEC BEC up 2017.8 Q5 128.20 618.34 620.05 620.24 0.011962 3.58 36.73 60.97 0.58 BEC BEC up 2017.8 Q10 521.40 618.34 621.36 621.61 0.007281 4.62 164.07 124.93 0.52 BEC BEC up 2017.8 Q100 1051.20 618.34 622.30 622.59 0.006362 5.35 298.80 160.07 0.51 BEC BEC up 1960.52 Q2 66.60 617.36 618.32 618.32 618.64 0.043719 4.52 14.74 23.63 1.01 BEC BEC up 1960.52 Q5 128.20 617.36 618.71 618.69 619.12 0.036862 5.16 24.85 28.69 0.98 BEC BEC up 1960.52 Q10 521.40 617.36 619.98 619.98 620.80 0.030678 7.24 72.18 45.39 0.99 BEC BEC up 1960.52 Q100 1051.20 617.36 621.07 621.07 621.95 0.018699 7.91 162.63 104.20 0.84 BEC BEC up 1906.6 Q2 66.60 615.99 617.33 617.47 0.011163 2.94 22.67 24.78 0.54 BEC BEC up 1906.6 Q5 128.20 615.99 617.81 617.36 618.00 0.012021 3.58 35.78 30.67 0.58 BEC BEC up 1906.6 Q10 521.40 615.99 618.92 618.92 619.38 0.014431 5.97 126.72 150.21 0.71 BEC BEC up 1906.6 Q100 1051.20 615.99 619.50 619.50 620.12 0.016441 7.46 217.39 158.99 0.79 BEC BEC up 1791.00 Q2 66.60 613.97 614.80 614.80 615.12 0.043360 4.53 14.70 23.30 1.01 BEC BEC up 1791.00 Q5 128.20 613.97 615.16 615.16 615.60 0.039279 5.31 24.16 28.02 1.01 BEC BEC up 1791.00 Q10 521.40 613.97 616.55 616.55 617.18 0.023289 6.51 91.03 88.40 0.87 BEC BEC up 1791.00 Q100 1051.20 613.97 617.43 617.43 618.12 0.016973 7.31 198.13 161.78 0.80 BEC BEC up 1707.51 Q2 66.60 611.84 612.66 612.75 0.011864 2.50 26.67 38.98 0.53 BEC BEC up 1707.51 Q5 128.20 611.84 613.04 613.18 0.010386 3.06 41.89 40.65 0.53 BEC BEC up 1707.51 Q10 521.40 611.84 614.14 614.67 0.015873 5.80 90.50 53.97 0.73 BEC BEC up 1707.51 Q100 1051.20 611.84 615.02 615.02 615.89 0.016929 7.66 164.31 129.22 0.80 BEC BEC up 1596.06 Q2 66.60 609.91 611.11 611.27 0.015037 3.24 20.56 24.25 0.62 BEC BEC up 1596.06 Q5 128.20 609.91 611.50 611.21 611.75 0.016217 4.06 35.43 71.95 0.68 BEC BEC up 1596.06 Q10 521.40 609.91 612.30 612.30 612.72 0.018685 6.25 131.56 151.48 0.79 BEC BEC up 1596.06 Q100 1051.20 609.91 612.81 612.81 613.40 0.021773 7.89 211.60 161.14 0.89 BEC BEC up 1429.02 Q2 66.60 607.65 608.78 608.90 0.013240 2.74 24.29 33.49 0.57 BEC BEC up 1429.02 Q5 128.20 607.65 609.07 608.90 609.24 0.013743 3.41 49.43 140.94 0.61 BEC BEC up 1429.02 Q10 521.40 607.65 609.74 609.93 0.012293 4.55 191.93 237.47 0.63 BEC BEC up 1429.02 Q100 1051.20 607.65 610.24 610.48 0.011889 5.35 316.33 250.57 0.64 BEC BEC up 1336 Q2 66.60 606.18 607.23 607.06 607.42 0.019455 3.63 21.84 64.50 0.70 BEC BEC up 1336 Q5 128.20 606.18 607.50 607.49 607.71 0.019824 4.14 45.71 103.86 0.73 BEC BEC up 1336 Q10 521.40 606.18 608.26 608.50 0.019441 5.22 157.29 187.02 0.77 BEC BEC up 1336 Q100 1051.20 606.18 608.77 609.09 0.019379 6.24 274.69 250.60 0.80 BEC BEC up 1326 Q2 66.60 605.98 607.10 606.86 607.25 0.013874 3.18 27.21 80.02 0.60 BEC BEC up 1326 Q5 128.20 605.98 607.30 607.30 607.51 0.020048 4.16 45.45 103.56 0.73 BEC BEC up 1326 Q10 521.40 605.98 608.08 608.31 0.017969 5.05 162.09 188.87 0.74 BEC BEC up 1326 Q100 1051.20 605.98 608.60 608.89 0.018084 6.08 281.16 251.32 0.78 BEC BEC up 1316 Q2 66.60 605.78 606.66 606.66 607.01 0.040021 4.71 14.25 26.69 0.98 BEC BEC up 1316 Q5 128.20 605.78 607.09 607.09 607.31 0.020639 4.21 44.80 102.81 0.74 BEC BEC up 1316 Q10 521.40 605.78 607.76 607.76 608.08 0.026936 5.98 138.75 179.69 0.90 BEC BEC up 1316 Q100 1051.20 605.78 608.24 608.24 608.66 0.028022 7.16 242.46 246.99 0.95 HEC-RAS Plan: fin (Continued) River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC BEC up 1245 Q2 78.00 603.18 605.10 604.49 605.28 0.004435 3.38 25.15 60.62 0.51 BEC BEC up 1245 Q5 143.00 603.18 605.74 605.81 0.001986 2.63 95.44 137.79 0.35 BEC BEC up 1245 Q10 579.00 603.18 606.73 606.84 0.002887 3.79 257.15 190.17 0.44 BEC BEC up 1245 Q100 1163.00 603.18 608.18 608.25 0.001306 3.11 586.15 264.94 0.31 BEC BEC up 1154 Q2 78.00 602.24 604.16 604.60 0.013292 5.32 14.66 12.13 0.85 BEC BEC up 1154 Q5 143.00 602.24 604.81 604.61 605.39 0.012376 6.13 23.34 14.66 0.86 BEC BEC up 1154 Q10 579.00 602.24 606.30 606.51 0.004595 5.03 212.03 179.11 0.55 BEC BEC up 1154 Q100 1163.00 602.24 608.05 608.14 0.001228 3.61 605.38 280.76 0.31 BEC BEC up 1075 Q2 78.00 601.34 603.28 603.66 0.010471 4.93 15.82 12.21 0.76 BEC BEC up 1075 Q5 143.00 601.34 603.86 604.43 0.012041 6.09 23.49 14.60 0.85 BEC BEC up 1075 Q10 579.00 601.34 605.55 605.55 606.01 0.008180 6.68 151.40 149.83 0.75 BEC BEC up 1075 Q100 1163.00 601.34 607.99 608.05 0.000805 3.04 711.27 316.91 0.26 BEC BEC up 1015 Q2 78.00 600.62 602.28 602.28 602.81 0.019002 5.87 13.30 12.68 1.01 BEC BEC up 1015 Q5 143.00 600.62 602.85 602.85 603.55 0.017284 6.76 21.21 16.20 1.00 BEC BEC up 1015 Q10 579.00 600.62 605.44 605.49 0.000887 2.76 403.11 244.29 0.26 BEC BEC up 1015 Q100 1163.00 600.62 608.00 608.02 0.000197 1.88 1116.36 313.49 0.14 BEC BEC up 925 Q2 78.00 598.99 600.28 600.28 600.85 0.020323 6.04 12.91 11.46 1.00 BEC BEC up 925 Q5 143.00 598.99 600.85 600.85 601.68 0.019229 7.29 19.61 12.01 1.01 BEC BEC up 925 Q10 579.00 598.99 603.57 603.57 605.12 0.017263 9.98 58.00 19.03 1.01 BEC BEC up 925 Q100 1163.00 598.99 605.45 605.45 607.73 0.015719 12.12 96.41 21.95 0.99 BEC BEC up 920 Q2 78.00 598.62 600.20 600.50 0.008609 4.40 17.71 13.73 0.68 BEC BEC up 920 Q5 143.00 598.62 600.79 601.25 0.009220 5.46 26.21 15.15 0.73 BEC BEC up 920 Q10 579.00 598.62 602.81 602.61 604.19 0.010656 9.57 64.65 20.87 0.88 BEC BEC up 920 Q100 1163.00 598.62 604.48 604.48 606.86 0.011514 12.76 100.65 22.05 0.97 BEC BEC up 834. Q2 78.00 597.72 599.59 599.82 0.006469 3.81 20.49 16.82 0.61 BEC BEC up 834. Q5 143.00 597.72 600.28 600.57 0.005565 4.28 33.40 20.37 0.59 BEC BEC up 834. Q10 579.00 597.72 602.86 603.35 0.004304 5.60 103.48 34.47 0.57 BEC BEC up 834. Q100 1163.00 597.72 604.29 605.11 0.004854 7.33 169.36 68.12 0.64 BEC BEC up 758 Q2 78.00 596.95 598.70 599.12 0.012621 5.24 14.89 12.10 0.83 BEC BEC up 758 Q5 143.00 596.95 599.26 599.14 599.90 0.014033 6.41 22.31 14.40 0.91 BEC BEC up 758 Q10 579.00 596.95 601.37 601.37 602.71 0.014577 9.29 62.30 23.46 1.01 BEC BEC up 758 Q100 1163.00 596.95 603.64 603.64 604.67 0.006517 8.52 183.51 129.77 0.73 BEC BEC up 693 Q2 78.00 596.50 597.59 597.59 598.10 0.020292 5.72 13.63 13.57 1.01 BEC BEC up 693 Q5 143.00 596.50 598.10 598.10 598.85 0.018780 6.92 20.66 14.00 1.00 BEC BEC up 693 Q10 579.00 596.50 600.46 600.46 601.82 0.011088 9.73 70.06 29.75 0.88 BEC BEC up 693 Q100 1163.00 596.50 602.51 602.51 603.24 0.004784 8.53 264.20 151.00 0.62 BEC BEC up 663 Q2 78.00 595.22 596.40 596.40 596.80 0.019856 5.07 15.40 19.37 1.00 BEC BEC up 663 Q5 143.00 595.22 597.02 597.42 0.010571 5.05 28.33 22.07 0.79 BEC BEC up 663 Q10 579.00 595.22 599.79 600.33 0.004279 5.89 98.33 28.97 0.56 BEC BEC up 663 Q100 1163.00 595.22 600.97 600.16 602.07 0.006792 8.51 143.29 43.15 0.74 BEC BEC up 636 Q2 78.00 594.37 596.23 596.34 0.002232 2.63 29.61 18.45 0.37 BEC BEC up 636 Q5 143.00 594.37 597.09 597.24 0.002009 3.08 46.45 20.79 0.36 BEC BEC up 636 Q10 579.00 594.37 599.82 600.19 0.002501 4.94 130.11 55.84 0.44 BEC BEC up 636 Q100 1163.00 594.37 601.22 601.80 0.002961 6.48 240.80 115.05 0.50 BEC BEC up 618 Q2 78.00 594.13 596.22 596.30 0.001433 2.25 34.62 19.49 0.30 BEC BEC up 618 Q5 143.00 594.13 597.08 597.20 0.001438 2.73 52.42 21.83 0.31 BEC BEC up 618 Q10 579.00 594.13 599.80 600.14 0.001895 4.75 129.51 40.63 0.39 BEC BEC up 618 Q100 1163.00 594.13 600.91 601.72 0.003416 7.37 185.41 72.52 0.54 BEC BEC up 599 Q2 78.00 594.10 596.23 596.27 0.000627 1.59 49.17 24.83 0.20 BEC BEC up 599 Q5 143.00 594.10 597.10 597.16 0.000677 2.00 71.39 26.25 0.21 BEC BEC up 599 Q10 579.00 594.10 599.85 600.08 0.001240 3.86 151.70 36.03 0.31 BEC BEC up 599 Q100 1163.00 594.10 601.07 601.55 0.003845 5.67 231.68 111.86 0.54 BEC BEC up 569 Q2 78.00 593.64 596.07 596.22 0.002833 3.12 24.98 13.80 0.41 BEC BEC up 569 Q5 143.00 593.64 596.88 597.11 0.003300 3.82 37.41 17.10 0.46 BEC BEC up 569 Q10 579.00 593.64 599.54 600.00 0.003561 5.48 117.64 65.00 0.52 BEC BEC up 569 Q100 1163.00 593.64 600.61 601.39 0.004726 7.55 206.28 100.91 0.62 BEC BEC up 524 Q2 78.00 593.23 595.28 595.28 595.91 0.019247 6.35 12.29 10.00 1.01 BEC BEC up 524 Q5 143.00 593.23 595.95 595.95 596.76 0.017851 7.20 19.87 12.58 1.01 BEC BEC up 524 Q10 579.00 593.23 598.65 598.65 599.69 0.009523 8.36 81.45 53.98 0.82 BEC BEC up 524 Q100 1163.00 593.23 600.14 600.14 601.12 0.006709 9.03 196.65 97.19 0.73 BEC BEC up 480 Q2 78.00 592.38 594.59 594.49 595.02 0.015487 5.25 14.85 13.80 0.89 BEC BEC up 480 Q5 143.00 592.38 595.22 595.77 0.012547 5.98 23.90 15.20 0.84 BEC BEC up 480 Q10 579.00 592.38 597.22 597.22 598.72 0.015475 9.82 58.94 19.70 1.00 BEC BEC up 480 Q100 1163.00 592.38 599.47 599.47 600.54 0.006629 9.04 186.13 94.29 0.71 HEC-RAS Plan: fin (Continued) River Reach River Sta Profile Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) BEC BEC up 432 Q2 78.00 591.95 593.86 593.73 594.31 0.013977 5.39 14.48 12.26 0.87 BEC BEC up 432 Q5 143.00 591.95 594.36 594.34 595.06 0.016803 6.71 21.30 14.85 0.99 BEC BEC up 432 Q10 579.00 591.95 596.49 596.49 597.84 0.014427 9.31 62.18 23.09 1.00 BEC BEC up 432 Q100 1163.00 591.95 598.73 598.73 599.96 0.007373 9.13 153.79 85.45 0.77 BEC BEC up 400 Q2 78.00 590.91 593.22 593.22 593.77 0.020029 5.96 13.09 11.97 1.00 BEC BEC up 400 Q5 143.00 590.91 593.83 593.83 594.47 0.019683 6.39 22.37 18.49 1.02 BEC BEC up 400 Q10 579.00 590.91 595.74 595.74 597.08 0.015176 9.28 62.39 23.41 1.00 BEC BEC up 400 Q100 1163.00 590.91 597.38 597.38 599.31 0.014191 11.16 104.20 27.63 1.01 BEC BEC up 366 Q2 78.00 589.63 591.71 591.71 592.27 0.020307 6.00 13.01 11.78 1.01 BEC BEC up 366 Q5 143.00 589.63 592.29 592.29 593.06 0.018986 7.05 20.27 13.46 1.01 BEC BEC up 366 Q10 579.00 589.63 594.66 594.66 596.25 0.013224 10.20 59.94 22.39 0.95 BEC BEC up 366 Q100 1163.00 589.63 596.66 596.66 598.70 0.010179 12.02 117.66 35.17 0.89 BEC BEC up 332 Q2 78.00 588.13 590.40 590.19 590.85 0.012872 5.35 14.59 10.92 0.82 BEC BEC up 332 Q5 143.00 588.13 591.26 591.75 0.009936 5.63 25.42 14.39 0.75 BEC BEC up 332 Q10 579.00 588.13 594.64 595.14 0.004426 5.69 101.67 30.92 0.55 BEC BEC up 332 Q100 1163.00 588.13 597.01 597.59 0.002845 6.16 209.55 84.97 0.48 BEC BEC up 290. Q2 78.00 587.38 589.44 589.44 590.16 0.020253 6.81 11.46 8.08 1.01 BEC BEC up 290. Q5 143.00 587.38 590.20 590.20 591.15 0.018969 7.81 18.32 9.79 1.01 BEC BEC up 290. Q10 579.00 587.38 593.09 593.09 594.72 0.016302 10.22 56.66 17.77 1.01 BEC BEC up 290. Q100 1163.00 587.38 595.08 595.08 597.21 0.012821 11.82 104.47 31.77 0.96 BEC BEC up 216 Q2 78.00 586.20 587.79 587.78 588.28 0.018848 5.62 13.87 13.98 1.00 BEC BEC up 216 Q5 143.00 586.20 588.29 588.29 588.98 0.017784 6.68 21.41 15.77 1.01 BEC BEC up 216 Q10 579.00 586.20 590.37 590.37 591.78 0.014617 9.53 60.76 21.75 1.01 BEC BEC up 216 Q100 1163.00 586.20 592.12 592.12 594.14 0.013132 11.40 102.27 26.63 1.00 BEC BEC up 158 Q2 78.00 585.50 586.68 586.68 587.18 0.019415 5.64 13.82 14.08 1.00 BEC BEC up 158 Q5 143.00 585.50 587.19 587.19 587.88 0.017840 6.66 21.46 15.75 1.01 BEC BEC up 158 Q10 579.00 585.50 589.23 589.23 590.41 0.014644 8.73 66.35 28.05 1.00 BEC BEC up 158 Q100 1163.00 585.50 590.72 590.72 592.34 0.013442 10.20 114.08 35.79 1.01 BEC BEC up 130 Q2 78.00 583.12 584.87 584.87 585.46 0.018990 6.18 12.62 10.81 1.01 BEC BEC up 130 Q5 143.00 583.12 585.50 585.50 586.27 0.017570 7.07 20.22 13.22 1.01 BEC BEC up 130 Q10 579.00 583.12 587.82 587.82 589.22 0.014583 9.51 60.85 21.75 1.00 BEC BEC up 130 Q100 1163.00 583.12 589.59 589.59 591.49 0.013535 11.05 105.24 28.22 1.01 BEC BEC up 120 Q2 78.00 582.25 584.07 584.07 584.67 0.019004 6.22 12.54 10.58 1.01 BEC BEC up 120 Q5 143.00 582.25 584.71 584.71 585.49 0.017635 7.06 20.24 13.28 1.01 BEC BEC up 120 Q10 579.00 582.25 587.80 588.64 0.007177 7.37 78.54 23.90 0.72 BEC BEC up 120 Q100 1163.00 582.25 589.64 590.91 0.007877 9.04 128.70 30.82 0.78 BEC BEC up 111 Q2 78.00 581.81 583.96 584.12 0.003256 3.27 23.87 13.04 0.43 BEC BEC up 111 Q5 143.00 581.81 584.98 585.19 0.003003 3.64 39.31 17.24 0.42 BEC BEC up 111 Q10 579.00 581.81 588.10 588.45 0.002812 4.75 121.78 34.89 0.45 BEC BEC up 111 Q100 1163.00 581.81 590.12 590.65 0.002695 5.85 199.04 41.85 0.46 BEC BEC up 101 Q2 78.00 581.25 583.93 582.93 584.09 0.003002 3.22 24.21 12.52 0.41 BEC BEC up 101 Q5 143.00 581.25 584.95 583.54 585.16 0.003000 3.67 38.99 16.71 0.42 BEC BEC up 101 Q10 579.00 581.25 588.05 586.12 588.42 0.003000 4.88 118.71 34.31 0.46 BEC BEC up 101 Q100 1163.00 581.25 590.06 587.86 590.62 0.003005 5.97 194.68 41.28 0.48 APPENDIX D SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS Grain Size Distribution Report Existing Conditions Model Proposed Conditions Model Grain Size Distribution Report Tested By: G. Criste Checked By: D. Seibold 09/19/16 (no specification provided) PL=LL=PI= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= USCS=AASHTO= * Very dark grayish brown GRAVEL with sand and silt 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 100.0 95.0 82.3 72.7 53.6 33.5 21.6 16.0 13.3 11.3 10.5 9.8 15.9211 13.7108 6.0974 4.1183 1.6373 0.3539 0.0820 74.40 5.36 ASTM D6913 City of Palo Alto Buckeye Creek 13010.000.000 Soil Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Location: Bed and Bank Material Sample Number: 1 Date: Client: Project: Project No: SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.*PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +75mm Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 5.0 41.4 20.1 17.5 6.2 9.8 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ in . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 Particle Size Distribution Report Existing Conditions Model River Reach RS Ch Dist Ch Invert El (ft) Long. Cum Mass change (tons) 1 FG BEC 3820.28 28.28 657.08 8.44E-14 2 FG BEC 3792.03 10 659.502 316.8643 3 FG BEC 3782.03 42 659.0798 665.6179 4 FG BEC 3739.04 39.61 657.2376 1016.233 5 FG BEC 3699.43 37.74 655.7067 1305.181 6 FG BEC 3661.69 48.84 654.2745 1605.14 7 FG BEC 3612.85 48.06 652.0306 2035.295 8 FG BEC 3564.79 45.98 652.9195 2484.239 9 FG BEC 3518.81 89.55 651.4981 2784.745 10 FG BEC 3429.26 83.23 649.6578 3140.035 11 FG BEC 3346.03 53.98 648.0133 3408.135 12 FG BEC 3292.05 67.84 645.9413 3566.295 13 FG BEC 3224.21 96.12 644.9404 3791.404 14 FG BEC 3128.09 71.86 642.6063 3894.932 15 FG BEC 3056.23 63.22 641.0504 4015.375 16 FG BEC 2993.01 62.95 639.3255 4111.641 17 FG BEC 2930.06 51.94 638.5878 4209.444 18 FG BEC 2878.12 72.02 637.0911 4288.05 19 FG BEC 2806.1 54.36 634.899 4348.098 20 FG BEC 2751.74 41.36 634.6133 4412.465 21 FG BEC 2710.38 45.84 633.3109 4449.065 22 FG BEC 2664.54 60.84 632.6967 4500.965 23 FG BEC 2603.7 51.75 630.8235 4537.874 24 FG BEC 2551.95 59.62 630.1203 4598.25 25 FG BEC 2492.33 62.18 628.7189 4642.212 26 FG BEC 2430.15 62.64 627.9139 4686.189 27 FG BEC 2367.51 91.51 626.3528 4722.918 28 FG BEC 2276 80.46 624.2281 4756.959 29 FG BEC 2195.54 104.34 622.2708 4783.893 30 FG BEC 2091.2 27.35 620.1826 4801.782 31 FG BEC 2063.85 46.05 619.8575 4812.789 32 FG BEC 2017.8 57.28 618.5051 4821.311 33 FG BEC 1960.52 53.92 617.5258 4832.159 34 FG BEC 1906.6 118.98 616.1114 4841.975 35 FG BEC 1791 80.11 614.0922 4853.51 36 FG BEC 1707.51 111.45 611.9428 4871.82 37 FG BEC 1596.06 167.04 610.0018 4886.664 38 FG BEC 1429.02 93 607.724 4897.205 39 FG BEC 1336 10 606.339 4907.979 40 FG BEC 1326 10 606.7856 4917.333 41 FG BEC 1316 0 606.5582 4922.22 Proposed Conditions Model River Reach RS Ch Dist Ch Invert El (ft) Long. Cum Mass change (tons) 1 BEC BEC 7008 4 804.67 0 2 BEC BEC 7004 39.45 805.9442 11.00348 3 BEC BEC 6969 38.31 804.1365 19.18891 4 BEC BEC 6930 39.01 799.7762 21.40505 5 BEC BEC 6891 32.66 796.8701 19.9381 6 BEC BEC 6859 9.35 794.5007 17.30939 7 BEC BEC 6849 64.71 794.2719 15.66119 8 BEC BEC 6785 87.19 790.0388 20.57938 9 BEC BEC 6697 91.44 785.2377 24.05799 10 BEC BEC 6606 64.08 781.9112 66.28572 11 BEC BEC 6542 34.01 778.6917 88.34805 12 BEC BEC 6508 56.31 777.8161 120.8099 13 BEC BEC 6452 37 775.7834 2122.958 14 BEC BEC 6415 20 771.37 3727.258 15 BEC BEC 6395 64.45 773.9606 3901.808 16 BEC BEC 6331 24.27 769.6533 9324.694 17 BEC BEC 6307 28.07 770.1151 9493.5 18 BEC BEC 6279 31.03 769.8842 9492.589 19 BEC BEC 6248 32.53 766.5 9490.414 20 BEC BEC 6208 22.42 764.7719 9528.211 21 BEC BEC 6186 44 763.2442 9560.59 22 BEC BEC 6142 40 758.8042 9730.076 23 BEC BEC 6102 24 756.44 9931.27 24 BEC BEC 6078 27 757.6266 10025.91 25 BEC BEC 6051 21 756.2994 10240.59 26 BEC BEC 6030 19 755.8932 10449.97 27 BEC BEC 6011 53 753.4558 10863.54 28 BEC BEC 5958 61 753.851 11024.45 29 BEC BEC 5897 46 752.2773 11155.47 30 BEC BEC 5851 50 753.5189 11370.12 31 BEC BEC 5801 61 750.19 11298.71 32 BEC BEC 5740 42 744.19 11266.03 33 BEC BEC 5698 33 737.99 11254.95 34 BEC BEC 5665 85 732.4649 11249.92 35 BEC BEC 5580 5.22 726.02 11589.57 36 BEC BEC 5575 3.39 723.918 11625.36 37 BEC BEC 5572 17.14 723.657 11652.21 38 BEC BEC 5555 103.91 724.29 11652.58 39 BEC BEC 5451 74 722.4963 11743.23 40 BEC BEC 5377 73 721.6165 12151.27 41 BEC BEC 5304 56 719.3762 12245.66 42 BEC BEC 5248 52.06 714.79 12263.08 43 BEC BEC 5196 5.95 711.89 12291.08 44 BEC BEC 5190 6.83 713.8635 12309.85 45 BEC BEC 5183 65.42 713.9082 12444.24 46 BEC BEC 5118 52.97 711.8409 12767.58 47 BEC BEC 5065 67.23 712.572 12855.93 48 BEC BEC 5008 72.86 705.8036 12930.88 49 BEC BEC 4946 65.03 706.6009 12934.99 50 BEC BEC 4856 73 700.4553 12938.1 51 BEC BEC 4783 61 698.3952 12929.19 52 BEC BEC 4722 87 697.3967 12926.71 River Reach RS Ch Dist Ch Invert El (ft) Long. Cum Mass change (tons) 53 BEC BEC 4635 46.66 695.5456 12986.19 54 BEC BEC 4588 38.9 694.4042 13056.37 55 BEC BEC 4548 2.33 693.1847 13083.11 56 BEC BEC 4546 12.33 693.3318 13084.29 57 BEC BEC 4534 15.17 691.1442 13109.91 58 BEC BEC 4519 15.01 689.3187 13139.27 59 BEC BEC 4504 6.87 686.8536 13155.46 60 BEC BEC 4497 14.66 685.59 13156.79 61 BEC BEC 4482 50.68 684.5378 13201.28 62 BEC BEC 4431 76.92 679.92 13209.89 63 BEC BEC 4354 77.6 678.3177 13314 64 BEC BEC 4277 87.36 676.73 13320.77 65 66 FGUP BEC 6616.91 66.95 783.93 0 67 FGUP BEC 6549.96 49.95 784.4037 537.0124 68 FGUP BEC 6500.01 39.02 779.1567 1333.479 69 FGUP BEC 6460.99 18.13 779.6187 1384.701 70 FGUP BEC 6442.86 20.58 770.5441 1427.703 71 FGUP BEC 6422.28 5.08 769 1462.649 72 FGUP BEC 6417.2 66.35 770.49 1452.014 73 FGUP BEC 6350.85 18.15 769.2219 1451.807 74 FGUP BEC 6332.7 27.54 760.0322 1505.517 75 FGUP BEC 6305.16 5.04 759.5336 1540.045 76 FGUP BEC 6300.12 49.82 760.51 1529.177 77 FGUP BEC 6250.3 50.54 759.3984 1520.95 78 FGUP BEC 6199.76 12.45 757.6057 1520.877 79 FGUP BEC 6187.31 23.18 750.4113 1549.778 80 FGUP BEC 6164.13 4.83 749.068 1562.629 81 FGUP BEC 6159.3 59.44 750.9343 1553.12 82 FGUP BEC 6099.86 50.43 750.1608 1553.39 83 FGUP BEC 6049.43 47.96 748.88 1539.9 84 FGUP BEC 6001.47 53.43 747.6781 1528.689 85 FGUP BEC 5948.04 47 745.7657 1521.387 86 FGUP BEC 5901.04 11.78 742.99 1510.428 87 FGUP BEC 5889.26 24.22 738.7591 1550.763 88 FGUP BEC 5865.04 5 738.1834 1574.22 89 FGUP BEC 5860.04 62.26 737.95 1570.714 90 FGUP BEC 5797.78 48.29 736.82 1556.674 91 FGUP BEC 5749.49 49.62 735.4357 1547.044 92 FGUP BEC 5699.87 54.65 733.7426 1546.887 93 FGUP BEC 5645.22 44.97 732.1174 1559.131 94 FGUP BEC 5600.25 50.32 731.43 1545.517 95 FGUP BEC 5549.93 50 729.961 1519.236 96 FGUP BEC 5499.93 49.67 728.0398 1522.982 97 FGUP BEC 5450.26 50.37 726.2036 1530.967 98 FGUP BEC 5399.89 49.84 724.6697 1528.87 99 FGUP BEC 5350.05 49.57 723.5298 1528.59 100 FGUP BEC 5300.48 12.27 721.4121 1529.867 101 FGUP BEC 5288.21 24.18 716.4143 1585.979 102 FGUP BEC 5264.03 5.55 715.6537 1630.713 103 FGUP BEC 5258.48 17.05 715.4847 1629.659 104 FGUP BEC 5241.43 41.54 714.9273 1623.611 River Reach RS Ch Dist Ch Invert El (ft) Long. Cum Mass change (tons) 105 FGUP BEC 5199.89 49.72 714.1713 1623.121 106 FGUP BEC 5150.17 50.24 712.5454 1610.327 107 FGUP BEC 5099.93 17.81 710.6 1592.417 108 FGUP BEC 5082.12 24.26 706.6518 1603.055 109 FGUP BEC 5057.86 5.08 704.8861 1601.866 110 FGUP BEC 5052.78 52.73 704.7462 1593.927 111 FGUP BEC 5000.05 99.95 704.1262 1605.522 112 FGUP BEC 4900.1 50.38 701.1362 1590.979 113 FGUP BEC 4849.72 49.76 699.0961 1582.821 114 FGUP BEC 4799.96 50.14 697.8654 1583.909 115 FGUP BEC 4749.82 99.3 696.1696 1588.377 116 FGUP BEC 4650.52 50.48 693.0613 1576.437 117 FGUP BEC 4600.04 50.07 691.8156 1577.599 118 FGUP BEC 4549.97 49.97 690.3283 1581.999 119 FGUP BEC 4500 49.71 688.9733 1573.674 120 FGUP BEC 4450.29 50.47 687.0898 1565.045 121 FGUP BEC 4399.82 18.36 684.77 1550.638 122 FGUP BEC 4381.46 24.51 681.0063 1570.588 123 FGUP BEC 4356.95 5.01 679.619 1578.366 124 FGUP BEC 4351.94 25.88 679.4996 1580.087 125 FGUP BEC 4326.06 26.04 678.91 1565.916 126 FGUP BEC 4300.02 15.74 677.2281 1562.292 127 FGUP BEC 4284.28 0 677 1559.237 128 129 BEC BEC up 4190 53.85 671.64 2.361314 130 BEC BEC up 4136 55.71 669.5508 -10.64122 131 BEC BEC up 4080 45.37 668.2681 -27.07727 132 BEC BEC up 4035 53.71 667.9479 -21.15502 133 BEC BEC up 3981 60.4 666.5657 -27.57923 134 BEC BEC up 3920 93.98 665.4115 -43.6693 135 BEC BEC up 3826 160.09 664.5 -29.00358 136 BEC BEC up 3820.28 10.28 657.4678 -23.52452 137 BEC BEC up 3810 10 653.341 -26.77852 138 BEC BEC up 3800 8 651.58 -36.27989 139 BEC BEC up 3792.03 10 652.0477 -40.16732 140 BEC BEC up 3782.03 42 651.8502 -65.57365 141 BEC BEC up 3739.04 39.61 650.2426 -84.0418 142 BEC BEC up 3699.43 37.74 650.6746 -88.66312 143 BEC BEC up 3661.69 48.84 650.1557 -89.93264 144 BEC BEC up 3612.85 48.06 649.1006 -84.22756 145 BEC BEC up 3564.79 45.98 646.0971 -95.29114 146 BEC BEC up 3518.81 89.55 647.2274 -93.66262 147 BEC BEC up 3429.26 83.23 646.5788 -96.97547 148 BEC BEC up 3346.03 53.98 642.1971 -125.3173 149 BEC BEC up 3292.05 67.84 644.1555 -114.9133 150 BEC BEC up 3224.21 96.12 642.6067 -103.7787 151 BEC BEC up 3128.09 71.86 640.0891 -162.2627 152 BEC BEC up 3056.23 63.22 639.278 -151.0726 153 BEC BEC up 2993.01 62.95 638.1743 -133.9367 154 BEC BEC up 2930.06 51.94 636.0103 -144.6005 155 BEC BEC up 2878.12 72.02 634.9395 -155.1668 156 BEC BEC up 2806.1 54.36 633.8384 -138.6647 River Reach RS Ch Dist Ch Invert El (ft) Long. Cum Mass change (tons) 157 BEC BEC up 2751.74 41.36 631.8245 -124.8409 158 BEC BEC up 2710.38 45.84 629.2975 -122.9218 159 BEC BEC up 2664.54 60.84 630.1243 -131.7058 160 BEC BEC up 2603.7 51.75 627.8486 -138.9503 161 BEC BEC up 2551.95 59.62 628.1038 -86.73604 162 BEC BEC up 2492.33 62.18 626.7662 -45.50895 163 BEC BEC up 2430.15 62.64 625.0627 -36.34388 164 BEC BEC up 2367.51 91.51 625.6584 -18.60462 165 BEC BEC up 2276 80.46 622.4378 -18.95114 166 BEC BEC up 2195.54 104.34 620.3912 -31.4923 167 BEC BEC up 2091.2 27.35 619.5045 -18.47035 168 BEC BEC up 2063.85 46.05 618.5799 25.0943 169 BEC BEC up 2017.8 57.28 619.3131 241.8414 170 BEC BEC up 1960.52 53.92 619.0732 477.4145 171 BEC BEC up 1906.6 118.98 616.8889 849.0374 172 BEC BEC up 1791 80.11 612.97 785.7729 173 BEC BEC up 1707.51 111.45 611.8034 887.5723 174 BEC BEC up 1596.06 167.04 609.746 922.6965 175 BEC BEC up 1429.02 93 607.8149 1272.994 176 BEC BEC up 1336 10 605.5859 1333.756 177 BEC BEC up 1326 10 605.143 1356.381 178 BEC BEC up 1316 71 605.7662 1453.715 179 BEC BEC up 1245 90.89 603.4786 1601.467 180 BEC BEC up 1154 78.5 601.3192 1716.428 181 BEC BEC up 1075 60.41 600.683 1786.53 182 BEC BEC up 1015 94.04 599.62 1930.631 183 BEC BEC up 925 3 599.6246 1964.08 184 BEC BEC up 920 88.76 597.62 1954.453 185 BEC BEC up 834 76.27 596.72 1952.275 186 BEC BEC up 758 64.31 596.0242 1915.082 187 BEC BEC up 693 30.56 595.7211 1910.101 188 BEC BEC up 663 27.21 594.22 1938.352 189 BEC BEC up 636 17.82 593.8979 1968.399 190 BEC BEC up 618 19.27 593.38 1991.157 191 BEC BEC up 599 29.93 594.9669 2001.12 192 BEC BEC up 569 45.08 593.069 2005.044 193 BEC BEC up 524 43.3 592.23 1984.841 194 BEC BEC up 480 48.01 591.38 1958.38 195 BEC BEC up 432 31.88 590.9506 1934.785 196 BEC BEC up 400 34.42 590.6366 1920.76 197 BEC BEC up 366 34.28 588.63 1901.735 198 BEC BEC up 332 41.59 587.13 1875.874 199 BEC BEC up 290 74.5 586.4379 1845.282 200 BEC BEC up 216 57.45 585.2786 1847.477 201 BEC BEC up 158 28.6 584.5 1880.276 202 BEC BEC up 130 9.78 584.4592 1932.173 203 BEC BEC up 120 9 581.9236 1960.13 204 BEC BEC up 111 10 580.9384 1995.62 205 BEC BEC up 101 0 582.3417 2004.965 APPENDIX E WRA, INC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSTRAINTS ASSESSMENT Preliminary Biological Resources Assessment BUCKEYE CREEK, FOOTHILLS PARK, PALO ALTO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY. CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Jonathan Buck ENGEO Incorporated 2010 Crow Canyon Pl, Suite 250 San Ramon, CA 94583 WRA Contact: Sean Avent Avent@wra-ca.com Date: December 2016 This Page Left Blank Intentionally i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 1 2.1 Sensitive Biological Communities .............................................................................. 1 2.2 Sensitive Special-Status Species ............................................................................... 6 3.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Biological Communities .............................................................................................. 7 3.1.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities ........................................................ 8 3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities ................................................................ 8 3.2 Special-Status Species .............................................................................................. 8 3.2.1 Literature Review ........................................................................................ 8 3.2.2 Site Assessment .......................................................................................... 9 3.3 Protected Trees ......................................................................................................... 10 4.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 10 4.1 Biological Communities ............................................................................................ 11 4.1.1 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities ...................................................... 11 4.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities .............................................................. 14 4.2 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................ 15 4.2.1 Plants ........................................................................................................ 15 4.2.2 Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 20 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 26 5.1 Biological Communities ............................................................................................ 26 5.2 Special-Status Plant Species ................................................................................... 27 5.3 Protected Trees ........................................................................................................ 27 5.4 Special-Status Wildlife Species ................................................................................ 27 6.