HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-13 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting
Council Chambers
November 13, 2012
5:30 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the
Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
1 November 13, 2012
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Call to Order
Special Orders of the Day
1. Community Celebration and City Council Resolution Honoring Former
Mayor Gary Fazzino
City Manager Comments
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
2. Approval of Assistance to Firefighters Grant to Purchase Multi-Band
Portable Radios, With Matching City Funds of 20 Percent for an amount
Not to Exceed of $46,000
3. Approval of Stanford University Medical Center Annual Report and
Compliance with the Development Agreement
4. Acceptance of a Final Map Street Dedication at 382 and 384 Curtner
Avenue
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of
the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be
limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker.
2 November 13, 2012
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
5. Public Hearing: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a Site and
Design Application for the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Authority's (JPA) Initial Flood Protection Project (Highway 101 to San
Francisco Bay), Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for
Modifications to the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and the John
Fletcher Byxbee Recreation Area, and Adoption of a Resolution
Authorizing an Exception to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 10.48 to
Allow Transfer of Soil from the Stanford University Medical Center
Construction Project to the Palo Alto Golf Course and Adjacent Areas
6. Update of Parking Program and Review and Direction on Parking Policy
Strategies (continued from November 5, 2012)
7. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance and Approval of a Loan
Request From Palo Alto Housing Corporation in the Amount of
$5,820,220 for the Acquisition of 567-595 Maybell Avenue (continued
from November 5, 2012-staff request item be continued to November
19, 2012)
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is
described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You
are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful.
3 November 13, 2012
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
City Council Meeting Cancellation
Finance Committee Meeting
Policy & Services Meeting Cancellation
City/School Meeting
Cubberley PAC Meeting
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summary Second Quarter Sales (April -
June 2012)
City Council Seeking Public Input for the 2013 City Council Priorities
Public Letters to Council
Set 1 Set 2
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALO ALTO HONORING FORMER
MAYOR GARY FAZZINO
WHEREAS, Gary served as Mayor of Palo Alto· in 1992 and 1999 and as a City Council
Member for 18 years, making him one of the longest serving in the City's history; and
WHEREAS, Gary demonstrated unfailing support for encouraging others to run for office, for a
better job, for an Ironman, or for a chance to win a ticket to a Giants game!! Whatever it was, he was
the cheerleader for others, often surprising them With his great energetic enthusiasm that was so
contagious; and .
WHEREAS,· Gary would not take no as an answer; and
WHEREAS, Gary maintained a warm and engaging personality throughout his service to Palo
Alto and demonstrated what true collegiality and respect is all about by epitomizing the true spirit of
public service; and
WHEREAS, Gary provided political counsel and the benefit of his rich experience to potential
candidates and those who served -always ready to provide support and was always available to share
ideas and insight with colleagues in all aspects of his experience -personal, professional, and political;
and
WHEREAS, he spearheaded the creation of the Youth Council in Palo Alto to provide essential·
opinions to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Gary dedicated much of his life to making Palo Alto a better community; and
WHEREAS, we are thankful for Gary Fazzino.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
gratefully records its deepest and abiding appreciation and the appreciation of the community to Gary
Fazzino and his family for his meritorious service rendered and contributions made throughout his
wonderful and impactfullife to Palo Alto. .
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
.~~ Ma~?L·
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3088)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/13/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Assist to Firefighters Grant (Radios)
Title: Approval of Assistance to Firefighters Grant to Purchase Multi-Band
Portable Radios, With Matching City Funds of 20 Percent for an amount Not
to Exceed of $46,000
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve the attached grant agreement to provide for the
purchase of portable radios with a matched contribution by the City up to $46,000.
SUMMARY
The Public Safety Department, in collaboration with the City of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara
County, has been awarded a grant that will cover the majority of the costs for portable radios
for Fire Department staff. The Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) award will cover 80
percent of the purchase price, requiring a 20 percent match estimated at $46,000. Funding to
cover this match will be provided from the City’s Radio Infrastructure CIP fund.
DISCUSSION
In the State of California and most of the United States, Fire agencies operate radios in the very
high frequency (VHF) range between 30 and 300 MHz. Palo Alto operates at 153 MHz. As the
initial phase of a planned countywide radio system, Santa Clara Police and Fire and Sunnyvale
Department of Public Safety (DPS) will migrate to a new 700 MHz radio system. Existing and
new frequency bands are not compatible for radio communication. This hinders communication
at major incidents and delays response and coordination at events requiring multi-agency and
cross-discipline responses. Effective communication between responding Fire personnel from
different agencies is critical for coordination and firefighter safety. In 2002, Santa Clara County
built a multi-spectrum gateway that provides limited interoperability but the channel capacity is
limited and it is not suitable for day-to-day operations.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The Palo Alto Fire Department, in conjunction with Sunnyvale DPS, Milpitas Fire, and Santa
Clara County Fire applied for a 2011 Assistance to Firefighters Grant to purchase dual-band
portable radios to equip on-duty firefighters and command staff. These portable radios will
cover the existing VHF frequencies and the new 700/800 frequencies and are capable of
communication on both. This capability will allow fire personnel to communicate with any
Police and Fire agency in the region. The portable radios will enhance on-scene coordination
and situational awareness for local incidents, as well as the ability to communicate when
deployed on mutual aid to major incidents throughout the state.
Santa Clara County, through the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA), is in
the first phase of building a countywide 700 MHz radio system. The timeline for the build-out is
dependent on funding, and there is certain to be a minimum of three years before the system is
completed, even under optimum circumstances. During that time, public safety agencies will
be operating on three different frequency bands. After the system is completed, there is a high
likelihood that most fire agencies will remain on VHF. The multi-band radios provide
interoperability both during and after the construction phase of the 700 MHz system.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The AFG Award in the amount of $1,386,000 requires the participating agencies provide a
twenty (20) percent match for the radio purchase. Palo Alto is allocated 35 radios and
accessories at a cost of $220,441.04 ($6,298 per radio). The cost includes 5 years of
maintenance. Santa Clara County, through SVRIA, negotiated very favorable pricing on these
radios and the cost with accessories represents a forty (40) percent discount from Motorola’s
retail pricing. Palo Alto’s match amount will be approximately $44,000. Building in a small
contingency for programming, the total cost for Palo Alto will not exceed $46,000.
Funding from the Radio Infrastructure CIP (TE-05000) will be used to cover the match required.
As of November 2, 2012 there is sufficient funding to cover these costs, as the fund has an
available balance of $1,824,841.
The County of Santa Clara will purchase the radios for the region and receive reimbursement
from Sunnyvale, the lead agency on the AFG grant. Sunnyvale will bill Palo Alto for the twenty
(20) percent match.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Expenditure of funds is consistent with City policy.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Review under the California Environmental Quality Act is not required to purchase radios. The
equipment being supplied is in conformance with all applicable emissions laws and regulations.
Attachments:
Attachment A - 2011 AFG Application (PDF)
Attachment B - 2011 AFG Award (PDF)
Attachment C - Palo Alto AFG Radios 110712 (PDF)
Ms. Ann Durkes
City of Sunnyvale
P.O. Box 3707
Sunnyvale, California 94088-3707
Re: Grant No.EMW-2011-FR-00566
Dear Ms. Durkes:
On behalf of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I
am pleased to inform you that your grant application submitted under the FY 2011 Assistance to Firefighters Grant has
been approved. FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate (GPD), in consultation with the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA),
carries out the Federal responsibilities of administering your grant. The approved project costs total to $1,732,500.00.
The Federal share is 80 percent or $1,386,000.00 of the approved amount and your share of the costs is 20 percent or
$346,500.00.
As part of your award package, you will find Grant Agreement Articles. Please make sure you read and understand the
Articles as they outline the terms and conditions of your grant award. Maintain a copy of these documents for your official
file. You establish acceptance of the grant and Grant Agreement Articles when you formally receive the award
through the AFG online system. By accepting the grant, you agree not to deviate from the approved scope of work
without prior written approval from FEMA.
If your SF 1199A has been reviewed and approved, you will be able to request payments online. Remember, you should
request funds when you have an immediate cash need.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the awards process or how to request your grant funds, please call the
helpdesk at 1-866-274-0960.
Elizabeth M. Harman
Assistant Administrator
Grant Programs Directorate
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20472
Page 2 of 6Panel Review
2/13/2012https://eservices.fema.gov/FemaFireGrant/firegrant/jsp/fire_admin/awards/spec/view_award_pack...
Agreement Articles
AGREEMENT ARTICLES
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT PROGRAM - Operations and Safety program
GRANTEE: City of Sunnyvale
PROGRAM: Operations and Safety
AGREEMENT NUMBER: EMW-2011-FR-00566
AMENDMENT NUMBER:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Article I - Project Description
The purpose of the Assistance to Firefighters Program is to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting
personnel against fire and fire-related hazards. After careful consideration, FEMA has determined that the grantee's
project submitted as part of the grantee's application, and detailed in the project narrative as well as the request details
section of the application - including budget information - is consistent with the program's purpose and worthy of award.
Therefore, the grantee shall perform the work described in the approved grant application as itemized in the request
details section of the application and further described in the grant application's narrative. These sections of the
application are made a part of these grant agreement articles by reference. The grantee may not change or make any
material deviations from the approved scope of work outlined in the above referenced sections of the application without
prior written approval from FEMA.
Article II - Grantee Concurrence
By providing the Primary Contact’s electronic signature and indicating acceptance of the award, the grantee accepts and
agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the grant as set forth in this document and the documents identified
below. Grantees agree that they will use the funds provided through the Fiscal Year 2011 Assistance to Firefighters
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20472
Article I Project Description
Article II Grantee Concurrence
Article III Period of Performance
Article IV Amount Awarded
Article V Financial Guidelines
Article VI Prohibition on Using Federal Funds
Article VII GPD Allocations
Article VIII Financial Reporting
Article IX FEMA Officials
Page 3 of 6Panel Review
2/13/2012https://eservices.fema.gov/FemaFireGrant/firegrant/jsp/fire_admin/awards/spec/view_award_pack...
Grant Program in accordance with these Articles of Agreement and the program guidelines provided in the Fiscal Year
2011 Assistance to Firefighters Grant program guidance. All documents submitted as part of the application are made a
part of this agreement by reference.
Article III - Period of Performance
The period of performance shall be from 03-FEB-12 to 02-FEB-13.
Article IV - Amount Awarded
The amount of the award is detailed on the Obligating Document for the Award attached to these articles. Following are
the budgeted estimates for each object class of this grant (including Federal share plus grantee match):
NEGOTIATION COMMENTS IF APPLICABLE
Any questions pertaining to your award package, please contact your GPD Grants Management Specialist:
Earl Davis
Earl.Davis@dhs.gov
Article V - Financial Guidelines
The grantee and any subgrantee shall comply with the most recent version of the Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements. A non-exclusive list of regulations commonly applicable to FEMA grants are listed
below:
Personnel $0.00
Fringe Benefits $0.00
Travel $0.00
Equipment $1,589,500.00
Supplies $0.00
Contractual $0.00
Construction $0.00
Other $0.00
Indirect Charges $0.00
Total $1,732,500.00
A. Administrative Requirements
1. 44 CFR Part 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and
Local Governments
2. 2 CFR Part 215, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher
Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations (OMB Circular A-110)
B. Cost Principles
1. 2 CFR Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A-87)
2. 2 CFR Part 220, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (OMB Circular A-21)
3. 2 CFR Part 230, Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations (OMB Circular A-122)
Page 4 of 6Panel Review
2/13/2012https://eservices.fema.gov/FemaFireGrant/firegrant/jsp/fire_admin/awards/spec/view_award_pack...
Article VI - Prohibition on Using Federal Funds
Recipient understands and agrees that it cannot use any federal funds, either directly or indirectly, in support of the
enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation or policy, at any level of government, without the
express prior written approval of FEMA.
Article VII - GPD Allocations
The recipient agrees that all allocations and use of funds under this grant will be in accordance with the FY 2011
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program guidance and application kit.
Article VIII - Financial Reporting
Recipients of any Assistance to Firefighters Grants will be required to submit a semi-annual Federal Financial Report
(FFR) via the automated system on the Standard Form 425. The FFR is intended to provide Federal agencies and grant
recipients with a standard format and consistent reporting requirements throughout the government. The FFR, to be
submitted using the online e-grant system, will be due semi-annually based on the calendar year beginning with the
period after the award is made. Grant recipients will be required to submit a FFR throughout the entire period of
performance of the grant.
The reporting periods for the FFR are January 1 through June 30 (Report due by July 31), and July 1 through December
31 (Report due by January 30).
At the end of the grant’s period of performance, all grantees are required to produce a final report on how the grant
funding was used and the benefits realized from the award. Grantees must submit a final financial report and a final
performance report within 90 days after the end of the period of performance.
Article IX - FEMA Officials
Program Officer: Catherine Patterson is the Program Officer for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. The
Program Officer is responsible for the technical monitoring of the stages of work and technical performance of the
activities described in the approved grant application.
Grants Assistance Officer: Jane Early is the Assistance Officer for this grant program. The Assistance Officer is the
Federal official responsible for negotiating, administering, and executing all grant business matters.
Grants Management Division POC: The Grants Management Specialist shall be contacted to address all financial and
administrative grant business matters for this award. If you have any questions regarding your grant please call ASK-
GMD at 866-927-5646 to be directed to a specialist.
4. Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Part 31.2 Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, Contracts with
Commercial Organizations
C. Audit Requirements
1. OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Nonprofit Organizations
Page 5 of 6Panel Review
2/13/2012https://eservices.fema.gov/FemaFireGrant/firegrant/jsp/fire_admin/awards/spec/view_award_pack...
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
OBLIGATING DOCUMENT FOR AWARD/AMENDMENT
1a. AGREEMENT NO.
EMW-2011-FR-00566
2. AMENDMENT NO.
0
3. RECIPIENT NO.
94-6000438
4. TYPE OF
ACTION
AWARD
5. CONTROL NO.
W482946N
6. RECIPIENT NAME AND
ADDRESS
City of Sunnyvale
700 All America Way
Sunnyvale
California, 94086-7642
7. ISSUING OFFICE AND ADDRESS
Grant Programs Directorate
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington DC, 20528-7000
POC: Jane Early
8. PAYMENT OFFICE AND ADDRESS
FEMA, Financial Services Branch
500 C Street, S.W., Room 723
Washington DC, 20472
9. NAME OF RECIPIENT
PROJECT OFFICER
Ann Durkes
PHONE NO.
4087307355
10. NAME OF PROJECT COORDINATOR
Catherine Patterson
PHONE NO.
1-866-274-0960
11. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
ACTION
03-FEB-12
12. METHOD OF
PAYMENT
SF-270
13. ASSISTANCE ARRANGEMENT
Cost Sharing
14. PERFORMANCE PERIOD
From:03-FEB-12To:02-FEB-13
Budget Period
From:31-OCT-11 To:30-SEP-12
15. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION a. (Indicate funding data for awards or financial changes)
PROGRAM NAME ACRONYM CFDA NO. ACCOUNTING DATA (ACCS CODE) XXXX-XXX-XXXXXX-XXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-X
PRIOR TOTAL AWARD
AMOUNT AWARDED THIS ACTION + OR (-)
CURRENT TOTAL AWARD CUMMULATIVE NON- FEDERAL COMMITMENT
AFG 97.044 2012-M1-3007RG-10000000-
4101-D
$0.00 $1,386,000.00 $1,386,000.00 $346,500.00
TOTALS $0.00 $1,386,000.00 $1,386,000.00 $346,500.00
b. To describe changes other than funding data or financial changes, attach schedule and check here.
N/A
16a. FOR NON-DISASTER PROGRAMS: RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN THREE (3) COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT TO FEMA
(See Block 7 for address)
Assistance to Firefighters Grant recipients are not required to sign and return copies of this document. However, recipients should print and keep a
copy of this document for their records.
16b. FOR DISASTER PROGRAMS: RECIPIENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN
This assistance is subject to terms and conditions attached to this award notice or by incorporated reference in program legislation cited above.
17. RECIPIENT SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title)
N/A
DATE
N/A
18. FEMA SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title)
Jane Early
DATE
06-JAN-12
Go Back
Page 6 of 6Panel Review
2/13/2012https://eservices.fema.gov/FemaFireGrant/firegrant/jsp/fire_admin/awards/spec/view_award_pack...
City of Palo Alto Subscriber Radios
AFG Subscriber Radios
APX 7000XE 3.5 Configuration
Item Qty Nomenclature Description Price 32%Ext.Equipment 21.5% Incentive (12%
Complete Package
Incentive + 9.5% One
Time P25 System
Subscriber Incentive
Net
Equipment
Unit Cost 8.375% Sales
Tax
Equipment
Cost
Install
Cost
21.5% Incentive (12%
Complete Package
Incentive + 9.5% One
Time P25 System
Subscriber Incentive
Net Install
Cost
Net Equipment
and Install Total
Freight Total Equipment,
Install and Freight
1 35 H49TGD9PW1 N APX7000XE DIGITAL PORTABLE RADIO $3,400.00 $2,312.00 $80,920.00 $80,920.00 $17,397.80 $63,522.20 $5,319.98 $68,842.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $68,842.18 $647.36 $69,489.54
2 35 QA00569 ADD: 7/800MHZ PRIMARY BAND $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3 35 QA00574 ADD: VHF SECONDARY BAND $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4 35 QA00577 ADD: LARGE COLOR DISPLAY AND FULL KEYPAD
Model 3.5
$500.00 $340.00 $11,900.00 $11,900.00 $2,558.50 $9,341.50 $782.35 $10,123.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,123.85 $95.20 $10,219.05
5 35 QA00579 ADD: ENABLE DUAL BAND OPERATION, When this
option is chosen, an internal dual band antenna will be
generated
$1,000.00 $680.00 $23,800.00 $23,800.00 $5,117.00 $18,683.00 $1,564.70 $20,247.70 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,247.70 $190.40 $20,438.10
6 35 Q806 ADD: ASTRO DIGITAL CAI OPERATION $515.00 $350.20 $12,257.00 $12,257.00 $2,635.26 $9,621.74 $805.82 $10,427.56 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,427.56 $98.06 $10,525.62
7 35 H38 ADD: SMARTZONE OPERATION $1,500.00 $1,020.00 $35,700.00 $35,700.00 $7,675.50 $28,024.50 $2,347.05 $30,371.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,371.55 $285.60 $30,657.15
8 35 Q361 ADD: P25 9600 BAUD TRUNKING $300.00 $204.00 $7,140.00 $7,140.00 $1,535.10 $5,604.90 $469.41 $6,074.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,074.31 $57.12 $6,131.43
9 35 QA01749 ADD: ADVANCED SYSTEM KEY - SOFTWARE KEY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
10 35 QA00580 ADD: TDMA OPERATION $400.00 $272.00 $9,520.00 $9,520.00 $2,046.80 $7,473.20 $625.88 $8,099.08 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,099.08 $76.16 $8,175.24
11 35 Q947 ADD: RADIO PACKET DATA $200.00 $136.00 $4,760.00 $4,760.00 $1,023.40 $3,736.60 $312.94 $4,049.54 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,049.54 $38.08 $4,087.62
12 35 G996 ADD: PROGRAMMING OVER P25 (OTAP)$100.00 $68.00 $2,380.00 $2,380.00 $511.70 $1,868.30 $156.47 $2,024.77 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,024.77 $19.04 $2,043.81
13 35 QA00782 ENH: INTERNAL ACTIVATION AND GPS BASIC
FUNCTIONALITY
$100.00 $68.00 $2,380.00 $2,380.00 $511.70 $1,868.30 $156.47 $2,024.77 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,024.77 $19.04 $2,043.81
14 35 QA01427 ALT:APX 7000XE HOUSING GREEN $25.00 $17.00 $595.00 $595.00 $127.93 $467.07 $39.12 $506.19 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $506.19 $4.76 $510.95
15 35 QA00582 ALT: APX7000 LIION 4000MAH IMPRES FM IP67 BAT $100.00 $68.00 $2,380.00 $2,380.00 $511.70 $1,868.30 $156.47 $2,024.77 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,024.77 $19.04 $2,043.81
$8,140.00 $193,732.00 $41,652.39 $152,079.61 $4,345.13 $12,736.66 $164,816.27 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $164,816.27 $1,549.86 $166,366.13 $4,753.32
16 35 NNTN7033A BATT IMP FM IP67 LIION 4100M 4300T SPARE BATTERY $175.00 $119.00 $4,165.00 $4,165.00 $895.48 $3,269.52 $93.41 $273.82 $3,543.34 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,543.34 $33.32 $3,576.66 $102.19
17 35 WPLN7080 IMPRES SINGLE UNIT BATTERY CHARGER SU
APX7000 US/NA/CA/LA
$125.00 $85.00 $2,975.00 $2,975.00 $639.63 $2,335.37 $66.72 $195.59 $2,530.96 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,530.96 $23.80 $2,554.76 $72.99
18 35 NNTN8203A IMPRES XE Remote Speaker Microphone, FM, GREEN $335.00 $227.80 $7,973.00 $7,973.00 $1,714.20 $6,258.80 $178.82 $524.17 $6,782.97 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,782.97 $63.78 $6,846.75 $195.62
19 35 NNTN7624B IMPRES VEHICULAR CHARGER (FULL KIT)$390.00 $265.20 $9,282.00 $9,282.00 $1,995.63 $7,286.37 $208.18 $610.23 $7,896.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,896.60 $74.26 $7,970.86 $227.74
20 1 NNTN7065B IMPRES MULTI UNIT CHARGER $788.00 $535.84 $535.84 $535.84 $115.21 $420.63 $420.63 $35.23 $455.86 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $455.86 $4.29 $460.15 $460.15
21 35 NNTN8115A APX7000XE CARRYING CASE 2.75 SWIVAL BL
4200MAH
$65.00 $44.20 $1,547.00 $1,547.00 $332.61 $1,214.39 $34.70 $101.71 $1,316.10 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,316.10 $12.38 $1,328.48 $37.96
22 1 RVN5224P CUSTOMER PROGRAMMING SOFTWARE R08.01.00
ASTRO DIG APX POR MOB
$265.00 $180.20 $180.20 $180.20 $38.74 $141.46 $141.46 $11.85 $153.31 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $153.31 $1.44 $154.75 $154.75
23 1 PMKN4012B PROG CABLE $75.00 $51.00 $51.00 $51.00 $10.97 $40.03 $40.03 $3.35 $43.38 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $43.38 $0.41 $43.79 $43.79
Subtotal $220,441.04 $26,709.04 $5,742.47 $20,966.57 $1,183.95 $1,755.95 $22,722.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $22,722.52 $213.68 $22,936.20
Equipment Total $220,441.04 $220,441.04 $47,394.86 $173,046.18 $14,492.61 $187,538.79 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $187,538.79 $1,763.54 $189,302.33
24 Instal, Program, Fleet Map, Temp Dev $0.00 TBD
Equipment and Service Subtotal $220,441.04
12% Complete Package Incentive -$26,452.929.5% One Time P25 System and Subscriber Incentive -$20,941.90254 Year Service Advantage Plan $7,210.00 $7,210.00268.375% Sales Tax $14,492.6227Freight$1,763.53Subscriber Total $196,512.37284 Year Field Service $12,425.00 $12,425.00
AFG Total with Field Service $208,937.37 $208,937.33
$0.04
Programming and template development will be quoted upon request.
Pricing is based on Stage 1 incentives for an order placed at the time of the Stage 1 order.
VALIDITY: Prices valid until December 1, 2012
Orders must state: “The equipment and services listed for purchase include all current subscriber and console requirements of the agency to allow
participation of the City of Palo Alto on SVRCS for its operational requirements.”
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3277)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/13/2012
Summary Title: SUMC Annual Report and Development Agreement Review
Title: Approval of Stanford University Medical Center Annual Report and
Compliance with the Development Agreement
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Find that the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Parties (Stanford Hospitals &
Clinics, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and Stanford University) has complied in good
faith with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement for the 2011-2012
reporting period; and
2. Find that the SUMC Parties are not in default with the terms and conditions of the
Agreement.
Executive Summary
The City Council is required to review the Development Agreement between the SUMC Parties
and the City of Palo Alto on an annual basis to ascertain compliance with the terms of the
agreement. The SUMC Parties have submitted the annual report for the 2011-2012 period that
summarizes the current construction activities and the actions taken to fulfill the obligations of
the Agreement. Of particular note, the SUMC has moved well ahead of schedule to provide
Caltrain GoPasses to Hospital staff, hire a Transportation Demand Management coordinator,
and purchased two new Marguerite shuttles, resulting in a 39% alternative transportation
mode split. As described in the supplement to the annual report, the SUMC Parties have paid
approximately $20.8 million in public benefit fees to the City. The City has committed
approximately $315,000 for activities related to Project Safety Net and 27 University Avenue.
Additionally, Council recently committed $1M from the Infrastructure, Sustainable
Neighborhoods & Communities, and Affordable Housing fund to the Stevenson House
rehabilitation project. Staff expects to bring the discussion regarding future use of the funds at
an upcoming Council meeting in early 2013.
Background
On June 6, 2011, the City Council approved Comprehensive Plan amendments, zoning changes,
a conditional use permit, annexation and design applications for the Stanford University
medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (the “Projects”). The Projects
include the construction of a new Stanford Hospital and clinics buildings, an expansion of the
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, construction of new School of Medicine buildings,
renovation of the existing Hoover Pavilion, construction of a new medical office building and
parking garage at Hoover Pavilion, roadway improvements along Welch Road and Durand Way,
and SUMC design guidelines. A Development Agreement (the “Agreement”) vesting these
approvals was entered into between the SUMC Parties and the City and was effective on June
6, 2011 and continued for thirty (30) years from the effective date. The Agreement requires
annual City Council review of the SUMC Parties compliance. This report covers the SUMC
Parties activities during 2011-2012, the first year of the Agreement.
Discussion
As described in Section 12, “Periodic Review of Compliance”, the City Council is to review the
Agreement annually to ascertain the SUMC’s Parties compliance with the terms of the
Agreement. Section 12 also includes the reporting requirement for the SUMC Parties and the
City to demonstrate good faith compliance with the Agreement. The attached 2011-12 Annual
Report (Annual Report) dated July 5, 2012 (Attachment A) from SUMC describes the SUMC
Parties’ activities related to implementation of the Agreement.
Construction Activities
Construction activities during this period include:
Hoover Pavilion Renovation- Site work and renovation of the exterior and interior features
of the building began in Summer 2011. Exterior restoration work include cleaning and
repairs to the exterior façade, removal, restoration and re-installation of the existing wood
windows, installation of interior structural supports and strengthening the concrete slab
foundation. Modern mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems have been installed and
tenant improvements are underway. The scheduled completion of this work is in December
2012.
Hoover Pavilion Parking Garage- Site work and construction has begun on a new 1,084-stall
parking garage, intended for patients and staff. The scheduled completion of this work is in
June 2013.
Welch Road Utilities Project- This project involves the replacement and installation of
utilities to support the New Stanford Hospital and the Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital
expansion. Work is being completed in two phases. Each phase involves reducing
automobile travel to one lane during construction. During each phase, utilities trenches are
dug, old lines are removed and replaced and new utilities are installed. New sidewalks,
roadway median islands, landscaping and lighting are installed during each phase. The first
phase was recently completed and work has begun on the second and final phase. Work is
expected to continue through mid-2013.
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital- Site preparation efforts at LPCH are ongoing and include
mass excavation, installation of shoring walls, and utility line relocation. Building permits for
the LPCH expansion are currently under review by the Office of Statewide Health Planning
and Development (OSHPD). It is expected that the initial construction permits will be issued
in late 2012.
New Stanford Hospital- Site preparation activities have commenced at the area surrounding
the site of the New Stanford Hospital (NSH). Work includes utility infrastructure upgrades at
Pasteur Drive, relocation of specific protected trees, and installation of a driveway through
Kaplan Lawn that will serve the future NSH main entrance.
No new square footage has been constructed during this reporting period. Approximately
160,000 square feet of floor area has been demolished on the LPCH site.
Compliance with Development Agreement Obligations
In addition to the construction summary and the summary of net new square footage added
within the past year, the Annual Report also summarizes the SUMC Parties’ progress in meeting
the terms described in Section 5 of the Agreement, “SUMC Parties’ Promises”. This section
describes the SUMC Parties’ obligations with respect to the following items:
Health Care Benefits;
Fiscal Benefits;
Traffic Mitigation and Reduced Vehicle Trips;
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Automobile Linkages;
Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods & Communities, Affordable Housing, and
Climate Change.
The Annual Report summarizes the activities within the reporting year. The obligations are
further summarized in Table 1: Development Agreement, Section 5 – SUMC Parties’ Promises
(Attachment B). City staff has reviewed the information within the Annual Report and has
determined that it is complete and correct.
Traffic Mitigation and Reduced Vehicle Trips
The SUMC Parties have made substantial progress in meeting the traffic and alternative
transportation obligations of the Agreement. Specifically, they have accomplished the
following:
Purchased annual CalTrain Go Passes for all eligible employees as of January 1, 2012, three
years ahead of the September 1, 2015 requirement as stated in the Agreement;
Purchased two additional shuttle busses for the Marguerite Shuttle service;
Hired a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) coordinator, three years ahead of the
September 1, 2015 requirement as stated in the Agreement, and
Achieved a 39% alternative transportation mode split for the hospital employees, meaning
39% of employees are using alternatives modes to get to work rather than driving alone.
The SUMC Parties and City staff will continue to monitor the TDM program throughout the
term of the Agreement and will report annually to the Council.
Supplement to the Annual Report
In addition to the SUMC Parties’ submittal of the Annual Report, City staff is to prepare a
supplement to the Annual Report (the “Supplement”), as described in Section 12(d) of the
Agreement. The supplement is to include an accounting of the funds received from the SUMC
Parties to satisfy the obligation outlined in Section 5 of the Agreement, a description of the
account balances, and a summary and description of expenditures from the funds. The
Supplement is contained in Attachment C.
In summary, the SUMC Parties have contributed $20,800,333 in public benefit funds as of June
30, 2012. Interest income was $1,340,172.40. The SUMC Parties will pay an additional $11.7M
in public benefit funds upon issuance of the first hospital foundation permit, expected in late
2012 or early 2013 and an additional $11.7M upon issuance of the first hospital occupancy
permit, expected in 2018. The City has committed approximately $315,000 of the funds for two
projects: $247,368.70 for contract services related to the 27 University Avenue/John Arrillaga
Project, which is located within the area originally designated for pedestrian and bicycle
linkages and connections to the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center, and $27,517.77 for
activities related to the Project Safety Net program.
Sales and use taxes in Q3 and Q4 of 2011 and Q1 2012 resulting from construction-related
activities were approximately $21,263.
Future Use of Development Agreement Funds
City staff is aware of Council’s request for a more detailed discussion regarding the use of the
SUMC Agreement funds. The Agreement provides the City with the flexibility to use the funds
on projects it deems important. The Agreement specifically identifies $1.7M of the
Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods & Communities, Affordable Housing fund to be used
in the same manner as funds collected pursuant to the housing fee ordinance. The Agreement
also identified the Project Safety Net effort as a recipient, in whole or in part, of the $4M
payment to the fund for Community Health and Safety programs. No other specific projects or
programs are identified within the Agreement.
On November 5, 2012, the Council authorized $1M of the $1.7M for the Stevenson House
rehabilitation project. Those funds will not be disbursed, however, until mid-2013.
Staff expects to bring the discussion regarding future use of the funds at an upcoming Council
meeting early in 2013.
Resource Impact
There are no negative impacts from the Agreement that affect the City’s General Fund. As
summarized above, the City has received approximately $22.1M in public benefit payments,
interest and unrealized gains and approximately $21,263 in construction sales taxes.
Policy Implications
This report does not represent any changes to existing City policies.
Environmental Review
Finding Stanford University’s compliance with the Terms of the Agreement is not a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no environmental assessment for the
annual compliance review is required. An environmental impact report for the entire SUMC
project was prepared and certified by the City Council prior to approval of the Development
Agreement.
Attachments:
Attachment A: 2011-2012 SUMC Parties Annual Report (PDF)
Attachment B: Table 1 - Development Agreement, Section 5: SUMC Parties’ Promises
(DOCX)
Attachment C: SUMC Annual Report Supplement (DOCX)
Prepared By: Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
2011-12 ANNUAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO | JULY 5, 2012
ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12 1
On June 6, 2011, the Stanford University Medical Center (“SUMC”)—comprised of Stanford Hospital
& Clinics, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and Stanford University—entered into a Development Agreement with the City of Palo Alto, committing to provide a range of community benefits in exchange
for vested development rights to develop and use the SUMC Project facilities in accordance with the approvals granted by the City, and a streamlined process for obtaining subsequent project approvals.
The Stanford University Medical Center Renewal Project (“Renewal Project”)—driven by a growing demand for healthcare services, state-mandated seismic safety requirements, and the need to replace
outmoded facilities with modern, technologically advanced spaces—will transform the way that healthcare is delivered and research is conducted.
Today, following the one-year anniversary of the execution of the Development Agreement, Renewal
Project activities are well underway. Though no new square footage has been added in this first year, design and construction activities are moving steadily forward. The Hoover Pavilion renovations are
now within six months of completion; utilities upgrades on Welch and Quarry Roads are progressing according to schedule; and construction drawings for the New Stanford Hospital and the Lucile Packard
Children’s Hospital Expansion are currently under Office of Statewide Planning and Development (OSHPD) review, with the first foundation permit expected to be issued in August 2012.
Against this backdrop, SUMC submits its first Annual Report in compliance with Section 12(c) of the
Development Agreement, and looks forward to continued collaboration with the City of Palo Alto in advancing the goals of both the Stanford University Medical Center and the broader community.
2 ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12
The Palo Alto City Council’s unanimous approval of the entitlements for the Stanford University Medical
Center Renewal and Replacement Project in July 2011 has paved the way for a historic investment in
new and replacement facilities at SUMC. The project approvals—including new zoning for the Project
sites, a conditional use permit, architectural review approval, and the execution of a Development
Agreement—will allow for the construction of approximately 1.3 million net new square feet of hospital
facilities, clinics, medical offices, and medical research spaces, and will enable the hospitals to optimize
the delivery of healthcare services to patients, and maintain their position as leading providers of world-
class healthcare.
The current work that is underway to construct the SUMC Renewal Project includes the renovation of
Hoover Pavilion to accommodate modern clinics and medical offices; the relocation and replacement
of underground utilities along Welch and Quarry Roads; site preparation for the rebuilding of Stanford
Hospital & Clinics; and site preparation for the expansion of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital. The
construction work will also ultimately include the replacement of School of Medicine facilities to provide
state-of-the-art laboratories and support space, and new clinic and medical office buildings.
In order to facilitate this important replacement and expansion work, SUMC entered into a Development
Agreement with the City of Palo, which includes a comprehensive package of community benefits and
voluntary mitigation measures. In exchange for these benefits, the City has vested for a period of 30
years SUMC’s rights to develop and use the property in accordance with the project approvals, and will
streamline the process for obtaining subsequent approvals.
The terms of the Development Agreement (Section 12(c)) provide for a periodic review of compliance,
and require that SUMC submit an Annual Report to the City of Palo Alto’s Director of Planning and
Community Environment each year within 30 days of the anniversary of the agreement effective date
(June 6, 2011). The Annual Report is to summarize the progress on the Renewal Project, including a list
of net new square footage for which a certificate of occupancy has been received, and a description of
the steps that SUMC has taken to comply with the obligations listed in the Development Agreement. With
this report, SUMC fulfills these requirements. Within 45 days of receipt of this Annual Report, the City
will prepare a Supplement to the Annual Report, to provide an accounting of the City’s expenditures from
each of the City Funds and how they were used.
ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12 3
The Renewal Project has gained considerable momentum in the past year, with several of the project components showing substantial progress. In the section to follow, SUMC provides an overview of
central goals for the project elements that presently are under construction or nearing construction, a
synopsis of progress and a preview of near-term upcoming activities.
HOOVER PAVILION
One of the first phases of the Renewal Project has been the renovation and modernization of Hoover
Pavilion, the original Palo Alto Hospital. The building’s 1931 façade is being carefully restored, while the interior of the structure is being retrofitted to accommodate modern medicine. Once complete, the
Hoover Pavilion will house community physicians, Stanford Hospital clinics, and the Stanford Health Library. The surrounding grounds will be transformed to include varied landscaped spaces, including a
lawn and Redwood grove.
Site work and renovation of Hoover Pavilion began in Summer 2011, and significant progress has been made in less than one year. A total of nine trees have been boxed and stored for replanting. Exterior
restoration work is progressing steadily—this has included a cleaning of the building façade, as well as major and minor concrete repairs. The original wooden windows have been removed from the structure,
refurbished offsite, and reinstalled. On the interior, structural work has been completed—including the installation of overhead structural supports and concrete slab strengthening—and modern mechanical
and plumbing systems have been installed. Interior tenant improvement construction continues, and is scheduled for completion by December 2012. Tenant move-in coordination plans are currently underway.
Meanwhile, work has begun on the Hoover Garage, a new 1084-stall parking structure for patients and
staff. Former Hoover outbuildings and sheds have been removed to make way for the new garage, and shoring and excavation work has now begun. The garage is scheduled for completion in June 2013.
4 ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12
WELCH ROAD UTILITIES
The Welch Road Utilities Project (WRUP) lays the groundwork for the New Stanford Hospital and the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Expansion, and is a vital step in ensuring the underlying functionality
of the new medical facilities. Work involves the replacement of existing older underground utility services along Welch and Quarry Roads—including water, gas, electrical, and telecommunications infrastructure—
as well as the construction of new utilities to serve the new hospital facilities once they are built. This effort also includes the widening of Welch Road, one of the main arteries into the medical center campus,
and the construction of several roadway surface improvements such as sidewalks, crosswalks, planted medians, street lighting, and two new signalized intersections.
The WRUP is to be completed in two major phases. The first phase began in Fall 2011, with the
widening of Welch Road between Quarry Road and South Pasteur Drive, and the commencement of utility construction on the newly widened Hospital side of the roadway. Underground utility work also
began on Quarry Road between Welch Road and the Falk Center, and on North Pasteur between Blake Wilbur Drive and Sand Hill Road. Thus far, completed utility work includes the installation of a new gas
line, piping for hot and chilled water systems, and the installation and activation of a new water main on Welch Road. Work is currently underway on a new power distribution system; electrical vaults have been
reconstructed, and the City of Palo Alto is currently working to install wiring.
Also included in WRUP’s first phase is the re-working of the Blake-Wilbur parking lot. Work is currently underway. This work scope includes construction of a new entrance to the Advanced Medicine Center
with utilities below, construction of a new Ambulance Drive at the southern edge of the existing lot, and the installation of new storm and electrical utilities. The parking lot will be reconfigured. Eight protected
redwoods and oaks taken from other areas of the SUMC sites will be replanted as part of the landscaping and a new irrigation system will be installed. The new Blake-Wilbur parking lot is expected to be
complete by October 2012.
WRUP moves into its second and final phase in Fall 2012, when underground utility work will
shift from the hospital side of Welch and Quarry Roads to the opposite side of the roadway.
Work here is expected to continue through mid-2013. This second phase will also include
the demolition of 1101 Welch Road, Parking Structure #3, and Blake Wilbur drive, in order
to make way for the New Stanford Hospital and Garage. Demolition is expected to take place
during the 4th quarter of 2012.
To enable completion of WRUP work under existing roadways, significant traffic changes
have been implemented. Welch Road has been converted to a one-lane, one-way road going
west from Quarry Road to Pasteur Drive, and will remain as a one-way road through mid-2013.
Meanwhile, North Pasteur Drive is closed to traffic, and South Pasteur has been converted
to a two-way road to accommodate traffic in and out of Stanford Hospital. Supplemental
wayfinding signage, project information kiosks, and messaging programs have been put into
place in order to guide patients and visitors through the area during this construction period.
ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12 5
LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital is opening an expanded facility in response to growing community needs for specialized pediatric and obstetric care. The new expansion will be located adjacent to the
current Packard Children’s Hospital, and will provide patients and doctors with the most modern clinical advancements and technology. It will also create a more patient- and family-centered environment of
care, with additional single-patient rooms and more spaces for families to be with their child during treatment and recovery.
The Packard Children’s expansion will feature a new entrance lobby, public concourse with dining, three
floors of nursing units, and new patient rooms. Spaces have been designed with an attention to natural light and views, and the exterior grounds—more than 3.5 acres of outdoor areas and gardens—will
provide a park-like setting for patients, families, and visitors.
The Packard expansion is still in the early phases of development, with site preparation currently underway, and construction drawings for the new hospital under Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development (OSHPD) review. Site preparation efforts, which began in August 2011, have consisted of site clearing—including the demolition of the existing medical office buildings at 701 and 703 Welch, and
the relocation of 13 protected oak and redwood trees—as well as utility relocation, and the construction of a shoring wall and new utility tunnel. Mass excavation is now underway, with dewatering systems in
place, and trucks hauling soil away from the site.
Work has been in progress concurrently at the existing Packard Children’s Hospital to accommodate ongoing construction activities, including an egress relocation project that reroutes exiting from the Day
Hospital to avoid the mass excavation area. A key part of this effort—the installation of a temporary steel egress bridge on the back side of the existing hospital—has recently been completed.
OSHPD foundation permit issuance for the LPCH expansion is expected for Fall 2012, with construction
of the foundation to begin shortly thereafter. The existing hospital will remain fully operational during construction.
6 ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12
NEW STANFORD HOSPITAL
Stanford Hospital & Clinics is constructing new and replacement hospital facilities that will usher in a new era of advanced patient care. Growth in patient volumes and rapidly changing medical technology have rendered much of the existing midcentury hospital infrastructure inadequate, while new seismic safety requirements have accelerated the need to construct replacement facilities.
The New Stanford Hospital will substantially increase capacity, and will also address a rapidly advancing medical landscape. High-tech spaces such as Surgery, Radiology, and Intensive Care will be replaced to accommodate the latest advances in medical technology, while still retaining the flexibility to adapt to future innovations. Facilities will feature new patient rooms, an enlarged Level-1 trauma center and Emergency Department, and new surgical, diagnostic, and treatment rooms. The new facility will create a healing environment responsive to the needs of patients, visitors, and staff. Upper-level pavilions will feature light-filled patient rooms, and a mid-level garden floor will offer dining, conference, and educational facilities, as well as social and spiritual support spaces.
The construction drawings for the New Stanford Hospital are currently under OSHPD plan review. A permit for shoring and mass excavation has already been issued, and a permit for the foundation and structural system is expected to be issued by August 2012. All remaining OSHPD permits are anticipated to be issued by early 2013. For the new hospital garage, final construction drawings are being developed, and will be submitted to the City of Palo Alto for plan review and construction permits later this year.
While construction drawings for the new facilities are under review, site preparation activities have commenced. Utility infrastructure improvements are underway along North Pasteur and the Promenade, with new water, waste water, and storm drain facilities being installed. Site clearing activities are expected to occur in the coming months, with the relocation of several protected trees, and the demolition of the medical office buildings at 1101 Welch, and of PS-3, the existing hospital’s patient and visitor parking structure. Patient and visitor parking will be temporarily relocated to the PS-4 underground structure during this time, and PS-4 garage restriping is currently underway to enable this transition. And presently, Kaplan Lawn is being transformed to include Kaplan Drive—this new road, framed by the lawn’s existing heritage oaks, will eventually serve as the main entrance to the new hospital.
ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12 7
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
The Stanford University School of Medicine will replace four outmoded research buildings with three
state-of-the-art facilities designed to support contemporary translational research. The new facilities—
to be called the Foundations in Medicine (FIM) buildings—will accommodate 21st century medical
advancements and enable the development of new medical innovations. The new FIM buildings will
feature integrated laboratory suites, with easier access between labs and support facilities, enabling
transparency, flexibility, and collaboration. The new facilities will be surrounded by landscaped areas and
tree-lined walkways.
The Foundations in Medicine development is not yet underway. In the interim, the site that will ultimately
be developed as FIM1 is planned for use as a temporary valet parking area for Hospital visitors. An
application for site development is currently under review by the Architectural Review Board, and site work
is expected to begin during late Summer 2012, pending City approval.
8 ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12
NET NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE
The following table summarizes the net new square footage for which a certificate of occupancy has
been issued.
PROJECT COMPONENT GROSS SQUARE
FOOTAGE
NEW STANFORD HOSPITAL
None 0
LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL EXPANSION
701 Welch demolished (56,300)
703 Welch demolished (23,500)
Total (79,800)
FOUNDATIONS IN MEDICINE
None 0
HOOVER PAVILION
None 0
ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12 9
This section of the Annual Report summarizes the steps that SUMC has taken to comply with their
obligations in Section 5 of the Development Agreement.
HEALTH CARE BENEFITS
SUMC provides certain intrinsic benefits to the community, as both a global leader in medical care and
research, and as a community healthcare services provider. The Renewal Project enables SUMC to
continue its important work, and the addition of more beds for adults and children will help to alleviate
overcrowding. Additionally, the new hospital facilities will provide critical emergency preparedness and
response resources for the community in the event of an earthquake, pandemic, or other major disaster.
Section 5(a)(ii). Fund for Healthcare Services
The Hospitals have designated the amount of $3 million for Healthcare Services which will increase
to $5.6 million by December 31, 2025. No further action is required until 2026. This amount will be
reconciled with the construction tax use payments as described in Development Agreement Section 5(b)
(ii)(C).
Section 5(a)(iii). Fund for Community Health and Safety Programs
SUMC has contributed a single lump-sum payment of $4 million to establish a Community Health and
Safety Program Fund for the City of Palo Alto. This fund is to be distributed to selected community health
programs that benefit residents of the City, including the Project Safety Net Program, a community-based
mental health plan for youth well-being in Palo Alto. SUMC provided the entire required contribution
to the Community Health and Safety Program Fund on August 25, 2011. No further action is required
by the SUMC to comply with this Development Agreement provision. As required by Development
Agreement Section 12(d), the City will provide yearly Supplements to the Annual Report to provide an
accounting of the City’s expenditures from this fund, and the purposes for which the expenditures were
used.
10 ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12
PALO ALTO FISCAL BENEFITS
The Renewal Project brings considerable fiscal benefits to the City of Palo Alto. The project is expected
to generate at least $8.1 million in sales and use tax revenues for the City, and multiple mechanisms
have been put into place to ensure that this target is met. The Development Agreement also provides for
further fiscal benefits to the City, including a payment by SUMC to fund the City’s operating deficit, and the
payment of utility user taxes and school fees.
Sections 5(b)(i) and 5(b)(ii). Payment of Sales and Use Taxes
As required by the Development Agreement, the SUMC submitted the Construction and Use Tax
monitoring report to the City on June 29, 2012. The SUMC parties will continue to submit such a report
annually during the construction period for the Renewal Project so that the City can determine the share of
construction use taxes that it has received as a result of the Renewal Project. Each year, within 60 days
of receiving the monitoring report, the City will provide its determination of the amount of construction use
taxes that it has received as a result of the Renewal Project during the preceding calendar year. In August
2026, the SUMC and the City will conduct a reconciliation process to confirm that the City has received at
least $8.1 million in construction use taxes as a result of the Project, as further described in Development
Agreement Section 5(b)(ii).
To date, SUMC has taken the following steps to maximize the City’s allocation of sales and use taxes
associated with Project construction and operation. Documentation of each of these items is included
in the initial construction use tax monitoring report already submitted. Future monitoring reports will not
repeat prior documentation.
• The SUMC Parties have obtained all permits and licenses necessary to maximize the City’s allocation
of construction use taxes derived from the project, including California Seller’s Permits and Use Tax
Direct Pay Permits. Copies of permits and licenses are attached to the monitoring report in Appendix
A, California Seller’s Permits and Use Tax Direct Pay Permits.
• SUMC has designated and required all contractors and subcontractors to designate the project site as
the place of sale of all fixtures furnished or installed as part of the project. Directives to contractors are
attached to the monitoring report in Appendix B, Sales and Use Tax Memorandum to Contractors.
• SUMC has designated and required all contractors and subcontractors to designate the project site as
the place of use of all materials used in the construction of the project. Supporting documentation is
attached to the monitoring report in Appendix B.
• SUMC has required all contractors and subcontractors to allocate the local sales and use taxes
derived from their contracts directly to the city. SUMC has used best efforts to require contractors and
subcontractors to complete and file any forms required by the State Board of Equalization to effect
these designations. Supporting documentation is attached to the monitoring report in Appendix B.
• Both Hospitals have obtained use tax direct pay permits from the State of California for their existing
facilities in order to increase the City tax allocation for the Hospitals’ purchases. The Hospitals will
maintain the use tax direct pay permit for the life of the project. Supporting documentation is attached
to the monitoring report in Appendix A.
• Finally, SUMC has assisted the City in establishing and administering a Retail Sales and Use Tax
Reporting District for the Renewal Project, to enable the City to track the generation, allocation,
reporting and payment of sales and use taxes derived from the Project.
ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12 11
Section 5(b)(iii). Funding of Operating Deficit
In order to assure that City costs associated with the Renewal Project do not exceed revenues to the City
resulting from construction and operation of the project, SUMC has provided to the City a single lump
sum payment in the amount of $2,417,000. This payment was made on August 25, 2011. No further
action is required by the SUMC to comply with this Development Agreement provision.
Section 5(b)(iv). Payment of Utility User Tax
SUMC will pay the City a utility user tax at a minimum rate of 5 percent of all electricity, gas, and water
charges allocable to new construction completed as part of the project for the life of the project. This
rate may be increased by the City as provided by Section 2.35.100(b) of the Municipal Code. No new
construction has yet been completed for the SUMC Renewal Project, so this requirement has not yet
been triggered.
Section 5(b)(v). School Fees
SUMC will pay to the City—who is then to forward to the Palo Alto Unified School District—school fees
upon issuance of each building permit from the City or OSHPD, in the amount that is generally applicable
to non-residential development at the time of payment based upon net new square footage, as defined in
the Development Agreement.
School fees have been paid for both the Lucile Packard Expansion and the New Stanford Hospital in
the amounts of $188,815 and $153,802, respectively. These fees were paid and certified in advance of
issuance of building permits, as OSHPD policy now prohibits the issuance of building permits for new
construction without certification from the appropriate school district that all required fees have been paid.
12 ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12
TRAFFIC MITIGATION AND REDUCED VEHICLE TRIPS
SUMC has taken a number of steps to mitigate the potential traffic impacts projected at full project
buildout. Already, SUMC provides a robust transportation demand management program, offering a
variety of incentives for employees to forego driving alone to work. As the Renewal Project moves
forward, SUMC will take the following actions outlined below.
Section 5(c)(ii). Menlo Park Traffic Mitigation
SUMC has agreed to contribute to the City of Menlo Park a total of $3,699,000 for use in connection with
traffic mitigation, infrastructure enhancements, and the promotion of sustainable neighborhoods and
communities and affordable housing. This contribution is to be made in three equal payments; the first
payment of $1,233,000 was made on August 19, 2011. The remaining two payments are to be made
within 30 days from issuance of the first Hospital foundation permit, and within 30 days from issuance of
the first Hospital occupancy permit.
Section 5(c)(iii). East Palo Alto Voluntary Mitigation
SUMC has contributed a single lump sum payment of $200,000 to East Palo Alto to be used for roadway
and traffic signal improvements on University Avenue. This payment was made on August 19, 2011. No
further action is required by the SUMC to comply with this Development Agreement provision. In the
event that the SUMC does not meet alternative transportation mode goals specified in the Development
Agreement by 2025 and is assessed a $4 million payment under Development Agreement section 5(C)
(ix)(B), the City will be required to remit $150,000 of such payment to the City of East Palo Alto.
Section 5(c)(iv). Contributions to AC Transit
The Hospitals have committed to offering the following contributions to AC Transit within 30 days from
issuance of the first Hospital occupancy permit:
• The Hospitals will contribute a one-time payment of $250,000 to AC Transit to be used for capital
improvements to the U-Line to increase capacity (Section 5(c)(iv)(A)).
• The Hospitals will offer to make annual payments to AC Transit in a reasonable amount, not to exceed
$50,000, to be used for operating costs of the U-Line to maintain a load factor for bus service to
SUMC of less than 1 (Section 5(c)(iv)(B).
• In order to encourage Hospital employees living in the East Bay to use public transit for their
commute, the Hospitals have committed to using best efforts to lease 75 parking spaces at the
Ardenwood Park and Ride lot, or an equivalent location, at a cost not to exceed $45,000 per year
(Section 5(c)(iv)(C)).
These offers have not yet been made to AC Transit because the first Hospital occupancy permit has not
yet been issued.
Section 5(c)(v). Opticom Payments
Within 30 days from issuance of the first Hospital occupancy permit, the Hospitals will pay $11,200 to the
City of Palo Alto to be used for the installation of Opticom traffic control systems at the following seven
intersections: 1) El Camino Real/Palm Drive/University Avenue; 2) El Camino Real/Page Mill Road; 3)
Middlefield Road/Lytton Road; 4) Junipero Serra/Page Mill Road; 5) Junipero Serra/Campus Drive West;
6) Galvez/Arboretum; and 7) the Alpine/280 Northbound ramp. This payment has not yet been made
because the first Hospital occupancy permit has not yet been issued.
ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12 13
Section 5(c)(vi). Caltrain GO Passes
The Development Agreement requires that the hospitals purchase annual Caltrain GO Passes for all
existing and new Hospital employees who work more than 20 hours per week at a cost of up to $1.8
million per year, beginning on September 1, 2015. This obligation is to continue for a period of 51 years.
Hospital management accelerated the purchase of the annual GO Pass for Hospital employees, and
began providing free GO Passes to employees commencing on January 1, 2012, three years ahead
of original schedule. Further details regarding the GO Pass purchase can be found in the 2012 SUMC
Alternative Mode Share report, which was submitted to the City on July 5, 2012.
Section 5(c)(vii). Marguerite Shuttle Service
The Hospitals will fund the reasonable costs, in an approximate amount of $2 million for the purchase
of additional shuttle vehicles for the Marguerite shuttle service, as and when required to meet increased
demand for shuttle service between the project sites and the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station. In
addition, the hospitals will fund as annual payments the reasonable costs, in an approximate amount of
$450,000 per year, to cover the net increase in operating costs for the Marguerite Shuttle. Demand for
the Marguerite shuttle has increased in the past year, and the Hospitals have funded the purchase of two
additional shuttles to meet this increased demand.
Section 5(c)(viii). Transportation Demand Management Coordinator
The Development Agreement requires that the Hospitals employ an onsite qualified Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Coordinator for SUMC, commencing on September 1, 2015, and continuing
through the life of the Renewal Project.
Because the Hospitals accelerated the purchase of the Caltrain GO Pass, the Hospitals also accelerated
the hiring of the TDM Coordinator. This position was filled in March 2012, and the new TDM Coordinator
has begun working to raise awareness among SUMC commuters about alternative transportation options
and commute incentive programs. This individual is also responsible for providing alternative commute
planning assistance and responses to customer inquiries, writing and editing electronic and print
communications, and coordinating and staffing outreach events, such as free transit pass distributions
and employee fairs.
Section 5(c)(ix). Monitoring of TDM Programs
The Hospitals are required to submit annual monitoring reports showing the current number of employees
employed over 20 hours per week; the number of employees using an alternative transportation mode as
documented by a study or survey to be completed by the Hospitals using a method mutually agreeable
to the City, and the efforts used by the Hospitals to attempt to achieve the Alternative Mode Targets
identified in the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement specifies payments to be made
in the event that such targets are not met during particular time periods. SUMC submitted its Baseline
Alternative Mode Share Report to the City on July 5, 2012. The Baseline Report shows an alternative
mode split of 39% for the Hospitals. This mode split exceeds the Alternative Mode Share targets for 2018,
2021 and 2025.
14 ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12
LINKAGES
To further encourage use of Caltrain, bus, and other transit services, and to enhance and encourage use
of pedestrian and bicycle connections between SUMC and Palo Alto, SUMC has funded or will fund the
following specific infrastructure improvements.
Section 5(d)(i). Intermodal Transit Fund
SUMC has provided to the City one lump sum payment of $2.25 million for improvements to enhance
the pedestrian and bicycle connection from the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center to the existing
intersection of El Camino Real and Quarry Road. Up to $2 million of this amount is to be used by the City
for the development of an attractive, landscaped passive park/green space with a clearly marked and
lighted pedestrian pathway, benches, and flower borders. SUMC paid the entire required amount for the
Intermodal Transit Fund on August 25, 2011. No further action is required by the SUMC to comply with
this Development Agreement provision. As required by Development Agreement Section 12(d), the City
will provide yearly Supplements to the Annual Report to provide an accounting of the City’s expenditures
from this fund, and the purposes for which the expenditures were used. The City is required to construct
the improvements prior to issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit.
Section 5(d)(ii). Quarry Road Fund
SUMC has provided to the City one lump sum payment of $400,000 for improvements to and within the
public right-of-way to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle connection from the west side of El Camino
Real to Welch Road along Quarry Road, including urban design elements and way finding, wider bicycle
lanes, as necessary, on Quarry Road, enhanced transit nodes for bus and/or shuttle stops, and prominent
bicycle facilities. SUMC paid the entire required amount for the Quarry Road Fund on August 25, 2011.
No further action is required by the SUMC to comply with this Development Agreement provision. As
required by Development Agreement Section 12(d), the City will provide yearly Supplements to the
Annual Report to provide an accounting of the City’s expenditures from this fund, and the purposes for
which the expenditures were used. The City is required to construct the improvements prior to issuance
of the Hospital Occupancy Permit.
Section 5(d)(iii). Stanford Barn Connection
SUMC will construct up to $700,000 of improvements to enhance the pedestrian connection between
SUMC and the Stanford Shopping Center from Welch Road to Vineyard Lane, in the area adjacent to
the Stanford Barn. The SUMC is required to construct these improvements prior to issuance of the first
Hospital Occupancy permit.
ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12 15
INFRASTRUCTURE, SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES, AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Section 5(e). Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable Housing
SUMC will contribute a total amount of $23.2 million toward City of Palo Alto infrastructure, sustainable
neighborhoods and communities, and affordable housing. The Development Agreement requires this
amount to be contributed in three equal payments. The first payment, in the amount of $7,733,333, was
made on August 25, 2011; the second is to be made at the time that the first Hospital foundation permit is
issued, and the final payment is to be made within 30 days from issuance of the first Hospital occupancy
permit. As required by Development Agreement Section 12(d), the City will provide yearly Supplements
to the Annual Report to provide an accounting of the City’s expenditures from this fund, and the purposes
for which the expenditures were used. The City will use $1,720,488 of these funds in the same manner as
funds collected under the City’s housing fee ordinance.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Section 5(f). Climate Change Fund
SUMC will contribute a total amount of $12 million toward City projects and programs for a sustainable
community, including programs identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan, carbon credits, and
investments in renewable energy and energy conservation. The Development Agreement requires this
amount to be contributed in three equal payments. The first payment, in the amount of $4 million, was
made on August 25, 2011; the second is to be made at the time that the first Hospital foundation permit is
issued, and the final payment is to be made within 30 days from issuance of the first Hospital occupancy
permit. As required by Development Agreement Section 12(d), the City will provide yearly Supplements
to the Annual Report to provide an accounting of the City’s expenditures from this fund, and the purposes
for which the expenditures were used.
SATISFACTION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SUMC will satisfy all Conditions of Approval by the dates and within the time periods required by the
project approvals, and has taken several steps in order to ensure that this requirement is met (Section
5(h)). The Conditions of Approval encompass conditions imposed by the Architectural Review Board,
mitigation measures enumerated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and conditions
attached to the Conditional Use Permit.
In order to implement, monitor, and report on the implementation of this diverse array of conditions,
SUMC, with input from City planning staff, has created two Excel spreadsheet tracking and reporting
tools. These spreadsheets are designed to serve as a centralized repository for compliance monitoring
information and documentation, and are updated by the SUMC project teams on a regular basis, and
reviewed by the City.
As the Renewal Project closes on its groundbreaking year, SUMC looks forward to continued
engagement with the City of Palo Alto as the project forges ahead.
Table 1: Development Agreement, Section 5 - SUMC Parties’ Promises 2012
1 SUMC Development Agreement Compliance: 2011-2012
DA Section Description Summary Activity Complies?
Health Care Benefits
5(a)(ii) Fund for Healthcare Services Financial assistance for Palo Alto
residents
Establishment of $3M SUMC
fund
Yes
5(a)(iii) Fund for Community Health and
Safety Programs
$4M fund for selected
community health programs for
Palo Alto residents
Payment of $4M on 8/25/11 to
establish City fund
Yes
Fiscal Benefits
5(b)(i), (ii) Payment of Sales and Use Taxes Activities to maximize sales and
use taxes paid to the City See Attachment X
5(b)(iii) Funding of Operating Deficit $2.4M fund to address long-
term deficits
Payment of $2.4M on 8/25/11
to establish fund
Yes
5(b)(iv) Payment of Utility Users Tax 5% tax on all electricity, gas and
water charges on new
construction.
No new construction
completed; tax is not applicable
at this time
NA
5(b)(v) School Fees Payment of PAUDS fees for net
new square footage
$342,617 fee paid for LPCH and
NSH expansion.
Yes
Traffic Mitigation and reduced Vehicle Trips
5(c)(ii) Menlo Park Traffic Mitigation $3.7M payment for traffic
mitigation, infrastructure,
sustainable neighborhoods,
affordable housing
First of three $1.23M payments
made on 8/19/11.
Yes
5(c)(iii) East Palo Alto Voluntary
Mitigation
$200K for Roadway and single
improvements on University
Ave.
$200K payment made on
8/19/12.
Yes
Attachment B
Table 1: Development Agreement, Section 5 - SUMC Parties’ Promises 2012
2 SUMC Development Agreement Compliance: 2011-2012
DA Section Description Summary Activity Complies?
5(c)(iv) Contributions to AC Transit U-line capital improvements,
low load factor ratios, parking
spaces at Ardenwood Park &
Ride
No activity. Payments due at
hospital occupancy
NA
5(c)(v) Opticom Payments $11,200 payment for Opticom
traffic control system at 7
intersections
No activity. Payments due at
hospital occupancy
NA
5(c)(vi) CalTrain Go Passes SUMC purchase of passes for all
hospital employees working
>20hrs/week
Go Passes have been purchased
per DA
Yes
5(c)(vii) Marguerite Shuttle Service Purchase of additional shuttles
to meet demand
Two additional shuttles have
been purchased to meet current
demand
Yes
5(c)(viii) SUMC Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
Coordinator
SUMC hires coordinator to
promote alternative
transportation options
TDM Coordinator has been
hired.
Yes
5(c)(ix) Monitoring of TDM Programs Yearly report regarding
alternative transit mode use
Report submitted. 39% of SUMC
employees using alt modes.
Yes
Linkages
5(d)(i) Intermodal Transit Fund $2.25M payment to improve
pedestrian linkages to PA
Intermodal Transit Center
Payment of $2.25M on 8/25/11
to establish City fund
Yes
5(d)(ii) Quarry Road Fund $400K payment to improve
pedestrian linkages along
Quarry Road
Payment of $400K on 8/25/11
to establish City fund
Yes
Attachment B
Table 1: Development Agreement, Section 5 - SUMC Parties’ Promises 2012
3 SUMC Development Agreement Compliance: 2011-2012
DA Section Description Summary Activity Complies?
5(d)(iii) Stanford Barn Connection SUMC budgets up to $700K for
pedestrian connections in the
vicinity of barn
No activity. Improvements must
be made prior to first hospital
occupancy
NA
Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable Housing
5(e) Infrastructure, Sustainable
Neighborhoods and
Communities, and Affordable
Housing Fund
$23.2M payment for these uses First of three $7.3M payments
made on 8/19/11.
Yes
Climate Change
5(f) Climate Change Fund $12M payment for climate
change-related projects and
programs
First of three $4M payments
made on 8/19/11.
Yes
Attachment B
2011-12 Annual Report Supplement
Prepared by the City of Palo Alto
November 1, 2012
Background and Purpose
On June 6, 2011, the City Council approved Comprehensive Plan amendments, zoning changes, a
conditional use permit, annexation and design applications for the Stanford University Medical Center
Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (the “Projects”). The Projects include the construction of a
new Stanford Hospital and clinics buildings, an expansion of the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital,
construction of new School of Medicine buildings, renovation of the existing Hoover Pavilion,
construction of a new medical office building and parking garage at Hoover Pavilion, roadway
improvements along Welch Road and Durand Way, and SUMC design guidelines. A Development
Agreement (the “Agreement”) vesting these approvals was entered into between the SUMC Parties and
the City and was effective on June 6, 2011 and continues for thirty (30) years from the effective date.
The Agreement requires an annual report, prepared by SUMC that outlines the activities of the
preceding year and the efforts to fulfill the obligations of the Agreement.
Per the requirements of sections 12(a) and 12(c) of the Agreement, The City of Palo Alto is to prepare a
supplement to the annual report that contains an accounting of the funds described in the Section 5 of
the Agreement (“SUMC Parties’ Promises”) including the fund balances and expenditures and the
purposes for which the expenditures were used.
This annual report supplement covers the period during the first year of the Agreement: June 6, 2011
through June 6, 2012. Accounting for the funds outlined in the attachment extends through the end of
the City’s 2011 – 2012 fiscal year June 30, 2012.
Public Benefit Fund Accounting
Attachment A to this report contains a spreadsheet of the funds received and the use of those funds
pursuant to the Agreement as of June 30, 2012. In summary, SUMC made a payment of $20,800,333 on
August 11, 2011 for the following funds:
Fund for Community Health and Safety, Project Safety Net (Section 5(a)(iii));
Fund for SUMC Project Operating Deficit (Section 5(b)(iii));
Attachment C
Fund for Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections from Intermodal Transit Center to El Camino
Real/Quarry Road Intersection (Section 5(d)(i));
Fund for Public Right of Way Improvements to Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections on
Quarry Road (Section 5(d)(ii));
Fund for Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities and Affordable Housing
(Section 5(e)), and
Fund for Sustainable Programs Benefit (Section 5(f)(i))
The specific funding amounts as shown on the spreadsheet are consistent with Section 5 of the
Agreement. These funds have been assigned a unique cost center number for accounting purposes. The
spreadsheet also contains the investment earnings and the earnings allocation to the various cost
centers.
Public Benefit Fund Expenditures
Expenditures through June 30, 2012, as shown on the spreadsheet, were made from the following two
funds:
Fund for Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections from Intermodal Transit Center to El Camino Real/Quarry
Road Intersection: $247,368.70 was utilized from this fund for staff review and analysis the project
known as 27 University Avenue. This project, proposed by John Arrillaga on behalf of Stanford University
(the property owner), involves the construction of office buildings, a performing arts center, public
transportation facilities, underground parking, and construction of various site improvements and
amenities. This project is located in the area between the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center PAITC)
and the El Camino Real/Quarry Road intersection, the area identified for improvements to enhance the
connections between the PAITC, the Stanford Shopping Center and the SUMC facilities. The 27
University Avenue project would include the enhancement of the connections specific identified as the
purpose of this fund. The use of the funds for the review and analysis of the 27 University project is
directly related to the intent of the fund.
Fund for Community Health and Safety, Project Safety Net: $27,517.77 was utilized for the Project
Safety Net program, which is specifically identified in the Agreement as a community health program
that would be appropriate program for the use of this fund. Funds spent during the reporting period
were allocated to salaries/benefits for Project Safety Net staff and other expenses relating to the
operation of the program.
No other expenditures were made during the reporting period from the other funds as part of the
Agreement.
Attachment A: Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement Fund Accounting, FY 2012
Attachment A: Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement Fund Accounting, FY 2012
City of Palo Alto 11/5/2012
Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement (Fund 260)
FY 2012
Project Ped & Bike Link Ped & Bike Link Infrastructure &Climate Change Project Total FY 2012 FY 2012
Operating at El Camino Park At Quarry Rd Afford Housing & Sustainability Safety Net Actuals Committed
Deficit
cost centers 26000000 60260010 60260020 60260030 60260040 80260010
Revenues:
Revenues From Stanford 2,417,000.00 2,250,000.00 400,000.00 7,733,333.00 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 20,800,333.00 20,800,333.00
Investment Earnings 1,340,172.40 1,340,172.40 459,984.00
Allocate to categories (1,340,172.40) (1,340,172.40)
Allocated Investment Earnings 157,813.70 130,758.24 26,117.29 504,934.18 261,172.86 259,376.14 1,340,172.40 -
Total Revenues 2,574,813.70 2,380,758.24 426,117.29 8,238,267.18 4,261,172.86 4,259,376.14 22,140,505.40 21,260,317.00
Expenditures:
Temp Salaries/Benefits (1)20,224.06 20,224.06 45,000.00
Contract Services for 27 University (2)247,368.70 247,368.70 250,000.00
Contract Services 1,650.00 1,650.00 -
Other expenses 5,643.71 5,643.71 20,000.00
Total Expenditures - 247,368.70 - - - 27,517.77 274,886.47 315,000.00
Net total 06/30/12 2,574,813.70 2,133,389.54 426,117.29 8,238,267.18 4,261,172.86 4,231,858.37 21,865,618.93 20,945,317.00
Future Revenues from Stanford:
Estimated January 2012-Foundation 7,733,333.00 4,000,000.00
permit for 1st hospital project.
Permit is still under review by OSHPD
Estimated January 2018-1st hospital 7,733,333.00 4,000,000.00
occupancy permit
(1) Position was budgeted for six months, the person did not start until April.
(2) $66K Fergus Gerber Young Architects
$50K Sandis Engineers
$31K Sand Civic Engineers
$85K Fukuji Planning
$13K Metropolitan Planning
$2K Michael Reardon
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3305)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/13/2012
Summary Title: Curtner Avenue Final Map Street Dedication
Title: Acceptance of a Final Map Street Dedication at 382 and 384 Curtner
Avenue
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council accept the dedication of a portion of Curtner Avenue to the
City of Palo Alto, adjacent to a previously approved subdivision for 382 and 384 Curtner Avenue
as described on the Final Map in Attachment A.
Background
On October 1, 2012, the City Council approved a Final Map merging two single-family lots into a
0.3 acre parcel for condominium subdivision into six residential units, located at 382 and 384
Curtner Avenue.
Discussion
The October 1, 2012 City Council approval of the Final Map allowed the property owner of the
site to commence the process for officially recording the map with the County of Santa Clara.
Prior to this recordation, the property owner’s title company and the City determined that,
based upon information contained the title report, one of the two lots being merged extends to
the centerline of Curtner Avenue. This situation originated with the original 1905 street
dedication and carried on through subsequent developments along Curtner Avenue, resulting in
a lot description that extends the property to the centerline of Curtner Avenue. This is
inconsistent with the recorded maps for Curtner Avenue properties and contrary to the City’s
understanding that Curtner Avenue which is a public street was fully dedicated in fee to the
City.
To correct this inconsistency, City staff recommends clerical additions to the map. The additions
would include a sentence within the property owner’s statement on Page 1 of the map that
specifically states that the property owner dedicates to the public, in fee, that area of Curtner
Avenue as described on Page 2 of the map. That area of Curtner Avenue is shown on Page 2 of
the map with the following note, “Area of Curtner Avenue Offered for Dedication to the City of
Palo Alto”. If accepted by City Council, the inconsistency would be resolved and the map could
be recorded by the title company.
Policy Implications
The City Council has previously found the project to be consistent with the land use designation
and policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plans stated in the previously approved
Record of Land Use Action for the Tentative Map. The proposed clerical additions do not affect
the finding of consistency.
Environmental Review
This project is categorically exempt from CEQA review under CEQA Guideline section 15332
Attachments:
Attachment A: Final Map (PDF)
Prepared By: Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3188)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 11/13/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Emergency Preparedness
Summary Title: Approval of Site & Design Application for SF Creek JPA Flood
Protection Project
Title: Public Hearing: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a Site and
Design Application for the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority's
(JPA) Initial Flood Protection Project (Highway 101 to San Francisco Bay),
Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for Modifications to the Palo
Alto Municipal Golf Course and the John Fletcher Byxbee Recreation Area,
and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing an Exception to Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 10.48 to Allow Transfer of Soil from the Stanford
University Medical Center Construction Project to the Palo Alto Golf Course
and Adjacent Areas
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council consider the EIR and take the following actions:
1. Approve a Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) approving the Site and Design
application for the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) initial flood
protection project (Highway 101 to San Francisco Bay) based upon the findings and
conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A);
2. Adopt the attached Park Improvement Ordinance for modifications to the Palo Alto
Municipal Golf Course and the John Fletcher Byxbee Recreation Area (Attachment B); and
City of Palo Alto Page 2
3. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing an exception to Chapter 10.48 [Trucks and Truck
Routes] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for the limited purpose of allowing a transfer of soil
from the Stanford University Medical Center construction project along Oregon Expressway
to the Palo Alto Golf Course and adjacent areas (Attachment C).
Executive Summary
The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) has submitted for Site and Design
Review for the initial phase of the flood control project for the San Francisquito Creek
Improvements Project. The project impacts the creek from Highway 101 to the San Francisco
Bay, and includes levee widening, wetlands restoration, and improvements to the trails. Due to
the project’s location within dedicated parkland and its scope, a Park Improvement Ordinance
(PIO) is also required. Additionally, a Resolution has been prepared to authorize the use of
Oregon Expressway as a temporary truck route to facilitate the efficient delivery of fill (dirt)
from the Stanford University Campus to the Baylands for the flood control levee work and
future golf course improvements.