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 31 7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 33 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Area LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Description of CNPS Ranks and Threat Codes .............................................................. 7 Table 2. Summary of Biological Communities in the Project Area ............................................. 11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Project Area ............................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Biological Communities in the Project Area ................................................................ 12 Figure 3. Special-Status Plants within 5 Miles of Project Area .................................................. 16 Figure 4. Special-Status Wildlife within 5 Miles of the Project Area ........................................... 21 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION WRA, Inc. (WRA) performed a preliminary desktop assessment of biological resources along Buckeye Creek and associated tributaries (Project Area) located in Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California (Figure 1). The Project Area is located in Foothills Park, 3 miles west of Highway 280 on Page Mill Road. The purpose of the assessment was to gather information to determine biological constraints for possible restoration activities along Buckeye Creek and associated tributaries (Project). The restoration would address potential flooding of Foothill Park infrastructure and control erosion. Buckeye Creek originates in Foothills Park at the upper end of Wildhorse Valley, and discharges into Los Trancos Creek. A 7.7 acre portion of the Project Area is a former quarry site, now dedicated park land with a plant nursery. The creek has been substantially modified by anthropogenic activities, including filling of the floodplain and installation of infrastructure (e.g., roads, culverts, and utilities). During heavy storms, the creek downcuts and overtops its banks while the eroded sediments are deposited in various locations along the creek, especially along the 7.7 acres area where the creek flattens out. A significant portion of the creek is channelized and deeply incised from increased erosion. Sediment must be removed from the creek basins and catchments two to three times a year to maintain creek capacity and prevent flooding. This report describes the results of the preliminary biological resources assessment, which assessed the Project Area for the (1) potential to support special-status species; and (2) presence of other sensitive biological resources protected by local, state, and federal laws and regulations. A biological resources assessment provides general information on the potential presence of sensitive species and habitats. The biological assessment is not an official protocol-level survey for listed species that may be required for project approval by local, state, or federal agencies. This preliminary assessment is based on information available at the time of the study. Previously collected information, including past reports and databases, were used to assess the biological resources; a site visit was not conducted for this assessment. 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND The following sections explain the regulatory context of the preliminary biological resources assessment, including applicable laws and regulations that were applied to the field investigations and analysis of potential project impacts. 2.1 Sensitive Biological Communities Sensitive biological communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, or riparian habitat. These habitats are protected under federal regulations such as the Clean Water Act; state regulations such as the Porter-Cologne Act, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Program, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); or local ordinances or policies such as city or county tree ordinances, Special Habitat Management Areas, and General Plan Elements. Figure 1. Project Area Location Map Buckeye Creek Constraints Foothills Park, Palo AltoContra Costa County, California . Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26059\GIS\ArcMap\LocationMap.mxd Map Prepared Date: 11/14/2016Map Prepared By: fhouriganBase Source: Esri Streaming - National GeographicData Source(s): WRA Project Area Detail Area 0 1 20.5 Miles This map may contain data from publicly availablesources including, but not limited to, parcel boundaries.These data sources may be inaccurate. They areintended for reference purposes only and do notrepresent legal boundaries or absolute locations. 3 This Page Left Blank Intentionally 4 Waters of the United States The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the U.S. are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all other waters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands as defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), are identified by the presence of (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. Areas that are inundated at a sufficient depth and for a sufficient duration to exclude growth of hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction as “other waters” and are often characterized by an ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Other waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The placement of fill material into Waters of the U.S generally requires an individual or nationwide permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the State The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) protects all waters in its regulatory scope and has special responsibility for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and are not systematically protected by other programs. RWQCB jurisdiction includes “isolated” wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the Corps under Section 404. Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Corps permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact Waters of the State, are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification determination. If a proposed project does not require a federal permit, but does involve dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to Waters of the State, the RWQCB has the option to regulate the dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements. Streams, Lakes, and Riparian Habitat Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Alterations to or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term “stream”, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life [including] watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term “stream” can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife (CDFG 1994). “Riparian” is defined as “on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream.” Riparian vegetation is defined as “vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself” (CDFG 5 1994). Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW. Essential Fish Habitat Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is regulated through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Protection of EFH is mandated through changes implemented in 1996 to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to protect the loss of habitat necessary to maintain sustainable fisheries in the United States. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" [16 USC 1802(10)]. NMFS further defines essential fish habitat as areas that "contain habitat essential to the long-term survival and health of our nation's fisheries" (NMFS 2007). EFH can include the water column, certain bottom types such as sandy or rocky bottoms, vegetation such as eelgrass or kelp, or structurally complex coral or oyster reefs. Under regulatory guidelines issued by NMFS, any federal agency that authorizes, funds, or undertakes action that may affect EFH is required to consult with NMFS (50 CFR 600.920). Other Sensitive Biological Communities Other sensitive biological communities not discussed above include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW. CDFW ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" and keeps records of their occurrences in its California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2016). Sensitive plant communities are also identified by CDFW (CNPS 2015a). CNDDB vegetation alliances are ranked 1 through 5 based on NatureServe's (2010) methodology, with those alliances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered sensitive. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or those identified by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (CCR Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Specific habitats may also be identified as sensitive in city or county general plans or ordinances. Oak Woodland Under the California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act (2004), impacts to oak woodlands receive consideration under CEQA regardless of whether the woodland is composed of oak (Quercus spp.) vegetation types considered to be sensitive by the CDFW. California Public Resources Code (PRC) 21083.4 requires each county in California to implement an oak woodland protection policy to mitigate for the loss of oak woodlands resultant from approved projects within their jurisdiction. In this policy, oak trees are defined as all native species of oaks larger than 5 inches DBH (diameter at breast height, or 4.5 feet above grade). Under this regulation, if impacts occur to oak woodlands, at least one of four mitigation alternatives for significant conversions of oak woodlands are required: 1) conserve oak woodlands through the use of a conservation easement, 2) plant an appropriate number of trees, including maintaining plantings and replacing dead or diseased trees, 3) contribute funds to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund, as established under Section 1363 (a) of the CFGC and 4) other mitigation measures developed by the County. 6 Relevant Local Policies, Ordinances, Regulations City of Palo Alto Municipal Code The Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 8, Trees and Vegetation includes regulations that protect trees in the City. Chapter 8.04 gives the City control of all street trees, shrubs and plants in any street, park or public place within City limits and the power to maintain them. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan is the primary tool for guiding the future development of the City. Chapter 5 Natural Environment includes Goals, Policies and Programs that guide development impact on open land and natural resources in Palo Alto. Policies pertaining to creeks and riparian areas, wetlands, urban forest, water resources, and wildlife are included in the Natural Environment chapter. 2.2 Sensitive Special-Status Species Special-status species include those plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These acts afford protection to both listed species and those that are formal candidates for listing. The federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act also provides broad protections to both eagle species that are roughly analogous to those of listed species. Additionally, CDFW Species of Special Concern, CDFW California Fully Protected species, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, and CDFW Special-status Invertebrates are all considered special-status species. Although these aforementioned species generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA. Bat species are also evaluated for conservation status by the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), a non-governmental entity; bats named as a “High Priority” or “Medium Priority” species for conservation by the WBWG are typically considered special-status and also considered under CEQA. In addition to regulations for special-status species, most native birds in the United States (including non-status species) are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) and the CFGC, Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Under these laws, deliberately destroying active bird nests, eggs, and/or young is illegal. Plant species on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory (Inventory) with California Rare Plant Ranks (Rank) of 1 and 2 are also considered special-status plant species and must be considered under CEQA. Rank 3 and Rank 4 species are afforded little or no protection under CEQA, but are included in this analysis for completeness. A description of the CNPS Ranks is provided below in Table 1. Critical Habitat Critical habitat is a term defined in the ESA as a specific and designated geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. The ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS to conserve listed species on their lands and to ensure that any activities or projects they fund, authorize, or carry out will not jeopardize the survival of a threatened or 7 endangered species. In consultation for those species with critical habitat, federal agencies must also ensure that their activities or projects do not adversely modify critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in the species’ recovery. In many cases, this level of protection is similar to that already provided to species by the ESA jeopardy standard. However, areas that are currently unoccupied by the species but which are needed for the species’ recovery are protected by the prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat. Table 1. Description of CNPS Ranks and Threat Codes California Rare Plant Ranks (formerly known as CNPS Lists) Rank 1A Presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere Rank 1B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2A Presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 2B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3 Plants about which more information is needed - A review list Rank 4 Plants of limited distribution - A watch list Threat Ranks 0.1 Seriously threatened in California 0.2 Moderately threatened in California 0.3 Not very threatened in California 3.0 METHODS A preliminary desktop biological resources assessment was conducted to determine (1) plant communities present within the Project Area, (2) if suitable habitat for any special-status plant or wildlife species has potential to occur in or adjacent to the Project Area, and (3) if sensitive habitats are present within the Project Area. Several resources were used to conduct the analysis, including Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), satellite imagery (Google Earth 1998-2016), United States Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Map, San Francisco Sheet, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search focusing on Mindego Hill, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Woodside, and La Honda 7.5 minute USGS quadrangles, and USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPAC) species list. A site visit was not conducted. 3.1 Biological Communities The NRCS Web Soil Survey, NWI, satellite imagery (Google Earth 2016), and USGS Geologic Map, San Francisco Sheet, were examined to determine if any unique soil types that could support sensitive plant communities and/or aquatic features were present in the Project Area. Biological communities present in the Project Area were classified based on existing plant community descriptions described in the Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition (CNPS 2016) or Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). However, in some cases it is necessary to identify variants of community types or to 8 describe non-vegetated areas that are not described in the literature. Biological communities were classified as sensitive or non-sensitive as defined by CEQA and other applicable laws and regulations. 3.1.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities Non-sensitive biological communities are those communities that are not afforded special protection under CEQA, and other state, federal, and local laws, regulations and ordinances. These communities may, however, provide suitable habitat for some special-status plant or wildlife species and are identified or described in Section 4.1.1 below. 3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities Sensitive biological communities are defined as those communities that are given special protection under CEQA and other applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations and ordinances. Applicable laws and ordinances are discussed above in Section 2.0. Special methods used to identify sensitive biological communities are discussed below. Wetlands and Waters Using aerial imagery (Google Earth 2016), USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps, stream mapping, and NWI, the Project Area was remotely examined to determine if any wetlands and waters potentially subject to jurisdiction by the Corps or RWQCB were present. Other Sensitive Biological Communities The Project Area was remotely evaluated for the presence of other sensitive biological communities, riparian areas, and sensitive plant communities recognized by CDFW and City of Palo Alto. Aerial photographs, local soil maps, and A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition (CNPS 2015a) were reviewed to assess the potential for sensitive biological communities to occur in the Project Area. All alliances within the Project Area with a ranking of 1 through 3 were considered sensitive biological communities and mapped. These communities are described in Section 4.1.2 below. 3.2 Special-Status Species 3.2.1 Literature Review Potential occurrence of special-status species in the Project Area was evaluated by first determining which special-status species occur in the vicinity of the Project Area through a literature and database search. Database searches for known occurrences of special-status species focused on Mindego Hill, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Woodside, and La Honda 7.5 minute USGS quadrangles. The following sources were reviewed to determine which special-status plant and wildlife species have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area: •California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records (CDFW 2016) •USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation Species Lists (USFWS 2016) •CNPS Inventory records (CNPS 2016b) •CDFG publication “California’s Wildlife, Volumes I-III” (Zeiner et al. 1990) 9 •CDFG publication California Bird Species of Special Concern (Shuford and Gardali 2008) •Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County, California (Bousman 2007) •CDFW and University of California Press publication California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern (Thomson et al. 2016) •A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins and McGinnis 2012) •University of California at Davis Information Center for the Environment Distribution Maps for Fishes in California (2016) •Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California (2016) •National Marine Fisheries Service Distribution Maps for California Salmonid Species (2013) •City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (2016) 3.2.2 Site Assessment The site assessment was conducted remotely, using satellite imagery, maps, and database searches to determine potential suitable habitats for special-status species. Conditions determined to exist at the Project Site were used to evaluate the potential for presence of special-status species based on these searches and the professional expertise of the investigating biologists. The potential for each special-status species to occur in the Project Area was then evaluated according to the following criteria: •No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plantcommunity, site history, disturbance regime). •Unlikely. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements arepresent, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site. •Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site. •High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. Thespecies has a high probability of being found on the site. •Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (i.e. CNDDB, otherreports) on the site recently. The preliminary assessment is intended to identify the potential for presence or absence of suitable habitat for each special-status species known to occur in the vicinity in order to determine its potential to occur in the Project Area. The site assessment does not constitute a protocol-level survey and is not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species. In cases where little information is known about species occurrences and habitat requirements, the species evaluation was based on best professional judgment of WRA biologists with experience working with the species and habitats. 10 3.3 Protected Trees City of Palo Alto Municipal Code describes Protected Trees as all coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak (Quercus lobata) 36 inches or greater DBH, coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 57 inches or greater DBH and heritage trees designated by the City Council. 4.0 RESULTS The Project Area is located along Buckeye Creek in Foothills Park, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. The Project Area is located in City of Palo Alto open space, west of highway 280 in the Los Altos Hills. The primary land use in and around the Project Area is recreation for the residents of Palo Alto. Buckeye Creek is an intermittent stream which is seasonally flooded (NWI 2016). Several community types occur within the Project Area, including California bay forest, oak woodland, non-native grassland, chamise chaparral, and developed areas. The majority of the site is characterized by California bay forest, coast live oak woodland, and developed areas. Developed areas include paved roads, parking lots, a plant nursery, an interpretive center and other park buildings. The California bay forest is a riparian forest because it occurs along the banks of Buckeye creek and associated tributaries; coverage appears to be primarily continuous, however there are several patches where the canopy is sparse or nearly absent. The riparian forest transitions to coast live oak forest upslope from Buckeye Creek, though in some locations coast live oak woodland may be riparian. Upslope, on south-facing slopes, chamise chaparral is dominant vegetation community. Elevations of the Project Area range from approximately 500 to 1,000 feet. According to Santa Clara Area, Western Part Soil Survey, the Project Area contains 5 soil types composed of six soil series: Stevenscreek sandy clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slope, Flaskan sandy clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slope, Zepplin-Mccoy complex 15 to 30 percent slope, Footpath-Mouser complex, 30 to 50 percent slope, and Footpath-Mouser complex 50 to 75 percent slope. None of these soils is considered hydric (USDA 2016). Stevenscreek soils consist of very deep fine-loam formed in alluvium weathered from mixed rock sources and occur on alluvial fans. These soils are well drained, having low runoff and moderately slow permeability. Flaskan soil consists of very deep fine loam formed in alluvium from mixed rocks and occurs on alluvial fans. These soils are well drained, having moderate permeability. Zepplin soils consist of deep, fine sandy loam to clay formed in residuum from sandstone and occur on hills. These soils are well drained with slow permeability. Mccoy soils consist of moderately deep fine clay loam formed from weathered granitic rock and occur on hill uplands. These soils are well drained with medium to very rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability. Footpath soils consist of moderately deep to shallow coarse sandy loam formed from greenstone and occur on hills, mountain slopes and summits. These soils are well drained with moderately slow permeability. Mouser soils consist of deep and very deep gravelly loam formed from sandstone, mudstone, and greenstone and occur on summits and slopes. These soils are well drained with moderately slow permeability and medium runoff. 11 4.1 Biological Communities Table 2 summarizes the area of each biological community type to be in the Project Area as determined through aerial imagery (Google Earth2016). Biological communities within the Project Area are shown in Figure 2. A brief site visit was conducted to determine biological communities. Non-sensitive biological communities in the Project Area include chamise chaparral, non-native grassland, and developed. Sensitive biological communities which are found in the Project Area include riparian California bay forest, coast live oak woodland, and streams. General descriptions for each biological community are contained in the following sections. Table 2. Summary of Biological Communities in the Project Area Community Type Area (acres/linear feet) Non-Sensitive Developed land 25.99 Non-native annual grassland 15.02 Chamise chaparral 14.46 Sensitive Coast live oak woodland 47.66 California bay forest 8.90 Ephemeral stream 2,223 linear feet Intermittent stream 9,034 linear feet Total Project Area 1,112.06 4.1.1 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities Developed Developed communities are not described in the literature. These areas are generally associated with structures and associated features, such as parking lots, driveways, yards, and landscaped areas. Within the Project Area developed areas include a plant nursery located within the old quarry area, paved roads, and parking lots. The Project Area contains 25.99 acres of developed land. Non-native annual grassland Non-native annual grassland typically occurs in open areas of valleys and foothills throughout California, usually on fine textured clay or loam soils that are somewhat poorly drained (Holland 1986). Non-native grassland is typically dominated by non-native annual grasses and forbs along with scattered native wildflowers. Non-native annual grassland is present in the center of the Project Area, between Buckeye Creek and a paved access road. Plant species generally Figure 2. Biological Communities Buckeye Creek Constraints Foothills Park, Palo AltoSanta Clara County, California . Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26059\GIS\ArcMap\BioComms.mxd Map Prepared Date: 11/21/2016Map Prepared By: fhouriganBase Source: Esri Streaming - National GeographicData Source(s): WRA 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet This map may contain data from publicly availablesources including, but not limited to, parcel boundaries.These data sources may be inaccurate. They areintended for reference purposes only and do notrepresent legal boundaries or absolute locations. Study Area (1112.06 ac.)Biological Communities CA Bay Forest (Riparian, 8.90 ac.) Chamise Chaparral (14.46 ac.) Developed (25.99 ac.) Non-native Grassland 15.02 ac.) Oak Woodland (47.66 ac.) Bukeye Creek (9,034 ln.ft.) Tributaries to Buckeye Creek (2,223 ln.ft.) 13 This Page Left Blank Intentionally 14 observed in this area included slender wild oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and storksbill (Erodium spp.). The Project Area contains approximately 15.0 acres of non-native grassland. Chamise chaparral Chamise chaparral is a shrub community which chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) is dominant in the shrub canopy. This biological community occurs on varied topography and bedrock where soils are commonly shallow over colluvium (CNPS 2016b). Known plant species which occur in this community include manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), Ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.), sticky monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus), toyon, and yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum). In the Project Area, chamise chaparral occurs on the south facing slopes in the higher elevations. The Project Area contains approximately 14.5 acres of chamise chaparral. 4.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities California bay forest (riparian) California bay forest is a forest community which California bay is dominant or co-dominant in the intermittent to continuous tree canopy. This biological community occurs in the cismontane mountains and foothills of the Sierra Nevada range throughout California on alluvial benches, streamsides, valley bottoms, coastal bluffs, inland ridges, steep north-facing slopes and rocky outcrops on shallow to deep sandy to clay loam soils. Known plant species which occur in this community include big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), tan oak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), poison oak, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and live oak (Quercus chrysolepis). In the Project Area, California bay forest occurs along the banks of Buckeye Creek; therefore it is considered a riparian forest. The Project Area contains approximately 8.9 acres of California bay forest. Many, if not most, of the California bay trees and other tree species that line the creek are undercut and in peril of topping over. Coast live oak woodland Coast live oak woodland is a tree community which coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is dominant or co-dominant in the open to continuous tree canopy. This biological community occurs on the cismontane mountain ranges from Humboldt to San Diego Counties on alluvial terraces, canyon bottoms, stream banks, slopes flats where soils are deep, sandy or loamy with high organic matter (CNPS 2016b). Known plant species which occur in this community include California bay (Umbellularia californica), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), California coffeeberry (Frangula californica), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum). In the Project Area, coast live oak woodland occurs on the slopes above the riparian vegetation associated with Buckeye Creek as well as western and northern slopes throughout. It is possible that portions of the coast live oak woodland could be considered riparian if they are associated with streams which occur in the Project Area. The Project Area contains approximately 47.5 acres of coast live oak woodland. 15 Ephemeral Stream An ephemeral stream is a stream which flows for only brief periods usually during or shortly following storms; the water table is usually well below the stream bottom for most of the season (NWI 2016). Several tributaries to Buckeye Creek are present within the Project Area and they are believed to be ephemeral streams. Vegetation associated with the streams is predominantly coast live oak woodland as described above. The Project Area contains approximately 2,223 linear feet of ephemeral stream. Intermittent Stream (Buckeye Creek) An intermittent stream is a stream in which water flows for periods of time after storms, especially early in the growing season, but in which flow is absent by the end of the growing season. When water is not flowing, it may remain in isolated pools or surface water may be absent (NWI 2016). A significant portion of the stream (Buckeye Creek) is channelized and deeply incised; during heavy rain events, sediment and debris collect, causing the creek to flood. Vegetation associated with the stream is California bay woodland and coast live oak woodland as described above. Much of the larger vegetation associated with the creek is undercut and in peril of falling. The Project Area contains approximately 9,034 linear feet of perennial stream within the Project Area. 4.2 Special-Status Species 4.2.1 Plants Based upon a review of the resources and databases given in Section 3.2.1, 120 special-status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the Project Area. Figure 3 depicts special-status plants in a 5-mile radius of the Project Area. The Project Area has a moderate or high potential to support eight of these species. Appendix A summarizes the potential for occurrence for each special-status plant species occurring in the vicinity of the Project Area. Two special-status plant species have a high potential to occur in the Project Area, and six special-status plant species have a moderate potential to occur in the Project Area. Special-status plant species that are most likely (high or moderate potential) to occur in the Project Area are discussed below. The remaining species documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area are unlikely or have no potential to occur due to: •Absence of specific edaphic conditions (i.e., serpentine, volcanic, heavy clay, alkaline); •Absence of hydrologic requirements (i.e., vernally mesic); •Absence of suitable biological community (i.e., salt marsh, coastal prairie, coniferousforest, vernal pools); •Project Area outside of elevation range of species; King Mountain manzanita (Arctostaphylos regismontana), CRPR 1B.2. Moderate Potential. King Mountain manzanita is an evergreen shrub in the huckleberry family (Ericaceae) that blooms December through April. It typically occurs on granite or sandstone in broadleaf upland forest, chaparral or North Coast coniferous forest at elevation range from 615 to 2,190 feet (CNPS 2016). Known associated species include evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), poison oak, toyon, interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), coast live oak, and yerba santa (Eriodictyon californicum)(CNDDB 2016). 11 22 5 6 4 8 2020 12 15 13 18 1016 20 18 2 2 17 3 5 1 18 7 9 18 18 18 20 14 18 20 19 20 18 8 8 18 18 18 18 18 2 18 18 1818 18 7 8 8 18 8 3 3 8 18 18 8 18 8 1818 2 18 18 18 Figure X. Special-Status Plant Species within 5 Miles of the Project Area Buckeye Creek ConstraintsFoothills Park, Palo AltoSanta Clara County, California 0 2 41 Miles . Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26059\GIS\ArcMap\CNDDB_Plants.mxd Project Area 5 Mile Boundary Plant Species Plant Species 1, Anderson's manzanita 2, arcuate bush-mallow 3, Choris' popcornflower 4, fragrant fritillary 5, Franciscan onion 6, Hoover's button-celery 7, Jepson's coyote-thistle 8, Kings Mountain manzanita 9, legenere 10, lost thistle 11, minute pocket moss 12, San Francisco collinsia 13, San Mateo thorn-mint 14, San Mateo woolly sunflower 15, Santa Clara red ribbons 16, slender-leaved pondweed 17, two-fork clover 18, western leatherwood 19, white-flowered rein orchid 20, woodland woollythreads Map Prepared Date: 11/14/2016Map Prepared By: fhouriganBase Source: National GeographicData Source(s): CNDDB (March 2016) 11 17 This Page Left Blank Intentionally 18 King Mountain manzanita is known from Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties (CNPS 2016). There are 17 CNDDB records within the vicinity of the Project Area, with the nearest documented CNDDB occurrence approximately 5 miles northwest of the Project Area. King Mountain manzanita has a moderate potential to occur in the Project Area due to presence of chaparral and sandstone soils. Santa Clara Red Ribbons (Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa). CRPR 4.3 Moderate Potential. Santa Clara red ribbons is an annual herb in the evening primrose family (Onagraceae) that blooms April through July. It typically occurs on slopes and near intermittent streams in chaparral and cismontane woodland at elevation range 270 to 4,500 feet (CNPS 2016). Known associated species include coast live oak, slender wild oat, sticky monkey flower, poison oak, buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum), and woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum confertiflorum). Santa Clara red ribbons is known from Alameda, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties (CNPS 2016). In Santa Clara County it is known from Mindego Hill (location of Project Area) and Cupertino USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 5 miles south east of the Project Area. This species has a moderate potential to occur in the Project Area due to presence of chaparral biological community and the close vicinity of recorded occurrences. Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis). CRPR 1B.2. High Potential. Western leatherwood is a deciduous shrub in the mezereum family (Thymelaeaceae) that blooms from January to April, but is typically identifiable via vegetative structures into late summer and/or early fall. It typically occurs on brushy, mesic slopes in partial shade in broadleaf upland forest, chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, and riparian woodland habitat at elevations range from 165 to 1285 feet (CNDDB 2016, CNPS 2016). Known associated species include coast live oak, California bay, Pacific madrone, California coffeeberry, poison oak, toyon, California buckeye, California hazelnut, coyote brush, yerba buena (Satureja douglasii), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), Pacific sanicle (Sanicula crassicaulis), and Douglas iris (Iris douglasii) (CNDDB 2016). Western leatherwood is known from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties (CNPS 2016). There are 25 CNDDB records in the greater vicinity of the Project Area with the closest being within the Project Area. Western leatherwood has a high potential to occur on the brushy, shaded slopes and mesic areas in the California bay forest and coast live oak woodland which occur in the Project Area. California bottle-brush grass (Elymus californicus). CRPR 4.3. Moderate Potential. California bottle-brush grass is a perennial graminoid in the grass family (Poaceae) that blooms from May to November. It typically occurs along stream banks or other mesic sites within broadleaf upland forest, cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, and riparian woodland habitat at elevations ranging from 45 to 1530 feet (CNPS 2016). Known associated species are not reported in the literature. California bottle-brush grass is known from Marin, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties (CNPS 2016). California bottle-brush grass has a moderate potential to occur in the Project Area due to presence of broadleaf upland forest and riparian woodlands. Harlequin lotus (Hosackia gracilis). CRPR 4.2 Moderate Potential. Harlequin lotus is a perennial forb in the pea family (Fabaceae) that blooms from March to July. It typically occurs in 19 wetlands or ditches in broadleaf upland forest, coastal scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, meadow and seep, marsh and swamp, North Coast coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland habitat at elevations ranging from 0 to 2,275 feet (CNPS 2016). Known associated species include tinker’s penny (Hypericum anagalloides), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), golden-eyed grass (S. californicum), bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), common velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), California oat grass (Danthonia californica), and silver hair grass (Aira caryophyllea) (personal observation 2016). Harlequin lotus is known from Del Norte, Humboldt, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties (CNPS 2016). Harlequin lotus has a moderate potential to occur in the Project Area due to the presence of wetlands within or adjacent to forest, woodland, and scrub habitat; however, this species is typically located in coastal sites within the direct maritime influence. Woodland woolythreads (Monolopia gracilens). CRPR 1B.2 High Potential. Woodland woollythreads is an annual herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that blooms February through July. It typically occurs in grassy sites on sandy to rocky soil in broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland and North Coast coniferous forest (CNPS 2016, CDFW 2016). While often seen on serpentine after burns, it may have only a weak affinity to serpentine (CDFW 2016), but a strong affinity to disturbed areas. The species is seen at elevations ranging 300 to 3,600 feet. Observed associated species include manzanita, yellow pincushion (Chaenactis glabriuscula), most beautiful jewel flower (Streptanthus albidus var. peramoena), Santa Clara valley dudleya (Dudleya setchellii), Mt. Hamilton thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. campylon), leather oak (Quercus durata), Franciscan wallflower (Erysimum franciscanum), coyote bush, and hoary coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica ssp. tomentella). Woodland woollythreads is known from Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, and San Mateo Counties (CNPS 2016). There are 5 CNDDB occurrences within the vicinity of the Project Area, with the closest being 0.85 miles. Woodland woollythreads has a moderate potential to occur in the Project Area due to presence of coast live oak woodland, chamise chaparral biological communities and vicinity of known occurrence to Project Area. Choris’ popcornflower (Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus). CRPR 1B.2 Moderate Potential. Choris’ popcornflower is an annual herb in the borage family (Boraginaceae) that blooms March through June. It typically occurs in mesic niches within chaparral, coastal prairie, non-native grassland, and coastal scrub at elevations range 9 to 420 feet (CNPS 2016). Known associated species include coast live oak, coyote bush, seaside daisy (Erigeron glaucus), common spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), harlequin lotus, and Chilean rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon australis). Choris’ popcorn flower is known from Alameda, Monterey, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Mateo counties (CNPS 2016). There are 3 recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the Project Area, with the closest approximately 1 mile to the west (CDFW 2016). Choris popcornflower has a moderate potential to occur in the Project Area due to presence of chaparral and non-native grasslands, as well as proximity to known occurrences. Arcuate bush-mallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus). CRPR 1B.2 Moderate Potential. Arcuate bush-mallow is a perennial evergreen shrub in the mallow family (Malvaceae) that 20 blooms April through September. It typically occurs on gravelly alluvium in chaparral and cismontane woodland at 45 to 1,050 feet elevation (CNPS 2016). Known associated species include coast live oak, Douglas fir, black sage (Salvia mellifera), chamise, California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), poison oak, sticky monkey flower, coyote bush, buckbrush (Ceanothus cuneatus), toyon, and soaproot (Chlorogalum pomeridianum). Arcuate bush-mallow is known from Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and San Mateo counties (CNPS 2016). There are 6 recorded occurrences within the vicinity of the Project Area, with the closest being approximately 1 mile to the northeast (CDFW 2016). Arcuate bush-mallow has a moderate potential to occur in the Project Area to due presence of chaparral on gravelly alluvium soil. 4.2.2 Wildlife 32 special-status species of wildlife have been recorded within a 5-mile radius of the Project Area. Figure 4 depicts the CNDDB occurrences of special-status wildlife in a 5-mile radius of the Project Area, although other references were utilized as well (Section 3.2.1). Due to the preliminary nature of the assessment of the Project Area, wildlife were not directly surveyed or observed. Six special-status wildlife species have a high potential to occur in the Project Area, and five special-status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur in the Project Area. Special-status wildlife species that are considered present, or have a moderate or high potential to occur in the Project Area are discussed below. Special-status Species with Moderate Potential to occur California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), Federal Threatened Species, CDFW Species of Special Concern. Moderate Potential. The California red-legged frog (CRLF) is dependent on suitable aquatic, estivation, and upland habitat. During periods of wet weather, starting with the first rainfall in late fall, red-legged frogs disperse away from their estivation sites to seek suitable breeding habitat. Aquatic and breeding habitat is characterized by dense, shrubby, riparian vegetation and deep, still or slow-moving water. Breeding occurs between late November and late April. CRLF estivate (period of inactivity) during the dry months in small mammal burrows, moist leaf litter, incised stream channels, and large cracks in the bottom of dried ponds. The nearest occurrence of CRLF is approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the Project Area (CNDDB 2016). As CRLF typically prefer habitat with little to no water flow, they may occur within the Project Area during times of little to no flow within Buckeye Creek (i.e. in pools where water is able to stagnate), however the stream likely does not provide suitable breeding habitat. The adjacent land may provide suitable aestivation and dispersal habitat as well. Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), WBWG Medium Priority. Moderate Potential. Hoary bats are highly associated with forested habitats in the western United States, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. They are a solitary species and roost primarily in foliage of both coniferous and deciduous trees, near the ends of branches, usually at the edge of a clearing. Roosts are typically 10 to 30 feet above the ground. They have also been documented roosting in caves, beneath rock ledges, in woodpecker holes, in grey squirrel nests, under driftwood, and clinging to the side of buildings, though this behavior is not typical. Hoary bats are thought to be highly migratory, however, wintering sites and migratory routes have not been well documented. This species tolerates a wide range of temperatures and has been captured at air temperatures 21 between 0 and 22 degrees Celsius. Hoary bats probably mate in the fall, with delayed implantation leading to birth in May through July. They usually emerge late in the evening to forage, typically from just over one hour after sunset to after midnight. This species reportedly has a strong preference for moths, but is also known to eat beetles, flies, grasshoppers, termites, dragonflies, and wasps (WBWG 2015). There are documented occurrences of hoary bat to the northwest and northeast of the Project Area (approximately 2.5 and 4.5 miles away, respectively). The Project Area provides suitable forested habitat for the hoary bat along with a clearing suitable for foraging, although there is periodic disturbance within this clearing via mowing. This species has a moderate potential to occur within the Project Area. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), CDFW Species of Special Concern, WBWG High Priority. Moderate Potential. Pallid bats are distributed from southern British Columbia and Montana to central Mexico, and east to Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. This species occurs in a number of habitats ranging from rocky arid deserts to grasslands, and into higher elevation coniferous forests. They are most abundant in the arid Sonoran life zones below 6,000 feet, but have been found up to 10,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada. Pallid bats often roost in colonies of between 20 and several hundred individuals. Roosts are typically in rock crevices, tree hollows, mines, caves, and a variety of man-made structures, including vacant and occupied buildings. Tree roosting has been documented in large conifer snags (e.g., ponderosa pine), inside basal hollows of redwoods and giant sequoias, and within bole cavities in oak trees. They have also been reported roosting in stacks of burlap sacks and stone piles. Pallid bats are primarily insectivorous, feeding on large prey that is usually taken on the ground but sometimes in flight. Prey items include arthropods such as scorpions, ground crickets, and cicadas (WBWG 2015). The nearest documented occurrence of pallid bat is approximately 4.5 miles west, near Los Alto, California. However the Project Area may support their presence if trees and other structures can provide suitable roosting habitat. The species’ relative adaptability to different habitat indicates that they have a moderate potential to occur within the Project Area. Long-eared owl (Asio otus). CDFW Species of Special Concern. Moderate Potential. This generally uncommon species is resident throughout much of California outside of the Central Valley. Long-eared owls breed in a variety of woodland and forest habitats, including coniferous, oak and riparian, as well as planted tree groves. Nearby open habitats with small mammal populations, such as grasslands, meadows and marshes, are also required for foraging. Breeding typically relies on the presence of old nests made by similar-sized birds including hawks and crows (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Communal roosting often occurs during the winter. The nearest documented occurrence is approximately 4 miles south of the Project Area, of which is relatively undisturbed habitat that may provide unhindered dispersal for long-eared owl. The riparian habitat within the Project Area provides suitable habitat for the long-eared owl, however the management of the adjacent grassy area is less ideal for long-eared owl foraging. Therefore this species has a moderate potential to occur. Santa Cruz black salamander (Aneides niger), CDFW Species of Special Concern. Moderate Potential. Climbing salamanders of the genus Aneides frequent damp woodlands and are usually found hiding under various debris (i.e. bark, woodrat nests, logs). The Santa Cruz black salamander exists south of the San Francisco Bay and was only recently recognized as a separate and protected species. They are a black salamander, 2-4 inches long from snout 45 6 45 5 5 58 8 1 13 8 13 11 11 3 11 14 3 41 11 13 13 9 211 14 7 2 14 33 3 3 3 3 12 13 13 102 Figure X. Special-Status Wildlife Species within 5 Miles of the Project Area Buckeye Creek ConstraintsFoothills Park, Palo AltoSanta Clara County, California 0 1 20.5 Miles . Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\26000\26059\GIS\ArcMap\CNDDB_Wildlife.mxd Project Area 5 Mile Boundary Wildlife Species Wildlife Species 1, American badger 2, Bay checkerspot butterfly 3, California red-legged frog 4, California tiger salamander 5, hoary bat 6, long-eared owl 7, marbled murrelet 8, pallid bat 9, saltmarsh common yellowthroat 10, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat 11, Santa Cruz black salamander 12, steelhead - central California coast DPS 13, Townsend's big-eared bat 14, western pond turtle Map Prepared Date: 12/8/2016Map Prepared By: fhouriganBase Source: National GeographicData Source(s): CNDDB (March 2016) Special Status Species Occurences:San Francisco Garter Snake # 2, 4, 21, 22-25, 39, 58, 59, 62-66, 73, 75American peregrine falcon# 52, 58 23 This Page Left Blank Intentionally 24 to vent, some with pale spots (Stebbins and McGinnis 2012). Santa Cruz black salamander is highly sedentary, preferring to stay hidden under riparian debris. Prey items include millipedes, spiders, and other insects (Stebbins and McGinnis 2012). The nearest documented occurrence of Santa Cruz black salamander is approximately 3 miles south of the Project Area. Santa Cruz black salamanders appear to prefer damp riparian areas and therefore have moderate potential to occur within the Project Area due to the presence of Buckeye Creek. They would likely occur under riparian debris adjacent to the creek. Special-status Species with High Potential to Occur (Brewster’s) Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia brewsteri), CDFW Species of Special Concern, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. High Potential. The yellow warbler is a neotropical migrant bird that is widespread in North America, but has declined throughout much of its California breeding range. The Brewster’s (brewsteri) subspecies is a summer resident and represents the vast majority of yellow warblers that breed in California. West of the Central Valley, typical yellow warbler breeding habitat consists of dense riparian vegetation along watercourses, including wet meadows, with willow growth especially being favored (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Insects comprise the majority of the diet. Buckeye Creek and the adjacent forested area to the west of the bank provide highly suitable habitat for the yellow warbler. This species has a high potential of occurring within the Project Area. Oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. High Potential. This relatively common species is year-round resident throughout much of California including most of the coastal slope, the Central Valley and the western Sierra Nevada foothills. In addition, the species may also occur in residential settings where landscaping provides foraging and nesting habitat. Its primary habitat is woodland dominated by oaks. Local populations have adapted to woodlands of pines and/or junipers in some areas (Cicero 2000). The oak titmouse nests in tree cavities, usually natural cavities or those excavated by woodpeckers, though they may partially excavate their own (Cicero 2000). Seeds and arboreal invertebrates make up the birds’ diet. The heavily forested nature of the Project Area, especially along the west bank of Buckeye Creek, is highly suitable habitat for this species. Therefore the oak titmouse has a high potential of occurring within the Project Area. Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii). USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. High Potential. Nuttall’s woodpecker, common in much of its range, is a year-round resident throughout most of California, west of the Sierra Nevada Range. Typical habitat is oak or mixed woodland, including riparian areas (Lowther 2000). Nesting occurs in tree cavities, principally those of oaks and larger riparian trees. This species forages on a variety of arboreal invertebrates. Nuttall’s woodpeckers occur regularly in and near developed areas of the San Francisco Bay Area where suitable habitat is present. This species is likely to occur within the Project Area’s riparian area and adjacent forest. Therefore this species has high potential to occur. Allen’s hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin). USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. High Potential. Allen’s hummingbird, common in many portions of its range, is a summer resident along the majority of California’s coast and a year-round resident in portions of coastal southern California and the Channel Islands. Breeding occurs in association with the coastal fog belt, and typical habitats used include coastal scrub, riparian, woodland and forest edges, and eucalyptus and cypress groves (Mitchell 2000). It feeds on nectar, as well as insects and 25 spiders. The Project Area contains suitable breeding habitat for Allen’s hummingbird via the riparian and forested areas along Buckeye Creek and lies within the known breeding range of this species (Mitchell 2000). Therefore this species has a high potential to occur within the Project Area. San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), CDFW Species of Special Concern. High Potential. This subspecies of the dusky-footed woodrat occurs in the Coast Ranges between San Francisco Bay and the Salinas River (Matocq 2003). Occupied habitats are variable and include forest, woodland, riparian areas, and chaparral. Woodrats feed on woody plants, but will also consume fungi, grasses, flowers and acorns. Foraging occurs on the ground and in bushes and trees. This species constructs robust stick houses/structures in areas with moderate cover and a well-developed understory containing woody debris. Breeding takes place from December to September. Individuals are active year-round, and generally nocturnal. The Project Area provides a highly suitable habitat to this species via riparian habitat along Buckeye Creek and also lies within the known range of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Matocq 2003). Therefore this species has a high potential to occur within the Project Area. Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) - Central California Coast DPS. Federal Threatened. High Potential. The steelhead is essentially the native rainbow trout of coastal California that spends part of its life cycle in freshwater and part in the ocean. The Central California Coast DPS includes all naturally-spawned populations (and their progeny) in California streams from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays eastward to the Napa River (inclusive); the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin is excluded. Buckeye Creek lies within the drainage basin of the San Francisco Bay and within the geographical population range of central California steelhead. Steelhead typically migrate to marine waters after spending two years in freshwater, though they may stay there for up to seven years. Individuals then reside in marine waters for two or three years prior to returning to their natal stream to spawn as 4- or 5-year-olds. Steelhead adults typically spawn between December and June. In California, females typically spawn two times before they die. Successful reproduction requires abundant riffle areas (shallows with gravel or cobble substrate) for spawning, and deeper pools with sufficient riparian cover for rearing. High-quality spawning habitat occurs in perennial streams with cool to cold water temperatures, high dissolved oxygen levels, and fast-flowing water. The portion of Buckeye Creek flowing through the Project Area may provide suitable spawning habitat for steelhead under favorable conditions (high flows, low sediment) in winter and spring months, although a detailed fish habitat analysis would reveal more accurate information. A technical report by Leidy (2005) summarizes known distribution information for steelhead in San Mateo County streams. Two of Buckeye Creek’s major tributaries, San Francisquito and Los Trancos, flow through San Mateo County and are known to support steelhead populations (Leidy 2005, CEMAR 2016). Due to the interconnectivity of tributaries where steelhead are known to occur and the lack of complete barriers to steelhead dispersal (CDFW 2016), steelhead are considered to have a high potential for occurrence. However, due to the presence of multiple partial barriers along portions of the creek (Stoecker 2002), occurrences are likely to be higher at times of high flow. Buckeye Creek is not designated as critical habitat for steelhead, although its tributary, Los Trancos Creek, is designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2016). 26 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Four sensitive biological communities were identified within the Project Area. Eight special- status plant species and 11 special-status wildlife species have a moderate or high potential to occur within the Project Area. The proposed restoration project is expected to clear some vegetation, grade, fill, and contour portions of and within the vicinity of Buckeye Creek and associated tributaries. Any impacts to the creek will be restored in-kind in place and additional wetlands will be created in uplands (i.e., existing non-native grassland meadow adjacent to Buckeye Creek) to capture high flow events. The following sections summarize the results of the biological resources constraints assessment and provide recommendations for future studies. 5.1 Biological Communities The Project Area is composed primarily of non-sensitive biological communities, including chamise chaparral, non-native grassland, and developed areas. However, the riparian California bay forest, coast live oak woodland, and Buckeye Creek and associated tributaries are potentially sensitive biological communities. Buckeye Creek and its tributaries are likely “Waters of the U.S.” and/or “Waters of the State” and potentially within the jurisdiction of the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and RWQCB under the Porter Cologne Act and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Any riparian vegetation, including California bay forest, is potentially under the jurisdiction of CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of CDFC. Any work within the top of bank or within riparian canopy cover of any drainage, including the removal of vegetation, would likely require a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW. Work outside the top of bank or riparian cover may also be subject to Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW and/or a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB if it has the potential to impact the creek. Additionally, any work within the OHWM of the stream could require a Section 404 permit from the Corps. It is also expected mitigation for impacts to the creek and tributaries will be replaced in-kind on site and the project would be self-mitigating. The proposed project is expected to be self-mitigating through the creek improvements and creation of on-site wetlands. To determine OHWM and top of bank within “Waters,” a formal wetland delineation is recommended. Additionally, mapping the extent of riparian vegetation in the field is recommended. Under the California Oak Woodland Conservation Act, a county shall determine whether a project within its jurisdiction and subject to CEQA, may result in a 10 percent decrease or more of native oak canopy within the oak woodland in the Project Area. If significant impacts are to occur, then at least one of four mitigation alternatives for significant conversions of oak woodlands are required in this regulation: 1) conserve oak woodlands through the use of a conservation easement, 2) plant an appropriate number of trees, including maintaining plantings and replacing dead or diseased trees, 3) contribute funds to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund, as established under Section 1363 (a) of the CDFC, and 4) other mitigation measures developed by the County. It is recommended that extent of oak woodlands be mapped and an arborist survey be conducted to determine number and location of oaks within the Project Area which are 5 inches or greater DBH. The arborist survey would determine the status of any trees as protected or not within the Project Area. 27 5.2 Special-Status Plant Species Of the 120 special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area, eight species, King Mountain manzanita, Santa Clara red ribbons, western leatherwood, California bottle-brush grass, harlequin lotus, woodland woollythreads, Choris popcornflower, and arcuate bush-mallow, were determined to have high or moderate potential to occur in the Project Area based on aerial imagery, database searches, and soil surveys. To determine the presence of the eight special-status species in the Project Area, either a protocol level special-status plant surveys or focused special-status plant surveys are recommended in April and June to capture peak blooming periods for all species with potential to occur. If the proposed project has significant impacts to any above-listed plant species, mitigation would be recommended. Possible mitigation measures may include avoidance, seed collection, supplemental plantings, and/or transplanting. The special-status species with moderate or high potential to occur are not federal or state listed, therefore no “take” permits are necessary from USFWS or CDFW. However, in order to acquire permits from the lead agency (City of Santa Clara), impacts will have to be determined less than significant to comply with CEQA. Any impacts to special-status plants are expected to be able to be self-mitigating by the Project. 5.3 Protected Trees Likely, many protected trees occur within the Project Area. It is recommended an arborist survey be conducted by a certified arborist to determine the number and locations of all protected trees within the Project Area. The arborist report would also identify the trees along the creek that are undercut and would likely have structural failure in the near future. The City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual should be referred to for required practices in tree impacts and removal. Possible mitigation for the loss of protected trees may include avoidance, preservation measures, and replacement of trees proposed for removal or impacted by the development. It is expected that the Project would include replanting of trees and would be self- mitigating as part of the restoration. 5.4 Special-Status Wildlife Species Six special-status wildlife species were determined to have high potential to occur within the Project Area, and five wildlife species were determined to have moderate potential to occur within the Project Area. Recommendations for special-status wildlife species are discussed below. Nesting Birds Nuttall’s woodpecker, long-eared owl, yellow warbler, oak titmouse, and Allen’s hummingbird all have potential to be present within the Project Area, including for nesting. In addition to these species, a variety of other bird species with baseline legal protection under the MBTA and CFGC have the potential to nest within the Project Area. Substrates within the Project Area that may be used for nesting are highly variable and include trees, shrubbery, and even weedy/ruderal areas. 28 To avoid adverse impacts to nesting birds due to project activities within the Project Area, the following measures are recommended: •To the fullest extent feasible, initial ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal shouldoccur during the non-breeding season (September 1 to February 14). Pre-construction nesting bird surveys are typically not required during this period. (Note, however, that some birds have the potential to nest year-round; if nests are observed during projectactivities, a biologist should be consulted, and the nest avoided as described below.) •If initial ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal occurs during the breeding season (February 15 through August 31), a qualified biologist should conduct a nesting bird survey no more than 14 days prior to ground disturbance to determine whether anybirds are nesting within or adjacent to project impact areas. •If active nests are found within project impact areas or close enough to these areas to affect nesting success, the biologist should establish an appropriate work exclusion zone around each nest. Exclusion zone sizes vary dependent upon bird species, nestlocation, and existing visual buffers and ambient sound levels. A buffer radius may be as small as 25 feet for common species and up to 300 feet or more for special-status species and raptors. Once all young have become independent of the nest (or the nestotherwise becomes inactive), work may recommence within the exclusion zone. •If initial ground disturbance is delayed or there is a break in project activities of greater than 14 days within the bird nesting season, then a follow up nesting bird survey should be performed to ensure no nests have been established in the interim period. Roosting bats Between October 1 and March 31, it is generally accepted that bats in California do not utilize trees as day roosts, night roosts or as hibernacula. Thermal conditions of tree roosts tend to fluctuate during these months more than is preferable for most species. Trees, specifically cavities and spaces created by peeling or exfoliating bark, are often used between April 1 and September 31 as day roosts and occasionally as maternity roosts for small colonies of female bats. Additionally some species, such as hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus) roost singly in tree foliage, however in winter months, foliage roosting bats tend to migrate to warmer climates where temperatures are moderate year-round, or to colder climates or elevations where colder temperatures facilitate hibernation. Both the hoary and pallid bats have potential to be present within the Project Area and may utilize habitat for maternity roosts. To avoid adverse impacts to roosting bats due to project activities within the Project Area, the following measures are recommended: •To the fullest extent feasible, initial ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal should occur during the non-maternity season (October 1 to March 31). Pre-construction roost surveys are typically not required during this period and trees slated for removal shouldsimply be felled and left undisturbed for 24 hours to allow any potential individual bats to leave the work area. 29 •If initial ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal occurs during the breeding season (April 1 to September 30), a qualified biologist should conduct a roost assessment survey no more than 14 days prior to ground disturbance to determinewhether any bats are roosting within or adjacent to Project impact areas. •If active roosts are found within project impact areas or close enough to these areas to affect roost success, the biologist should establish an appropriate work exclusion zone around each roost. Exclusion zone sizes vary dependent upon species, roost location,and existing visual buffers and ambient sound levels. USFWS should be consulted for further action if special-status bats are present within the work impact areas. •If initial ground disturbance is delayed or there is a break in Project activities of greater than 14 days within the maternity season, then a follow up roost assessment surveyshould be performed to ensure no maternity roosts have been established in the interim period. California red-legged frog Due to the moderate potential for the fully-protected California red-legged frog (CRLF) to occur on site, the following are recommended to avoid negatively impacting this species: •A habitat assessment and/or protocol-level survey effort of potential breeding features both within and adjacent to the Project Area. Such work would occur during the CRLF breeding season (roughly November through April). •If CRLF breeding or migration corridor habitat is present, the following mitigationmeasures may be recommended: o Pre-construction surveys should be performed within 48 hours of the initiation ofwork activities, including any exclusion fence installation and initial ground disturbing activities. o If works occurs in the wet season, installation of a wildlife exclusion fence (or sections of fencing) to prevent CRLF (dispersing or otherwise) from enteringproject work areas. Such fencing should be maintained throughout project activities. o Biological sensitivity training for project personnel focused on CRLF identification and the project-specific avoidance and minimization measures to be implemented. o Presence of an on-site biological monitor during some or potentially all work activities. o Prohibition of some project activities (e.g., those involving heavy equipment use) during and immediately after rain events (typically defined as ≥ 0.25 inch of rainfalling within a 24 hour period). 30 •If CRLF adults, tadpoles, or eggs are found to be present within the work area, all CRLFs would have to be carefully avoided and USFWS should be consulted. A suite of avoidance and minimization measures will likely need to be developed. Santa Cruz black salamander Santa Cruz black salamander has a moderate potential of occurring in the riparian area along Buckeye Creek within the Project Area. To avoid impacting this species of special concern, a pre-construction survey is recommended to determine if the species is present within work impact areas. If so, CDFW should be consulted to determine if individuals may be relocated to outside the work area. Measures to avoid impacting CRLF will likely be successful for the Santa Cruz black salamander as well. San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat has a high potential of being present within the Project Area due to its preference for riparian woodland. To avoid negatively impacting this state-protected species, the following are recommended: •A pre-construction survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to vegetationremoval and/or ground disturbance within the Project Area to determine whether any San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats have nest structures within or adjacent to projectimpact areas. •If work cannot be avoided near a structure, a qualified biologist should dismantle thestructure by hand. •If woodrat young are encountered during the dismantling process, the material should be placed back on the house, and a work exclusion buffer of at least 10 feet placed aroundthe structure. The structure should remain unmolested for at least two weeks in order toallow the young to mature and leave the nest of their own accord. After the avoidance period, the nest dismantling process may begin again. Nest material should then bemoved to adjacent vegetated areas that will not be disturbed. Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) Steelhead were determined to have a high potential to occur for the purposes of this report and have protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Due to the nature of the Project, the work affecting the stream channel cannot be avoided and the Project will likely need consultation with NMFS due to the high potential for occurrence of federally-listed steelhead and interconnectivity with Los Trancos Creek, a designated Critical Habitat (Figure; USFWS 2016). To further determine the potential for occurrence of steelhead in the Project Area, a focused steelhead habitat analysis should be conducted. This habitat analysis should analyze all portions of Buckeye Creek and include a fish passage analysis on Los Trancos Creek, between Highway 280 (the nearest location of a recoded history of steelhead occurrence) and Buckeye Creek. 31 Alternatively, steelhead may be assumed present and the focused steelhead habitat analysis would not be recommended. Rather the project would implement measures to avoid impacts to steelhead as listed below. The following are typical recommendations for avoiding impacts to steelhead in the portion of Buckeye Creek that will be affected by Project-related activities. •To the fullest extent feasible, initial in-channel work should occur in the dry season when Buckeye Creek has little to no flow. •A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) should be constructed to avoidincreased sedimentation of Buckeye Creek. This typically includes: o All project-related debris should be removed from the Project Area and disposedof at an upland, offsite location. o All removed sediment should be disposed of at an upland, offsite location.o Any staging, maintenance, or storage of heavy machinery should be in a locationwhere no fuel, oil, or other petroleum product may run off or washed into the creek channel.o Best Management Practices to avoid bank erosion and sediment runoff into thecreek channel should be implemented, including silt and erosion control fencing around the work area. The project is expected to improve habitat for steelhead through creek restoration and would be self-mitigating for steelhead habitat. 6.0 CONCLUSION Based on the results of the desktop assessment, it is anticipated the proposed Project could impact sensitive biological communities and possibly special-status plants and wildlife. The proposed project has the potential to impact jurisdictional waters and will likely require permits from the Corps (Section 404 Nationwide Permit), the RWQCB (Section 401 Certification), and the CDFW (Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement). The OHWM of Buckeye Creek represents the landward limit of Corps jurisdiction within the Project Area, and project work below the OHWM of Buckeye Creek will require a permit from the Corps. Top of bank or the outer edge of the riparian canopy, whichever extends further, represents the limit of RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction within the Project Area. Work within top of bank or within the riparian canopy will require permits from the RWQCB and CDFW for any impacts to these habitats. Due to the potential presence of steelhead (a federally threatened species), further analysis of steelhead habitat and potential for fish passage to Buckeye Creek should be conducted and NMFS will likely need to be consulted for work within Buckeye Creek. Additionally, if a pre-construction survey determines the presence of CRLF, hoary bat, pallid bat, or Santa Cruz black salamander, the Project will likely need consultation with the associated regulatory agency (CDFW and/or USFWS) to determine appropriate measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts to these species. Depending on the extent of impacts to the stream or wetland habitats, permit conditions may require compensatory mitigation for any impacts to wetlands, non-wetland waters, and/or riparian habitat. It is expected this Project would be self-mitigating for impacts to wetlands and “waters” through the restoration of Buckeye Creek itself and through creation of on-site wetlands 32 which will mitigate impacts to the creek and tributaries. In addition, mitigation may be required for impacts to trees protected under the City tree ordinance. Several surveys should also be conducted prior to ground disturbance to determine presence and/or extent of sensitive biological resources. Such surveys include: special-status plant surveys, special-status wildlife surveys, arborist survey, and a riparian vegetation survey. Additional studies to be conducted include a wetland delineation to determine locations of OHWM, top of bank, and any wetlands possibly present within the Project Area. 33 7.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, BG, DH Goldman, DJ Keil, R Patterson, TJ Rosatti, and DH Wilken (eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Bousman, WG. 2007. Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County, California. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, CA. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code. Environmental Services Division, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. California Natural Diversity Database. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2016. Passage Assessment Database. Available online: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/pad/ [Accessed November 2016]. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2014. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Online at: http://www.cal- ipc.org/paf/; most recently accessed: Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration (CEMAR). 2016. Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, Califoria: San Mateo and San Francisco County. Available online: http://www.cemar.org/estuarystreamsreport/sanmateoandsf.html [Accessed November 2016]. Cicero, C. 2000. Oak Titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/485a [Accessed November 2016]. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2016a. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. Sacramento, California. Online at: http://vegetation.cnps.org/; most recently accessed: [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2016b. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). Sacramento, California. Online at: http://rareplants.cnps.org/; most recently accessed:. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631. Hickman, JC (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 34 Holland, RF. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Lichvar, R.W.,D.L. Banks, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17 Lowther, P.E. 2000. Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/555 [Accessed November 2016]. Matocq, M. 2003. Dusky-footed Woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) at Hastings: A Research Tradition. Hastings Natural History Reservation. Available online: http://www.hastingsreserve.org/Woodrats/DFwoodrats.html [Accessed November 2016]. Mitchell, D.E. 2000. Allen's Hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), The Birds of North America Online (A Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/501. [Accessed November 2016]. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Essential Fish Habitat. Online at: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/index.html [Accessed November 2016]. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, version 7.0. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX. NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Conservation Status. Available online at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/ranking.htm Shuford, WD, and T Gardali (eds). 