Background
In April 1999, the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto, the Santa Clara Valley
Water District, and the San Mateo County Flood Control District formed the San Francisquito
Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) in order to cooperatively pursue a flood damage reduction
and ecosystem restoration project for San Francisquito Creek. For the past three years, the JPA
has been pursuing the implementation of a locally-funded Initial Flood Protection Project that
would provide 1% (100-year) flood protection for properties downstream of Highway 101. In
2009, the JPA contracted with HDR Engineering, Inc. to design and prepare construction
documents for the project and with ICF International, Inc. to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report to identify and analyze potential project impacts and to describe appropriate mitigation
measures to address those impacts. The design consultant has completed 95% construction
documents for the project, and the JPA Board certified the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the project on October 25, 2012.
Project Description
The project’s goals are to improve flood protection, habitat, and recreational opportunities
within the project reach, with the following specific objectives:
• Protect properties and infrastructure between Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay
from 100-year San Francisquito Creek riverine flood flows in conjunction with a 100-year
tide and projected 50-year Sea Level Rise;
City of Palo Alto Page 3
• Accommodate future flood protection measures upstream of the project that may be
constructed;
• Enhance habitat along the project reach, particularly habitat for threatened and
endangered species;
• Enhance recreational uses; and
• Minimize operational and maintenance requirements.
The project will accommodate a 100-year flow in conjunction with a 100-year tide, with
additional design considerations to meet FEMA freeboard requirements consistent with the
National Research Center’s highest estimate of potential Sea Level Rise over the next 50 years.
This project, with these design criteria, is the first in the Bay Area to take such a progressive
approach towards planning a flood protection and ecosystem restoration project that considers
the best available scientific evidence of potential environmental and climatic change that could
be experienced during the design life of the project.
The primary project elements proposed to improve management of flood flows along San
Francisquito Creek from East Bayshore Road to San Francisco Bay include:
Opening the Creek channel to flow into the Baylands Nature Preserve (Faber Tract),
Reconfiguring levees,
Creating a marshplain terrace to convey high flows,
Installing floodwalls;
Widening of the Creek channel; and
Constructing access roads for maintenance purposes.
Table 1: Summary of Project Components (excerpt from EIR, pages 2-3 through 2-4)
Project Components Description
Levee and floodwall construction
Levee lowering on right bank From the mouth of the Creek at San Francisco Bay to 200
feet downstream of the existing Friendship Bridge. This
would allow floodwaters to flow into the Baylands north of
San Francisquito Creek.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Levee raising on right bank From the O’Connor Pump Station tie‐in near Friendship
Bridge to the floodwall.
Floodwall on right bank The right floodwall would extend from just downstream of
Daphne Way to the end of the project reach where it would
connect with the Caltrans U.S. 101/East Bayshore Road
facility.
Levee raising on left bank and
levee relocation
Levee relocation of the middle reach and a small portion of
the upper and lower reaches. The levee would be relocated
inland (currently occupied by the Golf Course), creating
space on the left bank for a marshplain terrace. Except for a
section around the eastern footings of Friendship Bridge,
the existing levee along this stretch would be removed.
Floodwall on left bank
The left floodwall would extend from the end of the left
levee, along the streambed, around the Palo Alto Pump
Station, to the end of the project reach where it would
connect with the Caltrans facility.
Downstream access road on
right bank
The right bank downstream access road would be
approximately 16 feet wide and extend from the crown of
the right levee to street level to just downstream of Daphne
Way.
Upstream access road on right
bank
The right bank upstream access road would be
approximately 12 feet wide and would extend from just
downstream of Verbena Drive to the Caltrans facility at East
Bayshore Road.
Access road on left bank
The left bank access road would be generally 12 feet wide
and would extend from a point downstream of the
International School of the Peninsula to the Palo Alto Pump
Station. The access road would also be used as a public trail
within the City of Palo Alto and would connect to the
Baylands Athletic Center.
Friendship Bridge
The existing Friendship Bridge would be retained and
extended as a boardwalk from the retained eastern footing
across the new marshplain terrace to the relocated left bank
levee.
Marshplain restoration
Downstream of Friendship
Bridge on right bank
High‐marsh and transitional vegetation would be planted
from the edge of the Creek channel to the toe of the levee
from just upstream of San Francisco Bay to just downstream
of Friendship Bridge.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Upstream of Friendship Bridge
on right bank
High‐marsh and transitional vegetation would be planted
from the edge of the Creek channel to the toe of the levee
from just upstream of Friendship Bridge to East Bayshore
Road.
Left bank
High‐marsh and transitional vegetation would be planted
from the edge of the Creek channel to the base of the
floodwall or the toe of the levee. In this area the marsh
would be planted adjacent to the toe of the cut‐and‐fill area.
The marsh would extend from the point at which the new
levee would diverge inland from the existing levee to East
Bayshore Road.
The new flood walls will be constructed with interlocking driven steel sheet piles. The
individual sheet piles will be driven side-by-side to form a wall that will have a corrugated look
(see Detail 2 on Sheet S-2 of Attachment L). The steel sheets will be coated with an epoxy
coating, colored with a muted earth tone color yet to be selected. The sheets will be topped off
with a concrete cap piece that will give the top of the wall a more finished and attractive
appearance. The concrete cap can be seen in Sheet S-1 of Attachment L.
The boardwalk will be constructed with unpainted pressure-treated Douglas Fir wood. The side
railings will be galvanized welded wire fabric framed with wood members. The design of the
vertical and horizontal structural members of the boardwalk will mimic the patterns in the
existing Friendship Bridge. Bolts and other hardware will be recessed or hidden when feasible.
The flood control project requires the removal of 148 trees that are within the project
footprint, and potentially an additional 106 trees, but those would be further evaluated to
determine whether removal can be avoided during construction. The EIR includes mitigation for
tree removal requiring replacement of removed trees at a 1:1 ratio, or as determined by the
City. The City’s Urban Forestry Division of the Public Works Department has crafted conditions
of approval to address the loss and replacement of trees. These conditions are included in the
Record of Land Use Action, Attachment A.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Figure 1: Project Area
In addition to the above described work, the project includes the preparation of temporary soil
stockpiling areas within the delineated project area. The amount of usable soil to be excavated
from the existing levees and accumulated deposits within the existing creek channel will not be
adequate to fulfill the project requirements for fill material needed to construct the new levees.
Therefore, up to 210,000 cubic yards of suitable fill material will need to be imported to the
project site and temporarily stockpiled on-site. The areas proposed for this purpose are within
City of Palo Alto Page 7
the overall project boundary, and will eventually be incorporated into the new levee footprint
or the footprint of the athletic fields, to be constructed as a separate project by the City of Palo
Alto. The two areas that have been designated for stockpiling are (1) the dirt area
(approximately 0.8 acres) between the playing fields and existing levee at the Baylands Athletic
Center that is used as an overflow parking area, and (2) the area (approximately 13.3 acres) of
the golf course adjacent to the existing levee, see Attachment F for a location map.
In preparation for the temporary stockpiling area on the golf course, some trees will be
required to be removed in the early stages of construction. These tree removals are part of the
overall project scope for the levee improvements and are not required solely for the purposes
of stockpiling. There are no tree removals needed for the stockpiling use of the area adjacent to
the Baylands Athletic Center. Additional information regarding the stockpiling on the golf
course is included in Attachment F. For the smaller stockpiling area adjacent to the Baylands
Athletic Center, a minor Site and Design Review was completed by staff and approved on
October 26, 2012.
Site and Design Review Process
The Site and Design Review process, for major projects in areas within Palo Alto having the (D)
zoning overlay, requires Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), Architectural Review
Board (ARB), and City Council review. The PTC considers whether the project meets the Site
and Design Review objectives set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.30(G).060. The PTC meeting
minutes and recommendation are presented to the ARB, and forwarded to the City Council.
After the PTC public hearing, review and recommendation, the project is reviewed by the ARB
in a public hearing. The ARB is requested to make a recommendation on the project based on
the findings for Architectural Review approval in Section 18.76.020(d) (see Section 5 of
Attachment A). The project, as recommended by the PTC and ARB, is then reviewed in a public
hearing before Council for final action.
Council is being asked to review the proposed project, along with the recommendations from
the PTC and the ARB, and approve the Site and Design application. The approval should
confirm that the project meets the Architectural Review and Site and Design findings that are
included in the attached draft Record of Land Use Action, Attachment A.
Commission and Board Review
On October 24, 2012, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed and
recommended approval (7-0) of the project. During discussions, the PTC advised the JPA to
provide a more robust community outreach plan for the project, prior and during construction
activities, citing a regularly updated project website and email notifications as examples of this.
Additionally, concern was raised about graffiti on the flood walls and bridges, and a solution
City of Palo Alto Page 8
that was discussed was the possibility of using vegetation along the floodwall, of a species that
would not impede floodwaters, and the ARB was requested to consider this during their review.
There were no members of the public present at the meeting. The PTC considered the Final
Environmental Impact Report prior to its recommendation.
On November 1, 2012, the ARB reviewed and recommended approval (5-0) of the project and
no members of the public were present to speak to this item. The ARB expressed concerns
about the aesthetics of the accessible side of the flood wall, running the length of the levee; it
was stated that a more pedestrian friendly treatment would be preferred. The ARB added
conditions to the project to have the following details return to the ARB for review:
Provide a color sample for the flood wall;
Provide details on the flood wall and concrete cap (color, height, landscape treatments,
etc.), or an alternative design for the cap and flood wall treatment;
Provide details on the proposed benches and permanent signage; and
Provide the feasibility of using pressure treated wood or the like containing less harmful
chemicals (e.g. arsenic).
Both meetings’ staff reports and minutes have been attached for reference (Attachments H and
I).
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
Benefits and Impacts to East Palo Alto homes
Homes in the Gardens neighborhood of East Palo Alto, which sit below sea level and are
situated directly behind the current uncertified and insufficient levee, face the greatest risk to
property damage and public safety of any of the structures within the San Francisquito Creek
floodplain. Under existing conditions, this reach of the Creek can convey a maximum flow of
4000 cubic feet per second (cfs) during an average daily high tide. This project will protect
those homes by widening the channel and building new, certified levees that will protect the
area against a 9400 cfs flow during a 100-year high tide. The project will also improve local
drainage in the area, and optimize the operation of the O’Connor Pump Station, which services
below-grade storm drain systems throughout the City of East Palo Alto, by lowering peak water
surface elevations of creek flows during large storm events.
Palo Alto Baylands Athletic Center Impacts
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Construction of new floodwalls and levees will widen the channel adjacent to the Palo Alto
Baylands Athletic Center. The proposed alignment will encroach on lands currently designated
as overflow parking for the Athletic Center just south of the current creek channel. If project
elements are constructed as recommended, the new channel, floodwall, levee, trail and
maintenance road will effectively eliminate the availability of this area for use as overflow
parking (approximately 40 spaces). The trail that is currently used by the International School
of the Peninsula for student drop-off and pick-up of students will be maintained.
Palo Alto Golf Course Impacts and Improvements
Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course will be impacted during and after construction of the project.
Also, a small portion of the Golf Course has been designated as a soil stockpiling site for the
construction of the flood protection project as well as the future Golf Course reconfiguration
project. The JPA and its consultants have worked with staff from the City’s Community Services
and Public Works Departments, as well as the Golf Advisory Committee, to ensure that
modifications to the Golf Course needed to accommodate the project would not adversely
impact, and could potentially benefit, the Golf Course, and that construction activities do not
unduly disrupt daily Golf Course play or operations. The JPA originally asked HDR, the design
engineering consultant on the project, to subcontract a qualified golf course architect to
recommend, design, and oversee the construction of modifications to the Golf Course so that
the end result of the project would provide benefit to the Golf Course. Recognizing the unique
opportunity to utilize JPA’s flood protection and ecosystem restoration project, the City has
elected to take over the lead role on the reconfiguration of the Golf Course needed to
accommodate the new levee, while incorporating significant improvements to the Golf Course
that would improve, in the long term, the overall profitability of the land through an entire golf
course redesign and incorporation of athletic fields, improved clubhouse, practice facilities,
public access, and event hosting capacities.
On July 23, 2012, the City Council unanimously approved the staff recommendation that the
City enter into negotiations with Golf Course architect Forrest Richardson for a contract that
would provide for design of the preferred plan to modify the golf course lands to meet the
City’s desired goals. The JPA, to fulfill its obligation to mitigate impacts of the construction of
the new levee to the Golf Course, will provide a cash contribution to the City to complete the
golf course reconfiguration. The dollar amount of the mitigation funding to be provided is
being negotiated between the JPA and the City’s Community Services Department. This
reconfiguration also gives the City the opportunity to create new playing fields on some excess
golf course land.
Potential Impacts and Benefits to Biological Resources
One of the primary changes being recommended to improve floodwater conveyance and flood
protection throughout the project reach is the removal or lowering of the remnant levee on the
City of Palo Alto Page 10
north side of the creek channel between Friendship Bridge and San Francisco Bay. The removal
or strategic lowering of portions of this unmaintained levee, which was originally built in the
1930’s, would serve as a hydraulic ‘relief valve’ that would significantly lower the water surface
elevation and therefore flood risks during any high flow conditions. This project element will
have hydraulic and geomorphic impacts to sensitive habitats within the creek channel and the
adjacent Faber Tract, which is owned by Palo Alto, and is part of the Don Edwards National
Wildlife Refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Special Status species occurring in the area include California Clapper Rail, Salt Marsh Harvest
Mouse, and Central California Coast Steelhead. Adult and smolt Steelhead, who use this reach
of the creek as a migratory corridor, may experience improved conditions from the creation of
an elongated brackish water interface and therefore improved acclimation conditions.
However, impacts to pickleweed habitat of the Mouse and nesting areas of the Clapper Rail
could be negatively affected if appropriate mitigations are not implemented. One such
mitigation being planned is to create new, high quality habitat on the inboard side of the newly
widened levees at an elevation appropriate to accommodate a marshland terrace, which will
greatly enhance the total area of high-quality habitat for special status species within the
project reach.
Careful considerations are being made within the project’s design to ensure that positive
impacts outweigh the potential negative impacts to all special status species so that the project
results in a net benefit to native plants and wildlife. JPA and member agency staff, and their
consultants, have met with and are continually seeking input from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Refuge managers, regulators, and scientists to insure that the project will result in improved
biological conditions.
Corps Policy on Levee Vegetation
An additional consideration in the design and environmental planning of the project is the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) policy ETL 1110-2-571 which limits the size and types of
vegetation that can be planted on flood control levees, floodwalls, embankment dams, and
appurtenant structures owned or maintained by the Federal Government, or constructed as
part of a Federal project. Because the JPA wishes to build projects that remove parcels from
the FEMA floodplain, and therefore their owners’ obligation to participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program, this Corps guidance will need to be applied to this project.
ETL 1110-2-571 requires the removal of trees or other vegetation with extensive root systems
on existing levees, and the elimination of planned planting of such vegetation on, or within 15
feet of the toe of, newly constructed levees because of the inherent risk of eventual levee
instability or seepage that could result from root growth. There are also limitations on tree
canopy beside or above levees to allow for maintenance operations. Guidelines similar to those
City of Palo Alto Page 11
described in ETL 1110-2-571 have been in place for several years, but their enforcement has
only recently become a priority of the Federal Government due to the levee failures associated
with the Gulf Coast disaster due in part, by the estimation of the federal government, on the
lack of required maintenance on those levees.
At the June 2010 ARB study session, Board members suggested and supported a strategy that
would plant marshland grasses and shrubs within the project area. This type of vegetation is
more suitable to the historic tidal marsh environment in the project area, and since these plants
have less intrusive root structures than larger trees, they are acceptable under the Corps’
guidance.
Potential Opportunities for Recreational Improvements
The existing Bay Trail segment on the Palo Alto side of the creek will be replaced on top of the
crown of the new levee and along the new floodwalls after project construction. The project is
also being designed to accommodate future trail and pocket-park improvements that have
been identified in the City of East Palo Alto’s Bay Trail Access Master Plan. The new levee and
adjacent areas will be designed such that future open space can be best utilized for these
purposes. In addition, the creek trail on the East Palo Alto side of the creek will recognize
improved access and aesthetics.
The JPA is partnering with the California State Coastal Conservancy to plan and implement
interpretive panels at two locations. The first is a platform extension designed as part of the
Boardwalk and supported by piers in the new island and Friendship Bridge footing. The second
is a small spur of levee that will exist between the Friendship Bridge and the levee degrade
adjacent to the Faber Tract.
Park Improvement Ordinance
Portions of the project are located within the boundaries of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
and the John Fletcher Byxbee Recreation Area, both of which are dedicated parks. The habitat
value and recreational uses inherent in the design of the project make it compatible with the
park land dedication. Specifically, the extensive marshland terrace areas, which will be created
on both sides of the low-flow channel near the center of the widened creek cross-section, will
provide excellent habitat for the endangered California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest
Mouse. The levees on both sides of the creek serve as recreation trails for bicyclists and
pedestrians. These levee trails are well-coordinated with the network of trails throughout the
Palo Alto Baylands. The paved trail segment between the Baylands Athletic Center and the
Friendship Bridge is part of the regional Bay Trail. The project will make substantial changes to
the existing conditions within the dedicated park areas, however, and therefore, in accordance
City of Palo Alto Page 12
with Chapter 22.08.005 of the Municipal Code, construction of the project triggers the need for
Council to approve a Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment B).
Resolution Modifying the City’s Truck Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 10.48)
Both the project and the related City project to renovate the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
will require a substantial amount of suitable imported fill material. Soil is needed to construct
the new flood control levees and to raise the level of the golf course. There is a substantial
amount of construction occurring on the Stanford University campus (near the golf course and
near the medical center) that will generate excess soil from basement excavations. The
juxtaposition of the project and the Stanford construction activity creates a unique opportunity
to share the soil resources in a way that will benefit both parties. The shortest route between
Stanford and the project site is Oregon Expressway. Although this is not currently designated as
a through truck route, its width and separation from residential neighborhoods makes it
suitable for short-term use as a truck route for the duration of the project. The alternative to
Oregon Expressway would require trucks to travel south on El Camino Real from Stanford to
San Antonio Road and then to Highway 101. This is not desirable as San Antonio Road is
currently being reconstructed and the truck traffic would add to construction congestion and
would damage the new surface. Oregon Expressway, however, is scheduled to be upgraded by
the County next summer, which would closely follow the completion of hauling and soil
disposition. A resolution authorizing the use of Oregon Expressway as a truck route for the
limited purposes of this project is attached for Council’s approval (Attachment C).
Timeline
The major project milestones are listed below:
Review by Planning and Transportation Commission October 24, 2012
Certification of the project Environmental Impact Report October 25, 2012
Review by Architectural Review Board November 1, 2012
Approval by City Council November 13, 2012
Start of soil stockpiling at Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course November 14, 2012
Start of project construction April 2013
Completion of project construction October 2014
Resource Impact
Golf Course Design and Environment Impact Report
City of Palo Alto Page 13
The redesign of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and the environmental impact analysis for
the Golf Course reconfiguration and potential Baylands Athletic Center expansion will cost up to
$545,338. The contract to complete the design and EIR work was approved by Council on
October 15, 2012 and is underway.
If the City moves forward with the Golf Course reconfiguration construction, it is likely that the
City would require a debt financing vehicle such as Certificates of Participation or proceeds
from a General Obligation Bond. COPs were used in 1998 to finance Golf Course capital
improvements where the revenue streams of the Course were pledged as the credit. It is
anticipated that financing the Golf Course improvements will be part of the larger discussion of
how to fund General Fund citywide infrastructure improvements.
Staff believes that funding the Golf Course design and EIR will provide the Council with more
enhanced information on capital costs and ongoing operating costs and whether to move
forward with the projects.
SFCJPA Mitigation
Staff has worked with SFCJPA to negotiate appropriate mitigation for the loss of area from the
golf course resulting from this project as the timeline and levee design work progresses. City
staff expects that the parties will agree on a dollar amount from the SFCJPA of between $3 to
$3.2 million dollars, which would be the approximate cost to reconfigure the portions of the
Golf Course impacted by the flood control project. Although this amount may not fully address
lost revenues to the golf course, the full market value of the land on which the new levee will
be built, or lost parking at the Baylands Athletic Center resulting from the project, Staff
recognizes that the flood control project is highly important to the City of Palo Alto and partner
organizations, and provides significant public safety and welfare value to the Palo Alto
community and our neighbors.
Policy Implications
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan programs and policies, including the
Baylands Master Plan. The project’s EIR provides an extensive list of the applicable policies and
programs and has been included as Attachment G.
Environmental Review
This project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. An
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to evaluate the potential project impacts
City of Palo Alto Page 14
and identify appropriate mitigation measures, with the San Francisquito Creek JPA acting as the
lead agency. The Draft EIR (DEIR) was available for public review July 30 through September 13,
2012. The JPA has certified the Final EIR at their October 25th meeting. The City provided
comments on the DEIR and those comments have been addressed by the JPA and are included
in Attachment K. The EIR is posted on the JPA’s web site at www.sfcjpa.org. Prior to approving
the Project, the Council should review and consider the environmental impacts of the Project
discussed in the EIR.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOC)
Attachment B: Park Improvement Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment C: Resolution Amending Provision of Chapter 10.48 - Truck Routes (PDF)
Attachment D: Location Maps (PDF)
Attachment E: Flood Control Project Description (DOCX)
Attachment F: Stockpiling Details (PDF)
Attachment G: Comprehensive Plan Policies (PDF)
Attachment H: PTC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes, October 24, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment I: ARB Staff Report and Meeting Minutes, November 1, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment J: JPA's Response to DEIR Comments and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting
Plan (PDF)
Attachment K: Project Plans (hardcopies to Councilmembers and Libraries only) (TXT)
ATTACHMENT A
1
DRAFT
ACTION NO. 2012-xx
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO OF LAND USE ACTION
FOR SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT: SITE AND DESIGN
REVIEW 12PLN-00378 (San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority,
APPLICANT)
On November 13, 2012, the Council approved the Site and
Design Review application for flood protection improvements in the
PF(D) Public Facility with Site and Design Overlay Zone District,
making the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On September 19, 2012, the San Francisquito Creek
Joint Powers Authority (JPA) applied for Site and Design Review for
a project to provide 1% (100-year) flood protection improvements,
riparian corridor enhancements, and recreational opportunities
along San Francisquito Creek between Highway 101 and San Francisco
Bay in the PF(D) Public Facility with Site and Design Overlay zone
district (“the Project”).
B. Following staff review, the Planning and
Transportation Commission (“Commission”) reviewed the Project on
October 24, 2012 and voted 7-0 to recommend that Council approve
the project. The Commission’s actions are contained in the CMR:
3188.
C. Following Commission review, the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) reviewed the Project on November 1, 2012 and voted (5-
0) to recommend approval. The ARB’s actions are contained in the
CMR: 3188.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The JPA as the lead
agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject
to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) was prepared to evaluate the potential project impacts and
identify appropriate mitigation measures. The Draft EIR (DEIR) was
available for public review July 30 through September 13, 2012. The
JPA certified the Final EIR at their October 25th meeting. The City
reviewed and considered the EIR prior to approving the Project.
ATTACHMENT A
2
SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Findings
1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner
that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or
potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The proposed flood control project will be consistent with
the existing functions of the park uses around the Baylands
Athletic Center and Palo Alto Golf Course. The levee improvements
and the associated wetlands restoration will enhance the Baylands
environment while providing the necessary flood protections the
community needs.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring
the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
The Project will maintain desirability of investment in the
same and adjacent areas in that the proposed goals and design are
consistent with the existing Baylands environment, and the
construction of all improvements will be governed by the
regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building
Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high
quality of development.
3. Sound principles of environmental design and
ecological balance are observed in the project.
The Project will implement appropriate sustainable building
practices as deemed feasible. The Project has been evaluated in the
EIR for environmental impacts, and mitigations have been provided
to reduce potential impacts. The project is required to comply with
the City’s Construction and Demolition requirements during
construction activities.
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
The Project complies with the policies of the Land Use,
Natural Environment, Transportation, and Community Services
elements of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Baylands Master
Plan. The applicable goals and policies are list as an attachment
to CMR 3188.
SECTION 4. Site and Design Approval Granted. Site and
Design Approval is granted for the project by the City Council under
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G), subject to the
conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record.
ATTACHMENT A
3
SECTION 5. Architectural Review Findings.
1. The design is consistent and compatible with
applicable elements of the city's Comprehensive Plan, in that:
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project incorporates quality design that recognizes the sensitive
nature of the Baylands area as described in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The design is compatible with the immediate
environment of the site, in that:
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
design and layout of the project takes into consideration the
existing conditions on site, including tree preservation and impact
on public views.
3. The design is appropriate to the function of the
project, in that:
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
levee improvements serve a utilitarian purpose and the simple
design of the levee walls and new bridge reflect this use.
4. In areas considered by the board as having a unified
design character or historical character, whether the design is
compatible with such character, in that:
This finding can be made on the affirmative in that the
project components are consistent with Baylands Master Plan and
enhance the natural environment with the improved wetlands
restoration.
5. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale
and character in areas between different designated land uses, in
that:
This finding is not applicable because the project is not
situated in a transition area.
6. The design is compatible with approved improvements
both on and off the site, in that:
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
improvements are compatible with the existing park uses and are
appropriately scaled based on the adjacent context.
7. The planning and siting of the various functions and
buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide
ATTACHMENT A
4
a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general
community, in that:
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
levee project provides a lookout on the new bridge that would be
valued amenity for users.
8. The amount and arrangement of open space is
appropriate to the design and the function of the structures, in
that:
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
restored wetlands would provide better quality habitat than the
existing conditions for the sensitive species of plants and animals
that are found within the Baylands.
9. Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support
the main functions of the project and whether the same are
compatible with the project's design concept, in that:
This finding is not applicable.
10. Access to the property and circulation thereon are
safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, in
that:
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project will provide a new levee path for pedestrian and bicyclist
use and maintain the Bay Trail.
11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and
integrated with the project, in that:
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
Project incorporates a significant wetlands restoration that will
enhance the natural features of the Baylands and create quality
habitat for native species.
12. The materials, textures, colors and details of
construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the
design and function and the same are compatible with the adjacent
and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions, in
that:
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
selection of construction materials, finishes and plantings are
appropriate for the Baylands; they are simple in form and use
natural color tones and materials.
13. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by
the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms
ATTACHMENT A
5
and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional
environment and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity
with the various buildings on the site, in that:
This finding can be made in the affirmative; see Findings 8
and 11 above.
14. Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site,
capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a
variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce
consumption of water in its installation and maintenance, in that:
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
proposed project will use local Baylands native plantings that will
be maintained until established.
15. The project exhibits green building and sustainable
design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and
nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content
materials, in that:
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that Project
will implement appropriate sustainable building practices as deemed
feasible. The project is required to comply with the City’s
Construction and Demolition requirements during construction
activities.
16. The design is consistent and compatible with the
purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection
18.76.020(a).
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project
design promotes visual environments that are of high aesthetic
quality and variety.
SECTION 6. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by HDR
Engineering Inc titled “Map and Construction Plan for San
Francisquito Creek Early Implementation Project”, consisting of 21
pages, dated July 13, 2012 and received September 19, 2012, except
as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7.
A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
ATTACHMENT A
6
SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval.
Planning Division
1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial
conformance with plans received on September 19, 2012, except
as modified to incorporate the following conditions of
approval. A complete copy of this Record of Land Use Action
shall be printed on the plans submitted for City permits.
2. The project shall comply with all defined mitigation measures
outlined in the project’s EIR. A copy of the associated
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Plan shall be inserted into the
project construction plans that will be used for permitting and
on-site use.
The following details shall return to the ARB for review and
approval prior to construction activities:
3. Provide a color sample for the flood wall;
4. Provide details on the flood wall and concrete cap (color,
height, landscape treatments, etc.), or an alternative design
for the cap and flood wall treatment;
5. Provide details on the proposed benches and permanent signage;
and
6. Provide the feasibility of using pressure treated wood or the
like containing less harmful chemicals (e.g. arsenic).
Transportation Division
7. Applicant shall submit for review and approval a detour plan
and associated signage during construction closures.
8. Consider adding City of Palo Alto standard bicycle wayfinding
signage at each path junction.
9. Final pathways shall meet required widths and shoulders for
widths and clearances, and be designed in accordance to adopted
standards for mixed-use pathways.
10. Provide appropriate/and modified entrance to pathways at Geng
Road access point.
Urban Forestry Division
11. Trees proposed for removal shall be specifically identified on
a map and corresponding attribute table. Attributes will
include at a minimum: a specific location and/or unique
identifier, diameter, species, and condition. Information
ATTACHMENT A
7
collected during the March 2012 inventory by Davey Resource
Group should be included in total if utilized as the attribute
table.
12. Ecosystem services of the trees proposed for removal shall be
quantified using a recognized scientific estimation model such
as the iTree software suite, or the National Tree Benefits
Calculator found at, http://treebenefits.com/calculator/.
13. Landscape enhancements to the proposed designed ecosystem shall
be described. Description will include, but not be limited to
plant and tree characteristics for the replacements with
example species, comparison of current to expected water use,
soil condition, acres of turf, acres of naturescape where no
turf is present, and wildlife habitat. References to pertinent
sections of City of Palo Alto Plans including the Baylands
Master Plan must be included.
14. Ecosystem services of the enhanced landscape proposed shall be
quantified using a recognized scientific estimation model which
is the same or similar to the estimation model used to quantify
services of the trees proposed to be removed.
15. Mitigation for tree removals shall be calculated based on
ecosystem services and then provided on site to the greatest
extent possible.
16. Prior to any demolition and construction activities, the
applicant shall submit a landscape plan, including tree
protection measures, for the area impacted by the golf course
stockpiling for staff review and approval.
Electrical Engineering
17. Projects that require the extension and/or relocation of high
voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite
electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must
be coordinated with the Electric Utility. Note: Transmission
facilities in the area of the project are owned by PG&E.
Public Works Engineering
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
18. Grading & excavation permit: A Grading and Excavation Permit
is required for the project if the total quantity of cut and/or
fill outside of the building(s) footprint exceeds 100 cubic
yards or if the disturbed area is 10,000 sq.ft. or greater. A
grading permit only authorizes grading and storm drain
improvements, therefore, the following note shall be included
on each grading permit plan sheet: “This grading permit will
ATTACHMENT A
8
only authorize general grading and installation of the storm
drain system. Other building and utility improvements are
shown for reference information only and are subject to
separate building permit approval.” No utility infrastructure
should be shown inside the building footprints.
19. Survey datum: Plans shall be prepared using North American
Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls
and NGVD 1929 for vertical survey controls throughout the
design process.
20. Final grading & drainage plan: The plans shall include a final
grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional.
This plan shall show existing and proposed spot elevations or
contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of
storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage
system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of
runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained.
Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan.
Public Works encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite
as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other
pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan
Guidelines for New Single Family Residences on our website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/eng-documents.html.
21. SWPPP: This proposed development will disturb more than one
acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant must apply for
coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s
(SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge
associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent
(NOI) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to
obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires
the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit
two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the
building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent,
post-development project design features and temporary measures
employed during construction to control storm water pollution.
The SWPPP shall be phased as appropriate for the specific
stages of work through the timeline of the project.
22. Stormwater sheet: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention
- It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan
set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development
Center or on our website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-
works/eng-documents.html.
23. Work in the right-of-way: The plans must clearly indicate any
work that is to be conducted in the public right-of-way, such
ATTACHMENT A
9
as sidewalk, driveway approach, curb, gutter or utility lateral
work. The plans must include notes that the work must be done
per Public Works’ standards and that the contractor performing
this work must first obtain a Permit for Construction in the
Public Street from Public Works at the Development Center.
24. Street trees: Show all street trees in the public right-of-way
or state that there are none. Include street tree protection
details in the plans. Any removal, relocation or planting of
street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement installation
within 10 feet of a street tree, must be approved by Public
Works' arborist, Dave Dockter (phone: 650-329-3145). This
approval shall appear on the plans.
25. Logistics plan: A construction logistics plan shall be
provided addressing all impacts to the public and including, at
a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses,
construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water
pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck
routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding,
materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All
truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks
and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map,
which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of
Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements
for a construction logistics plan is available from Public
Works Engineering at the Development Center or online at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/documents/eng-
LogisticsPlanPreparationGuidelines.pdf. Typically, the
construction logistics plan is attached to an encroachment
permit or a Permit for Construction in the Public Street.
26. Applicant shall execute a mutually agreeable mitigation
agreement with the City for construction impacts affecting the
City’s golf course and an easement or encroachment agreement
with the City as deemed necessary by staff for any City land in
the footprint of the Project.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
27. Inspection: The contractor must contact Public Works’ Inspector
at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public
right-of-way.
PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
28. Record drawings: At the conclusion of the project applicant
shall provide digital as-built/record drawings of all
improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or
easements in which the City owns an interest. The digital
ATTACHMENT A
10
files shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane
Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1929 for
vertical survey controls. In addition, a digital copy of any
project parcel map, subdivision map, or certificate-of-
compliance shall also be provided. All files should be
delivered in AutoCad format.
SECTION 8. Term of Approval.
1. Site and Design Approval. In the event actual
construction of the project is not commenced within two years of
the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of
no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.30(G).080.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. Those plans prepared plans by HDR Engineering Inc titled “Map
and Construction Plan for San Francisquito Creek Early
Implementation Project”, consisting of 21 pages, dated July 13,
2012 and received September 19, 2012.
Not Yet Approved
121010 jb 0131009 1
Ordinance No. _______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and
Adopting a Park Improvement Plan for the San Francisquito Creek Joint
Powers Authority Flood Protection Project Impacting Palo Alto
Municipal Golf Course and John Fletcher Byxbee Recreation Area
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction
or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for
park purposes, the Council shall approve and adopt a park improvement ordinance and a plan
describing the proposed project;
(b) San Francisquito Creek is located within the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s
Lower Peninsula Watershed and San Mateo County’s San Francisquito Creek Flood Control zone.
The City of Palo Alto and Stanford University border the Creek on the southeast; the Cities of Menlo
Park and East Palo Alto border the Creek to the northwest;
(c) The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) flood protection
project (Project) would provide significant public benefit, including: improving flood protection,
enhancing ecological habitat and recreational opportunities within the Project reach, and protecting
properties and infrastructure between East Bayshore Road and San Francisco Bay;
(d) The City intends to authorize certain improvements for the San Francisquito
Creek Joint Powers Authority Flood Protection Project including, without limitation, the following:
(Project components are summarized in Exhibits “A‐1” and “A‐2”)
(1) Increasing the Creek’s capacity from San Francisco Bay to East Bayshore
Road.
(2) Degrading a portion of an unmaintained levee downstream of the
Friendship Bridge to allow flood flows from the creek channel into the
Palo Alto Baylands Preserve (Faber Tract) north of the creek.
(3) Excavating sediment deposits within the channel to maximize
conveyance.
(4) Rebuilding levees and relocating a portion of the southern levee to
widen the channel to reduce the influence of tides and increase channel
capacity.
(5) Constructing floodwalls in the upper reach to increase capacity and
maintain consistency with Caltrans’ enlargement of the U.S. Highway
101/East Bayshore Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek.
Not Yet Approved
121010 jb 0131009 2
(6) Constructing an overflow terrace at marsh elevation adjacent to the
Baylands Preserve.
(7) Constructing an extension of the Friendship Bridge via a boardwalk
across new marshland within the widened channel.