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and CDFG, Sacramento. Stebbins, RC, and McGinnis SM. 2012. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, revised edition. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, NY. Stoecker, M. 2002. Salmonid Migration Barriers/Impediments in the San Francisquito Creek Watershed, San Francisco Bay, CA. San Francisquito Creek Watershed Council. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. Web Soil Survey. Online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov; most recently accessed October 2016: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service. 1958, updated 2015. Soil Survey of Santa Clara Area, Western Part, California. In cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Information for Conservation and Planning Database. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ [Accessed November 2016]. Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). 2015. Species account for Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus). http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/ [Accessed November 2016]. Zeiner, DC, WF Laudenslayer, Jr., KE Mayer, and M White. 1990. California's Wildlife, Volume I-III: Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. APPENDIX A POTENTIAL FOR SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA This Page Left Blank Intentionally Appendix A. Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Table. SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS Plants San Mateo thorn- mint FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland/serpentine. Elevation ranges from 160 to 980 feet (50 to 300 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. No Potential. No further action recommended. Blasdale's bent grass Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal prairie. Elevation ranges from 20 to 490 feet (5 to 150 meters). Blooms May-Jul. No Potential. No further action recommended. Franciscan onion Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/clay, volcanic, often serpentine. Elevation ranges from 170 to 980 feet (52 to 300 meters). Blooms (Apr), May-Jun. Unlikely. No further action recommended. bent-flowered fiddleneck Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 10 to 1640 feet (3 to 500 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Acanthomintha duttonii Agrostis blasdalei Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Amsinckia lunaris SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS California androsace Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, pinyon and juniper woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 490 to 3940 feet (150 to 1200 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. Unlikely. No further action recommended. slender silver moss Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, lower montane coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest/damp rock and soil on outcrops, usually on roadcuts. Elevation ranges from 330 to 3280 feet (100 to 1000 meters). Unlikely. No further action recommended. coast rockcress Rank 4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub/rocky. Elevation ranges from 10 to 3610 feet (3 to 1100 meters). Blooms Feb-May. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Anderson's manzanita Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, north coast coniferous forest/openings, edges. Elevation ranges from 200 to 2490 feet (60 to 760 meters). Blooms Nov-May. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Androsace elongata ssp. acuta Anomobryum julaceum Arabis blepharophylla Arctostaphylos andersonii SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS Schreiber's manzanita Rank 1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral/diatomaceous shale. Elevation ranges from 560 to 2250 feet (170 to 685 meters). Blooms (Nov), Mar-Apr. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Montara manzanita Rank 1B.2 Chaparral (maritime), coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 260 to 1640 feet (80 to 500 meters). Blooms Jan-Mar. No Potential. No further action recommended. Ohlone manzanita Rank 1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub/siliceous shale. Elevation ranges from 1480 to 1740 feet (450 to 530 meters). Blooms Feb-Mar. No Potential. No further action recommended. Kings Mountain manzanita Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, north coast coniferous forest/granitic or sandstone. Elevation ranges from 1000 to 2400 feet (305 to 730 meters). Blooms Jan-Apr. Moderate Potential. Focused botanical survey recommended. Bonny Doon manzanita Rank 1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest/inland marine sands. Elevation ranges from 390 to 1970 feet (120 to 600 meters). Blooms Jan-Mar. No Potential. No further action recommended. Arctostaphylos glutinosa Arctostaphylos montaraensis Arctostaphylos ohloneana Arctostaphylos regismontana Arctostaphylos silvicola SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS ocean bluff milk-vetch Rank 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes. Elevation ranges from 10 to 390 feet (3 to 120 meters). Blooms Jan- Nov. No Potential. No further action recommended. coastal marsh milk-vetch Rank 1B.2 Coastal dunes (mesic), coastal scrub, marshes and swamps (coastal salt, streamsides). Elevation ranges from 0 to 100 feet (0 to 30 meters). Blooms Apr-Oct. No Potential. No further action recommended. alkali milk-vetch Rank 1B.2 Playas, valley and foothill grassland (adobe clay), vernal pools/alkaline. Elevation ranges from 0 to 200 feet (1 to 60 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. No Potential. No further action recommended. brittlescale Rank 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/alkaline, clay. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1050 feet (1 to 320 meters). Blooms Apr-Oct. No Potential. No further action recommended. lesser saltscale Rank 1B.1 Chenopod scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland/alkaline, sandy. Elevation ranges from 50 to 660 feet (15 to 200 meters). Blooms May-Oct. No Potential. No further action recommended. Astragalus nuttallii var. nuttallii Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus Astragalus tener \ var. tener Atriplex depressa Atriplex minuscula SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS Brewer's calandrinia Rank 4.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub/sandy or loamy, disturbed sites and burns. Elevation ranges from 30 to 4000 feet (10 to 1220 meters). Blooms (Jan), Mar-Jun. Unlikely. No further action recommended. round-leaved filaree Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/clay. Elevation ranges from 50 to 3940 feet (15 to 1200 meters). Blooms Mar-May. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Oakland star-tulip Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland/often serpentine. Elevation ranges from 330 to 2300 feet (100 to 700 meters). Blooms Mar-May. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Santa Cruz Mountains pussypaws Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland/sandy or gravelly, openings. Elevation ranges from 1000 to 5020 feet (305 to 1530 meters). Blooms May-Aug. Unlikely. No further action recommended. johnny-nip Rank 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland, vernal poolsmargins. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1430 feet (0 to 435 meters). Blooms Mar-Aug. No Potential. No further action recommended. Calandrinia breweri California macrophylla Calochortus umbellatus Calyptridium parryi var. hesseae Castilleja ambigua var. ambigua SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS Congdon's tarplant Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline). Elevation ranges from 0 to 750 feet (0 to 230 meters). Blooms May- Oct (Nov). Unlikely. No further action recommended. pappose tarplant Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps (coastal salt), valley and foothill grassland (vernally mesic)/often alkaline. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1380 feet (0 to 420 meters). Blooms May- Nov. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Point Reyes bird's-beak Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt). Elevation ranges from 0 to 30 feet (0 to 10 meters). Blooms Jun-Oct. No Potential. No further action recommended. San Francisco Bay spineflower Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal prairie, coastal scrub/sandy. Elevation ranges from 10 to 710 feet (3 to 215 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul (Aug). No Potential. No further action recommended. Ben Lomond spineflower FE, Rank 1B.1 Lower montane coniferous forest (maritime ponderosa pine sandhills). Elevation ranges from 300 to 2000 feet (90 to 610 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul. No Potential. No further action recommended. Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS robust spineflower FE, Rank 1B.1 Chaparral (maritime), cismontane woodland (openings), coastal dunes, coastal scrub/sandy or gravelly. Elevation ranges from 10 to 980 feet (3 to 300 meters). Blooms Apr-Sep. No Potential. No further action recommended. Franciscan thistle Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub/mesic, sometimes serpentine. Elevation ranges from 0 to 490 feet (0 to 150 meters). Blooms Mar-Jul. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Mt. Hamilton fountain thistle Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/serpentine seeps. Elevation ranges from 330 to 2920 feet (100 to 890 meters). Blooms (Feb), Apr-Oct. No Potential. No further action recommended. Crystal Springs fountain thistle FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland/serpentine seeps. Elevation ranges from 150 to 570 feet (45 to 175 meters). Blooms (Apr), May-Oct. No Potential. No further action recommended. lost thistle Rank 1A Unknown. Elevation ranges from 0 to 330 feet (0 to 100 meters). Blooms Jun-Jul. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta Cirsium andrewsii Cirsium fontinale var. campylon Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale Cirsium praeteriens SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS Brewer's clarkia Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub/often serpentine. Elevation ranges from 710 to 3660 feet (215 to 1115 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Santa Clara red ribbons Rank 4.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland. Elevation ranges from 300 to 4920 feet (90 to 1500 meters). Blooms (Apr), May-Jun (Jul). Moderate Potential. Focused botanical survey recommended. Lewis' clarkia Rank 4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 100 to 3920 feet (30 to 1195 meters). Blooms May-Jul. Unlikely. No further action recommended. San Francisco collinsia Rank 1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub/sometimes serpentine. Elevation ranges from 100 to 820 feet (30 to 250 meters). Blooms (Feb), Mar-May. No Potential. No further action recommended. clustered lady's-slipper Rank 4.2 Lower montane coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest/usually serpentine seeps and streambanks. Elevation ranges from 330 to 7990 feet (100 to 2435 meters). Blooms Mar-Aug. No Potential. No further action recommended. Clarkia breweri Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa Clarkia lewisii Collinsia multicolor Cypripedium fasciculatum SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS mountain lady's-slipper Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 610 to 7300 feet (185 to 2225 meters). Blooms Mar-Aug. Unlikely. No further action recommended. western leatherwood Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian woodland/mesic. Elevation ranges from 80 to 1390 feet (25 to 425 meters). Blooms Jan-Mar (Apr). High Potential. Focused botanical survey recommended. Santa Clara Valley dudleya FE, Rank 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/serpentine, rocky. Elevation ranges from 200 to 1490 feet (60 to 455 meters). Blooms Apr-Oct. No Potential. No further action recommended. California bottle-brush grass Rank 4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian woodland. Elevation ranges from 50 to 1540 feet (15 to 470 meters). Blooms May-Aug (Nov). Moderate Potential. Focused botanical survey recommended. Cypripedium montanum Dirca occidentalis Dudleya abramsii ssp. setchellii Elymus californicus SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS Ben Lomond buckwheat Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest (maritime ponderosa pine sandhills)/sandy. Elevation ranges from 160 to 2620 feet (50 to 800 meters). Blooms Jun-Oct. Unlikely. No further action recommended. San Mateo woolly sunflower FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Cismontane woodland (often serpentine, on roadcuts). Elevation ranges from 150 to 490 feet (45 to 150 meters). Blooms May-Jun. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Hoover's button-celery Rank 1B.1 Vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 10 to 150 feet (3 to 45 meters). Blooms (Jun), Jul (Aug). No Potential. No further action recommended. Jepson's coyote thistle Rank 1B.2 #N/A No Potential. No further action recommended. Sand-loving wallflower Rank 1B.2 Chaparral (maritime), coastal dunes, coastal scrub/sandy, openings. Elevation ranges from 0 to 200 feet (0 to 60 meters). Blooms Feb- Jun. No Potential. No further action recommended. San Francisco wallflower Rank 4.2 Chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/often serpentine or granitic, sometimes roadsides. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1800 feet (0 to 550 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Eriogonum nudum var. decurrens Eriophyllum latilobum Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri Eryngium jepsonii Erysimum ammophilum Erysimum franciscanum SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS San Joaquin spearscale Rank 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, valley and foothill grassland/alkaline. Elevation ranges from 0 to 2740 feet (1 to 835 meters). Blooms Apr-Oct. No Potential. No further action recommended. minute pocket moss Rank 1B.2 North coast coniferous forest (damp coastal soil). Elevation ranges from 30 to 3360 feet (10 to 1024 meters). No Potential. No further action recommended. stinkbells Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, pinyon and juniper woodland, valley and foothill grassland/clay, sometimes serpentine. Elevation ranges from 30 to 5100 feet (10 to 1555 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Hillsborough chocolate lily Rank 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/serpentine. Elevation ranges from 490 to 490 feet (150 to 150 meters). Blooms Mar-Apr. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Marin checker lily Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 50 to 490 feet (15 to 150 meters). Blooms Feb-May. No Potential. No further action recommended. Extriplex joaquinana Fissidens pauperculus Fritillaria agrestis Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana Fritillaria lanceolata var. tristulis SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS fragrant fritillary Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/often serpentine. Elevation ranges from 10 to 1350 feet (3 to 410 meters). Blooms Feb-Apr. Unlikely. No further action recommended. phlox-leaf serpentine bedstraw Rank 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest/serpentine, rocky. Elevation ranges from 490 to 4760 feet (150 to 1450 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul. No Potential. No further action recommended. Toren's grimmia Rank 1B.3 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest/openings, rocky, boulder and rock walls, carbonate, volcanic. Elevation ranges from 1070 to 3810 feet (325 to 1160 meters). No Potential. No further action recommended. vaginulate grimmia Rank 1B.1 Chaparral (openings)/rocky, boulder and rock walls, carbonate. Elevation ranges from 2250 to 2250 feet (685 to 685 meters). No Potential. No further action recommended. San Francisco gumplant Rank 3.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/sandy or serpentine. Elevation ranges from 50 to 1310 feet (15 to 400 meters). Blooms Jun-Sep. No Potential. No further action recommended. Fritillaria liliacea Galium andrewsii ssp. gatense Grimmia torenii Grimmia vaginulata Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS short-leaved evax Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub (sandy), coastal dunes, coastal prairie. Elevation ranges from 0 to 710 feet (0 to 215 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. No Potential. No further action recommended. Santa Cruz cypress FT, SE, Rank 1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest/sandstone or granitic. Elevation ranges from 920 to 2620 feet (280 to 800 meters). No Potential. No further action recommended. Butano Ridge cypress FT, SE, Rank 1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest/sandstone. Elevation ranges from 1310 to 1610 feet (400 to 490 meters). Blooms Oct. No Potential. No further action recommended. Marin western flax FT, ST, Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland/serpentine. Elevation ranges from 20 to 1210 feet (5 to 370 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul. No Potential. No further action recommended. Loma Prieta hoita Rank 1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland/usually serpentine, mesic. Elevation ranges from 100 to 2820 feet (30 to 860 meters). Blooms May-Jul (Aug), (Oct). No Potential. No further action recommended. Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia Hesperocyparis abramsiana var. abramsiana Hesperocyparis abramsiana var. butanoensis Hesperolinon congestum Hoita strobilina SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS Kellogg's horkelia Rank 1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral (maritime), coastal dunes, coastal scrub/sandy or gravelly, openings. Elevation ranges from 30 to 660 feet (10 to 200 meters). Blooms Apr-Sep. No Potential. No further action recommended. Point Reyes horkelia Rank 1B.2 Coastal dunes, coastal prairie, coastal scrub/sandy. Elevation ranges from 20 to 2480 feet (5 to 755 meters). Blooms May-Sep. No Potential. No further action recommended. harlequin lotus Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, north coast coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland/wetlands, roadsides. Elevation ranges from 0 to 2300 feet (0 to 700 meters). Blooms Mar-Jul. Moderate Potential. Focused botanical survey recommended. coast iris Rank 4.2 Coastal prairie, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps/mesic. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1970 feet (0 to 600 meters). Blooms Mar-May. No Potential. No further action recommended. Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Horkelia marinensis Hosackia gracilis Iris longipetala SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS perennial goldfields Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 20 to 1710 feet (5 to 520 meters). Blooms Jan-Nov. No Potential. No further action recommended. Contra Costa goldfields FE, Rank 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, playas (alkaline), valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/mesic. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1540 feet (0 to 470 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. Unlikely. No further action recommended. legenere Rank 1B.1 Vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 0 to 2890 feet (1 to 880 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. No Potential. No further action recommended. serpentine leptosiphon Rank 4.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/usually serpentine. Elevation ranges from 390 to 3710 feet (120 to 1130 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. No Potential. No further action recommended. coast yellow leptosiphon Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie. Elevation ranges from 30 to 490 feet (10 to 150 meters). Blooms Apr-May. No Potential. No further action recommended. rose leptosiphon Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub. Elevation ranges from 0 to 330 feet (0 to 100 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul. No Potential. No further action recommended. Lasthenia californica ssp. macrantha Lasthenia conjugens Legenere limosa Leptosiphon ambiguus Leptosiphon croceus Leptosiphon rosaceus SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS Crystal Springs lessingia Rank 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/serpentine, often roadsides. Elevation ranges from 200 to 660 feet (60 to 200 meters). Blooms Jul-Oct. No Potential. No further action recommended. woolly-headed lessingia Rank 3 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland/clay, serpentine. Elevation ranges from 50 to 1000 feet (15 to 305 meters). Blooms Jun-Oct. No Potential. No further action recommended. smooth lessingia Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland/serpentine, often roadsides. Elevation ranges from 390 to 1380 feet (120 to 420 meters). Blooms (May), (Jun), Jul-Nov. No Potential. No further action recommended. coast lily Rank 1B.1 Broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, marshes and swamps (freshwater), north coast coniferous forest/sometimes roadside. Elevation ranges from 20 to 1560 feet (5 to 475 meters). Blooms May-Aug. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Lessingia arachnoidea Lessingia hololeuca Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata Lilium maritimum SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS Ornduff's meadowfoam Rank 1B.1 Meadows and seeps/agricultural fields. Elevation ranges from 30 to 70 feet (10 to 20 meters). Blooms Nov- May. No Potential. No further action recommended. Point Reyes meadowfoam SE, Rank 1B.2 Coastal prairie, meadows and seeps (mesic), marshes and swamps (freshwater), vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 0 to 460 feet (0 to 140 meters). Blooms Mar-May. Unlikely. No further action recommended. San Mateo tree lupine Rank 3.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 300 to 1800 feet (90 to 550 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Indian Valley bush-mallow Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland/rocky, granitic, often in burned areas. Elevation ranges from 490 to 5580 feet (150 to 1700 meters). Blooms Apr-Oct. No Potential. No further action recommended. arcuate bush-mallow Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland. Elevation ranges from 50 to 1160 feet (15 to 355 meters). Blooms Apr-Sep. Moderate Potential. Focused botanical survey recommended. Davidson's bush- mallow Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland. Elevation ranges from 610 to 2810 feet (185 to 855 meters). Blooms Jun-Jan. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Limnanthes douglasii ssp. ornduffii Limnanthes douglasii ssp. sulphurea Lupinus arboreus var. eximius Malacothamnus aboriginum Malacothamnus arcuatus Malacothamnus davidsonii SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS Hall's bush-mallow Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. Elevation ranges from 30 to 2490 feet (10 to 760 meters). Blooms May-Sep (Oct). Unlikely. No further action recommended. Mt. Diablo cottonweed Rank 3.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/rocky. Elevation ranges from 150 to 2710 feet (45 to 825 meters). Blooms Mar-May. Unlikely. No further action recommended. marsh microseris Rank 1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 20 to 1160 feet (5 to 355 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun (Jul). Unlikely. No further action recommended. elongate copper moss Rank 4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, subalpine coniferous forest/metamorphic rock, usually acidic, usually vernally mesic, often roadsides, sometimes carbonate. Elevation ranges from 0 to 6430 feet (0 to 1960 meters). No Potential. No further action recommended. Malacothamnus hallii Micropus amphibolus Microseris paludosa Mielichhoferia elongata SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS woodland woolythreads Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest (openings), chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest (openings), valley and foothill grassland/serpentine. Elevation ranges from 330 to 3940 feet (100 to 1200 meters). Blooms (Feb), Mar-Jul. High Potential. Focused botanical survey recommended. pincushion navarretia Rank 1B.1 Vernal pools/often acidic. Elevation ranges from 70 to 1080 feet (20 to 330 meters). Blooms Apr-May. No Potential. No further action recommended. Patterson's navarretia Rank 1B.3 #N/A No Potential. No further action recommended. prostrate vernal pool navarretia Rank 1B.1 Coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland (alkaline), vernal pools/mesic. Elevation ranges from 10 to 3970 feet (3 to 1210 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul. No Potential. No further action recommended. Kellman's bristle moss Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland/sandstone, carbonate. Elevation ranges from 1130 to 2250 feet (343 to 685 meters). Blooms Jan-Feb. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Monolopia gracilens Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii Navarretia paradoxiclara Navarretia prostrata Orthotrichum kellmanii SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS Dudley's lousewort SR, Rank 1B.2 Chaparral (maritime), cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 200 to 2950 feet (60 to 900 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. No Potential. No further action recommended. Santa Cruz Mountains beardtongue Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 1310 to 3610 feet (400 to 1100 meters). Blooms May-Jun. No Potential. No further action recommended. white-rayed pentachaeta FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland (often serpentine). Elevation ranges from 110 to 2030 feet (35 to 620 meters). Blooms Mar-May. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Monterey pine Rank 1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland. Elevation ranges from 80 to 610 feet (25 to 185 meters). No Potential. No further action recommended. white-flowered rein orchid Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, lower montane coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest/sometimes serpentine. Elevation ranges from 100 to 4300 feet (30 to 1310 meters). Blooms (Mar), May- Sep. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Pedicularis dudleyi Penstemon rattanii var. kleei Pentachaeta bellidiflora Pinus radiata Piperia candida SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS Choris' popcornflower Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub/mesic. Elevation ranges from 50 to 520 feet (15 to 160 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. Moderate Potential. Focused botanical survey recommended. Hickman's popcornflower Rank 4.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub, marshes and swamps, vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 50 to 610 feet (15 to 185 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. Unlikely. No further action recommended. San Francisco popcornflower SE, Rank 1B.1 Coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from 200 to 1180 feet (60 to 360 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun. No Potential. No further action recommended. hairless popcornflower Rank 1A Meadows and seeps (alkaline), marshes and swamps (coastal salt). Elevation ranges from 50 to 590 feet (15 to 180 meters). Blooms Mar-May. No Potential. No further action recommended. Oregon polemonium Rank 2B.2 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 0 to 6000 feet (0 to 1830 meters). Blooms Apr-Sep. No Potential. No further action recommended. Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. hickmanii Plagiobothrys diffusus Plagiobothrys glaber Polemonium carneum SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS Hickman's cinquefoil FE, SE, Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, meadows and seeps (vernally mesic), marshes and swamps (freshwater). Elevation ranges from 30 to 490 feet (10 to 149 meters). Blooms Apr-Aug. No Potential. No further action recommended. California alkali grass Rank 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/alkaline, vernally mesic; sinks, flats, and lake margins. Elevation ranges from 10 to 3050 feet (2 to 930 meters). Blooms Mar-May. No Potential. No further action recommended. Lobb's aquatic buttercup Rank 4.2 Cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/mesic. Elevation ranges from 50 to 1540 feet (15 to 470 meters). Blooms Feb-May. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Hoffmann's sanicle Rank 4.3 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest/often serpentine or clay. Elevation ranges from 100 to 980 feet (30 to 300 meters). Blooms Mar-May. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Potentilla hickmanii Puccinellia simplex Ranunculus lobbii Sanicula hoffmannii SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS chaparral ragwort Rank 2B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub/sometimes alkaline. Elevation ranges from 50 to 2620 feet (15 to 800 meters). Blooms Jan-Apr. No Potential. No further action recommended. Marin checkerbloom Rank 1B.3 Chaparral (serpentine). Elevation ranges from 160 to 1410 feet (50 to 430 meters). Blooms May-Jun. No Potential. No further action recommended. San Francisco campion Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/sandy. Elevation ranges from 100 to 2120 feet (30 to 645 meters). Blooms (Feb), Mar-Jun (Aug). Unlikely. No further action recommended. Santa Cruz microseris Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/open areas, sometimes serpentine. Elevation ranges from 30 to 1640 feet (10 to 500 meters). Blooms Apr-May. No Potential. No further action recommended. Metcalf Canyon jewelflower FE, Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland (serpentine). Elevation ranges from 150 to 2620 feet (45 to 800 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul. No Potential. No further action recommended. Senecio aphanactis Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. viridis Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda Stebbinsoseris decipiens Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS most beautiful jewelflower Rank 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/serpentine. Elevation ranges from 310 to 3280 feet (95 to 1000 meters). Blooms (Mar), Apr-Sep (Oct). No Potential. No further action recommended. slender-leaved pondweed Rank 2B.2 Marshes and swamps (assorted shallow freshwater). Elevation ranges from 980 to 7050 feet (300 to 2150 meters). Blooms May-Jul. Unlikely. No further action recommended. California seablite FE, Rank 1B.1 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt). Elevation ranges from 0 to 50 feet (0 to 15 meters). Blooms Jul-Oct. No Potential. No further action recommended. two-fork clover FE, Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill grassland (sometimes serpentine). Elevation ranges from 20 to 1360 feet (5 to 415 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. Unlikely. No further action recommended. saline clover Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline), vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 0 to 980 feet (0 to 300 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. Unlikely. No further action recommended. Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina Suaeda californica Trifolium amoenum Trifolium hydrophilum SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE** RECOMMENDATIONS San Francisco owl's-clover Rank 1B.2 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/usually serpentine. Elevation ranges from 30 to 520 feet (10 to 160 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun. No Potential. No further action recommended. coastal triquetrella Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub/soil. Elevation ranges from 30 to 330 feet (10 to 100 meters). No Potential. No further action recommended. caper-fruited tropidocarpum Rank 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline hills). Elevation ranges from 0 to 1490 feet (1 to 455 meters). Blooms Mar-Apr. No Potential. No further action recommended. Methuselah's beard lichen Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, north coast coniferous forest/on tree branches; usually on old growth hardwoods and conifers. Elevation ranges from 160 to 4790 feet (50 to 1460 meters). No Potential. No further action recommended. Triphysaria floribunda Triquetrella californica Tropidocarpum capparideum Usnea longissima Mammals pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG Found in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, forages along river channels. Roost sites include old buildings, rocky outcrops, caves, and the cavities made by exfoliated bark. Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites. Moderate Potential. Trees within the Study Area could be large enough and contain cavities or exfoliating bark to support roosting. Avoid work within maternity roosting season (typically April through August). If work in this timeframe is unavoidable, qualified biologist should conduct roost assessment. Project-related tree removal outside of this window should allow felled trees to remain undisturbed for 24 hours to allow roosting bats to flee. Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG Lives in a wide variety of habitats but most common in mesic sites. Day roosts highly associated with caves and mines. Need appropriate roosting, maternity, and hibernacula sites free from human disturbance. Unlikely. Typical isolated cavern or building roost habitat is not present in the Study Area. No further action recommended. hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG Medium Wide range of habitats mostly arid wooded and brushy uplands near water. Seeks cover in caves, buildings, mines, and crevices. Prefers open stands in forests and woodlands. Requires drinking water. Feeds on a wide variety of small flying insects. Moderate Potential. Trees within the Study Area could be large enough and contain cavities or exfoliating bark to support roosting. Adjacent Buckeye Creek could provide a suitable water source for this species. Avoid work within maternity roosting season (typically April through August). If work in this timeframe is unavoidable, qualified biologist should conduct roost assessment. Project-related tree removal outside of this window should allow felled trees to remain undisturbed for 24 hours to allow roosting bats to flee. San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes annectens SSC Forest habitats of moderate canopy and moderate to dense understory. Also in chaparral habitats. Constructs large nests of twigs. May be limited by availability of nest-building materials. High Potential. The Study Area provides ample habitat suitable for this species. Pre-construction survey by qualified biologist. A 10- foot buffer is recommended for this species’ structures, if present. If work cannot avoid structures, dismantling should occur by hand by a qualified biologist. Occupied structures should be left undisturbed for two weeks. American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Requires friable soils and open, uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Unlikely. Study Area does not provide ample burrowing mammal prey or preferred open space utilized by this species. No further action recommended. Birds golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BCC, CFP, EPA Rolling foothills mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, desert. Cliff-walled canyons provide nesting habitat in most parts of range; also, large trees in open areas. Unlikely. The Study Area does not appear to contain highly mountainous or cliff habitat accompanied with open space preferred by this species. It may occasionally forage within the Study Area. No further action recommended. bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FD, SE, CFP, BCC, EPA Occurs year-round in California, but primarily a winter visitor. Nests in large trees in the vicinity of larger lakes, reservoirs and rivers. Wintering habitat somewhat more variable but usually features large concentrations of waterfowl or fish. Unlikely. This species is typically associated with reservoirs or other large bodies of water, whereas the Study Area is a much smaller creek. This species may occasionally fly over the Study Area, but it is unlikely to forage or nest there. No further action recommended. American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum CFP, FD, SD, BCC Prefers dry, open terrain, either level or hilly. Forages far afield, even to marshlands and ocean shores. Nests near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water; on cliffs, banks, dunes, mounds; also, human-made structures. Nest consists of a scrape on a depression or ledge in an open site. Unlikely. The Study Area does not provide high altitude perching/nesting structures adjacent to open foraging habitat suitable for this species. No further action recommended. western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus FT, SSC, BCC Federal listing applies only to the Pacific coastal population. Found on sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores of large alkali lakes. Requires sandy, gravelly or friable soils for nesting. No Potential. No suitable habitat in or near site. No further action recommended. long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC Breeds in upland shortgrass prairies and wet meadows in northeastern California. Habitats on gravelly soils and gently rolling terrain are favored over others No Potential. No suitable habitat in or near site. No further action recommended. marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus FT, SE Predominantly coastal marine. Nests in old-growth coniferous forests up to 30 miles inland along the Pacific coast, from Eureka to Oregon border, and in Santa Cruz/San Mateo Counties. Nests are highly cryptic, and typically located on platform- like branches of mature redwoods and Douglas firs. Forages on marine invertebrates and small fishes. No Potential. The coastal habitat required for this species is not present within the Study Area. No further action recommended. burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC, SCVHP Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel. Unlikely. The Study Area does not appear to support the network of small burrowing mammals usually required for this species. Additionally, the only open space within the Study Area appears regularly mowed, possibly disced. No further action recommended. short-eared owl Asio flammeus SSC Found in swamp lands, both fresh and salt; lowland meadows; irrigated alfalfa fields. Tule patches/tall grass needed for nesting/daytime seclusion. Nests on dry ground in depression concealed in vegetation. Unlikely. There is no swamp or densely vegetated marsh or meadow habitat within the Study Area. No further action recommended. long-eared owl Asio otus SSC Riparian bottomlands grown to tall willows and cottonwoods; also, belts of live oak paralleling stream courses. Require adjacent open land productive of mice and the presence of old nests of crows, hawks, or magpies for breeding. Moderate Potential. There is riparian habitat within the Study Area in addition to adjacent habitat that may provide prey for this species. A pre-construction survey for this species by a qualified biologist, with species-specific buffers in place for any discovered nests until young have fledged. black swift Cypseloides niger BCC, SSC Coastal belt of Santa Cruz and Monterey counties; central and southern Sierra Nevada; San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains. Breeds in small colonies on cliffs behind or adjacent to waterfalls in deep canyons and sea-bluffs above surf; forages widely. Unlikely. No suitable cliff or canyon nesting habitat; may rarely forage over the Study Area during migration. No further action recommended. rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Breeds in transition life zone of northwest coastal area from Oregon border to southern Sonoma county. Nests in berry tangles, shrubs, and conifers. Favors habitats rich in nectar- producing flowers. Unlikely. The Study Area is far from normal breeding habitat and does not appear to support the habitats rich in nectar-producing plants that this species favors. Individuals may occasionally migrate through the Study Area. No further action recommended. Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Inhabits mixed evergreen, riparian woodlands, eucalyptus and cypress groves, oak woodlands, and coastal scrub during breeding season. Nest in shrubs and trees with dense vegetation. High Potential. This species typically nests in cooler summer climates like those in the higher elevations of the Study Area. Additionally, this species is has documented occurrences near the Study Area (eBird 2016). A pre-construction survey for this species by a qualified biologist, with species-specific buffers in place for any discovered nests until young have fledged. Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Summer resident. Uses xeric habitats, especially California coastal scrub or sage scrub and dry open areas of chaparral in the coast ranges, and is occasionally found in oak savannah. Builds nest in shrub or tree living or dead, on branch, stem, or leaves, usually 1–2 m above ground. Unlikely. Typical scrub or chaparral plant communities are not present in the Study Area, and this species has mostly been recorded in the hills of the Santa Clara Valley (eBird 2016). No further action recommended. Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Uncommon winter resident occurring on open oak savannahs, broken deciduous and coniferous habitats. Unlikely. Typical open oak plant communities are not present in the Study Area. No further action recommended. Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Relatively dense oak and riparian woods. Can also occur in urban and residential settings. High Potential. The Study Area meets most of the habitat requirements for this species and there are no barriers hindering dispersal into the site. A pre-construction survey for this species by a qualified biologist, with species-specific buffers in place for any discovered nests until young have fledged. olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC, BCC Nesting habitats are mixed conifer, montane hardwood- conifer, Douglas-fir, redwood, red fir and lodgepole pine. Most numerous in montane conifer forests where tall trees overlook canyons, meadows, lakes or other open terrain. Unlikely. The Study Area does not contain contiguous forest likely to support nesting, however the species may occur along the west bank of Buckeye Creek or during migration. No further action recommended. Alameda song sparrow Melospiza melodia pusillula BCC, SSC Year-round resident of salt marshes bordering the south arm of San Francisco Bay. Inhabits primarily pickleweed marshes; nests placed in marsh vegetation, typically shrubs such as gumplant. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain the marsh habitat required for this species. No further action recommended. saltmarsh (San Francisco) common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa BCC, SSC Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh and salt water marshes. Requires thick, continuous cover down to water surface for foraging; tall grasses, tule patches, willows for nesting. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain the marsh habitat required for this species. No further action recommended. oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Occurs year-round in woodland and savannah habitats where oaks are present, as well as riparian areas. Nests in tree cavities. High Potential. The habitat requirements for this species are present in the Study Area. A pre-construction survey for this species by a qualified biologist, with species-specific buffers in place for any discovered nests until young have fledged. yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC Endemic to the Central Valley and central Coast Ranges. Favors open park-like areas with expanses of open ground, including oak savannah, orchards, and along stream courses. Large, dome-shaped stick nests are placed in trees. Unlikely. The open habitat preferred by this species is not prevalent within the Study Area. The species may occasionally disperse through the Study Area. No further action recommended. yellow warbler Setophaga petechial BCC, SSC Summer resident throughout much of California. Breeds in riparian vegetation close to water, including streams and wet meadows. Microhabitat used for nesting variable, but dense willow growth is typical. Occurs widely on migration. High Potential. The habitat requirements for this species are present within the Study Area. A pre-construction survey for this species by a qualified biologist, with species-specific buffers in place for any discovered nests until young have fledged. Reptiles and Amphibians California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense FE/FT, ST, RP Populations in Santa Barbara and Sonoma counties currently listed as endangered. Inhabits grassland, oak woodland, ruderal and seasonal pool habitats. Seasonal ponds and vernal pools are crucial to breeding. Adults utilize mammal burrows as estivation habitat. No Potential. The Study Area does not contain breeding habitat or sufficient aestivation habitat for this species. No further action recommended. California red-legged frog Rana draytonii FT, SSC, RP Found in lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11 to 20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Associated with quiet perennial to intermittent ponds, stream pools and wetlands. Prefers shorelines with extensive vegetation. Disperses through upland habitats after rains. Moderate Potential. This species may utilize Buckeye Creek for dispersal and/or breeding during seasons with low flow. Habitat assessments and pre- construction surveys for this species should be completed by a qualified biologist before the onset of Project ground disturbance along with other appropriate avoidance and minimization measures. USFWS consultation advised. Pacific (western) pond turtle Actinemys marmorata SSC A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. Requires basking sites such as partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, or open mud banks, and suitable upland habitat (sandy banks or grassy open fields) for egg- laying. No Potential. The higher elevation and seasonable high flows of Buckeye Creek make this an unsuitable habitat for this species, which prefers slower flows and habitat for basking. No further action recommended. Santa Cruz black salamander Aneides niger SSC A medium-sized salamander that inhabits mixed deciduous woodland, coniferous forests, and coastal grasslands. Can be observed under rocks or other damp objects near riparian areas. Moderate Potential. The Study Area contains sufficient riparian habitat for this species and the species has been documented to occur roughly 3 miles south of the Study Area. Pre-construction surveys for this species should be completed by a qualified biologist before the onset of Project ground disturbance. Fishes steelhead - central CA coast DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus FT, NMFS Occurs from the Russian River south to Soquel Creek and Pajaro River. Also in San Francisco and San Pablo Bay Basins. Adults migrate upstream to spawn in cool, clear, well-oxygenated streams. Juveniles remain in fresh water for 1 or more years before migrating downstream to the ocean. High Potential. Steelhead have been documented in the major tributary to Buckeye Creek, which flows through the Study Area (CEMAR 2016), but not within the Study Area. There are no full barriers to fish dispersing into Buckeye Creek. A focused steelhead habitat analysis should occur; and/or in-channel work should occur only in dry channel. Consultation with NMFS advised for potential take associated with Buckeye Creek restoration. SWPPP should be implemented to avoid increased sedimentation into channel. Invertebrates Bay checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha bayensis FT, SSI, RP Restricted to native grasslands on outcrops of serpentine soil in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Plantago erecta is the primary host plant; Orthocarpus densiflorus and O. purpurscens are the secondary host plants. No Potential. No serpentine outcrops occur within the Study Area and therefore cannot support the host plant of this species. No further action recommended. * Key to status codes: FE Federal Endangered FT Federal Threatened FD Federal De-Ranked BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern RP Sensitive species included in a USFWS Recovery Plan or Draft Recovery Plan SE State Endangered ST State Threatened SR State Rare SSC CDFW Species of Special Concern CFP CDFW Fully Protected Animal SSI CDFW Special Status Invertebrates WBWG Western Bat Working Group Priority species CNPS Rare Plant Ranks: Rank 1A – Plants presumed extinct in California Rank 1B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2A – Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 2B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3 – Plants about which CNPS needs more information (a review Rank) Rank 4 – Plants of limited distribution (a watch Rank) CNPS Threat Ranks: 0.1 – Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) 0.2 – Fairly threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat) 0.3 – Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) SAN RAMON SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE OAKLAND LATHROP ROCKLIN SANTA CLARITA IRVINE CHRISTCHURCH WELLINGTON AUCKLAND 1 TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: MARCH 28, 2017 SUBJECT: BUCKEYE CREEK HYDROLOGY STUDY RECOMMENDATION No action to be taken. Staff presents an update on the Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study and recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) discuss the study and provide feedback. BACKGROUND Buckeye Creek, which originates in Foothills Park and flows to Los Trancos Creek, has long standing erosion and flooding problems. During heavy storms, the creek down-cuts causing erosion. The eroded sediments wash downstream and deposit in various locations along the creek, especially along the 7.7 acre parcel which can lead to flooding during heavy rain events. Past erosion control measures using gabions and check dams have not been effective at reducing erosion. Buckeye Creek was heavily modified by grading related to agricultural activities that took place prior to ownership by the City. The creek was also modified when underground utilities were installed in the 1960s. These modifications straightened and channelized the creek for approximately 1-mile through the current park. Based on review of historic United States Geologic Survey (USGS) maps between 1898 and 1960, it appears that the alignment of Buckeye Creek is substantially different now than before agricultural and mining uses were introduced to the area in the early 1900s. The channel was likely more centered in the Wildhorse and Las Trampas Valleys and moreover, the entire valley floor was likely used as alluvial floodplain which dissipated energy and allowed for moderate deposition and erosion processes for the creek system. The City contracted with ENGEO in July 2016 to study the hydrology of Buckeye Creek and to provide recommendations to reduce erosion that results in sediment deposition and flooding conditions in Foothill Park and the 7.7 acres parcel of parkland located at the northern boundary of Foothills Park. The 7.7 acre parcel was a gift to the City in 1981 by the Lee family. The Lee family retained an estate on the property until 1996 when it reverted to the City. From 1996 to 2005 the City leased the land to a private resident who owns the land adjacent to the 7.7 acre parcel. On August 18, 2014, Council passed an ordinance dedicating the 7.7 acre parcel as park land. Council directed the Commission to facilitate the development of ideas for specific land use options of the newly ATTACHMENT B 2 dedicated 7.7 acres in Foothills Park. A Commission Ad Hoc Committee was formed to help direct the process of collecting public input on the issue. On May 31, 2015, Council agreed that the Buckeye Creek hydrology study should be completed before making any recommendations on how to use the 7.7 acres. The rationale was that the recommendations on how to best address the hydrology challenges may alter the City’s decision on how best to use the land. For more information on the 7.7 acre parcel please see the February 24, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report (Attachment A) DISCUSSION Concept Development: ENGEO performed preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and developed initial creek improvement concepts to address the creek’s erosion issues. The initial concepts (Attachment B) would restore and modify portions of Buckeye Creek by widening portions of the creek channel to create