(e) The Council hereby approves the Plan for the San Francisquito Creek Joint
Powers Authority Flood Protection Project impacting the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and the
John Fletcher Byxbee Recreation Area and hereby adopts the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A‐
1" and “A‐2” as part of the official plan.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that an Environmental Impact Report for this project was
adopted by the JPA Board on October 25, 2012.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first day after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
_____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ _____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
APPROVED: _____________________________
Director of Community Services
_____________________________
Director of Public Works _____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
£¤101
San Francisquito Creek
San Francisco BayEAST
PALO
ALTO
PALO
ALTO
E. Bayshore Road
Palo Alto
Municipal
Golf Course
P
alo
A
lto
Airp
o
rt
S
a
n
M
ateo County
S
a
n
t
a Clara County
International
School of the
Peninsula
Baylands
Athletic
Center
Baylands
Nature
Preserve
K:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
1
\
J
o
i
n
t
P
o
w
e
r
s
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
\
0
0
8
8
2
_
0
9
\
m
a
p
d
o
c
\
f
l
o
o
d
_
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
_
S
t
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
.
m
x
d
H
W
(
1
0
-
1
2
-
1
1
)
Project Site
Alameda County
Santa Clara County
San Mateo County
Santa Cruz County
Contra Costa CountyMarin County
Project Site
Major Road
Highway
Creek
County
¯0 500 1,000
Feet
Figure 2-1Project Site
San Francisquito Creek
SanFrancisco
Bay
RIGHT
BANK
LEFT
BANK
EAST
PALO ALTO
PALO ALTO
Friendship Bridge
International School of the Peninsula
Boardwalk
Daphne W a y
Upper Reach
M
i
d
d
l
e
R
e
a
c
h
Lower
R
e
a
c
h
K:\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
_
1
\
J
o
i
n
t
P
o
w
e
r
s
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
\
0
0
8
8
2
_
0
9
\
m
a
p
d
o
c
\
f
l
o
o
d
_
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
_
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
2
.
m
x
d
H
W
(
1
0
-
1
8
-
1
1
)
Legend
Access Road
Project Reach
Creek
Floodwall
Levee
Levee Degrade
Staging Area
Marshplain
¯0 300 600
Feet
Figure 2-2Project Components
ATTACHMENT E
SUBJECT: Letter of Application for Site and Design Review
San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration and
Recreational Enhancement Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101
Dear ,
This letter is submitted as an accompaniment to the SFCJPA’s application for Site and Design
Review for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration and
Recreational Enhancement Project between Highway 101 and San Francisco Bay. Below is a
detailed description of the Project, as well as a description of how the Project complies with
objectives of Sec 18.82.060 of the PAMC.
Background
The San Francisquito Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) is a multi-governmental agency formed
in 1999 to develop and implement a comprehensive plan to provide flood protection, ecosystem
restoration, and recreational enhancements along San Francisquito Creek for residents,
businesses, and public lands and infrastructure within the Creek’s 45 square mile watershed
and 5 square mile floodplain. Additionally, the SFCJPA works to coordinate channel
maintenance and emergency response activities related to the creek and flooding. The
SFCJPA is comprised of the Cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, the San Mateo
County Flood Control District and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Since achieving federal authorization 2004, the SFCJPA has been working with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers on a feasibility study to define alternatives for a Flood Protection,
Ecosystem Restoration and Recreational Enhancement Project for San Francisquito Creek.
The first phase of the Project will be constructed on the Creek reach between Highway 101 and
San Francisco Bay.
There are a number of factors that make this section of the creek the top priority of the
SFCJPA’s flood management efforts:
It is at highest risk of severe flooding from two sources: 1) flows coming down from the
hills and 2) tidal surges from the bay.
It runs through communities that have experienced damage and dislocation during
previous flood events, such as the floods of 1998.
It is a necessary first step to providing full and comprehensive flood protection, as
upstream flow improvements (such as removal of bridge constrictions) cannot be
implemented until downstream capacity has been increased.
Lowering the water surface elevation at the downstream reach will improve drainage
upstream, even before upstream projects are built.
Project-Specific Goals and Objectives:
The Project’s goals are to improve flood protection, habitat, and recreational opportunities within
the Project reach, with the following specific objectives:
protect properties and infrastructure between Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay
from 100 year1 San Francisquito Creek riverine flood flows in conjunction with a 100-
year tide and projected Sea Level Rise;
accommodate future flood protection measures upstream of the project that may be
constructed;
enhance habitat along the project reach, particularly habitat for threatened and
endangered species;
enhance recreational uses; and minimize operational and maintenance requirements
Project Elements:
In general, project elements being proposed to achieve protection from creek flooding in the
project reach from a 100-year design flow in conjunction with a 100-year tide event and
considering projected Sea Level Rise are as follows:
Segment A (Highway 101 to International School)
Construction of outfall for new Caltrans 101 bridge cell
Excavation of existing fluvial sediment deposits
Maximizing channel geometry within top of bank constraints
Construction of floodwalls from channel bottom to above existing top of bank
Segment B (International School to Baylands Athletic Center access ramp)
Excavation of existing fluvial sediment deposits
Moving back levees
Construction of floodwalls at top of bank
Transition from floodwall/levee to new levees
Segment C (Baylands Athletic Center access to Friendship Bridge)
Further widening of existing levees
Adding width and height to levees
Modification/relocation of existing utilities
Tie in to O’Connor Pump Station
Segment D (Friendship Bridge to SF Bay)
Construction of a boardwalk to connect Friendship Bridge and Bay Trail to the new
levee within the current PA golf course
Tie in to existing South levee
Lowering of North levee
Compliance with Objectives of Section 18.82.060 of the PAMC
The Project will be constructed on lands owned by the City of Palo Alto and designated as Park
Land, or on new permanent easements from federal and private property owners to be secured
by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Project elements, while changing the landscape
and layout of the lands involved, will not fundamentally change the use of the land. Adjoining
and nearby sites will not experience any impacts to their existing or potential future uses as a
result of the Project.
.
Please contact me directly if I can provide any additional information on the proposed project.
Sincerely,
Kevin Murray
SFCJPA Project Manager
Trees Impactedby StockpileTrees Not Impactedby StockpileStudyAreaStockpile ±0 100 200 Feet
Figure 1Tree Impacts
Source: Davey Tree Company
Area of Focus
PaloAlto
Species Location SubLocatio Condition Notes
1 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 12 Tee Poor very thin crown; deadwood; epicormics
2 Casuarina equisetifolia Hole 12 Fairway Fair major lean; partially thin crown
3 Eucalyptus nicholii Hole 12 Fairway Poor thin crown; deadwood; leaning; needs cart path clearance
4 Casuarina equisetifolia Hole 12 Fairway Fair thin crown; deadwood
5 Eucalyptus rudis Hole 12 Fairway Fair previous failure; horizontal limb; lerp
6 Pinus halepensis Hole 12 Fairway Fair thin crown; corrected lean
7 Pinus halepensis Hole 12 Fairway Fair dbh@<4.5ft; major lean; codominants; pitch moth
8 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 12 Fairway Good minor surface roots; tortoise beetle
9 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 17 Fairway Fair leaning; thin crown; lifting soil
10 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Hole 17 Fairway Fair deadwood
11 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 17 Fairway Fair leaning; fair structure; tortoise beetle
12 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 17 Green Good tortoise beetle
13 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 17 Green Fair crown dieback; tortoise beetle
14 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Hole 17 Green Poor crown dieback; very thin crown; loose bark
15 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Hole 17 Green Fair bent trunk; included bark; previous failures; crown dieback; epicormics; lerp
16 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Hole 17 Green Poor crown dieback; very thin crown; deadwood
17 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Hole 17 Green Fair crown dieback; deadwood; elbow limbs; loose bark
18 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Hole 17 Green Poor dying
19 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 17 Green Fair major included crotch; tortoise beetle
20 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 17 Green Fair leaning; elbow limbs; tortoise beetle
21 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 17 Fairway Fair partially thin crown; tortoise beetle
22 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 17 Fairway Fair corrected lean; tortoise beetle
23 Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer'Hole 17 Fairway Dead nearly dead
24 Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer'Hole 17 Fairway Poor low vigor; root sprouts
25 Pyrus calleryana Hole 17 Fairway Fair trunk/basal wounds
26 Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer'Hole 17 Fairway Poor lost main leader; basal sprouts; ground squirrel hole
27 Casuarina equisetifolia Hole 17 Fairway Critical splitting crotch; thin crown
28 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 17 Fairway Fair lge epicormics; elbow limbs; tortoise beetle; lifting soil
29 Eucalyptus polyanthemos Hole 17 Fairway Fair major lean corrected; thin crown
30 Casuarina cunninghamiana Hole 17 Fairway Poor very thin crown; dieback; woodpecker damage
31 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 17 Fairway Good elbow limbs; lge epicormics; tortoise beetle
32 Populus nigra 'Italica'Hole 17 Fairway Good
Tree Potentially Impacted By Stockpile on Golf Course
Species Location SubLocatio Condition Notes
33 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 17 Fairway Fair fair structure; partially thin crown; minor trunk decay; tortoise beetle
34 Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer'Hole 17 Fairway Poor low vigor; trunk/branch damage
35 Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer'Hole 17 Fairway Poor low vigor
36 Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer'Hole 17 Fairway Poor dying
37 Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer'Hole 17 Fairway Fair basal sprouts
38 Pyrus calleryana Hole 17 Fairway Fair trunk wounds
39 Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer'Hole 17 Fairway Fair basal wounds
40 Pyrus calleryana Other N/A Dead by service road
41 Eucalyptus globulus Hole 18 Tee Fair elbow limbs; epicormics; minor deadwood; tortoise beetle
42 Eucalyptus rudis Hole 18 Tee Fair fair structure; lerp
43 Eucalyptus rudis Hole 18 Tee Poor major lean; previous failures; thin crown; deadwood; lerp
44 Eucalyptus rudis Hole 18 Tee Poor major lean; poor structure; previous failures; basal decay; trunk wounds; lerp
45 Eucalyptus rudis Hole 18 Tee Fair thin crown; previous failures; deadwood; dieback; lerp
46 Melaleuca linariifolia Hole 18 Tee Good
47 Melaleuca linariifolia Hole 18 Tee Fair dbh@<4.5ft; major included bark
48 Pinus pinea Hole 18 Tee Good major lean corrected; surface roots
49 Pinus pinea Hole 18 Tee Fair dbh@<4.5ft; major lean corrected; splitting crotch; surface roots
50 Pinus pinea Hole 11 Green Good dbh@<4.5ft; major lean corrected
51 Morus alba Hole 11 Fairway Good minor lean
52 Eucalyptus nicholii Hole 11 Fairway Poor dbh@<4.5ft; included crotch; basal wound; thin crown
53 Morus alba Hole 11 Fairway Good
54 Melaleuca linariifolia Hole 11 Fairway Fair dbh@<4.5ft
55 Melaleuca linariifolia Hole 11 Fairway Good
56 Melaleuca linariifolia Hole 11 Fairway Good dbh@<4.5ft
57 Morus alba Hole 15 Fairway Fair poor structure; included crotch
58 Casuarina equisetifolia Hole 15 Fairway Poor lge previous failures; trunk decay; included bark; deadwood; thin crown
59 Casuarina equisetifolia Hole 15 Fairway Poor thin crown
60 Casuarina equisetifolia Hole 15 Fairway Poor trunk decay; very thin crown
61 Morus alba Hole 11 Tee Fair
62 Melaleuca linariifolia Hole 18 Fairway Poor dbh@<4.5ft; leaning; major trunk wound/decay; thin crown
63 Eucalyptus rudis Hole 18 Tee Fair bent top; codominants; trunk decay; sml deadwood
64 Melaleuca linariifolia Hole 18 Tee Fair leaning; major included bark
65 Melaleuca linariifolia Hole 18 Tee Good corrected lean
Species Location SubLocatio Condition Notes
66 Melaleuca linariifolia Hole 18 Tee Good dbh@<4.5ft; needs cart path clearance
67 Eucalyptus rudis Hole 18 Tee Fair corrected lean; previously topped; epicormics; lerp; needs cart path clearance
68 Eucalyptus rudis Hole 18 Tee Fair dbh@<4.5ft; multiple leaders; thin crown; epicormics; lerp;
69 Pinus pinea Hole 18 Tee Fair leaning; partially thin crown; needs cart path clearance
70 Casuarina equisetifolia Hole 18 Tee Fair deadwood; woodpecker damage; needs cart path clearance
Table 3.9‐6. Project Compatibility with Applicable Planning Documents Page 1 of 13
Policies Program Consistency Discussion
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
GOAL L‐1: A well‐designed, compact city, providing residents
and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places,
shopping districts, public facilities, and open spaces.
POLICY L‐4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential
neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial
areas and public facilities.
N/A Consistent. The Project would improve flood protection in
residential, commercial, and public areas upstream of the
Project site; and environmental quality in the Baylands.
GOAL L‐9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that
enhance the image and character of the City.
POLICY L‐68: Integrate creeks and green spaces with the
street and pedestrian/bicycle path system.
N/A Consistent. The Project would improve the scenic qualities of
the San Francisquito Creek riparian corridor and surrounding
Baylands, including improved trails and signage. The Project
would also rebuild to existing or better conditions the access
road along the levee crown that serves as the Bay Trail for
recreationists.
POLICY L‐69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto roads
and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and
equestrians.
PROGRAM L‐71: Recognize … Embarcadero Road … [and]
Oregon Expressway … as scenic routes.
POLICY L‐79: Design public infrastructure, including paving,
signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots to
meet high quality urban design standards. Look for
opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public
infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing
infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive.
PROGRAM L‐81: Encourage the use of compact and well‐
designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching
devices, and backflow preventers. Place these elements in
locations that will minimize their visual intrusion.
GOAL N‐1: Palo Alto’s foothills and Baylands will continue to
be conserved as open space over the term of this plan. The
City will seek out new opportunities for permanent open
space in both areas
POLICY N‐1: Manage existing public open space areas … in a
manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety
concerns, and low impact recreation needs.
PROGRAM N‐2: Examine and improve management
practices for natural habitat and open space areas,
including the provision of access to open space for City
vehicles and equipment, to ensure that natural resources
are protected.
Consistent. The Project site would remain as open space.
PROGRAM N‐3: Review the need for access controls in
environmentally sensitive areas, including the baylands,
foothills, and riparian corridors.
POLICY N‐2: Support regional and sub‐regional efforts to
acquire, develop, operate, and maintain an open space system
extending from Skyline Ridge to San Francisco Bay.
PROGRAM N‐4: Seek additional sources of funding,
including state and federal programs, to finance open space
acquisition and development.
POLICY N‐3: Protect sensitive plant species resources from
the impacts of development.
N/A
POLICY N‐8: Preserve and protect the Bay, marshlands, salt
ponds, sloughs, creeks, and other natural water or wetland
areas as open space.
N/A
GOAL N‐2: Conservation of Creeks and Riparian Areas as Open
Space Amenities, Natural Habitat Areas, and Elements of
Community Design.
POLICY N‐9: Avoid fencing, piping, and channelization of
creeks when flood control and public safety can be achieved
through measures that preserve the natural environment and
habitat of the creek.
N/A Consistent. The Project would use restoration as a primary
tool in flood protection. The Project would also provide
improved protection for sensitive species and natural
communities, including minimizing site disturbance and
potential for erosion. POLICY N‐10: Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water
District and other relevant regional agencies to enhance
riparian corridors and provide adequate flood control by use
of low impact restoration strategies.
N/A
Table 3.9‐6. Continued Page 2 of 13
Policies Program Consistency Discussion
POLICY N‐11: Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors. PROGRAM N‐7: Adopt a setback along natural creeks that
prohibits the siting of buildings and other structures,
impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and
ornamental landscaped areas within 100 feet of the top of a
creek bank. Allow passive or intermittent outdoor activities
and pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle pathways where
there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian
environment. Within the setback area, provide a border of
native riparian vegetation at least 25 feet along the creek
bank.
PROGRAM N‐9: Participate in a San Francisquito Creek
Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP)
process with adjacent cities.
POLICY N‐12: Preserve the habitat value of creek corridors
through the preservation of native plants and the
replacement of invasive, non‐native plants with native plants.
N/A
POLICY N‐13: Discourage creek bank instability, erosion,
downstream sedimentation, and flooding by minimizing site
disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks and
carefully reviewing grading and drainage plans for
development near creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of
creeks.
N/A
GOAL N‐3: A Thriving “Urban Forest” That Provides
Ecological, Economic, and Aesthetic Benefits for Palo Alto.
PROGRAM N‐16: Continue to require replacement of trees,
including street trees lost to new development, and establish
a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it
is impractical to locate them onsite.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes mitigation to compensate for
loss of protected landscape trees, consistent with applicable
tree protection regulations.
POLICY N‐17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including
native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private
property.
N/A
GOAL N‐4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to
Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and
Protect Public Health and Safety.
POLICY N‐21: Reduce non‐point source pollution in urban
runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal,
and transportation land uses and activities.
PROGRAM N‐29: Actively participate in programs such as
the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention
Program to improve the quality of stormwater runoff.
Consistent. The Project includes environmental commitments
and mitigation to minimize stormwater pollution; increases
in water turbidity; saltwater intrusion; and entry of sediment,
hazardous materials, septic waste, and other pollutants into
waterways. Further, the SFCJPA participates in the Santa
Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.
POLICY N‐23: Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the
City’s sanitary sewer collection system by promoting the use
of Best Management Practices.
N/A
GOAL N‐5: Clean, Healthful Air for Palo Alto and the San
Francisco Bay Area.
POLICY N‐26: Support regional, state, and federal programs
that improve air quality in the Bay Area.
PROGRAM N‐39: Assist the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) in its efforts to achieve
compliance with existing air quality regulations.
Consistent. The Project includes environmental commitments
and mitigation to control construction dust and construction
equipment emissions.
POLICY N‐29: All potential sources of odor and/or toxic air
contaminants should be adequately buffered, or mechanically
or otherwise mitigated to avoid odor and toxic impacts that
violate relevant human health standards.
N/A
GOAL N‐6: An Environment Free of the Damaging Effects of
Biological and Chemical Hazardous Materials.
POLICY N‐30: Minimize the use of toxic and hazardous
materials. Encourage the use of alternative materials and
practices that are environmentally benign.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes environmental commitments
that control use of herbicides, insecticides, and rodenticides.
Further, the Project includes mitigation that requires
Table 3.9‐6. Continued Page 3 of 13
Policies Program Consistency Discussion
POLICY N‐37: Ensure the environmentally sound disposal of
solid waste.
N/A preparation of a spill prevention and response plan, and
proper storage and handling of potential pollutants and
hazardous materials. The Project also mitigation that
requires work stoppage, investigation, and possible
remediation in the event that unknown hazardous materials
are encountered.
GOAL N‐8: An Environment That Minimizes the Adverse
Impacts of Noise.
POLICY N‐41: When a proposed project is subject to CEQA,
the noise impact of the project on existing residential land
uses should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing
noise levels and potential for adverse community impact,
regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is
below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase
in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be
allowed.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes environmental commitments
to minimize noise impacts on residential land uses during
construction. The Project also includes mitigation to assess
potential for vibration during construction and to implement
vibration control. Further, the Project includes mitigation to
provide advance notification of construction schedule to
residents.
POLICY N‐43: Protect the community and especially sensitive
noise receptors, including schools, hospitals, and senior care
facilities, from excessive noise.
N/A
GOAL N‐10: Protection of Life and Property From Natural
Hazards, Including Earthquake, Landslide, Flooding, and Fire.
POLICY N‐50: Implement public safety improvements, such
as access roads and other infrastructure, in a manner that is
sensitive to the environment.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes environmental commitments
and mitigation to protect native species, natural communities
and habitat, air quality, water quality, and all other
environmental issues addressed under CEQA.
POLICY N‐51: Minimize exposure to geologic hazards,
including slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and
to seismic hazards including groundshaking, fault rupture,
liquefaction, and landsliding.
PROGRAM N‐69: Strictly enforce Uniform Building Code
seismic safety restrictions.
Consistent. The Project will conform to City of Palo Alto
seismic safety restrictions and USACE and District standards.
PROGRAM N‐73: Require preparation of a report from an
engineering geologist that reviews geologic, soils, and
engineering reports for developments in hazard areas…
Consistent. The Project includes an environmental
commitment to base Project design on recommendations
from a site‐specific geotechnical analysis.
POLICY N‐53: Minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire
hazards through rapid emergency response, proactive code
enforcement, public education programs, use of modern fire
prevention measures, and adequate emergency management
preparation.
N/A Consistent. The Project would not involve construction,
maintenance, or other project operational activities that
would affect the ability of emergency response departments
to provide those emergency response services.
Goal T‐1: Less Reliance on Single‐Occupant Vehicles POLICY T‐1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking,
bicycling, and public transit use.
PROGRAM T‐1: Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse
of vacant or underutilized parcels employing minimum
density requirements that are appropriate to support
transit, bicycling, and walking.
Consistent. Improvements to the recreational trail support
choices for walking and bicycling.
Goal T‐3: Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage
and Promote Walking and Bicycling
POLICY T‐14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and
between local destinations, including public facilities, schools,
parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers,
and multi‐modal transit stations.
PROGRAM T‐22: Implement a network of bicycle
boulevards, including extension of the southern end of the
Bryant Street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View.
Consistent. The Bay Trail that runs through the Project site is
part of Palo Alto’s network of bicycle boulevards.
Improvements to this trail, which include a new surface and
interpretive signage, encourage walking and bicycling and
contribute to a positive user experience. POLICY T‐20: Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure.
PROGRAM T‐29: Provide regular maintenance of off‐road
bicycle and pedestrian paths, including sweeping, weed
abatement, and pavement maintenance.
POLICY T‐22: Improve amenities such as seating, lighting,
bicycle parking, street trees, and interpretive stations along
bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks to encourage
walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of safety.
N/A
Table 3.9‐6. Continued Page 4 of 13
Policies Program Consistency Discussion
GOAL C‐4: Attractive, Well‐maintained Community Facilities
That Serve Palo Alto Residents.
POLICY C‐24: Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their
usefulness and appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance of
City infrastructure.
PROGRAM C‐19: Develop improvement plans for the
maintenance, restoration and enhancement of community
facilities, and keep these facilities viable community assets
by investing the necessary resources.
Consistent. A primary purpose of the Project is to improve
flood control, while at the same time maintaining and
enhancing the natural function and beauty of the San
Francisquito Creek corridor and the Baylands and its value as
a recreational resource. POLICY C‐25: Make infrastructure improvements on public
open space only when these improvements are consistent
with the goals of protecting and conserving the natural
environment.
N/A
POLICY C‐26: Maintain and enhance existing park facilities. PROGRAM C‐23: Study and recommend methods of private
and public financing for improved park maintenance,
rehabilitation, and construction.
GOAL C‐5: Equal Access to Educational, Recreational, and
Cultural Services for All Residents.
POLICY C‐29: Strategically locate public facilities and parks to
serve all neighborhoods in the City.
N/A Consistent. The Baylands is the primary open space area in
the eastern part of the City of Palo Alto.
POLICY C‐32: Provide fully accessible public facilities to all
residents and visitors.
PROGRAM C‐27: Continue to implement Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements in City facilities
including, but not limited to, sidewalk curb cuts, building
entrances, meeting room access, and sight and hearing
adjuncts.
Consistent. Areas designated as trails will be ADA‐compliant.
City of Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan
Environmental Quality 2. Recognize and maintain the relationship between the
urbanized Embarcadero Road corridor in the northwest and
the remaining recreation‐oriented three‐quarters of the
Baylands. Allow no more urban intrusion.
N/A Consistent. The Project would maintain the recreation
orientation of the Baylands, and would not either directly
involve or induce urbanization.
3. Expand bicycle and pedestrian activities while reducing
vehicle traffic in the Baylands.
N/A Consistent. The Project would not add new bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, but it does represent an investment in
recreation infrastructure.
4. Restrict storage and parking of vehicles in the Baylands. N/A Consistent. The Project would not add new parking to the
Project area.
5. Keep marshes open to the Bay along the entire shoreline. N/A Consistent. The Project would maintain connectivity between
the Baylands and the Bay and, in some areas, would improve
connectivity.
6. Control access to environmentally sensitive marshland and
upland meadow habitat.
N/A Consistent. Project environmental commitments and
mitigation would protect sensitive marshland and upload
meadow habitat during Project construction. Existing access
restrictions would be maintained under Project operation.
7. Restore the diversity of plants and animals to disturbed
upland sites.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes restoration of transitional
marsh habitats and removal of invasive species in areas of
restoration.
8. Ensure there is sufficient native food and cover for wildlife. N/A Consistent. The Project would improve native cover through
removal of invasive plant species and replanting with native
plants.
Table 3.9‐6. Continued Page 5 of 13
Policies Program Consistency Discussion
10. Allow access to the flood basin only in certain seasons to
protect the waterfowl and shorebird refuge area.
N/A Consistent. Human access to flood basins would be restricted
to maintenance personal, due to safety concerns.
Maintenance access would be consistent with current
maintenance easement agreements.
11. Eliminate telephone and electric wires and poles from the
Baylands.
N/A Consistent. While the Project would not eliminate utility
wires and poles from the Baylands, neither would it
introduce new wires and poles.
12. Continue to allow intensive, structured, and special use
recreation only where it is the least destructive to wildlife
habitat.
N/A Consistent. Existing trails and recreational facilities would be
maintained under the Project.
13. Follow guidelines established in the Site Assessment and
Design Guidelines, Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve
published in 2005.
N/A Consistent. Any signage, vehicle controls, paving, fences and
enclosures, and site furniture will conform to guidelines
established in Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, Palo
Alto Baylands Nature Preserve published in 2005. Project
design would be approved by the Palo Alto Architectural
Review Board before Project implementation.
14. Comply with Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan
adopted by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use
Commission.
N/A Consistent. The Project would not involve human use of the
airport safety zones in excess of specifications in the Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Access and Circulation 2. Encourage only limited automobile access and reduce
vehicle traffic in the Baylands as far as possible. Expand
bicycle and pedestrian activities and make it easier for people
to use transit systems.
N/A Consistent. The Project would improve bicycle and
pedestrian access to the Baylands and would not introduce
new vehicle traffic into the Baylands.
18. Maintain, protect, and improve the present nature trails.
…
N/A Consistent. The Project would maintain, protect, and improve
the trail along San Francisquito Creek in the Baylands.
19. Separate pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle routes will be
planned for, and these routes will be on land except where it
is necessary to span sensitive water areas and to connect
them with existing systems.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes a dedicated bicycle and
pedestrian route.
25. Implement the improvements to bicycle circulation in the
Baylands described in the Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation
Plan and the Comprehensive Plan including improving
pedestrian/bicycle access to the Baylands across Highway
101 e.g., at Adobe Creek, Matadero Creek, San Francisquito
Creek, and San Antonio Road…
N/A Consistent. The Project would implement improvements to
bicycle circulation along San Francisquito Creek and would
not interfere with any of the other named improvements.
27. Maintain the four improvements made to the San
Francisco Bay Trail regional bike route that create a
continuous off‐road bike path system from Mountain View to
Cooley Landing:
A paved bike off‐road path along Geng Road…
An extension of the bridges at Adobe and Matadero Creeks
on the east side of Bayshore Freeway…
A pedestrian‐bike bridge (Friendship Bridge) over San
Francisquito Creek…
An access control fence along the north side of the golf
course…
N/A Consistent. The Project would include pedestrian‐bicycle use
of Friendship Bridge and would not interfere with any of the
other named improvements.
Table 3.9‐6. Continued Page 6 of 13
Policies Program Consistency Discussion
28. Maintain access to the regional trail system:
from the pedestrian bridge over Bayshore Freeway at
Embarcadero Road (completed 1985)
from the public easement to Byxbee Park along the south
side parallel to the urbanized area.
along Matadero Creek.
under Highway 101 at Adobe Creek (seasonal underpass
that connects West Bayshore and East Meadow Circle to
trails along East Bayshore Road).
Also integrate the City’s bike paths and trail system with auto
and public transit facilities to make free and easy movement
possible through the Baylands and to connect with regional
systems to the south, west, and north.
N/A Consistent. The Project would continue to provide bicycle
access through the Baylands.
30. Restrict access to protect breeding species and their
habitat and to preserve and enhance flood basin wildlife and
vegetation.
N/A Consistent. Project environmental commitments and
mitigation would protect species during Project construction.
Existing restrictions would be maintained under Project
operation.
31. Use of the flood basin would be compatible if:
a. access were closed or substantially restricted during the
breeding season, approximately March 30 to June 30;
b. access were limited to existing trails and those above the
high‐water line with the proposed flood plain mitigation
project. A continuing survey should be started to establish
the most productive and critical wildlife areas in the flood
basin. If necessary, access to trails that cross or are next to
sensitive areas should be closed or regulated;
c. most uses, including bicycle trails, were limited and
encouraged only along the perimeter levees of the flood
basin;
d. a portion or portions of the flood basin were closed to
unguided access and reserved for occasional educational
use under supervision.
N/A Consistent. Project environmental commitments and
mitigation would control access to the flood control channel
during Project construction. Existing access restrictions
would be maintained under Project operation.
Flood Protection 1. Coordinate any flood protection on San Francisquito Creek
with the cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, the Santa
Clara Valley Water District, and the San Mateo County Flood
Control District by participating in the San Francisquito
Creek Joint Powers Authority which was jointly established
by these agencies in 1999.
N/A Consistent. The Project would be led by the San Francisquito
Creek Joint Powers Authority, a regional government agency
whose members include the Cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park,
and East Palo Alto; the San Mateo County Flood Control
District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Project
includes mitigation to address impacts resulting from levee
construction. 2. Do not allow new levee construction to intrude on any
marsh or wetlands without appropriate mitigation.
N/A
Baylands Athletic Center 1. Continue current Athletic Center activities. N/A Consistent. The Project would not impede current activities at
the Athletic Center either during the construction phase or
during Project operation. 2. Maintain and continue to improve standards of low
external glare night lighting.
N/A
Golf Course 1. Continue its present use. N/A Consistent. While the Project would involve changing use of
some the land currently used by the Golf Course, the Project
is consistent with Palo Alto Golf Course Reconfiguration
Project, undertaken under the Master Plan.
2. Continue with the implementation of the Palo Alto
Municipal Golf Course Master Improvement Plan.
N/A
Table 3.9‐6. Continued Page 7 of 13
Policies Program Consistency Discussion
Airport 4. The second runway, provided for in the 1976 Santa Clara
County Airport Master Plan, will not be built… Maintain the
native grasses planted on the abandoned second runway pad
and leave as open space…
N/A Consistent. The Project would not convert open space around
the Palo Alto Airport to another land use.
East Palo Alto General Plan
Land Use Goal 2.0: Create an enhanced image and identity for
East Palo Alto.
Discussion: East Palo Alto is attempting to enhance its image
as a distinctive, identifiable community among communities
in San Mateo County. The community possesses desirable
physical qualities including the baylands, Cooley Landing, San
Francisquito Creek, and the shoreline areas…
Policy 2.1: Enhance the image of the community by
improving the appearance of public areas and entrances to
the City along University Avenue, Bay Road, Willow Road, and
Newbridge Street.
N/A Consistent. The Project would enhance the beauty and
natural function of the Baylands, including its use as a
recreation resource.
Land Use Goal 3.0: Enhance the character of community
neighborhoods.
Discussion: East Palo Alto contains a number of distinct
neighborhoods defined by natural and man‐ made physical
features, such as the baylands, San Francisquito Creek, the
Bayshore Freeway and other major roads, and land uses…
Policy 3.1: Preserve and enhance the quality of East Palo Alto
neighborhoods by avoiding or abating the intrusion of
disruptive, nonconforming buildings and uses.
N/A Consistent. In addition to enhancing the quality of the
neighborhoods adjacent to the Project site, THE Project was
designed to preserve a planned pocket park adjacent to the
Project site.
Land Use Goal 4.0: Provide effective coordination with public
facilities and services providers.
Discussion: Public facilities and services, including water and
sewer service, flood control, fire protection and law
enforcement, education, road maintenance, and natural gas,
electricity and communications, are necessary to support the
community of East Palo Alto…
Policy 4.1: Work closely with local public facilities and
services providers to meet community needs.
N/A Consistent. The Project would be led by the San Francisquito
Creek Joint Powers Authority, a regional government agency
whose members include the Cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park,
and East Palo Alto; the San Mateo County Flood Control
District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Policy 4.2: Participate with other public agencies providing
facilities and services to East Palo Alto in cooperative efforts
to address important regional issues.
N/A
Economic Development Goal 2.0: Increase the City's ability to
provide needed services and facilities by diversifying and
expanding its revenue base.
Discussion: The City also needs to diversify its mix of land
uses so it will be able to recapture a portion of the sales tax
revenues that are being spent in other communities…
Policy 2.2. Encourage tourism as a local industry. N/A Consistent. The Baylands is identified as an important
natural, cultural, and recreational resource in East Palo Alto.
Investment in this resource has potential to lead to improved
tourism opportunities.
Policy 2.3. Encourage the location of tourist and recreation‐
oriented commercial development along the freeway.
N/A
Economic Development Goal 8.0: Improve the City's image
through promotion of its desirable characteristics, including
natural, human, and historical resources, and its locational
characteristics (transportation, real estate, bridge, climate,
bay views) and environmental features.
Discussion: To successfully attract new businesses and to
generate desired economic development, the City will need to
improve its overall image.
Policy 8.1: Maintain adequate environmental quality controls
to preserve and provide an attractive and healthy
environment, and maintain strong controls to enhance the
viability of neighborhoods.
N/A Consistent. The Baylands is identified as an important
natural, cultural, and recreational resource in East Palo Alto.
Investment in this resource has potential to attract new
businesses.
Policy 8.2: Actively promote the City's natural resources and
open spaces as a means of encouraging economic use and
attracting businesses and people of diverse economic
backgrounds to East Palo Alto.
N/A
Economic Development Goal 9.0: Improve the business
environment in the City by undertaking infrastructure and
street improvements, enhancing blighted and under‐
developed areas, and creating identifiable destination points
within the City.
Discussion: Public infrastructure in East Palo Alto needs to be
improved to support long‐term growth and development. To
make economic use of the City's natural features, public access
to the shoreline and waterfront areas require improvement.
Policy 9.2: Promote East Palo Alto as a destination point for
non‐residents by promoting on the City's unique shorelines
and waterfront assets, baylands and historical resources.
N/A Consistent. The Project would improve flood control
infrastructure by reducing flood hazards in the Project area.
Further, the Project would improve the Baylands, consistent
with the policy to promote this area of the City.
Table 3.9‐6. Continued Page 8 of 13
Policies Program Consistency Discussion
Circulation Goal 1.0: Support development of an efficient
regional transportation system.
Discussion: …Roadway facilities within East Palo Alto
accommodate regional traffic resulting in congestion on the
Bayshore Freeway (U.S. 101), University Avenue, East
Bayshore Road, and Willow Road. Planning for the needs of
the community necessarily includes recognition of the related
transportation needs and planning efforts of the surrounding
communities, county and region…
Policy 1.1: Support implementation of the Countywide
Transportation Plan.
NOTE: The Countywide Transportation Plan prioritizes
“[i]ncreas[ing] the use of bicycles as a travel mode by
developing a comprehensive bikeway system…”
N/A Consistent. The Project would contribute to the
comprehensive bikeway system envisioned under the
Countywide Transportation Plan.
Policy 1.2: Work closely with adjacent jurisdictions and
transportation agencies to ensure that development projects
within and near East Palo Alto can be accommodated by the
regional transportation system.
N/A Consistent. The Project would be led by cross‐jurisdictional
joint powers authority agency.
Circulation Goal 3.0: Increase use of public transit and non‐
vehicular methods of travel.
Discussion: Many residents and employees in East Palo Alto
rely on public transit… Non‐vehicular methods of modes of
travel, such as bicycling or walking, can also reduce demands
on the roadway system where necessary improvements exist
to promote those methods…
Policy 3.3: Provide and maintain a circulation system that
supports bicycle and pedestrian travel.
N/A Consistent. The Project would continue to provide and would
improve on facilities for bicycle transport and walking.
Conservation/Open Space Goal 1.0: Identify and conserve
important historic, archaeologic [sic] and paleontologic [sic]
resources.
Discussion: East Palo Alto includes a number of important
cultural resources and potential resource areas that should be
conserved to provide a link to the community's history and
heritage…
Policy 1.1: Protect areas of important archaeologic and
paleontologic resources.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes mitigation that will protect
archeological and paleontological resources if they are
discovered during project construction. Project operation is
unlikely to uncover archeological or paleontological
resources.
Policy 1.2: Protect and conserve buildings or sites of historic
significance.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes mitigation that will protect
historic resources during project construction. Project
operation is unlikely to disturb historic resources. Project
operation would not change access to historic resources.
Conservation/Open Space Goal 2. 0: Preserve and enhance
important natural resources and features.
Discussion: Many important natural features, such as the
baylands, San Francisquito Creek, and the shoreline are a part
of the East Palo Alto community. These resources provide
visual changes in the urban environment that create interest,
and are landmarks that communicate a sense of place and
location in the community…
Policy 2.1: Conserve, protect and maintain important natural
plant and animal communities, such as the baylands, Cooley
Landing, San Francisquito Creek, the shoreline and significant
tree stands.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes environmental commitments
and mitigation to minimize impacts on nesting migratory
birds and raptors, sensitive native aquatic vertebrates,
sensitive native wildlife species, native plants, and landscape
trees; riparian, instream, wetland, and other habitats; and
water resources, including sediment and erosion
management. The Project also includes improvements,
including interpretive signage, that will enhance use of the
Baylands.