seasonal wetland floodplains in the lower reach (Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acres parcel), and by creating a new creek channel in the upper reach (Wildhorse Valley), which would allow the creek to more closely follow its historic channel alignment and floodplain. a)Lower Reach (Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acres parcel)The recommended improvements to the lower reach of creek would create approximately 4.6 acres of additional floodplain and wetlands. This reach is divided into two sub-reaches for purposes of discussion- Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acres parcel. Widening the creek in the 7.7 acres of undeveloped parkland would create a 1.2-acre floodplain at approximately the ordinary high water mark and extend westerly at a 2% slope approximately to the extent of the 100-year water surface elevation. Based on hydraulic modeling performed, the area of the proposed floodplain will be above the current 100-year water surface elevation and therefore creation of a floodplain by lowering portions of the parcel adjacent to the current creek channel would help dissipate peak flows, equilibrate sediment transport and provide the opportunity to enhance habitat. Energy dissipation consisting of rock rip-rap would be installed at both expansion and contraction locations. Trails could be built within the floodplain area, to allow park visitors access to the creek to learn about riparian habitat, with the understanding that they would need to be maintained after large rain events. Widening the section of creek along the Las Trampas Valley would create approximately 3.4-acres of floodplain by removing soil material in the existing grass field, which appears to consist of fill material placed in the historic floodplain. The existing channel could be moved closer to its historic alignment, and the grade adjusted to create an extensive floodplain above the ordinary high water mark. As in the 7.7 acre area, energy dissipation 3 consisting of rock rip-rap would be installed at both expansion and contraction locations that would help with flow reduction, sediment transport equilibrium, and habitat enhancement. Some tree removal is required in this reach of creek to create the floodplain. b)Upper Reach (Wildhorse Valley):The recommended improvements to the upper reach of creek along Wildhorse Valley would recreate historic floodplain functions by re-routing flows entering the westerly portion of the upper Buckeye Creek within the Wildhorse Valley in a recreated channel that would meander through the historic floodplain in an alignment more similar to its historic state. The new channel would be designed using geomorphic principles, including a low flow channel, a stable slope and a floodplain. The upper westerly tributary to Buckeye Creek would need to be re-routed near the existing sediment basin at the upper end of Wildhorse Valley to capture flows and a stabilized confluence would also be installed where the new creek would meet the existing channel. Several aging wooden and gabion grade control structures, installed in the early 1980s, in the existing channel would also be retrofitted to meet current restoration standards. The existing sediment basin located at the base of the creek system at the top of Wildhorse Valley would also be eliminated. Approximately 2,655 linear feet of channel creation are possible in this area. Stakeholder Meetings and Input: a)Community MeetingOn December, 6, 2016, a community meeting to discuss the project and initial concepts was held at Foothills Park. Approximately 25 people, including stakeholders from Grassroots Ecology and Audubon Society attended the meeting. There was broad support for the initial concepts. The notes from the community meeting are in Attachment C. b)Regulatory Agencies CoordinationOn February 8, 2017, ENGEO and staff attended an inter-agency regulatory agency meeting conducted with representatives from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This informal meeting was an opportunity for collecting feedback on the preliminary restoration concepts from the regulatory agencies. The feedback collected included the following notes: 1.Although there was some interest in incorporating habitat features forSteelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) into the proposed restoration projectat the public meeting in December 2016, the general consensus from theUSFWS and RWQCB was that the potential for these species was too low toconsider specifically accommodating this specie into design elements. Thereare also two significant fish barriers (8’ vertical drops) on private property justdownstream where Buckeye Creek leaves Foothills Park. Therefore, several ofthe large grade control structures in the creek channel could be replaced with 4 updated structures. 2.The RWQCB representative expressed interest in expanding the creation ofriparian habitat to the maximum extent possible.3.The RWQCB representative strongly prefers for the improvement in the upperreach (Wildhorse Valley) to result in a new single channel of the creek (notdual channels), and to remove the sediment basin at the top of WildhorseValley. (The original initial concept called for maintaining the existing channel,which would result in a dual creek channels in Wildhorse Valley). Per theguidance from RWQCB, the design will change to realign western flows into alarge area between the existing road alignment and the westerly toe of slope,thought to be the approximate historic creek alignment, and will leave theexisting flows entering the valley from the east and south in the createdchannel. Challenges and Impacts: While the proposed improvements would have a number of benefits, including resolving the erosion and sedimentation issues, creating more (and vastly improved) riparian habitat, providing public access to the creek areas and enhanced environmental education opportunities, reduced ornamental turf and potable water savings, there are challenges and impacts from the proposed initial concepts. 1.Utilities and Roads:Based on the topographic survey, record utilities drawings, and field verificationfrom Park Rangers, major utilities bisect both Las Trampas and Wildhorse Valleys,where Buckeye Creek is currently located. These utilities include a sanitary sewer,a pressurized water main, and major fiber optic, phone and electric lines.Relocation of major utilities is cost prohibitive. In the Wildhorse Valley area, theseutilities are located for the most part within a roadway alignment that bisects thevalley. The roadway serves a pump station for municipal water supply located atthe upper end of Wildhorse Valley and thus cannot be readily removed.2.Maintenance Buildings:The Foothills Park maintenance buildings and equipment yard, located in the LasTrampas Valley at the lower end of the project appear to be located in an area thatwas once part of the historic creek alignment. It is cost prohibitive to relocate themaintenance buildings and equipment yard.3.Recreation Impacts:The grass field in Las Trampas Valley has been used for recreation activities sincethe park opened in 1965. In addition to individual park visitors and families relaxingand recreating on the field, the area is also frequently used by park visitorspicnicking at the adjacent Orchard Glen picnic area and by people who have rented 5 the Oak Grove picnic area. The Oak Grove picnic area accommodates up to 150 people. The lawn area is also used by City’s Recreation Division to host hundreds of children who participate in the Foothills Park summer camps. Staff have evaluated the amount of use on the grass field, and believe that half of the grass field could be used for restoring the creek, and the remaining half of the turf (approximately 5 acres) could still meet the recreational needs for the park visitors. Recreation staff believes the proposed improvements to the creek would allow them to incorporate more nature elements into the curriculum for the camps. Improved access to riparian areas next to the turf will be a helpful addition. Permitting: The preliminary Biological Assessment for the project defines waters of the United States and waters of the State of California for the project, as well as potential for species to occur on site which are protected under State and Federal wildlife codes. In order to implement the initial concepts of restoring portions of the creek, the project would likely require the following permits: 1.United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE):According to the feedback received at the interagency meeting, a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27 for Aquatic Habitat Restoration, which has no impact limit, will be required for this project. If there is also infrastructure maintenance work and the project limits impacts less than ½ acre of jurisdiction waters of the United States, the project would likely be classified under a NWP 3. 2.United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS):Based on discussions with the USFWS, they would provide Section 7 consultation to the USACE in terms of impacts to species covered under the Federal Endangered Species Act listed in the preliminary Biological Assessment. This would occur as part of the USACE permitting process. 3.Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB):The project would need to apply for a 401-water quality certification from the RWQCB for impacts to waters of the State of California. The RWQCB would be the lead agency in terms of creek restoration technical guidance. 4.California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW):The project would also need to apply for a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) fromCDFW since it intends to grade within their jurisdiction.5.Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD): 6 The project would not need to apply to this agency for a permit unless there is an easement or right-of-way that encumbers Buckeye Creek where the project intends to work. Based on discussion with the agency, it is unlikely that there are easements or rights-of-way dedicated to SCVWD in this part of Palo Alto. A title report could confirm this. The project would need to also complete a document to show compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to receive permitting clearances from CDFW and RWQCB. Overall, we expect 18 to 36 months to complete all of the permitting requirements. NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE Obtain PRC input March 2017 Detailed hydraulic analysis and refine alternatives April 2017 Community/Stakeholders 2nd Meeting April 2017 Draft Project Report May 2017 PRC meeting to present findings and obtain input on draft report May 2017 Council study session June 2017 Finalize report and present to Council for approval July 2017 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: February 24, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report Regarding the 7.7 Acre Parcel Attachment B: Initial Concepts to Restore and Modify Portions of Buckeye Creek Attachment C: December 6, 2016 Community Meeting Notes TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM:DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE:FEBRUARY 24, 2015 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION REGARDING POSSIBLE USES FOR THE 7.7 ACRES OF NEWLY DEDICATED PARK LAND AT FOOTHILLS PARK. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that Council approve of the following course of action regarding use of the newly acquired 7.7 acres of park land at Foothills Park: 1.Fund and implement a Capital Improvement Project to conduct a hydrology study of Buckeye Creek. 2.Keep the 7.7 acre parcel closed until after the hydrology study is completed.3.Renew the Acterra Nursery lease for one year so that the lease expiration will coincide withthe approximate timeframe to complete the hydrology study. The lease should include theoption for renewal on a yearly basis for four additional years pending mutual agreement andCity approval. BACKGROUND The 7.7 acre parcel was a gift to the City of Palo Alto in 1981 by the Lee family. The Lee family retained an estate on the property until 1996 when it reverted to the City. From 1996 to 2005 the City leased the land to a private resident who owns the land adjacent to the 7.7 acre parcel. On August 18, 2014, Council passed an ordinance dedicating the 7.7 acre parcel as park land. Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to facilitate the development of ideas for specific land use options of the newly dedicated 7.7 acres in Foothills Park. A Commission Ad Hoc committee was formed to help direct the process of collecting public input on the issue. In October 2014, four Ranger lead tours of the 7.7 acres were made available to the public. A total of 9 members of the public attended those tours. On October 18, 2014, a public meeting was held at Foothills Park to collect suggestions and comments from the public on ideas for how to best use the newly acquired park land. There was another Ranger lead tour occurring prior to the meeting. Approximately 10 people attended this tour and 27 people attended the meeting. At the meeting, and at each of the tours, the history and the challenges/restrictions associated with the 7.7 acres were discussed. On November 10, 2014, the Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee provided an update to Council regarding the 7.7 acres parcel. ATTACHMENT A February 24, 2015 PRC Staff Report DISCUSSION On January 27, 2015, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the possible uses for the newly acquired 7.7 acres of park land adjacent to Foothills Park. Several Commissioners noted that because of the timing of the hydrology study and the Parks Master Plan, we should not expect the Parks Master Plan to identify specific direction on how to develop the 7.7 acre parcel. The Commissioners also noted the Parks Master will provide information about what gaps and needs throughout the City’s park system that will be helpful in forming a decision about the future uses of the 7.7 acre parcel. There was general consensus among the Commissioners on three issues regarding the 7.7 acre parcel: 1.Buckeye Creek hydrology study should be completed before making any recommendationson how to use the land. The recommendations on how to best address the hydrologychallenges may alter the City’s decision on how best to use the land. 2.The Acterra Nursery lease should be renewed on a short term basis so that the City has theflexibility to act on whatever options and recommendations develop from the hydrology study. 3.The site should remain closed until after the hydrology study is complete. Investing in fencing and supervision to open the site to the public before the hydrology study is not prudent. The Commission noted that there is no need for additional Ad Hoc Committee meetings on this topic, and that staff should return promptly to the Commission with a recommendation. The recommendation of this staff report is the preferred option. The subsequent staff report that will be sent to Council will recommend the Commission’s preferred option. The Council staff report will also discuss the alternative options and the associated disadvantages that were considered, which include opening the parcel to the public and adding park amenities to the property in advance of the hydrology study. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: January 27, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission 7.7 Acre Staff Report PREPARED BY:__________________________________________________________ DAREN ANDERSON Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division Manager, Community Services Department TO:PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM:DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE:JANUARY 27, 2015 SUBJECT:DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE USES FOR THE NEWLY ACQUIRE 7.7 ACRES OF PARK LAND ADJACENT TO FOOTHILLS PARK. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission discuss possible uses for the newly acquired 7.7 acres of park land adjacent to Foothills Park, and provide guidance to staff on which concepts should be further developed to include cost estimates. BACKGROUND The 7.7 acre parcel was a gift to the City of Palo Alto in 1981 by the Lee family. The Lee family retained an estate on the property until 1996 when it reverted to the City. From 1996 to 2005 the City leased the land to a private resident who owns the land adjacent to the 7.7 acre parcel. On August 18, 2014, Council passed an ordinance dedicating the 7.7 acre parcel as park land. Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to facilitate the development of ideas for specific land use options of the newly dedicated 7.7 acres in Foothills Park. A Commission Ad Hoc committee was formed to help direct the process of collecting public input on the issue. DISCUSSION In October 2014, four Ranger lead tours of the 7.7 acres were made available to the public. A total of 9 members of the public attended those tours. On October 18, 2014, a public meeting was held at Foothills Park to collect suggestions and comments from the public on ideas for how to best use the newly acquired park land. There was another Ranger lead tour occurring prior to the meeting. Approximately 10 people attended this tour and 27 people attended the meeting. At the meeting, and at each of the tours, the history and the challenges/restrictions associated with the 7.7 acres were discussed. Attachment A includes the public’s comments and suggestions. Three major themes were expressed from the public on the tours and the public meeting: Theme 1: Recreational Activities Concepts ranged from adding a campground, picnic area, structure for special events, and an off-leash dog area. Theme 2: Restoration ATTACHMENT A February 24, 2015 PRC Staff Report The public suggestions regarding possible restoration strategies vary greatly. Concepts ranged from simple restoration involving planting native grasses and some trees, to significant restoration involving more involving de-channeling Buckeye Creek and restoring the original meandering creek flow; removing the overburden soil and restoring the area to one contiguous valley. Theme 3: Sustain the Acterra Nursery There were numerous comments supporting the Acterra Nursery on the site. There were also some suggestions about providing space for an additional environmental partner. Challenges for Developing the 7.7 Acre Parcel Current Soil Conditions When the 7.7 acre parcel was owned by the Lee family, the land was used as a place to store the overburden (spoils and rock) from the adjacent quarry. The north hillside (on the right side as you enter the property from Foothills Park) is comprised of highly compacted overburden from the quarry. The approximately 2.1 acre valley floor (flat area without trees) of the 7.7 acre parcel has approximately 5 feet of overburden. The compacted and poor soils do not drain well and make it challenging to grow trees and other vegetation. The former lessee of the 7.7 acres parcel struggled to sustain and grow trees on the site. The lessee used extensive amounts of compost to establish redwood trees along the hillside and edges of the parcel. The trees are stunted in growth, but they have survived. Buckeye Creek Buckeye Creek originates in Foothills Park at the upper end of Wildhorse Valley and passes through the 7.7 acre parcel. The channelized creek has experienced significant down-cutting resulting in creek erosion. These eroded sediments wash down the creek and deposit in the 7.7 acre parcel during the rainy season. The collected sediments must be removed two to three times every year to prevent flooding. The adjacent Open Space Maintenance Shop in Foothills Park was flooded in 1983. The City created a raised berm along Buckeye Creek, adjacent to the shop, to protect it from the creek overflowing. The shop area floods now as a result of poor drainage away from the shop and road. The amount of sediment that accumulates in the 7.7 acre parcel and needs to be removed varies greatly year to year. Some years, when it is fairly dry, no sediment is removed from the culverts. On years with average rainfall it can vary between 30 to 100 yards of sediment. On extremely rainy years there can be as much as 500 to 600 yards of sediment removed. Some of the sediment has been used to fill in the slopes of the 7.7 acre parcel, some on the valley floor, and some was taken off site. The removal is especially important before the creek flows through culverts at the end of the 7.7 acres (back right hand side of property). This is the last opportunity to clear the sedimentation before heading into the large culverts downstream. The sediments vary from fine to large sands and gravels, most all the fine, nutrient rich silts wash downstream and do not drop out in this area. ATTACHMENT A February 24, 2015 PRC Staff Report The private resident whose property borders the 7.7 acres has managed the creek sediment removal process up until now at his cost. The City will now be responsible for that work unless an agreement between the City and the private resident is obtained. Buckeye Creek Culverts Buckeye Creek has been channelized in many sections in Foothills Park, including at the (west) end of the 7.7 acre parcel. Buckeye Creek flows into a series of culverts and then flows under private property for several hundred feet. The culverts start as a single seven foot diameter opening and then reduce down into multiple three foot culverts. The first large culvert is approximately seven feet below the valley floor of the parcel. Access to the culvert is currently not secured, and would be dangerous if someone ventured down into it or was washed into it during a rain event. The culvert would need to be secured with fencing and a gate (to allow access for heavy equipment to clear the culvert of sediment) before the site is opened to the public. Some stakeholders have suggested that Buckeye Creek could support steelhead habitat. Buckeye Creek flows into Los Trancos Creek, which has been documented to have steelhead. Since a significant portion of the creek is channelized and deeply incised, it has an increased slope resulting in a high stream velocity. This accelerates erosion and prevents the formation of pools and riffles needed for good fish habitat. It is uncertain if there is enough water flow in the creek to support steelhead. No Utilities on Site There are no electrical, water, or sewer lines on the 7.7 acre parcel. Any infrastructure that requires these amenities would need to factor in the added expense to provide the necessary utilities. Hydrologic Study A hydrologic study of Buckeye Creek is needed to help analyze and find solutions to the historic channelization and resulting down-cutting and erosion problems. Staff recommends that this study be funded and completed as soon as possible. Staff also recommends that the hydrologic study be completed before developing permanent plans and investing significant funds to construct any facilities on the site that might limit some of the possible recommendations and solutions that will be proposed by the hydrologic plan. A $75,000 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for a hydrologic study of Buckeye Creek was proposed by staff in fiscal year 2013, but it was not funded. Staff will re-submit a CIP request to fund a hydrological study. Easements and Other Restrictions There is an emergency ingress and egress easement that runs through the parcel to Los Trancos Road. This easement must be maintained for emergency response and evacuation of Foothills Park. Development is limited next to Buckeye Creek. Environmental regulations preclude any permanent structures or parking lots within 50 feet of Buckeye Creek. (The 50 feet is measured from the bank of the creek.) ATTACHMENT A February 24, 2015 PRC Staff Report The 7.7 acres is bordered on three sides by a private residence. There is only one public entry and exit point to the 7.7 acres. It is through Foothills Park, and passes through the Foothills Park Maintenance Facility and staff parking area. The flat area of the parcel (approximately 2.1 acres) is the only viable usable space within the total 7.7 acres for constructing any type of structure. This includes the current .53 acre nursery parcel. The remaining portion of the parcel is hillsides, exclusive easements and setback from Buckeye Creek. The approximate size of this flat area was ascertained through measurements taken from the City’s GIS system. The Parks Master Plan The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is underway and will have information that will provide valuable insight to any functions that may be currently underserved in our park and recreation system. Joint Council and Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting On November 10, 2014, the Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee provided an update to Council regarding the 7.7 acres parcel. There were several Council comments and questions from Council regarding the parcel: 1.Suggestion to make the property accessible to the public during the interim period while the City decides how best to use the property. 2.Suggestion to have a joint Council/ Commission study session on just the topic of the future of the 7.7-acre parcel, potentially at Foothills Park. 3.Discussion about the need to secure the site with fencing due to security and safety concerns. 4.Question about whether the gravel, rock, and sand be commercially mined from the flat portion of the parcel to remove the spoils and perhaps make money for the City. (CSD staff explored this option with Public Works staff who manages the City’s soil importation project to cap the former landfill. Public Works explained that developers pay to dispose of clean soils. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would pay to haul away quarry spoils that could not be sold when they were originally mined. 5.Question about the cost to fence off the nursery and culvert in order to make the 7.7-acre parcel accessible to the public (Staff will get an estimate for these costs and an estimated time frame on how long it would take to install). 