Policy 2.2: Conserve and protect important watershed areas
and soils through appropriate site planning and grading
techniques, revegetation and soil management practices, and
other resource management techniques.
N/A
Policy 2.3: Preserve existing and increase the number of trees
within the community.
N/A
Policy 2.4: Maximize enjoyment and promotion of natural
resource areas, such as the baylands, Cooley Landing, San
Francisquito Creek, and the shoreline.
N/A
Conservation/Open Space Goal 4. 0: Improve air quality.
Discussion: Air quality in the Bay Area does not presently
meet state and federal standards. Cooperation among all
agencies in the area is necessary to achieve desired
improvements to air quality. East Palo Alto can participate
and contribute its share in those efforts by proper planning
for land use and transportation.
Policy 4.1: Cooperate with the Bay Area Association of
Governments and the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District in their efforts to implement the regional Air Quality
Management Plan.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes environmental commitments
and mitigation that will ensure compliance with BAAQMD
standards.
Policy 4.2: Cooperate and participate in regional air quality
management planning, programs and enforcement measures.
N/A
Conservation/Open Space Goal 6.0: Provide adequate open
space and recreational opportunities.
Discussion: Open space and recreational opportunities are
Policy 6.2: Provide parkland improvements that are durable
and economical to maintain.
N/A Consistent. The portion of the Project that consists of
restoration will be self‐maintaining. Paving of trails would be
done to current design standards.
Table 3.9‐6. Continued Page 9 of 13
Policies Program Consistency Discussion
important components of urban living. As new development is
proposed in East Palo Alto, open space and recreational
opportunities need to be provided to maintain quality of life in
the community…
Policy 6.3: Maximize the utility of existing parks, recreational
facilities and open space within East Palo Alto.
N/A Consistent. The Project will provide park, recreational, and
open space amenities.
Conservation/Open Space Goal 8.0: Improve access to open
space and recreation resources.
Discussion: Open space and recreational resources access is
an important aspect of the quality of life in urban areas.
Greater access can be provided through joint use agreements
with other public owners of open space and recreational
lands. Physical access to specific sites can also be improved to
promote greater use…
Policy 8.1: Create joint use agreements with school districts,
water districts and other public agencies to allow greater
access to open space and recreational lands.
N/A Consistent. The Project lead is the SFCJPA, a joint agency. The
Project would also create new joint use agreements between
SFCJPA and the local land and easement holders.
Policy 8.2: Provide physical improvements, such as parking
lots, sidewalks, trails, access points or other facilities that
promote greater use of recreation and open space lands and
the bay.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes improvements to the that
part of the Bay Trail that runs along the top of the levee as
part of the access road, improvements to Friendship Bridge,
and a boardwalk leading from Friendship Bridge across the
restored marsh.
Noise Goal 1.0: Minimize the effects of noise through proper
land use planning.
Discussion: Certain areas within East Palo Alto are subject to
high noise levels. Consideration of the sources and recipients
of noise early in the land use planning process can be an
effective method of minimizing the impact of noise on
population in the community…
Policy 1.2: Provide noise control measures, such as berms,
walls, and sound attenuating construction in areas of new
construction or rehabilitation.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes environmental commitments
and mitigation to minimize effects of noise generated during
construction and maintenance activities.
Noise Goal 2.0: Minimize transportation and non‐
transportation‐related noise impacts.
Discussion: Transportation noise is a primary factor affecting
the overall quality of life in East Palo Alto… Noise sources that
are not directly related to transportation include construction
noise, manufacturing noise, and property maintenance
activities…
Policy 2.2: Reduce the impacts of noise‐producing land uses
and activities on noise‐sensitive land uses.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes environmental commitments
and mitigation to minimize effects of noise generated during
construction and maintenance activities.
Safety Goal 1.0: Reduce the risk to the community from
hazards associated with geologic conditions, seismic activity
and flooding.
Discussion: In the Bay Area, communities are subject to risk
attributable to certain natural hazards, such as geologic
conditions, seismic activity, fire, and flooding…
Policy 1.1: Reduce the risk of impacts from geologic and
seismic hazards by applying proper development engineering
and building construction requirements.
N/A Consistent. Project construction would adhere to
requirements and standards set by the Uniform Building
Code, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Policy 1.2: Protect the community from flooding hazards by
providing and regularly maintaining flood control facilities.
N/A
Safety Goal 2. 0: Protect the community from hazards
associated with aircraft overflights, hazardous materials use,
fire, ground transportation accidents, and criminal activity.
Discussion: Certain human activities, such as flying, use of
hazardous or toxic materials, use of combustibles, and
criminal actions, expose the population of East Palo Alto to
risk. The risk of exposure to these hazards can be reduced to
acceptable levels through proper planning and regulation of
human activities.
Policy 2.2: Cooperate with responsible federal, state and
county agencies to minimize amounts and reduce the risk
from the use and transport of hazardous materials.
N/A Consistent. Hazardous and potentially hazardous materials
used in Project construction and maintenance would be
transported, stored, and handled in a manner consistent with
all relevant regulations and guidelines, including those
recommended and enforced by the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Santa Clara County Department of
Environmental Health, and San Mateo County Environmental
Health Department.
Policy 2.3: Provide fire protection to reduce the risk of fire. N/A Consistent. The Project would not involve construction,
maintenance, or other project operational activities that
would increase likelihood of fire, nor would it interfere with
the ability of local fire departments to provide fire protection
services.
Policy 2.5: Provide police protection to address criminal
activity.
N/A Consistent. Neither construction nor operation of the Project
would alter the ability of local jurisdictions’ police
departments to service the Project area.
Table 3.9‐6. Continued Page 10 of 13
Policies Program Consistency Discussion
Safety Goal 3.0: Improve the ability of the City to respond to
natural and human‐caused emergencies.
Discussion: Major emergencies arise periodically in developed
urban areas. Proper preparation for emergencies is an
essential action to minimize the disruption, personal injury,
and property damage associated with such events...
Policy 3.1: Support the development of local preparedness
plans and multi‐jurisdictional cooperation and
communication for emergency situations.
N/A Consistent. The Project would not change the ability of local
jurisdictions to respond to emergency situations.
East Palo Alto Bay Access Master Plan
Public Bay Access‐ The BAMP will provide public access to the
Bay in East Palo Alto… Improved public access will allow all
East Palo Alto residents to spend time along the Bay. The
BAMP is an opportunity to maximize the access to the Bay and
to ensure that development in the RBD creates open space
and recreational opportunities…
N/A Consistent. The Project would provide improved public
access to the Bay Trail.
Open Space for Families‐The BAMP will ensure that the public
access is designed to meet the needs of the large family and
renter households in East Palo Alto[;]…the best use would be
usable open space connected by a network of trails.
N/A Consistent. The Project would involve improvements of
Friendship Bridge and that part of the Bay Trail that runs
along the top of the levee as part of the access road. These
Project elements art part of a regional network of trails
connecting open space in the Baylands.
Environmental Protection‐The BAMP will ensure that the
public access to the Bay is designed, developed, and
maintained to protect the existing natural resources and
habitats… The public access improvements must be designed
and sited to both provide access and protect the wildlife… To
the extent possible, improvements should adhere to BCDC’s
Shoreline Spaces, Public Access Design Guidelines for the San
Francisco Bay; and BCDC’s Public Access and Wildlife
Compatibility.
N/A Consistent. Design of the Project will provide flood control
and maintenance and recreational access while protecting
existing natural resources and habitats. Project
environmental commitments include complying with
guidelines put forth in BCDC’s Shoreline Spaces, Public Access
Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay; and BCDC’s Public
Access and Wildlife Compatibility.
Connectivity‐ The BAMP will ensure that all East Palo Alto
residents can use pedestrian trails to connect to the Bay and
to existing and future parks... Connecting East Palo Alto
residents to local and regional parks and open space will
expand and improve their recreational opportunities and the
quality of life.
N/A Consistent. The Project would maintain access from East Palo
Alto to the Bay Trail, which connects to other areas in the
Baylands.
Economic Development‐ The BAMP will increase the market
desirability of the RBD [Ravenswood Business District]. Well‐
designed recreational amenities increase the market value of
office and R&D buildings…
N/A Consistent. Consistent. The Project would include
improvements to that part of the Bay Trail that runs along the
top of the levee as part of the access road and Friendship
Bridge. Design would be consistent with regional design
guidelines developed by San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission.
EPA BAMP Trail Priorities T1= Bay Trail South: This trail section completes the Bay
Trail gap between Weeks Street and Bay Road. It will provide
significant connectivity between East Palo Alto
neighborhoods and Cooley Landing, the Palo Alto Baylands,
and the Mountain View Baylands.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes improvements to that part of
the Bay Trail that runs along the top of the levee as part of the
access road, maintaining connectivity between East Palo Alto
neighborhoods and areas in the Baylands.
EPA BAMP Pocket Park Priorities Pocket Park #8 (PP8): This is a proposed pedestrian pocket
park located in the vicinity of Highway 101 and the San
Francisquito Creek trail. The park should consist of
pedestrian amenities and interpretative signs.
N/A Consistent. The Project would not interfere with development
of Pocket Park #8.
Table 3.9‐6. Continued Page 11 of 13
Policies Program Consistency Discussion
Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan
General Compatibility G‐6 Any proposed uses that may cause a hazard to aircraft in
flight are not permitted within the AIA. Such uses include
electrical interference, high intensity lighting, attraction of
birds (certain agricultural uses, sanitary landfills), and
activities that may produce smoke, dust, or glare.
N/A Consistent. The Project does not include elements that would
create electrical interference, attract birds, produce smoke, or
increase lighting level or glare. Further, the project includes
environmental commitments and mitigation to minimize dust
caused by construction and maintenance and conform to
BAAQMD air quality standards.
G‐7 All new exterior lighting within the AIA shall be designed
so as to create no interference with aircraft operations. Such
lighting shall be constructed and located so that only the
intended area is illuminated and off‐site glare is fully
controlled. The lighting shall be arrayed in such a manner
that it cannot be mistaken for airport approach or runway
lights by pilots.
N/A Consistent. The Project would not involve nighttime lighting
construction, so no need for nighttime construction lighting
or security lighting at the Project site is anticipated. Further,
none of the Project elements would incorporate new sources
of nighttime lighting.
Noise N‐2 In addition to the other guidelines and policies herein,
the Noise Compatibility Guidelines presented in Table 4‐1
shall be used to determine if a specific land use is consistent
with this CLUP.
N/A Consistent. The Project facilities are consistent with existing
uses.
Safety S‐3 Amphitheaters, sports stadiums and other very high
concentrations of people shall be prohibited within the
Runway Protection Zones (RPZs), Inner Safety Zones (ISZs),
Turning Safety Zones (TSZs), Sideline Safety Zones (SSZs),
Outer Safety Zones (OSZs) and Traffic Pattern Zones (TPZs)
presented in Table 4‐2.
N/A Consistent. The Project would not substantially increase the
number of people in the Project area, and thus will not
substantially increase the number of people in the Runway
Protection Zones, Inner Safety Zones, Turning Safety Zones,
Outer Safety Zones (OSZs), and Traffic Pattern Zones.
The Project site does not lie within the Sideline Safety Zone.
S‐4 Storage of fuel or other hazardous materials shall be
prohibited in the Runway Protection Zone. Above ground
storage of fuel or other hazardous materials shall be
prohibited in the Inner Safety Zone and Turning Safety Zone.
Beyond these zones, storage of fuel or other hazardous
materials not associated with aircraft use should be
discouraged.
N/A Consistent. The Project will not involve storage of fuel or
other hazardous materials in the Runway Protection Zone,
Inner Safety Zone, or Turning Safety Zone.
Table 3.9‐6. Continued Page 12 of 13
Policies Program Consistency Discussion
S‐7 The following uses shall be prohibited in all Airport
Safety Zones:
Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light
of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with
airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial
straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft
engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an
airport, other than an FAA‐approved navigational signal
light or visual approach slope indicator.
Any use that would cause sunlight to be reflected towards
an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following
takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final
approach towards a landing at an airport.
Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor, or
which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which
may otherwise negatively affect safe air navigation within
the area.
Any use which would generate electrical interference that
may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or
aircraft instrumentation, communication or navigation
equipment.
N/A Consistent. The Project does not include elements that would
create electrical interference, attract birds, produce smoke, or
increase lighting level or glare. Further, the project includes
environmental commitments and mitigation to minimize dust
caused by construction and maintenance and conform to
BAAQMD air quality standards.
S‐8 Structures or trees that would interfere with an aircraft
gliding to an emergency landing in a safety zone open area
are not permitted.
N/A Consistent. New utilities structures that would be installed
under the Project would not be in the the Runway Safety
Zone
Reconstruction R‐1 Reconstruction projects that are not subject to a previous
avigation easement shall not be required to provide an
avigation easement as a condition for approval.
N/A Consistent. The Project is a reconstruction project, and the
Project site was not previously subject to an avigation
easement.
MTC Regional Bicycle Plan Update
Goal 2.0: Define a comprehensive Regional Bikeway Network
(RBN) that connects every Bay Area community; provides
connections to regional transit, major activity centers and
central business districts; and includes the San Francisco Bay
Trail.
2.1 Develop a cohesive system of regional bikeways that
provide access to and among major activity centers, public
transportation and recreation facilities.
N/A Consistent. The Project would improve that part of the Bay
Trail that runs along the top of the levee as part of the access
road and Friendship Bridge, both important elements in
regional connectivity to major activity centers, public
transportation, and recreation facilities; and can be used for
some commute traffic.
2.2 Ensure that the RBN serves bicyclists with diverse ability
levels who are bicycling for a range of transportation and
recreational purposes.
N/A
2.5 Encourage coordination of crossjurisdictional bicycle
way‐finding signage.
N/A Consistent. Because the Project is crossjurisdictional and will
be designed in accord with regional design guidelines, bicycle
way‐finding signage will be crossjurisdictional.
Goal 8.0: Continue to support ongoing regional bicycle
planning.
8.9 Work to complete the Bay Trail and other intercounty
trail systems… Work to provide connections to the California
Coastal Trail by coordinating with the State Coastal
Conservancy, the California Coastal Commission and Caltrans
to ensure a complete system of safe and efficient trails for
cyclists in the Bay Area.
N/A Consistent. The Project would
Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan
Cross County Bicycle Corridors The purpose of the Cross County Bicycle Corridors network is
to provide continuous connections between Santa Clara
County jurisdictions and to adjacent counties, and to serve
the major regional trip‐attractors in the County.
N/A Consistent. The Bay Trail is an important component of the
Santa Clara County Cross County Bicycle Corridors Network.
Table 3.9‐6. Continued Page 13 of 13
Policies Program Consistency Discussion
Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan
Environmental Protections 8.2 Should any proposed bicycle projects propose the
removal of established trees, the City will conduct surveys
where necessary and follow the City’s tree protection
ordinance and mitigation requirements prior to
implementing affected segments of the Bicycle Plan.
N/A Consistent. The Project will comply with the City’s tree
protection ordinance and mitigation requirements,
8.3 All surface‐disturbing bike path and bike lane projects in
areas of archaeological sensitivity will be subjected to
archaeological assessment, intensive surface survey and/or
subsurface testing as part of the project planning efforts.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes mitigation to reduce impacts
on archaeological resources through pre‐construction field
surveys, worker awareness training, and stop‐work
requirements in case archaeological resources or human
remains are discovered during construction.
8.4 Bicycle paths located near creeks will be designed so as
not to cause erosion of creek banks consistent with policies
and programs in the Natural Environment Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
N/A Consistent. The Project includes environmental commitments
and mitigation to minimize erosion. See Discussion under
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Goal N‐4 above.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Goal 1: A Comprehensive Countywide System of Facilities for
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Policy 1.2: In developing a countywide system of facilities,
place special attention on implementing or improving north–
south routes (particularly for bicyclists) and reducing
barriers to east–west access.
N/A Consistent. The Project would maintain access to the Bay
Trail, an important crossjurisdictional north‐south bicycle
trail. Access to the trail from the Geng Road access point
would be temporarily interrupted and would last no more
than 10 days. Access to the trail from the other two access
points, O’Connor Pump Station and east of the Palo Alto
Airport, would remain open.
Policy 1.4: Promote cooperation among local agencies and
with San Francisco and Santa Clara counties to pursue
funding for multi‐jurisdictional projects and implement
bicycle and pedestrian facilities across jurisdictional lines.
N/A Consistent. The Project would be implemented by SFCJPA, a
crossjurisdictional and regional government agency whose
members include the Cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East
Palo Alto; the San Mateo County Flood Control District, and
the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Goal 2: More People Riding and Walking for Transportation
and Recreation
Policy 2.7: Encourage local agencies to provide safe and
convenient bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure for
underserved communities.
N/A Consistent. Recreational facilities in the Project area serve a
range of socioeconomic groups, including underserved
communities. The Project will continue to serve the same
communities.
Goal 4: Complete Streets and Routine Accommodation of
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Policy 4.6: Discourage local agencies from removing,
degrading or blocking access to bicycle and pedestrian
facilities without providing a safe and convenient alternative.
N/A Consistent. The Project would maintain access to the Bay
Trail and Friendship Bridge. Access to the trail from the Geng
Road access point would be temporarily interrupted and
would last no more than 10 days. Access to the trail from the
other two access points, O’Connor Pump Station and east of
the Palo Alto Airport, would remain open.
East Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan
Funding Recommendation 4.1.1: Use the Bike Plan to access funds that
would not otherwise be available, such as the BTA.
N/A Consistent. That part of the Bay Trail within East Palo Alto
that runs along the top of the levee as part of the access road
will be improved using funding for the Project, which
includes funding from sources outside East Palo Alto.
Sources: City of East Palo Alto 1999, 2007, 2008, 2011; City of Palo Alto 1998, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2011; Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2009; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 2001, 2005; San Mateo County 2001,
2011; Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission 2008; Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 2008.
October 8, 2012
Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction,
Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101
Dear Mr. Teresi:
On behalf of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) and its member agencies, I
write to provide you with the full set of responses to comments received on the San Francisquito Creek
Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 EIR
as per Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The SFCJPA published a Draft Environmental Impact Report on July 30, 2012 made it available for public
review from July 30, 2012 to September 13, 2012. Enclosed you will find an electronic copy of the
Response to Comments, including the City’s comments received on September 18, 2012. The SFCJPA will
publish the Final EIR on its website (www.sfcjpa.org) prior to the SFCJPA Board Certifying the EIR on
October 18th, 2012. The enclosed full Response to Comments will be included in the FEIR as Appendix E.
The proposed Project would reduce flood risks by improving channel capacity for creek flows coupled
with the influence of the tides of San Francisco Bay, including projected Sea Level Rise. It would also
provide the capacity needed for future upstream improvements, increase and improve important
ecological habitat, and enhance recreational opportunities for the region.
The SFCJPA looks forward to continuing to coordinate with the City on this important Project. If you
have any additional comments or questions concerning the project, please feel free to contact the
SFCJPA’s Project Manager, Kevin Murray (650‐324‐1972 or kmurray@sfcjpa.org) or myself (408‐216‐
2815 or mjones@icfi.com).
Sincerely,
Matthew Jones
Project Manager
Appendix E. Table 1. Key to comments received for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and
Recreation Project San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Draft EIR
Letter Commenter Letter Commenter
1 Eric Mruz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2 Margarete Beth, S.F. Regional Water Quality Control Board, S. F. Estuary
Partnership
3 Transcript of Public Hearing, East Palo Alto Government Center, Wednesday,
August 15, 2012
4 Transcript of Public Hearing, East Palo Alto Government Center, Wednesday,
August 29, 2012
5 Libby Lucas
5b Libby Lucas
6 Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D., Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
7 Eileen P. McLaughlin, Board Member, CCCR
8 Brandon Huerta, Chair of East Palo Alto Public Works and Transportation
Commission, Planning Commission
9 Eric Alms, Caltrans
10 City of Palo Alto September 12 Planning and Transportation Commission
Meeting
11 Scott Wilson, California Department of Fish and Game Bay Delta Region
Appendix E. Table 2. Individual Comments and Responses, San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and
Recreation Project San Francisco Bay to Highway 101 Draft EIR Page 1 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
1 1-1 Eric Mruz,
USFWS
As I was skimming through the document I noticed that there are still
plans to remove/lower the levee for the Faber Tract. (FT) As you know,
the Faber Tract is owned by the City of Palo Alto, but managed as part
of the Don Edwards NWR through an MOU with the City.
Is this the plan to lower this levee, what you call the right bank in the
DEIR?
Clapper rails and salt marsh harvest mice are located in this property at
high levels for the Bay area, removal of this levee may impact these
species with hydrology, vegetation, sediment, and loss of refugia, may
impact this sensitive area.
This concerns me as this DEIR is considering removal of an important
levee on US Fish and Wildlife Service managed property and was not
consulted during design phase.
The Project still includes plans to degrade the levee between San
Francisquito Creek and the Faber Tract to an elevation of 8 feet.
This elevation would enable the Creek to flow into the Faber Tract
with increased regularity during fluvial flood events. The lowering of
the levee is not intended to change the dominant tidal processes
that currently occur in the Faber Tract.
As discussed in Section 3.3 of the DEIR, Biological Resources, the
Project would result in a net increase of approximately 14.5 acres of
high marsh and transitional high marsh habitat that support clapper
rail, black rail, salt marsh wandering shrew, and salt marsh harvest
mouse. This net increase in habitat would support additional refugia
and habitat for the species. Flows into the Faber Tract would spill
slowly into the area as sheet flow at the point where flood flows
reach the lowered levee elevation.
The SCFJPA actively engaged with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) during initial Project design and heard USFWS
concerns during scoping. The SFCJPA will coordinate with the
refuge and USFWS Endangered Species group to ensure
Endangered Species Act compliance and that the refuge is
comfortable with the proposed design.
2 2-1 Margarete
Beth,
SFRWQCB,
S.F. Estuary
Partnership
The SFCJPA should design the Project that avoids and minimizes
impacts within the bed and bank and riparian corridor to the maximum
extent practicable. Compensatory mitigation should be proposed where
impacts are unavoidable. The SFCJPA must identify and include all
impacts to waters of the State in the final EIR and the CWA Section 401
application.
The Project seeks to improve the beneficial uses of San
Francisquito Creek by increasing flood control capacity, instream
and tidal habitat, and flow conditions for steelhead. The proposed
design also seeks to avoid altering the existing low-flow channel,
and the new wider floodplain would allow ongoing natural channel
migration to occur during the Project life cycle.
The SFCJPA will apply for 401 certification and will comply with the
terms and conditions of that certification.
2 2-2 Margarete
Beth
The EIR should include a discussion on geomorphic and hydraulic
impacts downstream and upstream of the Project Site due to Project
design. These should be included in the Final EIR.
The Project is anticipated to have negligible upstream and
downstream impacts on geomorphology. Upstream of the Project,
the channel is highly constrained, including by highway culverts
immediately upstream of the Project. Downstream of the Project,
there is negligible fluvial influence within the tidal influence of San
Francisco Bay beyond existing flood flows that would continue to
occur following Project construction. Hence, the Project would not
result in significant changes to sediment mobility or geomorphic
function upstream or downstream of the Project. This detail is found
in the basis of design report for the project and has been added to
EIR Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Resources.
Additionally, as described in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 2 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
Resources, while the Project is designed for conveyance of a
maximum 9,400 cubic feet per second (cfs) event concurrent with a
100-year tide event and projected Sea Level Rise, the Project itself
would not receive this level of flood event until future projects
upstream of the Project are implemented. Following construction, a
maximum of approximately 4,500 cfs could be delivered to the
Project reach, and therefore this Project would result in immediate
hydraulic changes that would impact geomorphology outside the
Project reach. The Project would not receive any additional flood
flow conveyance until such time that upstream improvements are
completed and those projects would address upstream geomorphic
processes.
2 2-3 Margarete
Beth
The Draft EIR states specific measures will be implemented to reduce
and minimize pollution during “maintenance activities.” The Draft EIR
should include BMPs to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality
during construction activities, post-construction, and maintenance
activities.
As described in Section 2.6, Environmental Commitments, of the
DEIR, the Project will incorporate water quality measures specific to
both construction and maintenance.
BMPs are referenced under the separate “Construction” and
“Operation and Maintenance” impact discussions in Section 3.8,
Hydrology and Water Resources.
2 2-4 Margarete
Beth
The SFCJPA should propose adequate BMPs associated with stockpiles
and protecting water quality.
Measures associated with stockpiles and water quality protection is
described in Section 2.6, Environmental Commitments, of the DEIR.
2 2-5 Margarete
Beth
The Draft EIR states the dump truck would tilt the truck to drain water,
but does not indicate where this activity would occur.
Bed tilting would initially occur at the identified wash down stations.
Appropriate specificity had been added to the text.
2 2-6 Margarete
Beth
The Draft EIR states “Natural watercourse turbidity measurements will
be made in the receiving water 100 feet upstream of the discharge site.”
Natural watercourse turbidity measurements are typically taken
upstream of the diversion structure and not the discharge location. Also,
baseline measurements are typically taken at the beginning of
construction, after a rain event, and/or a change in construction activity
with daily water quality monitoring conduct at least twice per day.
This sentence in the FEIR has been corrected to accommodate the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s
(RWQCB’s) requested changes to construction turbidity
measurements.
2 2-7 Margarete
Beth
Coffer dams constructed of gravel shall be covered with material to
prevent seepage.
Coffer dams shall not be constructed of earthen fill due to potential
adverse water quality impacts in the event of a failure.
Requirements to cover gravel cofferdams were added to the FEIR.
Allowance for earthen cofferdams in tidal areas was removed from
the FEIR.
3 3-1 Annette Ross Have you had experience with traffic control, because that’s my
concern?
Construction management for the SFCJPA would be the
responsibility of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which has
extensive experience with construction traffic plans for flood control
projects.
Additionally, both the cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto would vet
the traffic plan and contribute expertise regarding local traffic
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 3 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
patterns and timing of construction traffic.
3 3-2 Bob Gomez One thing that I’m concerned about is that the trucks are going to be
coming into the East Palo Alto area, the town. Why not the golf course,
since you’re going to be working on remodeling that?
Because some material for Project construction on the Project right
bank would need to be stored and hauled through East Palo Alto,
haul routes into East Palo Alto are necessary. The SFCJPA is
committed to keeping truck trips out of the neighborhoods of East
Palo Alto to the maximum extent practicable.
3 3-3 Bob Gomez What about Cooley Landing? How would that [truck traffic] affect Cooley
Landing?
Neither University Avenue nor Bay Road is identified as a haul route
for the Project, and thus no impact on access to Cooley Landing is
anticipated.
3 3-4 Nancy
Edelson
Well, it’s my understanding that -- well, you said that the levee will be
torn down or reconfigured in a way so that the creek will flow out into the
Baylands right there -- the wetlands.
So the concern of the Public Works Commission was that, if you
configure it like that, then all that water going into the Baylands will be a
threat to the homes that are east of the Friendship Bridge in East Palo
Alto, because the levees that protect the Baylands from those homes
are not in great shape. So we were told that after you do the project then
you will study those levees that are protecting the homes in the gardens
from the Baylands. So it was our concern and it’s my concern that as
part of the project you include the reconstruction of the levees that are
east of the Friendship Bridge that protect the city of East Palo Alto from
the Baylands.
[M]y concern is just that at the same time that you’re configuring
everything -- my concern is that it’s happening at the same time, not just
to maybe build up those levees to East Palo Alto, but to make sure that
they’re safe, they’re doing their job.
As described in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Resources, while
the Project is designed for conveyance of a maximum 9,400 cubic
feet per second (cfs) event concurrent with a 100-year tide event
and projected Sea Level Rise, the Project itself would not receive
this level of flood event until future projects upstream of the Project
are implemented. Following construction, a maximum of
approximately 4,500 cfs could be delivered to the Project reach, and
therefore this Project would not induce impacts on the Faber Tract.
As improvements are made upstream of the Project reach, the
SFCJPA will improve the levee between the Faber Tract and East
Palo Alto, and thus no future potential impacts on this levee are
expected.
3 3-5 Bob Gomez I’m not too worried about the golf course, but I can’t see how this is
going to help Palo Alto with the new levees if you don’t utilize more of
the golf course land. So can you maybe redirect the flow of the water
more into the golf course instead of East Palo Alto?
Both sides of the Creek will be equally protected in accordance with
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) standards. The amount of
land on the Golf Course acquired by the Project is only what was
deemed necessary to provide that level of protection. Design of the
Project is such that flood flows would not spill into the developed
areas of East Palo Alto or Palo Alto.
3 3-6 Bob Gomez I’m more concerned about East Palo Alto. In your planning, is there
going to be any digging making the runoff deeper and maybe not -- to
make it deeper and wider? In a way this is the same thing more or less
that the Chicago River back in Illinois had the problem with too.
The Project is designed to accommodate local runoff equal to or
greater than the existing condition. No changes in local runoff points
are anticipated to result from the Project.
3 3-7 Dennis Parker I just wanted to verify that the hydrologic monitoring for the Faber Tract
was within a frame of reference of the hundred-year tidal flow and sea-
level rise, the calculations that yielded the two-inch increase.
Modeling for the Faber Tract flows were done for the design flow of
the hundred-year fluvial event coincident with the hundred-year tide
and twenty-six inches of accommodated Sea Level Rise. This metric
is the basis for the entire Project design and modeling of the efficacy
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 4 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
Is that [the hundred-year fluvial event at the same moment as the hundred-year tide with twenty-six inches of accommodated sea-level
rise over the life of the project] constant through all of your modeling?
of the design.
3 3-8 Robert Allen One of your diagrams showed the elevation for the new levee for the
golf course seemed to be higher than the other side of the Friendship
Bridge.
Wouldn’t it be more important to protect the housing on the East Palo
Alto side than the golf course? And so why wouldn’t the levees be higher
on the East Palo Alto side?
The left levee (Palo Alto Side) is a setback levee and is expected to
experience 1 foot of settlement. The right levee (East Palo Alto
Side) is a raise of the existing levee and therefore will experience
less settlement, anticipated to be 0.5 feet. After settlement both
levees will be the same height.
3 3-9 Robert Allen What’s freeboard? Freeboard is the increment of levee height added to the design flood
height to increase the likelihood of the design flood event being
contained without the levee overtopping. Freeboard is added
primarily to provide a buffer in height to accommodate uncertainty in
the estimated design flood level.
3 3-10 Annette Ross Is there any impact on the airport? Nothing is happening -- just around
the golf course, but nothing around the airport?
The Palo Alto Airport is downstream of the Project’s proposed flood
control improvements. Therefore, there would be no impact on the
airport or airport-related activities.
3 3-11 Dennis Parker I think you may want to do more public outreach on this perception of
one side being higher than the other, because at this point a lot of
people in East Palo Alto feel as though the golf course side is higher.
And I know it’s difficult to site across the turn of that, but the perception,
especially with the riprap or whatever it’s called, where you have the
caged rocks and so forth, that erosion on one side and not the other
side. The perception is that that side will maintain itself and the East
Palo Alto side will settle just from the natural forces of nature.
What I’m hearing from you is there’s some hydrologic forces that would
cause the water level to be higher or lower, not necessarily aligned with
the natural height or the perceived height. But that is a selling point,
because at this height a lot of East Palo Alto people feel as though the
golf course side will never flood and the East Palo Alto side will always
flood because of what appears to be a difference in the height of the
levee.
The SFCJPA held another scoping meeting on August 29th to hear
and address any concerns within the community. The SFCJPA is
also going before the appropriate commissions and staff in both
East Palo Alto and Palo Alto in order to further inform both
communities on the details of the Project design.
As previously discussed, both sides of the Creek will be equally
protected in accordance with USACE standards.
3 3-12 Bob Gomez [T]here’s a study on utilizing well water here in East Palo Alto. And I just
wonder whether that would make any effect on the quality of the water
that’s already in there in the wells.
The Project would not impact existing wells or local groundwater
levels.
4 4-1 Shani
Kleinhaus,
Santa Clara
Audubon
You’re showing the trail and it talks about trails on both sides. Is the trail
part of the project?
The Project includes the equivalent replacement of all trails
impacted by the proposed Project. No new trails are proposed as
part of the Project.
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 5 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
Society
4 4-2 Shani
Kleinhaus
The impact of traffic on that trail and the endangered species that they’re
trying to restore and other species, like the clapper rail, will not like a lot
of traffic there.
The Project includes the equivalent replacement of all trails
impacted by the proposed Project. No new trails are proposed as
part of the Project. Hence, the Project is not anticipated to result in
increased trail use.
4 4-3 Shani
Kleinhaus
It [the trail] is paved already? The Project would replace trails with equivalent surfaces. Hence,
only existing paved areas would be paved after Project
implementation.
4 4-4 Bernardo
Huerta, chair
of East Palo
Alto Public
Works and
Transportation
Commission,
Planning
Commission
I was on the Public Works and Transportation Commission two years
ago. I’ve been there for eleven years. But this project came through and
it did not include -- what we approved was the removal of the levee
beyond the San Francisquito Bridge -- I mean the Friendship Bridge. It
should have been brought to us at that time, not included afterwards.
Our commission had a very hard time trying to find out what it was. We
don’t always have enough information from our staff because they don’t
have enough time. To put in that afterwards is not dealing with us
straight.
[Moderator response: What part of the city facility was put in after?]
The removal of the levee beyond Friendship Bridge down to the Bay.
The August 2010 Notice of Preparation for the EIR stated,
“[r]emoving an unmaintained levee-type structure downstream of
Friendship Bridge to allow flood flows from the Creek channel into
the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve north of the Creek”. This Project
element has been one of the primary elements dating back to the
SFCJPA’s preliminary alternatives analysis and has been a part of
the engineering plans since the design work began in 2009.
4 4-5 Bernardo
Huerta
[T]here was a call for where there could be a weir there instead, just
beyond the pump house as the creek turns toward the Bay that was in it.
I remember that.
And I remember previously there was an iteration of that when this -- the
worries with the community about flooding began. I’ve seen that twice,
but I did not see it in what was presented to the Public Works and
Transportation Commission to degrade that levee. I think that levee
should be saved. I think East Palo Alto should make a trail out of it some
day in the future when these birds and mice are less endangered. To
me, maybe the City of East Palo Alto should not be looking for it as far
as its planning, as far as making more habitat for the clapper rail or the
salt-water harvest mouse, because I don’t see other communities doing
the same.
I’m not, like, against flooding the Faber Tract. I’m for it, because I jog
along there. I’ve been jogging for thirty-four years. And I’ve seen this dry
up more and more over the years. All those waterways used to be very
wide. Now they’re filled in with vegetation. I think it needs a lot more
water. I’m for a weir. But I would like to see the City of East Palo Alto to
one day make a trail out of it, though it probably wouldn’t be used -- that
levee -- very much, as people going out there, because they don’t use
the end of Runnymede very much at all. So it would be something for
The Project would result in the degradation of the levee to an
elevation lower than its current elevation, but higher than the interior
tidal marsh elevation. This would allow the fluvial flood flows to spill
into the Faber Track during high flow events, but not under normal
flow conditions. This would perform similarly to a weir. The existing
land on which that levee occurs is part of the preserved baylands
and is managed by the USFWS. The USFWS does not allow that
area to be used as a trail.
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 6 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
the community in the future.
4 4-6 Bernardo
Huerta
And like you were saying about the clapper rail and habitat restoration,
not many other cities are doing this. We have the dredging of a canal
right on -- just north of the levee that runs to Runnymede to the pump
station; and that took us another year and a half just because of the
mitigation with the harvest mouse. That’s us, just the city, you know.
Other cities don’t have this habitat restoration for the harvest mouse or
the clapper rail, because it is a planning impediment. I’m for East Palo
Alto should do more if the other communities do more because it only
allows us to have more problems in the future when we want to develop
or anything.
But I’m talking about adding more. It has its habitat right now; but
increasing its habitat more when other cities are not increasing those
specific endangered species habitat more, it impacts us more -- this
community.
The Project is required to comply with the requirements of state and
federal regulations that require the protection of special-status
species and the habitats those species use. The net gain of
approximately 14.5 acres of marsh habitat is a beneficial
consequence of widening the Creek floodplain to increase channel
capacity and provide the necessary flood conveyance.
4 4-7 Bernardo
Huerta
You have the sixty-five-foot power poles. I guess they’re going to be new
power poles.
[Moderator response: It’s replacement of the existing power poles. One
of them is being relocated.]
But are they sixty-five feet? Or is that new? Are they going to be higher
than they are now?
As a planning commissioner, I’m going to hear it from the community. So
keep that in mind what you can do to mitigate that. I know one of them is
like a grounding line for the gas line down there. So try to get that -- I
mean I hoped our planning commissioners would be here to explain that
to you because we get a lot of heat from people for anything.