6.Suggestion about a trail connection between the parcel and the Nature Center along the upland margin of the property close to Mr. Arrillaga’s (adjacent neighbor) fence line. 7.Suggestion that staff and the Commission should recommend short-term and long-term phases for the parcel and include costs and estimated timing. Feasibility and Needs Analysis for the Major Themes The feasibility and needs assessment in this report is based on analysis of reservations of existing park facilities, and observations from staff in the field. Information from the Parks Master Plan will provide additional information once it is complete in November 2015. ATTACHMENT A February 24, 2015 PRC Staff Report Recreation Theme Concepts Camping Needs assessment: There is demand for additional camping at Foothills Park during Friday and Saturday nights throughout the summer. The existing Foothills Park Towle Camp has eight campsites. It is typically booked to capacity every Friday and Saturday nights all summer long, with holidays, May, June, and September (popular for school groups) being reserved 6 to 12 months in advance. Camping Feasibility: 1.Noise from a campground in close proximity to the adjacent land owner’s homes may be an issue for both campers and for the adjacent land owner. There may also be issues with smoke generated from campfire circle or barbeques. No matter where a campground is placed on the 7.7 acre parcel, it would only be about 300 feet from the adjacent land owner’s backyard. 2.Unless the campground was very small (less than 15 visitors) and designed to be a primitive,hike-in-only campground, a parking lot in the 7.7 acre area would be necessary. 3.Restrooms will be needed for primitive or car camping. 4.Unless the hydrologic issues can be addressed, the campground would be at some risk offlooding during extreme rain events. The 7.7 acre parcel is the lowest valley location in the park and has the coldest temperatures in the park during the winter. 5.There are alternative locations in Foothills Park that may be better suited for an additional camping area or group picnic area. There is a flat area just below the hill from Fire Station 8, where there are nearby utilities, parking, and no neighbors in close proximity (See Attachment C). Group Picnic Area Needs Assessment: There is demand for large group picnic areas during the summer months. Any group of more than 25 people must have a permit and there is only one existing group picnic area in Foothills Park. The Oak Grove group picnic area may be reserved and can accommodate groups up to 150 people. The picnic area is typically booked to capacity on weekends from June through September. There are five other picnic areas in Foothills Park available for groups of less than 25 visitors on first-come first-serve availability. Group Picnic Area Feasibility: 1.Noise from a group picnic area in close proximity to the adjacent land owner’s homes may be an issue. 2.It would require adding a parking lot in the 7.7 acre area. We couldn’t use the existing ATTACHMENT A February 24, 2015 STAFF REPORT parking lot adjacent to the Oak Grove Picnic Area because that lot is full when Oak Grove is being used. 3.It would require adding restrooms. 4.One attraction for the existing popular picnic areas (Oak Grove and Orchard Glen) is the large lawns adjacent to these areas for activities and games. Adding irrigated lawns to the 7.7 acres would be an expensive, water intense addition. 5.Unless the hydrologic issues can be addressed the picnic area would be at some risk of flooding during extreme rain events. There are alternative locations in Foothills Park that may be better suited for an additional camping area or group picnic area. There is a flat area just below the hill from Fire Station 8, where there are nearby utilities, parking, and noneighbors in close proximity (See Attachment C). Trail Needs Assessment: The existing Foothills Park trail system is 15 miles long. The trails offer a wide variety of hiking experiences, challenges, and views. There were no requests for trails in this area from the public that participated in the Ranger led tours or the public meeting to discuss the possible uses for the site. Trail Feasibility: 1.A simple trail on the flat area of the 7.7 acres could be constructed. 2.More information is needed on the feasibility of constructing a hillside trail. Group Meeting Area Needs Assessment: The Foothills Park Interpretive Center and Orchard Glen Picnic Area often serve as a group meeting areas, as they are located in central areas within the park and have accessible parking, restrooms, and drinking fountains available. Staff have neither noticed nor received feedback from park visitors that a group meeting area is desired. Though, some participants at the public meeting on the 7.7 acre parcel suggested adding a group meeting area to this site. Group meeting Area Needs Feasibility: 1.Noise from a group meeting area in close proximity to the adjacent land owner’s homes may be an issue. 2.It may require adding a parking lot in the 7.7 acre area. The existing parking lot adjacent to the Oak Grove Picnic Area is full when Oak Grove is being used. 3.It may require adding restrooms. 4.Unless the hydrologic issues can be addressed the group meeting area would be at some risk of flooding during extreme rain events. ATTACHMENT A February 24, 2015 PRC Staff Report 5.There are alternative locations in Foothills Park that may be better suited for a group meeting area. There is a flat area just below the hill from Fire Station 8, where there are nearby utilities, parking, and no neighbors in close proximity (See Attachment C). Restoration Theme Concepts: Habitat Restoration Needs Assessment: 1.The site would benefit from habitat restoration, especially for riparian habitat restoration adjacent to Buckeye Creek. The habitat of the flat section of the 7.7 acre parcel is largely bare soil (comprised of five feet of compacted overburden quarry spoils) and some weeds. The sloped sides of the parcel consist of a mix of redwood and eucalyptus trees and some coyote brush shrubs. The habitat value could be improved by planting native vegetation andcontrolling invasive weeds. Habitat Restoration Feasibility: 1.There are no utilities on the parcel. Any plantings would require a temporary irrigation system be installed. The closest water line is at the maintenance shop. 2.The poor soil conditions should be mitigated in order to have successful vegetation growth. For the flat section of the parcel, one option is rip the hard compacted ground and add compost and other soil amendments. Composting has been demonstrated to gradually improve the soil on the adjacent quarry site parcel. Another option could include removing the overburden and use compost and other soil amendments. By removing the overburden the flat parcel elevation would be lowered creating the opportunity for riparian habitat and flood zones along Buckeye Creek. This concept could be explored through the hydrologic study. 3.If the Acterra Nursery remains on site some of the habitat restoration projects could be incorporated to the Acterra Nursery agreement or the Acterra Stewardship work plan. De-channeling Buckeye Creek and Restoring the Original Meandering Creek Needs Assessment: 1.One concept to mitigate the historic channelization of Buckeye Creek would be to remove much of the overburden in the flat portion of the 7.7 acres and allow for a natural meandering and flooding of the creek. The hydrologic study should address this issue in terms of need and feasibility. Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee A recommendation from the Ad Hoc Committee is premature at this point since the Commission has not had an opportunity to discuss the 7.7 acre parcel. However, the Ad Hoc Committee did create the following options to consider, which may be helpful as ideas for fostering discussion on the topic. Options to consider: ATTACHMENT A February 24, 2015 PRC Staff Report 1. Extend lease with Acterra for another five years, with the caveat that they may be required to move elsewhere within Foothills Park pending the result of hydrology study. The existing lease will expire in July 2015. 2. Assuming the CIP for the hydrologic study of Buckeye Creek is approved, start the study as soon as possible- July 2015. 3. If the Commission and Council determine the site should be opened to the public, City staffshould install fencing and gates to ensure that the culvert is safe and that the open areas are separatedfrom the Acterra Nursery. 4. Inform the neighbors well in advance of the date that the parcel will be opened to the public sothat they can make arrangements to put up fencing to secure their areas. 5. Avoid investing in any improvements or amenities for the site, other than fencing and gates, because the hydrologic study may provide recommendations that would necessitate changing where we locate certain amenities. 6. Open the property to the public after the necessary fences have been installed. 7. Continue Commission discussions on development plans for the 7.7 acre parcel. 8. Continue to collect feedback from park visitors regularly using the parcel for what they would like to see long term on the property. 9. The scope of the Parks Master Plan could be expanded to include recommendations for development of the 7.7 acre parcel. The recommendations would be based on the findings of the Master Plan, and feedback from the public, Commission, and Council. The Parks Master Plan will be completed by November 2015. The hydrological study, if approved, would most likely not be completed by that date, so any Master Plan concepts for future use of the parcel would not incorporate recommendations from the hydrological study. Because of the timing of the Hydrologic study and the Master Plan, the recommendations for the 7.7 acre parcel from the Parks Master Plan would be limited to a list of possible uses of the land, rather than drawings depicting specific locations for development. 10. Refine the development plans for the parcel once the hydrology study is complete. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Public Comments from Public Meeting Attachment B: Acterra Nursery Facts Attachment C: Aerial Photos Illustrating Configuration of Amenities on 7.7 Acre Parcel and on Alternative Site. PREPARED BY:__________________________________________________________ DAREN ANDERSON Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division Manager, Community Services Department ATTACHMENT A February 24, 2015 STAFF REPORT Public Meeting   Subject: Gather community input on how to use the 7.7 acre area  Date: October 18, 2014   Location: Foothills Park  Eighteen people signed the sign‐in sheet. There were some late arrivals. Total number of  meeting participants was about 27.  Public Suggestions:  1.Open sided building for various special events. Ideally allowing horses. It would bring more people into the park. Possible uses could include hay rides, weddings, etc.  The fact that there is a large flat area is a positive. 2.Note that the 5’ of overburden soil (this is the material that was excavated from the adjacent quarry) that was placed on the 7.7 acres limits the restoration options. The overburden material is not good for growing plants. Alternatives to restoration should be considered. It would take a lot of effort to restore. Bounded with only one entry is also a challenge. We need to think outside the box. 3.The flat area is good thing. It would be a good location for a primitive campground with limited amenities. We could use the existing amenities, such as the restrooms at Oak Grove and the parking near Oak Grove picnic area. 4.Move the existing park maintenance building into the 7.7 acre area, and restore the site where the maintenance building is currently sitting. The maintenance yard is the entry to this space, and the entry should be attractive. 5.All options considered for this space should retain the Acterra nursery, and build on access to the nursery. The nursery should be instructional, not just commercial. (someone notes that classes of children do visit the nursery). 6.There are numerous benefits of the nursery, and it should be maintained on site. 7.There should be a place holder for option of including a Canopy tree nursery at the site. 8.It would be great if there was public access into this area through Los Trancos Road. Don’t do anything that would preclude or prevent future connectivity through this site to the rest of Foothills Park. 9.Restore original creek. Consider removing the overburden soil and restoring the area to one contiguous valley. It would take a long time, but with time and grants it is possible. 10.Leave the site alone. Just add a simple trail. 11.Concern about emergency exit from the park. How is an individual inside the park supposed to escape the area if there is a gate that can only be opened by emergency response staff? 12.Acterra nursery should be allowed to stay on the site because it is a benefit to the City. 13.Make sure this issue is covered by the press (Weekly). It will ensure that more people are aware of the discussion. 14.The Parks Master Plan may identify needs that cannot be met with our existing space in the park system. Keep this area open for needs that are identified in the Master Plan. 15.Keep Acterra Nursery on the site. 16.Support the Acterra Nursery and expand the stewardship and educational opportunities. 17.Use the area for athletic fields. 18.Question about how often the campground and group picnic area are booked? (Staff explained that during summer weekends the campground and group picnic area are fully booked.) 19.Camping could be a great use for this site. 20.Cabin camping with platforms would be a good use for the site. It would increase winter camping. 21.Consider removing the eucalyptus trees from the site. 22.Adding something like the Oak Grove Picnic Area and including some new trees. 23.Include placeholders for connectivity. 24.Restoration could bring lots of grant money. 25.Canopy tree nursery 26.Creek restoration concept. There are lots of grants for this kind of work. 27.Improve the soil and let nature take its course. Remember, this is a nature preserve. 28.Respect the neighbors to this site. Need to take into account noise issues for whatever is considered for this area. You wouldn’t put a campground right next to other neighbors’ homes anywhere else in the park system, so why would you do it in this situation? Acterra Native Plant Nursery Facts The Acterra Native Plant Nursery has been in operation since 1996 and located on the current site since 2003. Acterra is a Palo Alto non-profit organization engaged in various activities intended to protect and enhance our local environment. The current lease for the nursery site expires in 2015 and can be renewed for another fiveyears by mutual agreement between Acterra and the City of Palo Alto. In lieu of a cash rental payment for the nursery, Acterra provides the City with $10,000 in value per year consisting of plants, materials and volunteer restoration services. Acterra meters and pays for all the nursery water usage. Electricity is generated on site via solar panels. The entire nursery, including all structures, the solar electric system and water line was built from the ground up by volunteers frequently using their own tools and employing donated and salvaged materials whenever possible. The nursery is staffed by one full-time and one part-time Acterra employee assisted byseveral regular volunteers. Staff duties extend beyond nursery operation to includerelated activities such as seed collecting and restoration consulting. Specializing in plants grown from local wild-collected propagules, the nursery grows about 150 species and more than 30,000 plants annually, some of which are endangeredand difficult to propagate. The nursery provides all plants used in Acterra Stewardship program restoration projects, as well as being a key supplier of plants for other local public agencies such as the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District. For example, the nursery is the primary plant supplier for Mt. Umunhum Restoration. In Palo Alto alone, Acterra Stewardship provided 10,000 volunteer hours of habitat restoration and installed more than 14,500 nursery plants at seven different sites last year. The primary focus of the nursery is growing plants for wild land restoration. It alsoserves commercial and residential landscapers who wish to install water wise eco-friendly plants. The nursery pioneered the lawn replacement concept. Local schools, parks, demonstration gardens and rural farmers also use plants from the nursery. The nursery attracts an abundance of birds, butterflies, native bees, and other wildlife.We are especially proud of our large tree frog population. We facilitate the hatching ofhundreds of tree frogs each year. ATTACHMENT A February 24, 2015 PRC Staff Report ATTACHMENT A February 24, 2015 staf report Alternative location for a possible nursery, group picnic area, or campsite.  Between Boronda Lake to the south and Fire Station 8 to the north lies a flat  undeveloped cut slope from the original construction of Foothills Park.  The area has two existing paved parking lots (for development that never occurred), and  both water and sewer utilities nearby.  Composite image pastes the existing Acterra Nursery and a proposed covered 5000 sq. foot group picnic pavilion (for groups up to 100).  The area can  accommodate a new restroom connected to existing sewer system.  Composite image with the picnic pavilion and a group campsite for 50 visitors. Composite image showing  the 7.7 acres with the Acterra Nursery remaining and an added 18,000 sq. foot parking lot and group picnic pavilion.  The area could  accommodate a new restroom on septic system.  GROUP PICNIC  PAVILION  EXISTING NURSERY  EXISTING  MAINTENANCE  YARD EXISTING PARKING  PARKING 1+0 0 2+00 3 + 0 0 4+00 5+0 0 6+0 0 7 + 0 0 8 + 0 0 9 + 0 0 10 + 0 0 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+ 0 0 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+0 0 28+0 0 29+0 0 30+ 0 0 31+00 32+00 33+ 0 0 3 4 + 0 0 35+0 0 36+ 0 0 37 + 0 0 3 8 + 0 0 3 9 + 0 0 4 0 + 0 0 4 1 + 0 0 1+2 0 1+1 1 1+ 3 0 1+ 5 8 2+9 0 2+ 1 6 40+ 3 5 40+8 0 39+ 8 1 39+ 2 0 38+10 37+90 37+ 8 0 FIGU R E 2 FIGU R E 1 FIGU R E 2 14 + 3 0 22+ 8 0 24+94 22 + 0 3 21+ 0 7 20 + 3 3 19 + 5 9 19 + 4 9 19+ 3 2 18 + 5 9 17+ 5 1 16 + 8 1 15 + 8 2 13 + 1 6 12 + 4 5 11 + 5 4 10+ 1 5 9+2 5 8+34 7+58 6+93 6+63 6+3 66+ 1 8 5+9 95+6 9 5+2 4 4+8 0 4+3 2 3+ 6 6 4+0 03+3 2 37+ 2 1 38+2 6 37+ 7 5 36+ 6 7 36 + 2 4 35+ 3 5 34+4 8 33+ 6 2 32+ 3 5 31 + 2 6 30+ 7 9 29+93 28+40 29+0 9 27+53 26+79 25+8 3 9+2 0 10+ 7 5 23+ 8 3 FIGU R E 1 NN EXPLANATION 10+00 BUCKEYE CREEK Expect Excellence 0 0 FEET METERS 100 50 CONCEPTUAL PROJECT MAP BUCKEYE CREEK PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 13010.000.000 AS SHOWN 1 LIMITS OF GRADING HEC RAS CROSS SECTION AND STATION LABEL FACING DOWNSTREAM WATER MAIN SANITARY SEWER FIBER AND ELECTRIC PHONE PROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATION AT CONTRACTION PROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATION AT EXPANSION PROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATION AT CONTRACTION PROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATION AT EXPANSION RETROFIT EXISTING GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES (3) NEW FLOODPLAIN NEW FLOODPLAIN APPROXIMATE CREEK HISTORIC ALIGNMENT REPLACE EXISTING FOOT BRIDGE RELOCATE LOW FLOW CHANNEL AWAY FROM TOE OF SLOPE PROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATION AT EXPANSION RELOCATE PHONE LINE 32+00 33+00 34+0 0 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+0 0 39+0 0 40+ 0 0 4 1 + 0 0 4 2 + 0 0 43+00 44+00 45 + 0 0 46 + 0 0 47 + 0 0 48 + 0 0 49+0 0 50+ 0 0 51+ 0 0 52+0 0 53+00 54 + 0 0 55+ 0 0 56+ 0 0 57 + 0 0 5 8 + 0 0 59+00 60+00 61+00 62+00 63 + 0 0 64 + 0 0 65 + 0 0 6 6 + 0 0 67 + 0 0 6 8 + 0 0 69 + 0 0 70 + 0 0 70+08 69+69 69+30 68+91 68+59 68+49 67+85 66+97 66+06 65+42 65+10 64+52 63+95 63+07 63+31 62 + 7 9 62+4 8 62 + 0 8 61 + 8 6 58+ 5 1 61 + 4 2 60 + 5 1 60+ 7 8 61 + 0 2 60+ 3 0 60 + 1 1 58+ 9 6 59 + 5 8 58+ 0 1 56+98 57+4 0 56 + 6 5 56+ 3 4 55+ 7 5 55 + 8 0 55+ 7 2 55+ 5 5 54+ 5 1 53 + 7 7 51+ 1 8 46+ 3 5 45+ 8 8 45+ 4 8 45+ 4 6 4 5 + 3 4 4 5 + 1 9 45 + 0 4 44+ 9 7 44 + 8 2 44 + 3 1 43 + 5 4 42+7 7 40 + 3 5 41+36 41+9 0 40 + 8 0 39 + 8 1 39 + 2 0 38+1037+90 53 + 0 4 52 + 4 8 51 + 9 0 51 + 9 6 51+ 8 3 50+ 6 5 50+ 0 8 49+ 4 6 47+ 8 3 47+ 2 2 48+5 6 37 + 8 0 64+15 FIG U R E 2 FIG U R E 1 FIG U R E 2 37 + 2 1 38 + 2 6 37 + 7 5 36 + 6 7 36 + 2 4 35 + 3 5 34+ 4 8 33 + 6 2 32 + 3 5 FIG U R E 1 BUCKEYE CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL NN Expect Excellence 0 0 FEET METERS 100 50 CONCEPTUAL PROJECT MAP BUCKEYE CREEK PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 13010.000.000 AS SHOWN 2 EXPLANATION 10+00 LIMITS OF GRADING HEC RAS CROSS SECTION AND STATION LABEL FACING DOWNSTREAM WATER MAIN SANITARY SEWER FIBER AND ELECTRIC OVERFLOW DIVERSION STRUCTURE TRANSITION TO EXISTING CREEK RETROFIT EXISTING GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES (7) RESTORED CREEK CHANNEL APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HISTORIC CREEK ALIGNMENT REMOVE EXISTING SEDIMENT BASIN ATTACHMENT C December 16, 2016 Community Notes Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study Community Meeting December 6, 2016 Foothills Park Questions from the participants: Q.Do the proposed concepts restore the creeks to their original alignment? A.The earliest aerial photos (around 1958) show that there was already a ranch road and that the creek had essentially been channelized in its current location. It is likely that the creek meandered through Las Trampas Valley and Wildhorse Valley. The concepts doinvolve restoring some of the creek flow to what was likely the original alignment, but without removing the road and utilities. Q.Would the concept replace the existing creek channel in Wildhorse Valley? A.No. The regulatory agencies typically do not support filling in creeks. It would likely be a dual creek system that would allow high flows to follow one route and slow flows to theother. But, these concepts need to be studied by ENGEO further to know exactly how it would work. The intent is to ensure that the public and stakeholders generally support the initial concepts before developing them. Q. What does the service road along Wildhorse Valley go?A.The road goes to a Water Reservoir, utilities station, and the Towel Campground. There are a number of utilities that are located next to the existing creek channel (16’’ water main, 10-12’’ sewer line, telephone line, fiber optics, etc.). They were installed in the 1950s and 60s. The utilities serve residents above and below Foothills Park, in addition to the park itself. Q. Did your study include analysis of the 7.7 acre area? A. Yes, that area was included in the hydrology analysis. Q.It seems like the concept for Las Trampas Valley would result in about ¼ or more of theturf grass being changed to riparian habitat. What would that look like? A. There are several examples of projects in our area that would be similar. Staff and the consultant will bring examples to the next meeting. Q.How would the creek flow around the maintenance shop buildings, which is an areawhere the creek constricts? One solution to consider is a detention basin to slow down the water and meter it out gradually. A.ENGEO will study that area in more detail, and consult with the state and federal regulatory agencies. A bio-retention area may be helpful in this area. Q. Can the maintenance buildings be relocated? A. It may be possible, but would be very expensive. Q. What is the maintenance shop used for, and why would it be so expensive to move? A. The maintenance shop is where Open Space staff store vehicles (Ranger patrol trucks, dump trucks, tractors, mowers, etc.) and equipment necessary to maintain the 1,400 acre Foothills Park and the 622 acre Pearson Arastradero Preserve. There is also a fuel tank used to fuel park vehicles and equipment, as well as the Fire apparatus when Fire Station 8 is staffed. Staff doesn’t have a cost estimate to move the all the buildings, but a crude guess from an previous staff member was that it could cost as much as $10 million to demo the existing buildings, restore the creek through that area, and design, get permits, and construct a new maintenance shop, vehicle bays, fuel station, and parking area. If Council directs staff to pursue that option, we can develop a cost estimate to do that work. ENGEO explained that while more space for the creek is always helpful in terms of reducing peak flows and reducing erosion, they will study the concepts they have created to see if they are adequate to address the creek’s hydrology issues. Q. If the City developed both concepts (widening the creek in Las Trampas Valley, and creating a separate channel in Wildhorse Valley) would it resolve the erosion and sediment issues down-stream and in the 7.7 acre area? A. ENGEO will further develop the concepts to be able to answer that question. The intent of the concepts is to reduce erosion, which will help resolve the sediment issues down-stream. However, you can’t stop all erosion. Creeks naturally transport some sediment. Ideally, any improvements made will limit erosion and sediment to natural levels. Q. What are the rates of the high flows in the creek? A. The analysis showed that the high flows were 1,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) Q. Peak flow retention areas would be helpful. Are you looking at terraces or widened creek channel? A. ENGEO needs to study it in more detail to determine which would be best. Q. Studies indicate that S.F. Creek sedimentation is due to seismic influences. This may change some assumptions. Q. Species that are most endangered are often ones that depend on ephemeral habitat, which is sometimes created by erosion. By solving the erosion problem are we taking away some of this habitat? A. Meandering creeks actually create ephemeral habitat. Regulatory agencies like creeks that have the ability to meander. Q. Is the project aimed at mitigating impacts to habitat, or creating habitat? A. The concepts will create much more habitat then would be impacted. Q. If we take water away from the existing creek channel in Wildhorse Valley to divert it to the new channel, would it deprive the existing channels vegetation? A. Maybe. However, the existing creek channel isn’t really a riparian habitat. It is so erosive and channelized that it doesn’t serve as riparian habitat. As it is currently, the channel has almost no transition zone. Transition zones often provide high quality habitat. The concepts would allow for transition zones. Q. My top three concerns are: 1. Peak flow retention. 2. Steelhead habitat. 3. Sediment. Q. Several participants voiced concern about getting funding through mitigation credits. They explained that they wouldn’t want to mitigate projects that are destructive to theenvironment. They also said that there are requirements that herbicide be used to maintain and control invasive plants. Grassroots Ecology noted that both US Fish and Wildlife and CA Coastal Conservancy have indicated that there could be grant opportunities for the type of improvements being proposed. We should analyze the impacts of reducing the turf in Las Trampas Valley. There was broad support from the meeting participants that the proposed concepts are on the right track and that we should continue developing the concepts.