Existing electric utilities would be relocated or raised as part of the
Project, in order to accommodate the widened channel. No new
utility lines would be constructed as part of the Project; only the
replacement of existing facilities would occur. All 65- to 75-foot poles
would be replaced with a tower of equivalent height. Existing 125-
kilovolt transmission towers would be raised by 15 to 25 feet. As
described in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, towers of that height are
visually common in the baylands, and similar increases in height are
not usually visually perceived by trail users.
4 4-8 Bernardo
Huerta
And I am also wondering about the storm outflow for the pump station
here in East Palo Alto. Why would it be dumping its water into the new
canal?
Stormwater conveyance at East Palo Alto’s O’Connor Pump Station
would not be maintained as part of the Project and would not be
reconfigured.
4 4-9 Bernardo
Huerta
And I’m also worried sometimes about, when there’s projects like this,
we don’t know what kind of signage is going to go up. We should know,
hey, no horses. People do ride horses through there. And there’s a
place right here just in East Palo Alto that says no horses and people do
have horses here in East Palo Alto. So we would like to know what the
signage is going to look like.
Signage would be developed in advance of the Project and would
be coordinated with both the City of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto to
meet local codes for construction signage and notification of the
public regarding construction.
4 4-10 Bernardo
Huerta
[A]s far as the levee that runs between Runnymede and the pump
station, for it to be enhanced or rebuilt by the Army Corps of Engineers,
didn’t Feinstein work on that to about 2006 and then found that it was
too expensive and the Army Corps of Engineers said no? And that’s
The SFCJPA’s mission includes the repair of coastal levees, and the
SFCJPA has already secured grant money to begin studying the
needs of the coastal levees.
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 7 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
where we’re at now, because of that. So, you know, to me, I don’t think
it’s going to be done, because they’re going to again say it’s too
expensive or they need to come up with a lot more money than before.
But what’s to stop this organization from stepping away from that when
they find it’s just too expensive?
Additionally, as described in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Resources, while the Project is designed for conveyance of a
maximum 9,400 cubic feet per second (cfs) event concurrent with a
100-year tide event and projected Sea Level Rise, the Project itself
would not receive this level of flood event until future projects
upstream of the Project are implemented. Following construction, a
maximum of approximately 4,500 cfs could be delivered to the
Project reach, and therefore this Project would not induce impacts
on the Faber Tract. As improvements are made upstream of the
Project reach, the SFCJPA will improve the levee between the
Faber Tract and East Palo Alto, and thus no future potential impacts
on this levee are expected.
4 4-11 Bernardo
Huerta
Will there be some barrier down below underneath the soil where the
ground squirrels can’t cross through and maybe poke a hole to the other
side?
The USACE soil compaction requirements for levees are anticipated
to inhibit ground squirrel activity. No additional barriers to ground
squirrel activity are associated with the Proposed Project
4 4-12 Shani
Kleinhaus
What type of towers are going to be raised? Are those like big
transmission towers?
Can I ask to mitigate against bird strikes? If you’re going across the
creek and increase the height, it’s -- maybe. Did you study flight patterns
of egrets and other large birds over that area to determine –
That’s why I’m worried, because of those trees and because you’re
crossing the creek here. It’s not a huge mitigation. What you need to do
is a few of those round aviation balls on the --
It helps. And it would be really, really nice, because it will --
In some places where they have records of strikes they do, but you’re
increasing the height, which may cause a problem; and we don’t know. I
don’t see this as a mitigation that is so expensive and outrageous that
it’s not good to do to be safe.
Sometimes it [placing balls on the wires] is for aviation purposes, which
is also something that can hurt birds in this area, since there’s an airport.
But also it’s for bird strike. And usually it’s for the large birds like egrets,
storks, cranes -- all these guys with the long necks. And it’s not really a
difficult thing to do. It’s not like outrageously expensive difficult
maintenance, whatever. It’s just put one of those balls there.
The towers are large PG&E existing transmission towers. As
described in Section 3.3 of the EIR, Biological Resources, the
raising of the existing towers was not considered significant given
that the towers are already part of the environmental and are not
being substantially raised by the Proposed Project and are in an
area with already significantly tall trees that would move the likely
flight path of bird above the towers.
The SFCJPA will coordinate with PG&E as necessary to include any
additional measures that may contribute to reducing the existing
issue of bird strikes.
5a 5a-1 Libby Lucas Any proposal to induce San Francisquito Creek to overbank into the
Faber Tract in high storm flow events runs counter to previous flood flow
reports and analysis and therefore it appears there is a critical deficiency
in this Draft EIR in presenting such a design as the only alternative.
As technical reference please review the 1984 Hydrologic Analysis of
The Proposed Project was brought forward as part of the SFCJPA’s
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (Philip Williams and Associates,
2008) and is consistent with the 2003 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Continuing Authorities Program 205 Report for the watershed
(SFCJPA, 2003) that identified preliminary flood control alternatives
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 8 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
the Palo Alto Flood Basin - by Linsley Kraeger Associates Ltd. which
states “a careful analysis of the effects of time of occurrence and
magnitude of the 100-year flood demonstrated that the most critical
conditions occurred when the peak flow of a 100-year flood coincided
with time of occurrence of mean sea level on the rising tide of the design
tide cycle.”
The report goes on to note that it is not uncommon to see a combination
of deluge and high tide and low barometric pressure. “A composite flood
hydrograph for the three streams (Adobe, Barron and Matadero) was
used as the inflow flood to the Basin. It was also found that the most
critical condition existed when a tide peak occurred 4 hours after the
inflow peak.” (The tidal cycle Plate 4, Inflow hydrograph of composite
100-year flood Plates 3 and 5).
It is these same high storm event conditions that will constrain San
Francisquito Creek from alleviating peak flood flows by overbanking into
Faber Tract, because the Faber Tract will already be inundated by high
tides. Please include in this EIR detailed records of tide elevations
during recent twenty years of high stream flows. This is critical data that
must be used in levee design, either in build-up height or in lowering of
levee height.
In the recent US COE Napa River flood control project EIR hydrologic
analysis of stream and bay inter-tidal flow was carefully documented and
resulted in an extensive wetlands holding basin adjacent to Highway 12.
This was a complicated analysis which restructured land but which
seemed to be supported by hard data. I do not find equivalent hydrologic
data to support a ‘Faber Tract alternative’ that appears to be only EIR
option.
throughout the watershed. As required under CEQA, the EIR also
evaluates potential feasible alternatives to the Proposed Project,
including alternatives that do not inundate the Faber Tract.
The project is designed to accommodate the 100-year fluvial flow,
coincident with a 100 year tide event, plus 26 inches of predicted
Sea Level Rise and required freeboard of 3 feet (increased to 4 feet
at Friendship Bridge). As part of the design hydraulic analysis (HDR
2010), this condition was modeled including 100-year tidal
conditions in the Faber Tract and accounts for the maximum
probable flood condition.
5a 5a-2 Libby Lucas In view of the Palo Alto Flood Basin’s recent degradation of levee and
substrata at the flood gates’ structure it confirms my concern that San
Francisquito Creek is bound to reestablish its historic alignment to S.F.
Bay. Believe it is an accepted fact that underflow of a stream will persist
in river bed gravels that were created over centuries even though its
surface flows may be redirected. This was only too evident in February
1998 flood flows from San Francisquito Creek that extended to
Matadero Creek and attempted exit at Mayfield Slough.
As described in the San Francisco Estuary Institute’s Historical
Ecology of Lower San Francisquito Creek Phase 1 (SFEI, 2009), the
creek channel within the Proposed Project area is a geologically
recent occurrence with the pre-1850 fluvial channel terminating into
bay tidal marsh at Highway 101. Alluvial fill within the tidal areas
was mostly fine sediments and not gravels. While the current
channel alignment directed the channel away from its outlet near
Mayfield Slough to its present location in the 1920’s, flood flows
diverge to both the north and south of the primary channel with no
sole preferred flow path. The Proposed Project would capture fluvial
flows that currently escape the channel and the levees would meet
USACE standards to prevent failure. For these reasons, there is no
evidence to suggest that the channel would reestablish its pre-
1920’s alignment, especially post project.
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 9 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
5a 5a-3 Libby Lucas The inevitable degradation by flood flow sediment will mean ultimate
loss of the Faber Tract marsh and a marsh of equivalent viability needs
to be created for the endangered species of Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
and California Clapper Rail to compensate for mitigation marsh loss
mitigation in an EIR proposal alternative. Is it feasible in this location to
establish an equivalent marsh with continuity of high caliber wetlands
habitat? Mitigation riparian corridor and wetlands for SCVWD’s
Matadero Creek project will be lost in levee upgrade? EIR needs to say
how mitigation requirements for all wetlands and vegetation loss will be
accommodated?
Flood flows currently spill into the Faber Tract without deleterious
sediment inputs because sediment drops out when flow velocities
drop as the flow passes over the remnant levee between the
channel and the Faber Tract. The Proposed Project would not
eliminate this function. Degradation of the Faber Tract levee would
lower the elevation, but would only allow fluvial flood flows to access
the Faber Tract with increased frequency. The Faber Tract would
still be dominated by tidal action and San Francisquito Creek
sediments would still primarily be contained in the creek channel.
Both SCVWD and City of Palo Alto mitigation areas could be
impacted by the project. The SFCJPA is working with those
agencies and the permitting agencies to mitigate for any impacts to
those areas. Impacts to special status plants, riparian habitat,
wetlands, and trees would be mitigated consistent with Mitigation
Measures BIO 1.1, BIO 1.2, and BIO 1.3 for plants; Mitigation
Measures BIO 11.1 and BIO 11.2 for riparian habitats; Mitigation
Measure BIO 12.1 for wetlands; and Mitigation Measure BIO 13.1
and BIO 13.2 for trees.
5a 5a-4 Libby Lucas Also, any alteration of the Faber Tract levee adjacent to East Palo Alto
might further endanger their outboard levee interface with Bay tidal
action and erosion. Are such possible impacts fully addressed in this
EIR?
The Faber Tract levee adjacent to East Palo Alto is not part of the
Proposed Project. As discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR,
Hydrology and Water Resources, flows into the Faber Tract could
impact the levee between the Faber Tract and East Palo Alto based
on modeling of flows into the Faber Tract (HDR 2010) at the design
criteria conditions of the 100-year creek flows coincident with the
100-year tide plus 26 inches of Sea Level Rise. At this condition, the
maximum increase in water surface elevation in the Faber Tract is
estimated to be a 0.2 feet (approximately 2 inches).
The Project is designed so that the creek can contain a 9,400 cubic
feet per second (cfs) flow concurrent with a 100-year tide event and
projected Sea Level Rise. The Project area itself would not be
subject to this level of flood event until future projects upstream of
the Project are implemented. Until that time, a maximum of
approximately 4,500 cfs could be delivered to the Project reach,
which is not enough for this Project alone to create additional tidal
flooding risks.
Before improvements upstream of the Project reach are
implemented and creek capacity of 9,400 cfs becomes possible in
the Project area, the SFCJPA will work with the City of East Palo
Alto to improve the levee between the Faber Tract and East Palo
Alto. Thus, no future impacts on this levee are expected.
5a 5a-5 Libby Lucas As an adjunct to the feasibility of San Francisquito Creek returning to its The reestablishment of the Pre-1920’s San Francisquito Creek
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 10 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
historic alignment under extreme 100-year flood flow conditions it would
seem advisable for utilities along this old stream channel to pad up to at
least a ten-foot elevation. In particular this would affect upgrade of the
Palo Alto Water Treatment Plant.
channel is not reasonably foreseeable and thus infrastructure
improvements associated with such an outcome are not considered.
5a 5a-6 Libby Lucas Would it also be a conservative measure to address choke points
upstream where San Francisquito Creek has historically overbanked to
the southeast, in this EIR alternative, to avoid CEQA conflict in
piecemealing of the project? I suggest this in consideration of an
increase in estimated 100 year level of flows to 9400 cfs from 7860 cfs.
Due to the presence of Highway 101 and the differences in the
system upstream and downstream of Highway 101, the Highway
represents a logical terminus for the Proposed Project under CEQA.
The SFCJPA is also studying alternatives for fluvial flood control
upstream of Highway 101, but ultimately all fluvial flows captured
upstream of Highway 101 would pass through the Highway 101
crossing of San Francisquito Creek and need to be accommodated
by a distinct project downstream of Highway 101. Therefore, the
Proposed Project is a necessary first step to accommodate the
ultimately selected upstream alternative and is a viable uniquely
defined project regardless of the outcome of future analysis.
5b 5b -1 Libby Lucas Attachment A:
California Department of Water Resources Groundwater Resources of
South Bay, Groundwater Areas map depicts San Francisquito Creek
historic channel to Mayfield Slough and San Francisco Bay, with
watershed retention reservoirs and lakes showing Lake Lagunita as a
percolation resource in unconfined aquifer zone, while Searsville Lake
and Felt Lake lie over confined geologic strata. EIR 3-106 analysis is
imprecise on this aspect of Santa Clara Valley groundwater resources in
general and these reservoirs in particular. It needs to be pointed out Los
Trancos Creek diversions to Felt Lake do not retain beneficial uses of
winter stream flows in San Francisquito Creek for endangered steelhead
trout to degree historic diversions to Lake Lagunita did.
The EIR analysis of beneficial uses is specific to the Proposed
Project and the Project’s area of impact. The noted areas are
significantly upstream of the Proposed Project, and while important
in terms of beneficial uses within the overall watershed, are not
relevant in the context of the Proposed Project or the Project’s
setting.
5b 5b -2 Libby Lucas Also fencing at fish ladder on Los Trancos Creek is likely to impound
storm flow woody debris.
The Los Trancos Creek diversion is not part of the Proposed Project
nor within the vicinity of impacts associated with the Proposed
Project.
5b 5b -3 Libby Lucas Attachment B:
SCVWD 1990 map of 100-year saltwater flood zone in Palo Alto
appears to follow original parameters of San Francisco Bay shoreline.
This and an updated version of saltwater intrusion should be included in
EIR, plus perhaps map of projected saltwater flood zone and intrusion
as anticipated for bay rise in 50 years.
Attachment B represents areas of tidal flooding, not saltwater
intrusion. Saltwater intrusion is not an issue within the area for the
Proposed Project and is thus not considered. The 100-year tide is
one of the key design criteria addressed by the project and is
considered in Section 3.8 of the EIR, Hydrology and Water Resources.
5b 5b -4 Libby Lucas Attachment C
SCVWD Report on Flooding and Flood Related Damages in Santa Clara
County, February 2-9, 1998 map of San Francisquito Creek flood zone
It is not uncommon for the historic tidal shoreline to create a
topographic contour above which modern day flooding would not
encroach. This is informative, but is not considered within the
context of the Proposed Project.
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 11 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
appears to bear strong resemblance to contours of historic shoreline.
5b 5b -5 Libby Lucas Not attached is drawing of Peter Coutts, Esq. Ayrshire Farm (1876
Thompson’s Atlas of Santa Clara County) of 1242 acres and an historic
map showing reservoir as part of extensive water features adjacent to
foothills, previous to Leland Stanford’s acquisition of ‘the farm’. Coutts
was a highly prosperous agriculturist from Bordeaux region who ran
racing stable and extensive stock farm relying solely on local watershed
supply.
The Proposed Project is not anticipated to alter local watershed
supply and thus is not considered within the context of the Proposed
Project.
5b 5b -6 Libby Lucas Missing from San Francisquito Creek EIR:
Map of SCVWD Matadero mitigation riparian vegetation and wetlands
impacted by project levee redesign
The EIR recognizes in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, that the
Proposed Project will impact SCVWD and City of Palo Alto
mitigation areas. In the current context, adding mapping of the
mitigation areas does not provide additional insight or information.
During permitting and final design these areas will be precisely
mapped against the final design take lines as necessary to
coordinate appropriate protection and replacement of these
resources.
5b 5b -7 Libby Lucas Missing from San Francisquito Creek EIR:
Map of upstream habitat that supports endangered species of Tiger
Salamander and Red-Legged Frog, or Western Pond Turtle that might
be washed into project area from upper watershed by winter storm
flows.
The EIR recognizes in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, that
potential habitat for California Tiger Salamander, California Red-
Legged Frog, and Western Pond Turtle occurs upstream of the
Proposed Project and that all of these species could potentially be
found in the Project area during construction. As such, it is not
materially relevant where these species occur outside of the project
area, but important to understand and recognize that the species
could be carried into the project reach from upstream sources.
5b 5b -8 Libby Lucas Missing from San Francisquito Creek EIR:
Map of COE feasible super levee alignments in proposed San
Francisquito Creek flood project area September 2000, San Francisquito
Creek Bank Stabilization and Revegetation Master Plan Report (This is
a professional guide for best management practices along San
Francisquito Creek’s natural riparian corridor and needs to be
referenced in this EIR. High western banks in San Mateo County erode
under storm flows, while lower Santa Clara County banks overflow. 1998
emergency conditions were challenging in this regard.)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers alignments proposed in 2000
were superseded by the Continuing Authorities Program 205 Report
for the watershed (SFCJPA 2003), which identified preliminary flood
control alternatives for the Project reach.
The San Francisquito Creek Bank Stabilization and Revegetation
Master Plan Report, while informative on good design practices,
was intended for smaller landowner projects upstream of Highway
101 (upstream of tidal influence). While useful, the Master Plan is
not up to date with current USACE guidance on levee construction
and is not intended to guide large flood control efforts in the tidal
reach of San Francisquito Creek.
6 6-1 Shani
Kleinhaus
California clapper rail and California black rail
Lowering of the levee on the right bank (From the mouth of the Creek at
San Francisco Bay to 200 feet downstream of the existing Friendship
Bridge) would allow fluvial flows, depending on the concurrent tide, to
overflow into the Faber Tract during storm events. Additionally the 100-
As discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR, Hydrology and Water Resources, modeling of flows into the Faber Tract are based on the
design criteria conditions of the 100-year creek flows (9,400 cubic
feet per second (cfs)) coincident with the 100-year tide plus 26
inches of Sea Level Rise. The Project area, and thus the Faber
Tract, would not be subject to this level of flood event until future
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 12 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
year tide would connect the channel to the Faber Tract. The DEIR states
that fluvial inputs could potentially result in habitat changes detrimental
to California clapper rail and California black rail.
The DEIR analysis proposes that the maximum increase in water
surface elevation in the Faber Tract would be 0.2 feet (approximately 2
inches) and that periodicity of inundation events would increase. The
DEIR describes this increase “negligible” (page 3-49) yet provides no
biological evidence or analysis in support of the conclusion that a more
frequent 2-inch increase is not significant to the California clapper rail
and the California black rail.
SCVAS recommends that additional mitigation should be provided to
reduce the risks associated with inundation, including risk of depredation
as individual rails are deprived of shelter. Please consider creating
additional cover such as floating islands studied by USGS for this
purpose, see http://www.werc.usgs.gov/outreach.aspx?RecordID=106
projects upstream of the Project are implemented. Until that time, a
maximum of approximately 4,500 cfs can be delivered to the Project
reach and therefore this Project would not induce impacts on the
Faber Tract.
Thus, in the early years of the project the degradation of the Faber
Tract levee would have no effect on habitat in the Faber Tract.
Even with the full fluvial input of the Project design when projects
are completed upstream of the Project, the water surface elevation
in the Faber Tract is increased only 0.2 feet (approximately 2
inches). Furthermore, while the frequency of flows into the Faber
Tract are increased, these inputs would be similar in nature to the
fluvial floods that enter the Faber Tract under current conditions and
potential impacts only occur under the highly improbable
coincidence of two 100 year flood events (fluvial and tidal).
Given that the likelihood of both the 100-year fluvial and 100-year
tidal event occurring at the same time is statistically negligible, and
that under this scenario with Sea Level Rise there is only a 2 inch
increase in water surface elevation, it is reasonable to conclude that
impacts to rail habitat and refuge would also be negligible.
6 6-2 Shani
Kleinhaus
Risk of bird collision with power lines
Please evaluate the potential for bird collision and/or electrocution as the
Project modifies power towers and powerlines, and consider mitigation.
Please consider marking distribution and transmission lines, similar to
the marking at Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge.
The towers are large PG&E transmission towers. As described in
Section 3.3 of the EIR, Biological Resources, the raising of the
towers was not considered significant given that the towers are
already part of the environment and are not being substantially
raised by the Proposed Project and are in an area with already
significantly tall trees that would move the likely flight path of bird
above the towers.
6 6-3 Shani
Kleinhaus
Use of Herbicides and Insecticides
The Environmental Commitments related to use of biocides are general
to Santa Clara Water District properties (page 2-21.) Please analyze the
potential of herbicides, insecticides and rodenticides to impact the
Project’s footprint and adjacent habitat value. Please list all the biocides
that may be used on the Project site. Please analyze potential for direct
and secondary poisoning of birds and wildlife by rodenticides. Please
consider disallowing use of rodent baits and other rodenticides onsite.
The SFCJPA Environmental Commitments, consistent with SCVWD
guidelines, are applicable to construction and maintenance
throughout the Proposed Project footprint. The SFCJPA has also
determined to further strengthen these measures to provide
additional protection for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California
Clapper Rail. The following conditions will be added to project
Environmental Commitments related to Safe Use of Herbicides and
Pesticides.
1. In areas where rodenticides are used, carcass retrieval surveys
will be conducted daily for acute toxins and weekly for
anticoagulants to minimize secondary poisoning impacts. Any
spilled bait will be cleaned up immediately.
2. No rodenticides or fumigants will be used within the range of the
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse or California Clapper Rail as
identified on District range maps.
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 13 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
3. Methods of rodent control within Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse or
California Clapper Rail habitat will be limited to live trapping. All
live traps shall have openings measuring no smaller than 2
inches by 1 inch to allow any SMHM that inadvertently enter the
trap to easily escape. All traps will be placed outside of
pickleweed areas and above the high tide line.
6 6-4 Shani
Kleinhaus
Floodwall
SCVAS considers the replacement of existing levees with a floodwall
built of metal and reinforced concrete a significant, unmitigable and
irreversible adversity that serves to degrade the visual character of the
Project area and reduce its usefulness for birds and wildlife. We ask that
the Project consider alternative floodwalls that are better suited in
texture and feel to the natural environment. In addition, we ask that the
Project /EIR consider improvements that would facilitate nesting by
swallows and other cavity nesting birds as an integral part of the
floodwalls design, for the benefit of both ecosystem (habitat restoration
for avian species) and recreation (bird watching.)
Based on the analysis presented in the EIR, the SFCJPA has
determined that the aesthetic impact of the floodwall is less than
significant under CEQA. The SFCJPA has evaluated many options
for the floodwalls and concluded that the currently proposed design
is cost effective and not visually intrusive.
As the Proposed Project is a flood control facility, no elements can
be added that could contribute to the long-term degradation or
inhibit maintenance of the facility, including elements that increase
wildlife use. Substantial new habitat for wildlife is provided in the
marshplain within the channel.
Recreational areas for standing and watching the environment are
proposed along the existing trail along with appropriate educational
signage regarding wildlife and habitat.
6 6-5 Shani
Kleinhaus
Bird watching on trails, boardwalk
SCVAS community of birder watchers frequently uses the trails along
creeks and the Bay Trail, and watches birds in the riparian vegetation,
the marshes and the wetlands along the trails. To minimize conflicts
among user groups on the trails, we request construction of areas where
small groups can safely stand without impeding bicycle traffic on trails.
Please consider construction of “blinds” for bird watching as part of the
proposed boardwalk in the new island and Friendship bridge/ platform,
and potentially additional locations along the trail.
While bird watching blinds are not proposed as part of the project,
open “landings” on the new boardwalk at the island and new levee
will be created and will allow for wildlife viewing without impacting
trail use. Additionally, the SFCJPA is considering an additional
viewing area and signage within the Baylands Preserve at the end
of the levee spur near the northern footing of the Friendship Bridge.
7 7-1 Eileen P.
McLaughlin Endangered Species
While CACR [California clapper rail] presence has become fairly stable
in the Faber tract, its numbers at large remain highly unstable and
sensitive to impacts of human actions such that this Project will produce.
While their numbers are harder to monitor, these tracts have also
become highly suitable habitat for the federally-endangered salt marsh
harvest mouse (SMHM) and salt marsh wandering shrew (SMWS). It is
critical then that the Project meet the highest level of monitoring and
mitigation compliance that ensures protection of these species.
It was good to read in the DEIR that the Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE) will require Section 7 analysis by the US Fish & Wildlife Service
As stated in the EIR, the SFCJPA will consult with both the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service to
meet their obligations under the Endangered Species Act as part of
the Project’s USACE 404 permit. Additionally, the SFCJPA will work
with the California Department of Fish and Game in conjunction with
the required Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement that will be
required for the Proposed Project. The SFCJPA recognizes that
additional requirements may come out of these permitting processes
that could be required to construct the Project. The SFCJPA is also
coordinating with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who manage the
Faber Tract as part of the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge.
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 14 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
(FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prior to
issuance of any permit. We expect the Project will seek to fulfill the full
implementation and mitigation requirements that those assessments will
prescribe.
As such, CCCR [Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge] asks
that the Project amend the DEIR’s biological mitigation measures
(MM BIO) to assert that the MM BIO proposals are subject to
change and additions per the final Mitigation and Monitoring
requirements of the FWS and the NMFS.
7 7-2 Eileen P.
McLaughlin As an example, and referring to MM BIO5.1, it is our recent experience
that the FWS will require that no construction or major, planned
operations/maintenance work occur during CACR breeding and nesting
season within 700’ of habitat, not 500’ as proposed in the DEIR.
Similarly it cannot be assumed at any time that CACR, (or for that matter
SMHM or SMWS) will not exist in brackish areas. Documented
instances of CACR in these locations are not unusual.
It should be noted too that there is no CACR breeding/nesting distance
restriction included under the discussion of routine or planned
operations and maintenance under MM BIO5.1. There is a documented
record (J. Albertson, FWS, 1995) when a CACR in the Laumeister tract
abandoned its nest due to nearby repair activity, producing breeding
failure for that individual bird’s entire season.
It is expected that Section 7 findings will provide final, explicit guidance. CCCR asks that the Project modify MM BIO5.1 in order to embed
greater awareness of potential endangered-species impacts and,
whenever appropriate, to incorporate that same awareness into all
construction, operations and maintenance actions.
The SFCJPA is aware of the 700 foot buffer requirement being
increasingly required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for some
projects. As such the 500 foot requirement will be corrected to 700
feet in the Final EIR. The EIR, as discussed in Section 3.3 of the
DEIR, Biological Resources, recognizes the potential presence of
salt marsh harvest mouse, salt marsh wandering shrew, and
California Clapper Rail could occur in the Project Area and has
included mitigation measures to ensure no harm comes to these
species.
Maintenance activities are similar to those currently in place and are
not anticipated to rise to the level that would induce impacts on
species using tidal habitat in the project reach or the Faber Tract.
More substantial repair activities are not reasonably foreseeable and
would be subject to new approvals if and when such activities occur.
7 7-3 Eileen P.
McLaughlin Biological Consultation involving Faber Marsh or any lands of the
Refuge
The Project would do well to recognize that one of its greatest resources
will be the staff of the Refuge for anything that involves the Faber tract
or any Refuge land. Refuge staff members have day-to-day
responsibility for these lands and its management. That means that any
actions affecting or involving those lands must start with the Project
contacting the Refuge. The Refuge staff has exceptional expertise that,
many times, will be a no-cost resource for the Project. Examples are
instances when a qualified biologist must be on site to make a judgment
for construction, operations or maintenance regarding the presence of a
special-status species on or near Refuge land. In practice these are
services the Refuge routinely provides as a partner to neighboring
landowners and agencies.
The SFCJPA is already coordinating with U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s Mr. Mruz at the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge and
will continue to coordinate with Refuge staff throughout construction.
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 15 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
We recommend that the Project contact the Refuge (Manager Eric Mruz:
eric_mruz@fws.gov, 510-792-0222 ext 125) to explore this topic. CCCR
asks that the Project review all instances in the DEIR where it
proposes to hire a qualified biologist and, when appropriate, to
revise the DEIR to incorporate routine coordination with the
Refuge.
7 7-4 Eileen P.
McLaughlin Disturbance and Invasive Species
It is of some concern that the only reference to management of invasive
plants is under operations and maintenance and that the need is not
considered for construction (Example: MM BIO1.3). Disturbance
produced by construction, operations or maintenance often results in the
wider distribution of invasive species. That distribution can result in the
degradation of existing habitats and exacerbation of the underlying
invasive problem. An example is Lepidium latifolium (perennial
pepperweed) described in the DEIR as present in the Faber Marsh. This
invasive plant succeeds in a wide variety of habitats and is very likely to
be present elsewhere in the Project. It is known to often overwhelm
established native plant communities and could easily be dispersed by
disturbance, vehicles and worker transport into all of the ecotones of the
Project and into neighboring lands.
Rather than focus restoration action solely on planting native species, it
is important to manage the non-native competition. Currently the City of
Palo Alto is preparing an update of its General Plan. In its Natural
Environment Element, the Update is including policy that would establish
city-wide invasive plant management, for all habitats. While the Update
has not yet received final approvals, CCCR asks that the Project
include invasive plant identification and management using
qualified botanists whenever land will be disturbed during
construction, operations or maintenance.
The EIR does include measures to prevent invasive plant
recruitment during construction to minimize the post project non-
native seed bank and create amenable conditions to promote native
growth. These measures are incorporated into the project as the
Environmental Commitments found under “General Construction
Site Housekeeping”. Additionally, the Project tree survey identified
opportunities to remove non-native vegetation in the immediate
Project vicinity, but outside the construction footprint.
The SFCJPA intends to work with project stakeholders and local
jurisdictions to coordinate maintenance and invasive species
management as part of the post project maintenance of the facility
to the maximum extent practicable.
7 7-5 Eileen P.
McLaughlin Flood impact on Faber Tract
The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) has submitted
comments on this Project that CCCR has reviewed and gives its full
agreement. That letter raises significant questions about the biological
and hydrological analysis used to conclude that fluvial inundation of
Faber Marsh would have “negligible” impacts on CACR and the
federally-endangered black rails. CCCR adds to it concern for SMHM
and SMWS in the same place and conditions. Given the cumulative
impact possible on four endangered species, it is critical and essential
that the most thorough and appropriate analyses be performed to fully
substantiate conclusions and subsequent actions of this impact. CCCR
asks that the Project seek additional analyses such that the DEIR
The Project still includes plans to degrade the levee between San
Francisquito Creek and the Faber Tract to an elevation of 8 feet.
This elevation would enable the Creek to flow into the Faber Tract
with increased regularity during fluvial flood events. The lowering of
the levee is not intended to change the dominant tidal processes
that currently occur in the Faber Tract. Creek flows into the Faber
Tract would spill slowly into the area as sheet flow at the point
where flood flows reach the lowered levee elevation at velocities
which would not be detrimental to small mammals seeking upland
refuge.
As discussed in Section 3.3 of the DEIR, Biological Resources, the
Project would result in a net increase of approximately 14.5 acres of
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 16 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
can adequately demonstrate significance of impacts and identify
appropriate mitigating actions.
high marsh and transitional high marsh habitat that support clapper
rail, black rail, salt marsh wandering shrew, and salt marsh harvest
mouse. This net increase in habitat would support additional refugia
and habitat for the species.
8 8-1 Brandon
Huerta The degradation of the levee from the Friendship Bridge to the San
Francisco Bay on the East Palo Alto side is an inequity for the residents
of East Palo Alto. Alluvial water to this section of the Faber Tract,
wanted by SFCJPA, can be accomplished by the use of weir and not
degrade the levee.
The Project would result in the degradation of the levee between the
creek and Faber Tract to an elevation lower than its current
elevation, but higher than the interior tidal marsh elevation. This
would allow the fluvial (creek) flood flows to spill into the Faber
Track during high flow events, but not under normal flow conditions.
This would perform similarly to a weir.
As described in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Resources, while
the Project is designed for conveyance of a maximum 9,400 cubic
feet per second (cfs) event concurrent with a 100-year tide event
and projected Sea Level Rise, the Project itself would not receive
this level of flood event until future projects upstream of the Project
are implemented. Until that time, a maximum of approximately 4,500
cfs could be delivered to the Project reach, which would not induce
impacts on the Faber Tract levees.
Additionally, the SFCJPA has already secured grant money to
evaluate the current Bay levee separating East Palo Alto from the
Faber Tract, and to design and secure permits to construct an
improved levee. This work would be done before improvements are
made upstream of the Project reach, and thus before any impacts
from the Project are felt on the Bay levee.
8 8-2 Brandon
Huerta I also feel the need to replace electrical poles on the East Palo Alto side
has nothing to do with ecosystem restoration and recreation.
In order to accommodate the Proposed Project, PG&E needs to
relocate or modify gas and electrical utility infrastructure. At the
same time, PG&E is also upgrading infrastructure within the Project
vicinity to meet current standards. PG&E and the SFCJPA have
reached a cost share agreement on the upgrading of these facilities.
8 8-3 Brandon
Huerta In the DEIR I did not find why the mostly affluent residents of Portola
Valley and Stanford University are opposed to service Searville Lake
with a dredging operation to repair the flood controls in the San
Francisquito Creek. This key information would be useful proving
environmental justice, where an economically challenged community is
affected by the decisions of an affluent community. East Palo Alto would
be losing a potential trail, when it has so little parks space available.
The Proposed Project does not currently include any work at
Searsville Reservoir. Searsville Reservoir and Dam are owned by
Stanford University, and were originally built by a private company
for water supply, not as a flood control facility. The University is
currently studying feasible options for how to deal with the dam and
reservoir, but no reasonably foreseeable outcome has been
determined.
8 8-4 Brandon
Huerta When the San Francisquito flood control design came before the East
Palo Alto Public Works and Transportation Commission twice in late
2010 this degradation of the levee was not included. It is unfair to
afterword’s add the levee degradation as the SFCJPA did not return to
the Commission for input. Please, do not degrade or remove this levee.
The August 2010 Notice of Preparation for the EIR stated,
“[r]emoving an unmaintained levee-type structure downstream of
Friendship Bridge to allow flood flows from the Creek channel into
the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve north of the Creek”. This Project
element has been one of the primary elements dating back to the
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 17 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
SFCJPA’s preliminary alternatives analysis and has been a part of
the engineering plans since the design work began in 2009.
9 9-1 Eric Alm As the lead agency, the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
(SFCJPA) is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed
improvements to the state highways. The project's scheduling,
implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be
fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. This information
should also be presented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan of the environmental document.
The SFCJPA is coordinating with Caltrans staff to ensure that the
project and Caltrans’ planned replacement of the Highway 101 and
frontage road crossings over San Francisquito Creek are designed
to accommodate each other. The SFCJPA has coordinated the
connections between the floodwalls at the upstream extent of the
Proposed Project with the Caltrans project. The SFCJPA looks
forward to continuing coordination with Caltrans during final design
and the encroachment permit process.
9 9-2 Eric Alm Since an encroachment permit is required for work in the state right of
way (ROW), and Caltrans will not issue a permit until our concerns are
adequately addressed, we strongly recommend that the SFCJPA work
with Caltrans to ensure that our concerns are resolved during the
environmental process, and in any case prior to submittal of an
encroachment permit application. Further comments will be provided
during the encroachment permit process; see the end of this letter for
more information regarding encroachment permits.
The SFCJPA recognizes the need to apply for an encroachment
permit for work adjacent to Caltrans right-of-way and looks forward
to continuing coordination with Caltrans staff.
9 9-3 Eric Alm Cultural Resources
The Cultural Resources studies and mitigation measures in the Cultural
Resources Section (Section 3.4) of the DEIR satisfy environmental legal
compliance for cultural resources within the state ROW. Should ground-
disturbing activities take place as part of this project within state ROW
and there is an inadvertent burial discovery, in compliance with
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code5024.5 and
5097 and Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference, Chapter 2 (at
http://ser.dot.ca.gov), all construction within 50 feet of the find shall
cease. The Department's Cultural Resource Studies Office, District 4,
shall be immediately contacted at (510) 286-5618. A staff archaeologist
will evaluate the finds within one business day after contact.
The SFCJPA will add to the final EIR measures the following:
Should ground-disturbing activities within Caltrans ROW make an
inadvertent burial discovery, all construction within 50 feet of the find
shall cease. Caltrans' Cultural Resource Studies Office, District 4,
shall be immediately contacted at (510) 286-5618. A staff
archaeologist will evaluate the finds within one business day after
contact.
9 9-4 Eric Alm Encroachment Permit
Work that encroaches onto the state ROW requires an encroachment
permit that is issued by the Department. To apply, a completed
encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and
five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating state ROW must be submitted to:
Office of Permits, California DOT, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland,
CA 94623-0660.
As noted previously, the SFCJPA recognizes the need to apply for
an encroachment permit for work adjacent to Caltrans right-of-way
and looks forward to continuing coordination with Caltrans staff.
9 9-5 Eric Alm Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the The SFCJPA recognizes the need to coordinate the Traffic Plan with
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 18 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the
website link below for more information. http://www.dot.ca. gov
/hq/traffops/developserv /permits/
Caltrans in addition to the Local Authorities and will add the
appropriate text to the Final EIR text for the Traffic Study
requirements.
10 10-1 Eduardo
Martinez The proposed sheet pile floodwalls to be constructed along the top of
bank would have a negative aesthetic impact on the creek, as compared
to existing conditions, and are not adequately mitigated. Consider
alternative materials or aesthetic treatment of the sheet piles to lessen
the visual impact of the floodwalls.
Based on the analysis presented in the EIR, the SFCJPA has
determined that the aesthetic impact of the floodwall is less than
significant under CEQA. The SFCJPA has evaluated many options
for the floodwalls and concluded that the currently proposed design
is cost effective and not visually intrusive.
10 10-2 Eduardo
Martinez The EIR should discuss the positive steps taken in the project design to
adapt to climate change and future sea level rise.
The EIR discloses that the Project has assumed 26 inches of Sea
Level Rise. The SFCJPA believes it is prudent to design the Project
to provide a substantial level of protection throughout the 50-year
Project lifetime, which is why the Project provides greater protection
against Sea Level Rise than is required.
10 10-3 Mark Michael Concrete with architectural treatment should be considered as an
alternative material to the proposed sheet piles for the floodwalls to be
constructed along the top of bank, particularly in the most visually
sensitive areas.
Floodwall facing elements were evaluated during preliminary design
and were not considered to bring enough aesthetic value to justify
the cost. Concrete treatments were determined to be equally
visually intrusive as the basic floodwalls themselves.
11 11-1 Scott Wilson Please note, Table 3.3.2 . Special Status Fish and Wildlife with Potential
to Occur in Project Footprint does not acknowledge the saltmarsh
harvest mouse as a fully protected species under Section 4700 of the
DFG Code or the California clapper rail as Endangered under CESA.
Fully protected species have been identified in Table 3.3.2 in the
Final EIR. The correct CESA status for California clapper rail has
also been added to the Final EIR.
11 11-2 Scott Wilson The DEIR states the Project will only affect the top of the existing levee
on the right hand side of the creek and other habitat providing forage
and cover for the California clapper rail and California black rail will not
be impacted. The DEIR does not adequately address impacts from the
increased inundation of the tidal marsh to tidal marsh species including
but not limited to California clapper rail, California black rail, saltmarsh
harvest mouse, least tern, and western snowy plover. It has been shown
when tides are higher in the winter, clapper rail survival rates are lowest,
mostly due to the resulting lack of cover when the water is high (Melissa
Farinha, DFG, personal communication). Clapper rail nests and
saltmarsh harvest mice nests can be destroyed by very high spring tides
flooding their habitat. Increased inundation may change vegetation
communities which in turn can reduce forage and cover habitat for bird
and mammal species utilizing the marsh habitat.
At no point do the flows increase the areal extent of affected habitat
over existing conditions, and the habitat of the Faber Tract would
still be tidally dominated, with episodic fluvial inputs as currently
occurs under existing conditions. The only change induced by the
project is the frequency of fluvial flood events spilling into the Faber
Tract. Modeling suggests that fluvial flows above the 5-year event
currently enter the Faber Tract. Lowering of the remnant levee
between the Creek and Faber Tract would increase the frequency to
roughly the 2-3 year event. This change in frequency is not
anticipated to result in significant changes in the vegetation
communities within the Faber Tract.
11 11-3 Scott Wilson The DEIR states with Project implementation, the maximum water
surface elevation increase is estimated to be a negligible 0.2 feet. This
appears to calculate the loss of habitat impacted by the increase in
water surface elevation after the expected rise in sea level and not
calculated based on current conditions. The tidal marsh habitat that is
there now should serve as the baseline for the calculations of habitat
As discussed in Section 3.8 of the EIR, Hydrology and Water Resources, modeling of flows into the Faber Tract are based on the
design criteria conditions of the 100-year flood flows coincident with
the 100-year tide plus 2.17 feet of Sea Level Rise. At this condition,
the maximum increase in water surface elevation in the Faber Tract
is estimated to be a 0.2 feet (approximately 2 inches). The
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 19 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
loss and habitat that will be impacted by the Project. The DEIR should
calculate the habitat that will be inundated as a result of this project
under seasonal tidal influences and the 20 and 100-year flood event
scenarios as well as after the sea-level rise predictions.
The DEIR should then adequately describe the impacts to the species
utilizing this habitat currently and address what direct and indirect effects
the project will have on all life history stages of all species utilizing the
habitat and how the project will affect population dynamics of those
species.
maximum 0.2 foot increase only occurs at the point flow enters the
Faber Tract and dissipates, moving out from the flow entry point.
While the project is designed for conveyance of a maximum 9,400
cfs event concurrent with a 100-year tide event and projected Sea
Level Rise, under current conditions the Project itself would not
receive this level of flood event until future projects upstream of the
Project are implemented. Hence under the existing baseline, a
maximum of approximately 4,500 cfs can be delivered to the Project
reach and would have no impact on the Faber Tract. Both
conditions are considered in the EIR, but the analysis of effect is
more concerned with the ultimate design baseline, as the existing
condition would not impact on the Faber Tract, with or without the
Project.
As such, the degradation of this levee would have no effect on
habitat in the Faber Tract. Even with the full fluvial input of the
ultimate design, the water surface elevation in the Faber Tract is
negligibly influenced, thus it is reasonable to conclude that impacts
to rail habitat and refuge are also negligible. While the frequency of
flows into the Faber Tract would increase, these inputs would be
similar in nature to the current fluvial floods that enter the Faber
Tract under current conditions. Potential impacts only occur under
the highly improbable coincidence of the 100-year fluvial and 100-
year tidal flood events. Given that the likelihood of both the 100-
year fluvial and 100-year tidal event occurring at the same time is
statistically negligible, it is reasonable to conclude that
commensurate habitat impacts would also be negligible.
As discussed above, at no point do the flows increase the areal
extent of affected habitat over existing conditions and the habitat of
the Faber Tract would still be tidally dominated, with episodic fluvial
inputs. The only change induced by the project is the frequency of
events.
11 11-4 Scott Wilson The DEIR states the proposed activities are expected to affect 0.21
acres of high quality rail habitat, 0.80 acres of medium quality rail habitat
and 2.30 acres of low quality rail habitat. Please describe how the
quality of habitat is defined, density of rails in each habitat type and how
each habitat is utilized by rails. Because marsh habitat has decreased
significantly, high densities of rails are forced to use lower quality
habitats and the loss of even low quality habitat may have a significant
impact to the overall population. Direct and indirect impacts by the loss
of habitat should be adequately described so that mitigation measures
included can be analyzed how they will avoid, minimize or mitigate those
impacts to a less than significant level.
Salt Marsh habitat suitability was evaluated for the entire Project
area, including the Faber Tract and was classified as follows:
• Low quality habitat—small size (<0.1 acre), isolated (> 0.25 mile
from occupied habitat), and/or highly degraded (generally
surrounded by non-native species and in an area of high use by
humans)
• Moderate quality habitat—moderately sized (>0.1 acre but <0.5
acre), proximate to occupied habitat (< 0.25 mile), of moderate
quality (i.e., some degree of degradation, edge, or fragmentation),
or some combination of these three characteristics that creates
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 20 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
some potential for species presence
• High quality habitat—Larger contiguous habitat currently known to
be occupied or is so proximate to occupied habitat (<0.1 mile) that
connectivity is likely.
This classification is consistent with the habitat descriptions for
California clapper rail and California black rail, as described in the
San Francisco Bay Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan (USFWS 2010). As
described in Section 3.3 of the EIR, Biological Resources, impacts
to approximately 3.3 acres of rail habitat in the Project Footprint
would be mitigated with the restoration of 18 acres of habitat in the
Faber Tract and the Proposed Project area.
11 11-5 Scott Wilson The DEIR states approximately 18 acres of tidal marsh will be restored
to offset these impacts. A restoration plan was not included and it
appears the habitat that will be restored is located from just downstream
of Friendship Bridge extending upstream to the Upper Reach and
Bayshore Road. This habitat restoration area is surrounded by a golf
course and housing development in the Middle Reach and floodwalls in
the upper Reach. Please include a detailed restoration plan with plant
species to be planted, methodology, success criteria, monitoring and
management including measures to ensure success and describe how
this restoration will mitigate for the loss of habitat incurred with Project
implementation.
The approximately 18 acres that will be restored in the Faber Tract
and the Proposed Project area all occur adjacent to the substantially
developed cites of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. A detailed
mitigation and monitoring plan is in development that would be
submitted to DFG as part of the permitting process and will include
the requested mitigation details. Overall, current planting design
includes 7 acres of pickleweed dominated high marsh and 11 acres
of high marsh/upland transition that would mitigate for impacts
associated with the Proposed Project.
11 11-6 Scott Wilson Also, it appears this mitigation area is within the operations and
maintenance area and may be dredged in the future. Dredging this area
will have impacts to the habitat that will be created for mitigation.
Mitigation sites must be preserved and protected in perpetuity and
cannot incur future impacts that would result in the destruction or
adverse modification of the habitat specifically created to offset habitat
loss elsewhere.
The channel has been designed to roughly maintain sediment
equilibrium over time while allowing natural processes to maintain
the channel. Dredging during the Project lifetime is not proposed
and if determined to be necessary in the future would be subject to
separate approvals.
11 11-7 Scott Wilson The DEIR states the California clapper rail and California black rail will
be protected during construction by conducting surveys for nesting
raptors and migratory birds and installing nesting exclusion devices.
Please explain how surveys for other species will protect the rails and
how nesting exclusion devices will be installed for the rails and how this
will reduce disturbance to the rails to a less than significant level.
As described in Section 3.3 of the EIR, Biological Resources, under
Mitigation Measure BIO5.1 “If individuals are routinely observed in
the work area, a species avoidance plan will be developed in coordination with USFWS and DFG”. Exclusion measures proposed
would be specific to the identified presence of the species and
relation of the location to the project. As stated in the Mitigation
Measure BIO5.1 the SFCJA would coordinate with DFG to identify
appropriate exclusion measures if rail nests are identified in the
proposed construction area.
11 11-8 Scott Wilson Both rail species are listed as fully protected under Section 3511 of the
DFG Code. Because of this, DFG cannot issue a CESA take permit
unless it aids in the recovery of the species or for scientific research. A
The SFCJPA recognizes the importance of fully protected status
and that the designation applies to multiple species that could be
potentially impacted by the Project without mitigation. The SFCJPA
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 21 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
project that has the potential to impact a fully protected species must
include avoidance measures so that take, as defined under Section 86
of the DFG Code, will not occur. The Project proponent should consult
with DFG prior to commencement of Project activities to determine if
measures to be taken will avoid take of the California clapper rail and
California black rail.
recognizes the need to consult with DFG prior to commencement of
Project activities to determine if measures to be taken will avoid take
of the California clapper rail, California black rail, and Salt Marsh
Harvest Mouse.
11 11-9 Scott Wilson Please also include the following minimization measures for rails:
• Protocol level surveys shall be conducted at the Project site including
rail call surveys and rail-track surveys. Survey protocols can be found at:
http://www.spartina.org/project_documents/clapper_rails/2011_CLRA_R
pt_smaller.pdf
• An annual search for and subsequent destruction of any cat feeding
stations along public walkways shall be conducted
• Before the onset of winter high tides, an annual capture and removal
effort of feral cats and rats in the surrounding disturbed areas shall be
conducted.
The SFCJPA will add the measures to the Final EIR for the
construction phase of the project. If maintenance activities would
occur in potential habitat or restored marsh areas, appropriate
protocol level surveys would be conducted. Given the urbanized
nature of the areas adjacent to the Project and the infrequent
expected periodicity of maintenance actions, measures associated
with feral cat management would have minimal value within the local
context over the Project lifetime.
11 11-10 Scott Wilson The saltmarsh harvest mouse is also listed as fully protected under the
DFG Code. DFG recommends Project proponents consult with DFG
prior to commencement of Project activities to determine if other
avoidance measures need to be included. The following avoidance and
minimization measures should be incorporated into the Project
description to avoid taking saltmarsh harvest mice:
• Hand vegetation removal shall start at the edge farthest form the
largest contiguous salt marsh area and work it way towards the salt
marsh, providing cover for salt marsh harvest mice and allowing them to
move towards the salt marsh as vegetation is being removed.
• In consultation with DFG, exclusion fencing shall be placed around a
defined work area immediately following vegetation removal and before
Project activities begin. The final design and proposed location of the
fencing shall be reviewed and approved by DFG prior to placement.
• Prior to initiation of work each day within 300 feet of tidal or pickelweed
habitats, the qualified biologist shall thoroughly inspect the work area
and adjacent habitat areas to determine if saltmarsh harvest mice are
present. The biologist shall ensure the exclusion fencing has no holes or
rips and the base remains buried. The fenced area will be inspected
daily to ensure that no mice are trapped.
The SFCJPA recognizes the importance of fully protected status
and that the designation applies to multiple species that could be
potentially impacted by the Project without mitigation. The SFCJPA
recognizes the need to consult with DFG prior to commencement of
Project activities to determine if measures to be taken will avoid take
of the California clapper rail, California black rail, and Salt Marsh
Harvest Mouse. The SFCJPA will add the requested measures to
the Final EIR for the construction phase of the project to further
ensure impacts to fully protected species dot not occur and to
strengthen the efficacy of currently proposed mitigations.
11 11-11 Scott Wilson Mitigation Measure Bio 9.1 states that in-channel work will be avoided
during the steelhead migration season (Oct 01-April 30). Steelhead
migration continues through June 30 when there is enough flow in the
Based on studies of steelhead activity in the watershed described in
the Lower San Francisquito Creek Watershed Aquatic Habitat
Assessment and Limiting Factors Analysis (Jones & Stokes 2006)
Appendix E. Table 2. Continued Page 22 of 22
Letter Comment Commenter Comment Text Response to Comment
channel, therefore, in-channel work should be avoided prior to June 15. steelhead migration and spawning is regularly finished by March.
Hence, the proposed construction window has been determined to
be sufficient to protect steelhead within San Francisquito Creek. The
SFCJPA will coordinate with the DFG and the National Marine
Fisheries Service during permitting of the Project to determine if the
work window needs to be modified in above average water years
that could modify the local steelhead movement patterns.
11 11-12 Scott Wilson The DEIR does not include hydraulic or hydrologic modeling that would
support the basis of conducting this Project. Monitoring the flow regime
and predicting flow patterns, sediment deposition, tidal influence, and
water circulation could aid in forming Project alternatives and help
understand the impacts to species utilizing the marsh as well as
steelhead utilizing San Francisquito Creek. DFG recommends
conducting modeling studies and analyzing the results to determine
long-term impacts the change in flow regimes would have on rearing
steelhead habitat, stranding steelhead in the marsh, change in
vegetative communities in the tidal marsh, change of foraging, roosting,
nesting and cover habitat for tidal marsh species and change in upland
habitat for terrestrial species.
The DEIR is supported by hydraulic modeling by the design
engineer and preliminary alternatives studies that are referenced in
Section 3.8 of the EIR, Hydrology and Water Resources. As
discussed in Section 3.3 of the EIR, Biological Resources, long-term
impacts to marsh and instream habitat have been determined to be
less than significant. These conclusions are based on the
background studies and the conclusions of hydraulic analyses are
presented and discussed in the DEIR in both Sections 3.3 and 3.8.
Appendix F. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation
Project San Francisco Bay to Highway 101
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following Sites/Project Phases Implementation Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement, and Reporting Responsibility
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ2.1—Implement Tailpipe Emission Reduction for Project Construction. According to the BAAQMD guidelines (2011a), the SFCJPA will require all construction contractors to implement the exhaust Basic Construction Mitigation Measures and Additional Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by the BAAQMD to control exhaust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include at least the following measures and may include other measures identified as appropriate by the SFCJPA and/or contractor.
Idling times will be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to 2 minutes. Clear
signage will be provided for construction
workers at all access points.
All construction equipment will be maintained
and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment
will be checked by a certified visible emissions
evaluator.
The Project will develop a plan demonstrating
that the off‐road equipment (more than 50
horsepower) to be used in the construction
Project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor
vehicles) would achieve a Project wide fleet‐
average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45
percent PM reduction compared to the most
recent CARB fleet average. Acceptable options
for reducing emissions include the use of late
model engines, low‐emission diesel products,
alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology,
after‐treatment products, add‐on devices such
All Project elements, during construction Construction contractors This measure will remain in effect for the duration of Project construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 2 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
as particulate filters, and/or other options as
such become available.
Requiring that all construction equipment,
diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with
Best Available Control Technology for emission
reductions of NOX and PM.
Requiring all contractors use equipment that
meets CARB‘s most recent certification standard
for off‐road heavy duty diesel engines.
Mitigation Measure AQ2.2—Fleet Modernization for Onroad Material Delivery and Haul Trucks during Construction. During construction, the Project Applicant will ensure that all onroad heavy‐duty diesel trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 19,500 pounds or greater used at the Project site will comply with EPA 2007 on‐road emission standards for PM10 and NOX (0.01 grams per brake horsepower‐hour [g/bhp‐hr] and 0.20 g/bhp‐hr, respectively). The Project Applicant will submit evidence of the use of modern truck fleet to the BAAQMD.
For purposes of analysis, the mitigated reductions provided by MM‐AQ‐2.3 herein assume a 2007 and newer model truck fleet.
All Project elements, during construction Construction contractors This measure will remain in effect for the duration of Project construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Mitigation Measure AQ2.3—Modernization for Directional Drilling Equipment during Construction. During construction, the SFCJPA will require that the contractor’s equipment used for directional drilling meet EPA Tier 2 or higher emissions standards. In addition, all directional drilling equipment will be outfitted with the BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor will achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
All Project elements, during construction Construction contractors This measure will remain in effect for the duration of Project construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 3 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
The requirement of MM‐AQ‐2.3 will be met, unless the contractor is able to provide proof that any of these circumstances exists:
A piece of specialized equipment is unavailable
in a controlled form within the State of
California, including through a leasing
agreement.
A contractor has applied for necessary incentive
funds to put controls on a piece of uncontrolled
equipment planned for use on the proposed
Project, but the application is not yet approved,
or the application has been approved, but funds
are not yet available.
A contractor has ordered a control device for a
piece of equipment planned for use on the
proposed Project, or the contractor has ordered
a new piece of controlled equipment to replace
the uncontrolled equipment, but that order has
not been completed by the manufacturer or
dealer. In addition, for this exemption to apply,
the contractor must attempt to lease controlled
equipment to avoid using uncontrolled
equipment, but no dealer within 200 miles of
the proposed Project has the controlled
equipment available for lease.
Mitigation Measure NV1.1—Provide Advance Notification of Construction Schedule and 24Hour Hotline to Residents. The SFCJPA will provide advance written notification of the proposed construction activities to all residences and other noise‐ and air quality‐sensitive uses within 750 feet of the construction site. Notification will include a brief overview of the proposed Project and its purpose, as well as the proposed construction activities and schedule. It will also include the name and contact information of the SFCJPA’s project manager or another SFCJPA representative or designee responsible for
All Project elements, during construction The SFCJPA’s project manager will coordinate written notification and will identify the appropriate staff member(s) to serve as noise and air quality disturbance coordinator.
Notification will occur at least 30 days before construction begins at each site. The noise and air quality disturbance coordinator will continue to be available during working hours (included any extended hours) for the duration of Project construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 4 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
ensuring that reasonable measures are implemented to address the problem (the construction noise and air quality disturbance coordinator; see Mitigation Measure NV1.3).
Mitigation Measure NV1.3—Designate Construction Noise and Air Quality Disturbance Coordinator to Address Resident Concerns. The SFCJPA will designate a representative to act as construction noise and air quality disturbance coordinator, responsible for resolving construction noise and air quality concerns. The disturbance coordinator’s name and contact information will be included in the preconstruction notices sent to area residents (see Mitigation Measure AQ2.2). She or he will be available during regular business hours to monitor and respond to concerns. In the event an air quality or noise complaint is received, she or he will be responsible for determining the cause of the complaint and ensuring that reasonable measures are implemented to address the problem.
All Project elements, during construction The SFCJPA’s project manager will coordinate written notification and will identify the appropriate staff member(s) to serve as noise and air quality disturbance coordinator.
Notification will occur at least 30 days before construction begins at each site. The noise and air quality disturbance coordinator will continue to be available during working hours (included any extended hours) for the duration of Project construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO1.1—Conduct Botanical Surveys. SFCJPA will retain a qualified botanist to survey suitable habitat in the Project area for special‐status plants. Surveys will be conducted during the appropriate blooming periods for each
species as indicated in Table 3.3‐3.
Table 3.3‐3. Timing of Surveys for Special‐
Status Plants
Species Blooming Period Period Surveys Should Occura
Alkali milk‐vetch March–June April/May
San Joaquin spearscale May–October July/August
All Project elements, during construction A qualified botanist or ecologist retained by the SFCJPA will perform the surveys, documentation, and reporting described
in this measure.
Surveys will be completed during the blooming periods for each species before ground‐disturbing
activities begin. Surveys will take place far enough in advance of ground‐disturbing activities to allow for Mitigation Measures BIO1.2 and BIO1.3 to be implemented, if necessary.
Survey timing may be adjusted based on input from the qualified
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 5 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Congdon's tarplant June–November July/August
Point Reyes bird's‐beak June–October July/August
Hairless popcorn‐flower
April–May April/May
Slender‐leaved pondweed
May–July June/July
California seablite July–October July/August
Saline clover April–June April/May
a Exact timing of surveys should account for annual variations in climate and weather; surveys should be timed to coincide with
blooming periods of known local populations whenever possible.
Surveys will follow the CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines (California Native Plant Society 2001Error! Bookmark not defined.). Special‐status plants identified during the surveys will be mapped using a handheld global positioning system unit and documented as part of the public record. A report of occurrences will be submitted
to SFCJPA and the CNDDB. Surveys will be completed before ground‐disturbing activities begin; survey timing will allow for follow‐up mitigation, if needed. If it is determined that individuals of identified special‐status plant species could be affected by construction traffic or activities, Mitigation Measure BIO1.2 and, if necessary, Mitigation Measure BIO1.3, will be implemented.
botanist/ecologist, based on variations in weather and other factors that influence the blooming period. If possible, surveys should be timed to coincide with blooming periods of known local populations.
Appendix F. Continued Page 6 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Mitigation Measure BIO1.2—Confine Construction Disturbance and Protect SpecialStatus Plants During Construction. Construction disturbance will be confined to the minimum area necessary to complete the work, and will avoid encroachment on adjacent habitat. If special‐status plants are found, a setback buffer will be established around individuals or the area occupied by the population, based on judgment of a qualified botanist. The plants and a species‐appropriate buffer area determined in consultation with agency (DFG and USFWS) staff will be protected from encroachment and damage during construction by installing temporary construction fencing. Fencing will be brightly colored and highly visible. Fencing will be installed under the supervision of a qualified botanist to ensure proper location and prevent damage to plants during installation. Fencing will be installed before site preparation or construction work begins and will remain in place for the duration of construction. Construction personnel will be prohibited from entering these areas (the exclusion zone) for the duration of Project construction. Fencing installation will be coordinated with fence installation required by other mitigation measures protecting wetlands, riparian habitat, and mature trees.
All Project elements, during construction A qualified botanist or ecologist retained by the SFCJPA will coordinate with DFG and USFWS staff to establish setback buffers (i.e., determine their location and extent).
The qualified botanist/ecologist will either install construction fencing to protect plants within the setback, or will supervise installation by construction personnel. The botanist/ecologist will be responsible for ensuring that fencing is installed without damage to special‐status plants.
All contractor staff will be expected to observe the setback buffers.
At each site, all setbacks will be established and fenced before any site preparation or construction activities are permitted to commence.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Setbacks will be established in consultation with DFG and USFWS.
Mitigation Measure BIO1.3—Compensate for Loss of SpecialStatus Plants. If any individuals of listed special‐status plants are present and cannot be effectively avoided through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO1.2, SFCJPA will develop and implement a compensation plan. The compensation plan will preserve an off‐site area containing individuals of the affected species. The plan will be implemented so that there is no net loss of special‐status plants. If an off‐site population is not located or is not available for preservation, SFCJPA will employ a qualified nursery to collect and propagate the affected species, collected at the appropriate time
All Project elements, prior to construction A qualified botanist or ecologist retained by the SFCJPA will coordinate with DFG and USFWS to develop the compensation plan and monitoring and adaptive management plan. The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for implementing the plan.
If propagation is required, propagules will be collected before ground disturbance begins. Any transplantation will also occur prior to ground disturbance.
Compensation described in this measure will be arranged, and if possible, completed prior to groundbreaking.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
SFCJPA will submit documentation of the completed compensation and
subsequent monitoring and adaptive management plan results to DFG and USFWS
Appendix F. Continued Page 7 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
of year, prior to population disturbance at the affected areas of the Project. Transplantation will also be implemented if practicable for the species affected, including mature native plants to the extent feasible.
The compensation plan will be developed by a qualified botanist in coordination with and approval of DFG or USFWS, depending on whether the plant has state or federal status, respectively, or both. The compensation area will contain a population and/or acreage equal to or greater than that lost as a result of Project implementation and will include adjacent areas as needed to preserve the special‐status plant population in perpetuity. Compensation of the affected population will occur in an amount equal to or greater than the amount lost as a result of the Project to ensure that genetic diversity is preserved and no net loss of the number of individuals occurs. The quality of the population preserved will also be equal to or greater than that of the affected population, as determined by a qualified botanist retained by the SFCJPA. Compensation sites and populations will be subject to DFG and USFWS approval. The SFCJPA will be responsible for ensuring that the compensation area is acquired in fee or in conservation easement, maintained for the benefit of the special‐status plant population in perpetuity, and funded through the establishment of an endowment.
A monitoring and adaptive management plan will be developed for each compensation site, subject to DFG and USFWS approval. This plan will establish success criteria for the site and will include protocols for annual monitoring of the site. The goal of monitoring will be to assess whether the plan has successfully mitigated Project impacts; monitoring will be designed to ensure that the required number of plants and/or plant acreage is being sustained through site maintenance. Factors to be monitored could
Appendix F. Continued Page 8 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
include density, population size, natural recruitment, and plant health and vigor. If monitoring indicates that special‐status plant populations are not maintaining themselves, adaptive management techniques will be implemented. Such techniques could include reseeding/replanting, nonnative species removal, and other management tools. The site will be evaluated at the end of the monitoring period to determine whether the mitigation has met the goal of this mitigation measure to preserve a population the same size as that affected and of equal or greater quality as that lost as a result of Project activities at the site. Criteria by which this determination will be made will be established in the monitoring plan. The monitoring plan will also address adaptive management strategies to be adopted if the evaluation determines that the site does not meet the success criteria. In that case, a monitoring plan will stay in place until the success criteria are met.
Mitigation Measure BIO2.1—Develop and Implement Worker Awareness Training. Prior to construction, Worker Awareness Training must be conducted to inform construction workers of their responsibilities regarding sensitive environmental resources. The training will include environmental education about the western pond turtles, nesting raptors and migratory birds, western burrowing owl, California clapper rail, California black rail, salt marsh harvest mouse, salt marsh wandering shrew, California least tern, western snowy plover, California red‐legged frog, San Francisco garter snake, and steelhead, as well as sensitive habitat (e.g., in‐stream habitat, riparian habitat, wetlands). The training will include visual aids to assist in identification of regulated biological resources, actions to take should protected wildlife be observed within the Project area, and possible legal repercussions of impacting such regulated resources.
All Project elements, prior to construction The SFCJPA will retain a qualified wildlife biologist to implement this measure for construction contractor crews.
Construction crew training will occur prior to any work on the site.
For the construction period, the SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
For the operational period, the SFCJPA’s designated maintenance manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 9 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Mitigation Measure BIO2.2—Implement Survey and Avoidance Measures to Decrease Disturbance to Western Pond Turtles. Prior to the start of construction activities at Project element sites that could support western pond turtle, SFCJPA will retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for western pond turtles in all suitable habitats in the vicinity of the work sites. Surveys will take place no more than 7 days prior to the onset of site preparation and construction activities with the potential to disturb turtles or their habitat. If preconstruction surveys identify active nests, the biologist will establish no‐disturbance buffer zones around each nest using temporary orange construction fencing. The demarcation will be permeable to allow young turtles to move away from the nest following hatching. The radius of the buffer zone and the duration of exclusion will be determined in consultation with DFG. The buffer zones and fencing will remain in place until the young have left the nest, as determined by the qualified biologist. If western pond turtles are found in the Project area, a qualified biologist will remove and relocate them to suitable habitat outside the Project limits, consistent with DFG protocols and permits. Relocation sites will be subject to agency approval. If turtles are observed during the surveys, then Mitigation Measure BIO2.3 will be implemented.
All Project elements, prior to construction The SFCJPA will retain a qualified wildlife biologist to implement this measure.
The surveys and avoidance measures described in this measure will be performed before site preparation and construction activity begins.
For the construction period, the SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
For the operational period, the SFCJPA’s designated maintenance manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Exclusion fencing will be established in consultation with DFG and USFWS as necessary.
A written report will be submitted to DFG detailing the survey results of any western pond turtles and subsequent relocation activities (if necessary).
Mitigation Measure BIO2.3—Daily Surveys and Monitoring of Construction Activities to Decrease Disturbance to Western Pond Turtles. SFCJPA will retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for western pond turtles in all suitable habitats in the vicinity of
work sites that will be active within the 3 days prior to the onset of site preparation and construction activities with the potential to disturb turtles or their habitat. If no turtles are found during the daily survey, construction will commence and be monitored for the duration of
All Project elements, prior to construction The SFCJPA will retain a qualified wildlife biologist to implement this measure.
The surveys and avoidance measures described in this measure will be performed daily before construction activity begins.
For the construction period, the SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
For the operational period, the SFCJPA’s SMP program manager will be responsible for ensuring proper
Appendix F. Continued Page 10 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
work within suitable western pond turtle habitat. If a turtle is found during the daily preconstruction survey, construction in the vicinity of the turtle will not commence until the turtle is removed from the Project area to be relocated to suitable habitat outside of the Project limits per DFG protocols and permits. Relocation sites will be subject to agency approval. Following turtle relocation, the biologist will return to the Project area and monitor construction activities that take place within suitable western pond turtle habitat.
implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Exclusion fencing will be established in consultation with DFG and USFWS as necessary.
A written report will be submitted to DFG detailing the survey results of any western pond turtles and subsequent relocation activities (if necessary).
Mitigation Measure BIO3.1—Establish Buffer Zones for Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds (Excluding Burrowing Owl). Prior to the start of construction activities that begin during the migratory bird nesting period (between January 15 and August 31 of any year), SFCJPA will retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a survey for nesting raptors and migratory birds that could nest along the Project corridor, including special‐status species such as salt marsh common yellowthroat, Alameda song sparrow, northern harrier, and white‐tailed kite. Surveys will cover all suitable raptor and migratory bird nesting habitat that will be impacted directly or indirectly through disturbance, including habitat potentially used by ground‐nesting migratory bird species.
All migratory bird nesting surveys will be performed no more than 2 weeks (14 days) prior to any Project‐related activity that could pose the potential to affect migratory birds. If a lapse in Project‐related work of 2 weeks or longer occurs, another focused survey will be conducted before Project work can be reinitiated. With the exception of raptor nests, inactive bird nests may
be removed. No birds, nests with eggs, or nests with hatchlings will be disturbed. In addition, nesting bird preconstruction surveys will occur prior to ground disturbance, including site
All Project elements, prior to construction A qualified wildlife biologist retained by the SFCJPA will be responsible for conducting the surveys described in this measure. If any active nests are identified, s/he will coordinate with DFG to establish buffers, will install or oversee the installation of exclusion fencing, and will determine when the nest(s) are no longer active.
Any buffers that are established as a result of surveys will remain in place as long as the nest is active or young remain in the area, as determined by the qualified wildlife biologist.
For the construction period, the SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Buffer zones will be established in consultation with DFG as necessary.
Appendix F. Continued Page 11 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
preparation.
If an active nest is discovered during these surveys, the qualified wildlife biologist will establish a no‐disturbance buffer zone around the nest tree (or, for ground‐nesting species, the nest itself). The no‐disturbance zone will be marked with flagging or fencing that is easily identified by the construction crew and will not affect the nesting bird. In general, the minimum buffer zone widths will be 0.5‐mile for bald and golden eagles, 25 feet (radius) for nonraptor ground‐nesting species; 50 feet (radius) for nonraptor shrub‐ and tree‐nesting species; and 250 feet (radius) for all raptor species. Buffer widths may be modified based on discussion with DFG, depending on the proximity of the nest, whether the nest would have a direct line of sight to construction activities, existing disturbance levels at the nest, local topography and vegetation, the nature of proposed activities, and the species potentially affected. Buffers will remain in place as long as the nest is active or young remain in the area. No construction presence or activity of any kind will be permitted within a buffer zone until the biologist determines that the young have fledged and moved away from the area and the nest is no longer active.
If monitoring of active nests indicates that disturbance is affecting active nests, buffer widths will be increased until the disturbance no longer affects the nest(s). If the buffer cannot be extended further, then work within the area will stop until the nest is no longer active.
Mitigation Measure BIO4.1—Implement Survey and Avoidance Measures for Western Burrowing Owls Prior to Construction Activities. Prior to any construction activity planned to begin during the fall and winter nonnesting season (September 1‐January 31), SFCJPA will retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for burrowing
All Project elements, prior to construction A qualified wildlife biologist retained by the SFCJPA will be responsible for conducting the surveys described in this measure. If individuals are observed outside the
During the nonnesting season (September 1‐January 31), surveys will be conducted no more
than 7 days prior to ground‐disturbing activities.
For sites where
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for
enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Buffers will be established in consultation with DFG as
Appendix F. Continued Page 12 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
owls. Surveys will be conducted no more than 7 days prior to ground‐disturbing activities and will cover all suitable burrowing owl habitat subject to disturbance. If any western burrowing owls are found within the disturbance area during the survey or at any time during the construction process, SFCJPA will notify DFG and will proceed under DFG direction. If construction is planned to occur during the nesting season (February 1‐August
31), surveys for nesting owls will be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist in the year prior to construction to determine if there is breeding within 250 feet of the construction footprint. This prior‐year survey will provide the Project team advance notice regarding nesting owls in the Project area and allow ample time to discuss with DFG the appropriate course of action if nesting owls are found. In addition, same‐year preconstruction surveys for nesting western burrowing owls will be conducted no more than 7 days prior to ground disturbance in all suitable burrowing owl habitat. If the biologist identifies the presence of a nesting burrowing owl in an area scheduled to be disturbed by construction, a 250‐foot no‐activity buffer will be established and maintained around the nest while it is active. Surveys and buffer establishment will be performed by qualified wildlife biologists, will be coordinated with DFG, and will be subject to DFG review and oversight.
nesting period, s/he will coordinate with DFG to identify and implement appropriate measures. If active nests are identified, s/he will coordinate with DFG to establish buffers, will install or oversee the installation of exclusion fencing, and will determine when the nest(s) are no longer active.
construction work is scheduled to occur between February 1 and August 31, surveys will be completed before any site preparation or construction activities begin. Surveys will take place no more than 7 days prior to ground disturbance.
Any buffers that are established as a result of the surveys will remain in place as long as the nest is active, as determined by the qualified wildlife biologist.
necessary.
A written report will be submitted to DFG detailing the survey results of any western burrowing owls found on the Project site.
Mitigation Measure BIO5.1—Implement Survey and Avoidance Measures for California Clapper Rail and California Black Rail Prior to Construction Activities. Work activities within 50 feet of California clapper rail habitat will not occur within two hours before or after extreme high tides (6.5 feet or above) when the marsh plain is inundated, which could prevent individuals from reaching available cover.
If work is to be conducted during the species’ breeding and rearing seasons (March–August 31) within 700 feet of suitable habitat, a permitted
All Project elements, prior to construction A qualified biologist retained by the SFCJPA will be responsible for the surveys described in this measure and for any needed consultation with DFG.
Surveys will take place no more than 48 hours prior to the onset of work.
For the construction period, the SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
For the operational period, the SFCJPA’s designated maintenance manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for
Appendix F. Continued Page 13 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
biologist will be retained to conduct surveys of appropriate habitat for California clapper rail and California black rail. The surveys will be conducted no more than 48 hours prior to commencement of construction and maintenance activities and will be performed at dawn or dusk, the vocalization periods of highest intensity. Project activities occurring within 700 feet of active nests will be postponed until after young have fledged.
Outside of breeding season, a permitted biologist will be retained to conduct surveys of appropriate habitat for California clapper rail and California black rail within the work area, including all
staging and access routes, no more than 7 days
prior to initiation of work within suitable habitat. If individuals are observed during this survey, a biologist will conduct an additional survey immediately prior to initiation of construction activities. If individuals are observed within or near the work area, a no‐disturbance buffer (minimum 50 feet) will be implemented. If the daily work area is expanded, then a qualified biologist will survey the suitable habitat prior to initiation of work and movement of equipment that day. No work will occur within the buffer until the biologist verifies that California clapper rail or California black rail individuals have left the area.
If individuals are routinely observed in the work area, a species avoidance plan will be developed in coordination with USFWS and DFG. If no individuals are observed in accordance with the survey protocols, no buffers will be required. All vegetation removal within suitable habitat of these species, as determined by a biologist, will be done by hand to the extent possible. If movement of heavy equipment in necessary in suitable habitat or within 50 feet of habitat, then a biological monitor will observe the area in front of the equipment from a safe vantage point. If these species are detected within the area in front of the equipment, then the equipment will stop and the
enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Protection measures will be identified in consultation with DFG and USFWS as necessary.
Appendix F. Continued Page 14 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
biologist will direct the equipment on an alternative path. If this is not possible, then equipment will stop until a clear path can be identified.
Mitigation Measure BIO5.2—Produce and Implement Habitat Monitoring Plan for Habitat within the Faber Tract Prior to Construction Activities. The SFCJPA or its approved designee will be responsible for the development and implementation of a habitat monitoring plan for existing (i.e., pre‐Project) habitat within the Faber Tract that will document baseline conditions prior to Project implementation. The plan will include routine monitoring of the habitat within the Faber Tract to document changes resulting from the hydrologic reconnection of San Francisquito Creek and potential subsequent flooding into the Faber Tract. The habitat monitoring plan will include adaptive management measures to rectify potential conversion of habitat types and other issues that might arise in the Faber Tract as a result of Project implementation. Additionally, contingency measures will be developed and included in the plan in the event of habitat conversion or loss resulting from the Project. Plan approval by USFWS and DFG will be necessary before implementation of activities recommended by the plan. Routine monitoring reports will be submitted to the appropriate agencies following their completion.
All Project elements, prior to construction A qualified biologist retained by the SFCJPA will be responsible for Plan development described in this measure, coordination with DFG, and for any needed follow‐up activities.
Coordination with DFG will be initiated before any construction activity begins, and will remain in effect for the duration of the Project.
The plan for the site will be completed and approved by DFG prior to groundbreaking.
For the construction period, the SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
The plan would be finalized in consultation with DFG and USFWS as necessary.
Mitigation Measure BIO6.1—Implement Survey and Avoidance Measures for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Salt Marsh Wandering Shrew Prior to Construction. Construction and maintenance work, including site preparation, will be avoided to the extent possible within suitable habitat for these species during their breeding seasons (February 1 to November 30). As work during the species’ breeding seasons will be necessary, a species avoidance plan will be developed in consultation with USFWS and DFG, and implemented. The avoidance plan, at a
All Project elements, prior to construction A qualified biologist retained by the SFCJPA will be responsible for the surveys described in this measure and for any needed consultation with DFG.
Surveys will take place no more than 24 hours prior to the onset of work.
For the construction period, the SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
For the operational period, the SFCJPA’s designated maintenance manager will be responsible for ensuring
Appendix F. Continued Page 15 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
minimum, will include:
Hand vegetation removal shall start at the edge
farthest form the largest contiguous salt marsh
area and work its way towards the salt marsh,
providing cover for salt marsh harvest mice and
allowing them to move towards the salt marsh
as vegetation is being removed.
In consultation with DFG, exclusion fencing shall
be placed around a defined work area
immediately following vegetation removal and
before Project activities begin. The final design
and proposed location of the fencing shall be
reviewed and approved by DFG prior to
placement.
Prior to initiation of work each day within 300
feet of tidal or pickelweed habitats, the qualified
biologist shall thoroughly inspect the work area
and adjacent habitat areas to determine if
saltmarsh harvest mice are present. The
biologist shall ensure the exclusion fencing has
no holes or rips and the base remains buried.
The fenced area will be inspected daily to ensure
that no mice are trapped.
Prior to initiation of work within suitable habitat, a permitted biologist will be retained to monitor the hand removal of pickleweed to avoid impacts on salt marsh harvest mouse and salt marsh wandering shrew. Monitoring will occur for the duration of all clearing work within suitable habitat, and all clearing of pickleweed will be conducted by hand. If salt marsh harvest mouse or salt marsh wandering shrew are observed during clearing activities, clearing will cease and workers will move to a new area. Clearing work may begin in the area of the observation 1 day or more after the observation date.
proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Protection measures will be identified in consultation with DFG and USFWS as necessary.
Appendix F. Continued Page 16 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
During the survey, if salt marsh harvest mouse or salt marsh wandering shrew individuals are observed, or if active nests of these species are observed, proposed Project activities within 100 feet of the observation will be postponed and a no‐disturbance buffer will be established. The buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines that the individuals have left the area and are not present in or near (100 feet) of the work area. If no individuals are observed in accordance with the survey protocols, no buffers will be required.
Work activities within 50 feet of salt marsh harvest mouse habitat will not occur within two hours before or after extreme high tides (6.5 feet or above) when the marsh plain is inundated, which could prevent individuals from reaching available cover.
Mitigation Measure BIO7.1—Implement Survey and Avoidance Measures for California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover Prior to Construction Activities. Construction work, including site preparation, will be avoided to the extent possible within and near (700 feet) suitable habitat for these species during their breeding seasons (March 1 to August 31). Western snowy plover may be present within suitable habitat year‐round. Prior to the initiation of work within 700 feet of suitable habitat (regardless of the time of year), a permitted biologist will be retained to conduct surveys of appropriate habitat for California least tern and western snowy plover and their nests. The surveys will be conducted no more than 48 hours prior to commencement of construction activities and will be performed during optimal observation periods when these species are most active. If active nests for California least tern or western snowy plover are
observed or heard during the survey, Project activities within 500 feet of the observation will be postponed until young have fledged. If individuals are observed outside of the breeding season
All Project elements, prior to construction A qualified biologist retained by the SFCJPA will be responsible for the surveys described in this measure and for any needed consultation with DFG.
Surveys will take place no more than 48 hours prior to the onset of work.
For the construction period, the SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
For the operational period, the SFCJPA’s designated maintenance manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Protection measures will be identified in consultation with DFG and USFWS as necessary.
Appendix F. Continued Page 17 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
within 500 feet of the work area, a biologist will establish a no‐disturbance buffer. No work will occur within the buffer until the biologist verifies that individuals have left the area. If individuals are routinely observed in or within 500 feet of the work area or do not leave the work area, species avoidance plan will be developed in coordination with USFWS and DFG. If no individuals are observed in accordance with the survey protocols, no buffers will be required.
Mitigation Measure BIO8.1—Implement Survey and Avoidance Measures for California RedLegged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake Prior to Construction Activities. SFCJPA will retain a permitted biologist to conduct a survey of the freshwater ponds and surrounding upland habitat prior to initiation of construction activities. The surveys will be conducted according to applicable protocols and will be performed during optimal observation periods of the day when detection potential for these species is maximized. The survey will be conducted prior to initiation of construction, but such that enough time is allowed to coordinate with USFWS and DFG to develop a species avoidance plan if needed. If California red‐legged frog or San Francisco garter snake individuals are observed or heard during the survey, proposed Project activities within 500 feet of the observation will be postponed. A species avoidance plan will be developed in coordination with USFWS and DFG and implemented during construction and maintenance. If no individuals are observed during the surveys, no further action will be necessary.
All Project elements, prior to construction The SFCJPA will retain a qualified wildlife biologist to implement this measure.
The surveys and any needed relocation of individuals described in this measure will be performed before site preparation and construction activity begins.
Fencing will remain in place for the duration of construction or maintenance activity.
For the construction period, the SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
For the operational period, the SFCJPA’s designated maintenance manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Relocation sites will be established in consultation
with DFG and USFWS as necessary.
A written report will be submitted to DFG and USFWS detailing the survey results of listed amphibians and subsequent relocation activities (if necessary).
Appendix F. Continued Page 18 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Mitigation Measure BIO9.1—Implement Avoidance Measures for Steelhead Trout Prior to Construction Activities. No in‐channel construction activities will occur during the steelhead migration period (October 1–April 30), to reduce the likelihood that steelhead are present during construction activities.
A qualified fisheries biologist, approved by NMFS, will survey the construction area 1 to 2 days before the Project begins. If no surface water is present in the immediate construction area, fish will not be relocated. If water is present, the following procedures will be implemented.
Before a work area is dewatered, fish will be
captured and relocated to avoid injury and
mortality and minimize disturbance.
Before fish relocation begins, a qualified
fisheries biologist will identify the most
appropriate release location(s). Release
locations should have water temperatures
similar to the capture location and offer ample
habitat for released fish, and should be selected
to minimize the likelihood that fish will reenter
the work area or become impinged on the
exclusion net or screen. At this time the open
reach below the Project site is anticipated to
have suitable conditions for relocation.
Seining or dip netting will be utilized to keep
stress and injury to fish at a minimum. Given the
salinity of the Project reach, electrofishing will
not be utilized.
To the extent feasible, relocation will be
performed during morning periods. Water
temperatures will be measured periodically, and
relocation activities will be suspended if water
temperature exceeds 18⁰C (National Marine
Fisheries Service 2000).
All Project elements, prior to construction A qualified biologist retained by the SFCJPA will be responsible for the surveys described in this measure and for any needed consultation with NMFS.
Surveys will take place no more than 48 hours prior to the onset of work.
For the construction period, the SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
For the operational period, the SFCJPA’s designated maintenance manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Protection measures will be identified in consultation
with NMFS as necessary.
Appendix F. Continued Page 19 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Handling of salmonids will be minimized. When
necessary, personnel will wet hands or nets
before touching fish.
Fish will be held temporarily in cool, shaded
water in a container with a lid. Overcrowding in
containers will be avoided. Fish will be relocated
promptly. If water temperature reaches or
exceeds NMFS limits, fish will be released and
relocation operations will cease.
If fish are abundant, capture will cease
periodically to allow release and minimize the
time fish spend in holding containers.
Fish will not be anesthetized or measured.
However, they will be visually identified to
species level, and year classes will be estimated
and recorded.
Reports on fish relocation activities will be
submitted to DFG and NMFS within 30 days of
completion.
If mortality during relocation exceeds 5% or
mortality of any State or Federal listed species
occurs, relocation will cease and DFG and NMFS
will be contacted immediately or as soon as
feasible.
Fish relocation efforts will be performed
concurrent with the installation of the diversion
and will be completed before the channel is fully
dewatered. The fisheries biologist will perform a
second survey 1 to 2 days following the
installation of the diversion to ensure that fish
have been excluded from the work area and spot
checks will be performed at least biweekly while
the diversion is in place.
Appendix F. Continued Page 20 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Mitigation Measure BIO11.1—Identify and Protect Riparian Habitats. To avoid unnecessary damage to or removal of riparian habitat, the SFCJPA will retain a qualified biologist or ecologist to survey and demarcate riparian habitat on or adjacent to the proposed areas of construction in the upper reach of San Francisquito Creek. Riparian areas not slated for trimming or removal to accommodate Project construction will be protected from encroachment and damage during construction by installing temporary construction fencing to create a no‐activity exclusion zone. Fencing will be brightly colored and highly visible, and installed under the supervision of a qualified biologist to prevent damage to riparian habitat during installation. The fencing will protect all potentially affected riparian habitat consistent with International Society of Arboriculture tree protection zone recommendations and any additional requirements of the resource agencies with jurisdiction. Fencing will be installed before any site preparation or construction work begins and will remain in place for the duration of construction. Riparian vegetation that must be trimmed will be trimmed by an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist who will minimize stress and potential damage to trees and shrubs. Construction personnel will be prohibited from entering the exclusion zone for the duration of Project construction. Access and surface‐disturbing activities will be prohibited within the exclusion zone.
All Project elements, prior to construction A qualified botanist or ecologist retained by the SFCJPA will establish the setback buffers (i.e., determine their location and extent).
The qualified botanist/ecologist will either install the construction fencing to protect riparian habitat within the setback, or will supervise installation by construction personnel.
Surveys will be conducted and setbacks will be established and fenced before work begins. Fencing will remain in place for the duration of construction, site finishing, and demobilization.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Mitigation Measure BIO11.2—Restore Riparian Habitat. The SFCJPA will be responsible for restoring permanently affected riparian habitat at a mitigation‐to‐impact ratio of 2:1, and restoring temporarily affected habitat at a minimum impact‐to‐mitigation ratio of 1:1 to ensure no net loss of riparian habitat in the affected stream reach. The SFCJPA will develop a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP) to ensure that all removed habitat is replaced “in kind” with
All Project elements, prior to construction A qualified botanist/ecologist retained by the SFCJPA will be responsible for identifying and mapping riparian areas and preparing the MMP.
The MMP will be developed and restoration will be planned during the permit process, prior to
groundbreaking. The MMP will remain in force until the success criteria described in the plan are met.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for
documenting compliance.
The MMP will be developed in consultation with resource agency staff.
Appendix F. Continued Page 21 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
the appropriate native overstory and understory species to maintain structural complexity and habitat value. The MMP will be developed in the context of the federal and state permitting processes under the CWA and California Department of Fish and Game Code, and will include success criteria as specified by the permitting agencies. The MMP will also include adaptive management guidelines for actions to be taken if the success criteria are not met. The success criteria will be met if 80% of the riparian plantings become established after 10 years. Monitoring will occur, at a minimum, during years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10, with the plantings taking place in year 0.The initial annual monitoring will assess progress of the plantings according to predetermined success criteria. If progress is not satisfactory, adaptive management actions (including replanting, nonnative species removal, etc.) could be implemented. The MMP will remain in force until the success criteria are met.
Mitigation Measure BIO12.1—Avoid and Protect Jurisdictional Wetlands during Construction. The SFCJPA will ensure that a qualified resource specialist (biologist, ecologist, or soil scientist) will clearly identify wetland areas outside of the direct impact footprint with temporary orange construction fencing before site preparation and construction activities begin at each site or will implement another suitable low‐impact measure. Construction will not encroach upon jurisdictional wetlands identified by the wetland specialist. The resource specialist will use the wetland delineation (ICF 2012) mapping prepared for the proposed Project and will confirm or modify the location of wetland boundaries based on existing conditions at the time of the survey. Exclusion fencing will be installed before construction activities are initiated, and the fencing will be maintained throughout the construction period. No construction activity, traffic, equipment, or
All Project elements, prior to construction A qualified botanist or ecologist retained by the SFCJPA will establish the setback buffers (i.e., determine their location and extent).
The qualified botanist/ecologist will either install the construction fencing to protect jurisdictional wetlands within the setback, or will supervise installation by construction personnel.
At each site, all setbacks will be established and fenced before work begins. Fencing will remain in place for the duration of construction, site finishing, and demobilization.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 22 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
materials will be permitted in fenced wetland areas.
Mitigation Measure BIO13.1—Transplant or Compensate for Loss of Protected Landscape Trees, Consistent with Applicable Tree Protection Regulations. Protected landscape trees slated for removal and deemed good candidates for transplantation will be considered for transplanting in conjunction with the proposed landscaping plans. Transplanted trees will be located on the site if space permits. If the number of trees to be transplanted is too large to be accommodated on the Project site, the SFCJPA will prepare a landscaping plan detailing other locations where transplanted trees will be planted, consistent with the requirements of the applicable tree protection ordinance or regulations. Transplanted trees will be subject to the monitoring and replacement requirements identified for replacement trees below.
Protected landscape trees not deemed good candidates for transplantation will be replaced. The landscaping plan for tree replacement will specifically identify the locations where replacement trees are to be planted; replacements will be planted on the site, if possible. The landscaping plan will be subject to review and approval by the agency with jurisdiction (Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo Alto, or City of East Palo Alto).
Tree removals within the Cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto will be compensated for at a mitigation‐to‐impact ratio of 1:1, or as determined by the City. Species and location of the replacement tree will be determined in consultation with the property owner and the City.
Impacted mitigation trees associated with the
Matadero Creek and Palo Alto Pump Station projects would be replaced in accordance with the terms and conditions of the respective permits for those projects and in consultation with the
All Project elements, prior to construction Surveys and reporting will be performed by an ISA‐ (International Society of Arboriculture) or ASCA‐ (American Society of Consulting Arborists) certified arborist retained by the SFCJPA. Landscape plans will be developed by a licensed landscape architect and/or civil engineer in consultation with the arborist and SFCJPA project manager. Transplantation and compensation plantings will be performed by contractor staff under the supervision of the certified arborist.
The arborist surveys will be performed during Project design. The landscaping plan, which will determine the feasibility of transplanting protected landscape trees, will be completed prior to groundbreaking. Transplantation efforts, if determined feasible by the certified arborist, will take place during construction as
protected landscape trees are removed. If transplantation is not feasible, compensation will be arranged, and if possible, completed prior to groundbreaking. Any onsite compensation plantings will be provided during Project construction/ site finishing.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 23 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
responsible permitting authorities for those projects, should the monitoring period for successful completion of mitigation requirements not be completed at the time of construction.
The SFCJPA will be responsible for ensuring newly planted trees will be monitored at least once a year for 3 years. Each year, trees that do not survive will be replaced in a manner consistent with the compensation required under the applicable tree ordinance. Trees planted as remediation for failed plantings will then be monitored for a period of 3 years in the same manner, and trees that do not survive will be replaced. Trees that are replaced will be consistent with the Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses near Streams prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. The SFCJPA will be responsible for the removal of irrigation systems that are no longer used following tree establishment. Inactive irrigation systems will be removed within 5 years of satisfaction of the mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure BIO13.2—Protect Remaining Trees from Construction Impacts. Trees not designated for removal will be protected from damage during construction by the installation of temporary fencing in a manner consistent with International Society of Arboriculture tree protection zone recommendations. Fencing will keep construction equipment away from trees and prevent unnecessary damage to or loss of protected trees on the Project site. Protected trees retained on the site and located adjacent to construction activities will be monitored as specified for newly planted trees (see Mitigation Measure BIO13.1) and replaced if they do not survive through the monitoring period.
All Project elements, prior to construction An ISA‐ (International Society of Arboriculture) or ASCA‐ (American Society of Consulting Arborists) certified arborist retained by the SFCJPA will either install the construction fencing to protect remaining trees within the setback, or will supervise installation by construction personnel. Follow up monitoring will also be performed
by a certified arborist.
At each site, all setbacks will be established and fenced before any site preparation or construction activities are permitted to commence.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 24 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Mitigation Measure CR1.1—Conduct a PreConstruction Cultural Field Survey and Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation. The SFCJPA will retain qualified personnel to conduct an archaeological field survey of the Project area to determine whether significant resources exist within the Project area. The inventory and evaluation will include the documentation and result of these efforts, the evaluation of any cultural resources identified during the survey, and cultural resources monitoring, if the survey identifies that it is necessary. The monitoring process will be carried out in combination with the District’s standard BMPs.
All Project elements, prior to construction groundbreaking
A qualified architectural historian retained by the SFCJPA will be responsible for conducting the historical resources evaluation described in this measure.
The historical resources evaluation will be conducted during preparation of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 report required for the permit process, and will be completed prior to site preparation or construction activities.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Mitigation Measure CR1.2—Conduct Worker Awareness Training for Archaeological Resources Prior to Construction. Prior to the initiation of any site preparation and/or start of construction, the applicant will ensure that all construction workers receive training overseen by a qualified professional archaeologist who is experienced in teaching nonspecialists, to ensure that forepersons and field supervisors can recognize archaeological resources (e.g., areas of shellfish remains, chipped stone or groundstone, historic debris, building foundations, human bone) in the event that any are discovered during construction.
All Project elements, prior to construction groundbreaking
A qualified archaeologist retained by the SFCJPA will be responsible for conducting the construction monitoring described in this measure.
This measure will remain in effect for the duration all ground‐disturbing activities.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Mitigation Measure Paleo1.1—Conduct a PreConstruction Paleontological Resources Field Survey and Paleontological Resources Inventory and Evaluation. The SFCJPA will retain qualified personnel with experience in vertebrate fossil monitoring and salvage at construction sites to conduct a paleontological resources field survey
of the Project area with native soils to determine whether significant resources exist within the Project area. The inventory and evaluation will include the documentation and result of these
All Project elements, prior to construction groundbreaking
A qualified paleontologist retained by the SFCJPA will be responsible for conducting the survey. If salvage and/or protection are required,
measures will be designed and implemented by the qualified paleontologist
Surveys will be conducted prior to ground disturbance, and with enough lead time to allow for salvage and/or protection. If salvage or protection is needed,
these operations will also be completed prior to construction ground
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 25 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
efforts, the evaluation of any paleontological resources identified during the survey, and paleontological resources monitoring, if the survey identifies that it is necessary.
in consultation with the SFCJPA’s project manager.
disturbance.
Mitigation Measure Paleo 1.2—Conduct Worker Awareness training for Paleontological Resources Prior to Construction. Prior to the initiation of any site preparation and/or start of construction, the applicant will ensure that all construction workers receive training overseen by a qualified professional paleontologist who is experienced in teaching nonspecialists, to ensure that forepersons and field supervisors can recognize paleontological resources in the event that any are discovered during construction.
All Project elements, prior to construction groundbreaking
The SFCJPA will retain a qualified paleontologist or California‐licensed professional geologist (PG) experienced in training non‐specialists to deliver the required training.
Training will occur prior to groundbreaking. The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Mitigation Measure CR1.3—Stop Work Immediately if Buried Cultural Resources are Discovered Inadvertently. If paleontological resources are discovered during ground‐disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist with experience in vertebrate fossil monitoring and salvage at construction sites can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the SFCJPA and other agencies as appropriate. Equipment operators, supervisors, inspectors, and other field personnel will be required to report to the paleontology monitor any suspected fossil discoveries. The paleontologist will have authority to halt or redirect excavation operations in the event of discovery of vertebrate, plant, or invertebrate fossils until such time as their probable significance can be assessed and, if potentially significant, appropriate salvage measures have been implemented.
The paleontologist will properly collect and document any large vertebrate remains and recognize and appropriately sample and
All Project elements, during construction Stop work orders may be issued by the qualified paleontologist, or by the construction foreperson in response to discoveries by construction workers. All SFCJPA and contractor staff will be responsible for adhering to stop work orders. Any follow‐up (evaluation, treatment) will be performed by or under the supervision of the qualified paleontologist.
This measure will remain in effect for the duration of construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 26 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
document any sedimentary bodies revealing small vertebrate remains. Large bulk samples may be appropriate. Minimum documentation includes exact location (GPS data), orientation, depth (elevation), and detailed geologic setting of any large‐ or small‐vertebrate finds, including detailed diagrams showing microstratigraphy in nearby excavations supplemented with good‐quality field photographs. If vertebrate fossils are discovered in spoils piles during excavation, the paleontologist will make every effort to locate and record the original site of the specimen(s) prior to disturbance.
Should ground‐disturbing activities within Caltrans ROW make an inadvertent burial discovery, all construction within 50 feet of the find shall cease. Caltrans' Cultural Resource Studies Office, District 4, shall be immediately contacted at (510) 286‐5618. A Caltrans staff archaeologist will evaluate the finds within one business day after contact.
Salvage of potentially significant specimens discovered in situ in excavated surfaces will be conducted by the paleontologist in compliance with all safety regulations and with implementation of all feasible precautions. The on‐site safety inspector will hold final authority to determine whether each proposed salvage operation is consistent with established safety policies at the site. Excavation equipment and operators will be made available for short periods to remove overburden above in situ specimens, to improve safety conditions during salvage operations, or to aid in transport within the site boundaries of any large salvaged specimens which cannot be safely transported by hand.
Any potentially significant fossils recovered during the monitoring and salvage phase will be cleaned, repaired, and hardened to the level required by the repository institution, and will be donated to that institution. Any collected bulk
Appendix F. Continued Page 27 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
sediment samples having the potential for small fossil vertebrate remains will be wet‐ or dry‐screened and processed as necessary for recovery of the included fossils. Details of requirements and conditions for transfer of salvaged specimens to the repository museum will be arranged with the museum as soon as the scope of the salvaged collection becomes apparent, and will be in accordance with the recommendations outlined in SVP 1996.
On completion of the above tasks, the supervising paleontologist will prepare a final report on the implementation of the mitigation plan and results and submit it to the appropriate parties, institutions, and government agencies.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation Measure GHG1.1—Implement BAAQMD Best Management Practices for Construction:
Use alternative‐fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric)
construction vehicles/equipment for at least 15
percent of the fleet;
Use at least 10 percent local building materials
(from within 100 miles of the Project site);
Recycle at least 50 percent of construction
waste or demolition materials.
All Project elements, prior to construction groundbreaking
The construction manager/ foreperson will implement this measure.
This measure will remain in effect for the duration of construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Hazardous Materials and Public Health
Mitigation Measure HAZ1.1—Preparation and Implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan. The Project applicant with prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan to minimize the potential for, and effects from, accidental spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction of the Project. The SPCC will be completed before any construction activities begin.
All Project elements, prior to construction groundbreaking
The construction manager/ foreperson will implement this measure.
This measure will remain in effect for the duration of construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 28 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Mitigation Measure HAZ1.2—Require Proper Storage and Handling of Potential Pollutants and Hazardous Materials. The storage and handling of potential pollutants and hazardous materials, including, but not necessarily limited to, gasoline, diesel, oils, paint, and solvents, will be in accordance with all local, state and federal laws and other requirements. Temporary storage enclosures, double walled tanks, berms, or other protective facilities will be provided as required by law. All hazardous materials will be stored and handed in strict accordance with the Material Safety Data Sheets for each product. A copy of each Materials Safety Data Sheet will be submitted to the Project Engineer at the time of delivery of the products to the Project site.
All Project elements, prior to construction groundbreaking
The construction manager/ foreperson will implement this measure.
This measure will remain in effect for the duration of construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Mitigation Measure HAZ2.1—Stop Work and Implement Hazardous Materials Investigations and Remediation in the Event that Unknown Hazardous Materials Are Encountered. In the event that unknown hazardous materials are encountered during construction monitoring or testing of soil suitability, all work in the area of the discovery will stop and SFCJPA will conduct a Phase II hazardous materials investigation to identify the nature and extent of contamination and evaluate potential impacts on Project construction and human health. A Phase I investigation will be done concurrent with or prior to Phase II. If necessary, based on the outcomes of the Phase II investigation, SFCJPA will implement remediation measures consistent with all applicable local, state, and federal codes and regulations. Construction in areas known or reasonably suspected to be contaminated will not resume until remediation is complete. If waste disposal is necessary, SFCJPA will ensure that all
hazardous materials removed during construction are handled and disposed of by a licensed waste‐disposal contractor and transported by a licensed hauler to an appropriately licensed and permitted
All Project elements, prior to construction groundbreaking
The construction manager/ foreperson will implement this measure.
This measure will remain in effect for the duration of construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 29 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
disposal or recycling facility, in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements.
Mitigation Measure HAZ8.1—Prevent Mosquito Breeding During Project Construction. To prevent mosquito breeding during Project construction, SFCJPA will ensure that standing water that accumulates on the
construction site is gone within 4 days (96 hours). All outdoor grounds will be examined and unnecessary water that may stand longer than 96 hours will be drained. Construction personnel will property dispose of unwanted or unused artificial containers and tires. If possible, any container or object that holds standing water that must remain outdoors will be covered, inverted, or have drainage holes drilled.
All Project elements, prior to construction groundbreaking
The construction manager/ foreperson will implement this measure.
This measure will remain in effect for the duration of construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Hydrology and Water Resources
Mitigation Measures HWR1.1—Design of Temporary Relocation of Storm Drainage Facilities during Construction. A temporary disruption in stormwater conveyance facilities
located in the immediate Project construction footprint could result in the temporary relocation and re‐routing of outfalls. The temporary design will include the necessary review and assessment of alternative routes and ancillary facilities to ensure that they can safely accommodate the re‐directed flow to the same level of design and performance (i.e., storm drain capacity) as that of the existing facilities until such time that the original facilities are restored.
All Project elements, prior to construction groundbreaking
The construction manager/ foreperson will implement this measure.
This measure will remain in effect for the duration of construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for
enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Mitigation Measures HWR1.2—Design of Permanent Relocation of Storm Drainage Facilities. The permanent relocation of stormwater conveyance facilities would be designed so as not to alter the original outlet locations and internal routes. The design will include the necessary review and assessment of pipeline additions and ancillary facilities to ensure that they can safely accommodate flood flows to
All Project elements, prior to construction groundbreaking
The construction manager/ foreperson will implement this measure.
This measure will remain in effect for the duration of construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 30 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
the same level of design and performance (i.e., storm drain capacity) as that of the existing facilities.
Noise
Mitigation Measure NV2.1—Conduct Construction Vibration Assessment and Implement Recommended Vibration Control Approach(es) for Culvert Installation. During final design, the SFCJPA will retain a qualified, state‐licensed geotechnical professional to determine site‐specific soil stratigraphy and engineering properties and model anticipated vibration levels from the anticipated culvert construction activities based on soil properties. If the anticipated vibration level at any home exceeds 80 VdB or 0.2 in/sec, the SFCJPA will modify the proposed construction approach to ensure that both thresholds can be achieved, avoiding annoyance and structural damage.
All Project elements, during construction A qualified, state‐licensed geotechnical engineer retained by the SFCJPA will conduct the vibration assessment. If modifications to Project design are required to meet the thresholds in this mitigation measure, they will be developed by the design team in consultation with the geotechnical engineer, at the direction of the SFCJPA project manager.
This measure will be implemented during Project design.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Mitigation Measure NV4.1—Provide Advance Notification of Construction Schedule and 24Hour Hotline to Residents. SFCJPA will provide advance written notification of the proposed construction activities to all residences and other noise‐ and air quality–sensitive uses within 750 feet of the construction site. Notification will include a brief overview of the proposed Project and its purpose, as well as the proposed
construction activities and schedule. It will also include the name and contact information of SFCJPA’s project manager or another SFCJPA representative or designee responsible for ensuring that reasonable measures are implemented to address the problem (the construction noise and air quality disturbance coordinator; see Mitigation Measure NV4.3).
All Project elements, during construction SFCJPA staff will implement this measure at the direction of the SFCJPA project manager.
Advance written notification of proposed construction activities will be provided at least 1 month and not more than 3 months in advance of site work.
The 24‐hour hotline will be in operation for the duration of construction at each site, including site finishing and demobilization.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Mitigation Measure NV4.2—Implement Work Site Noise Control Measures. To reduce noise impacts, SFCJPA will require all contractors to adhere to the following measures. SFCJPA will be
All Project elements, during construction and operation
The construction manager/ foreperson will implement this measure.
This measure will remain in effect for the duration of construction at each site.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for
Appendix F. Continued Page 31 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
responsible for ensuring implementation.
All construction equipment will be equipped
with manufacturer’s standard noise control
devices or with equally effective replacement
devices consistent with manufacturer
specifications.
Stationary noise‐generating equipment will be
located as far as possible from sensitive
receptors, and, if feasible, will be shielded by
placement of other equipment or construction
materials storage.
Contractors will be required to use ambient‐
sensitive backup alarms.
enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Mitigation Measure NV4.3—Designate a Noise and Air Quality Disturbance Coordinator to Address Resident Concerns. SFCJPA will designate a representative to act as construction noise and air quality disturbance coordinator, responsible for resolving construction noise and air quality concerns. The disturbance coordinator’s name and contact information will be included in the preconstruction notices sent to area residents (see Mitigation Measure NV4.1). She or he will be available during regular business hours to monitor and respond to concerns; if construction hours are extended, the disturbance coordinator will also be available during the extended hours. In the event an air quality or noise complaint is received, she or he will be responsible for determining the cause of the complaint and ensuring that all reasonable measures are implemented to address the problem.
All Project elements, during construction The SFCJPA’s project manager will designate a noise disturbance coordinator. The noise disturbance coordinator will be responsible for receiving and responding to noise complaints, and will coordinate with the SFCJPA project manager to implement timely solutions.
This measure will remain in effect for the duration of Project construction. Resolutions to noise complaints will be provided as rapidly as possible.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
Mitigation Measure NV4.4—Install Temporary Noise Barriers. As described in Mitigation Measures NV1.1, NV1.2, and NV1.3, SFCJPA will notify noise‐sensitive land uses near the site of upcoming activity before construction begins, will
All Project elements, during construction Noise barriers will be installed by contractor staff at the direction of the SFCJPA project manager
This measure will remain in effect for the duration of construction.
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for
Appendix F. Continued Page 32 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
require construction‐site noise reduction measures, and will provide a 24 hour complaint hotline. If a resident or school employee submits a complaint about construction noise and SFCJPA is unable to reduce noise levels to below the significance threshold (exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet) through other means, SFCJPA will install temporary noise barriers to reduce noise levels below the applicable construction noise standard. Barriers will be installed as promptly as possible, and work responsible for the disturbance will be suspended or modified until barriers have been installed. SFCJPA will include a construction bid item to provide noise barriers onsite and install noise barriers immediately in response to noise or dust concerns from the community. The following minimum criteria will be required of the contractor.
The barrier will be 10 feet tall. It will surround
the work area to block the line of sight for all
diesel‐powered equipment on the ground, as
viewed from any private residence or any
building.
The barrier will be constructed of heavyweight
plywood (5/8 inch thick) or other material
providing a Sound Transmission Classification
of at least 25 dBA. (Note that 5/8 inch is
sufficiently thick to provide optimal noise
buffering; increasing the thickness of the barrier
above 5/8 inch would not provide a noticeable
improvement in noise reduction.)
The barrier will be constructed with no gaps or
holes that would allow noise to transmit
through the barrier.
To minimize reflection of noise toward workers
at the construction site, the surface of the
barrier facing the workers will be covered with
a sound‐absorbing material meeting a Noise
documenting compliance.
Appendix F. Continued Page 33 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Reduction Coefficient of at least 0.70.
Recreation
Mitigation Measure REC1—Compensate the City of Palo Alto for the Conversion of 7.4 Acres of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course to Accommodate Project Features. In order to replace permanently affected holes at the Golf Course, compensate the City of Palo Alto an amount equivalent to the cost of replacing golf holes 12 through 15 within the Project footprint, and the relocation of other holes accommodate the new holes 12 through 15, so that the Golf Course can remain a PGA‐regulation 18‐hole course.
To ensure this mitigation measure will be
implemented, SFCJPA and City of Palo Alto will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding no later than 30 days prior to the initiation of construction that will require SFCJPA to fund improvements at the Golf Course. SFCJPA and the City of Palo Alto will mutually agree on the amount and timing of the deposit, which will be determined by the results of site evaluation and preliminary design conducted by a certified golf course architect. Money will be used exclusively for mitigation of impacts on the Golf Course that are related to the Project.
All Project elements, prior to and during construction The SFCJPA’s Executive Director will coordinate with the City of Palo Alto to reach mutually agreeable terms.
The Agreement will be signed by both parties prior to the initiation of construction.
The SFCJPA’s Executive Director will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, and for documenting compliance.
Traffic
Mitigation Measure TT1—Require a SiteSpecific Traffic Control Plan. SFCJPA will develop a site‐specific traffic control plan to minimize the effects of construction traffic on surrounding areas and roadways. The plan will be prepared with oversight by a licensed traffic engineer, and with input from school, park and
community stakeholders to ensure that all concerns are appropriately addressed. The plan will be subject to review and approval by the Cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. The SFCJPA would also coordinate, as necessary, with Caltrans, for traffic controls and measures affecting Caltrans
All Project elements, prior to and during construction The SFCJPA’s project manager will liaise with the Cities and Caltrans during Project design to identify issues that should be addressed in the site‐specific traffic
control plan for each work site, and will oversee contractors developing the individual plans.
Coordination will local jurisdictions will be initiated before any construction activity begins, and will remain in effect for the duration of the Project.
The traffic control plan for each site will be completed and approved by the local jurisdiction prior to groundbreaking;
The SFCJPA’s project manager will be responsible for ensuring proper implementation, for enforcement, and for documenting compliance.
The local jurisdiction for
each work site will have review and approval authority over the applicable traffic control plan.
Appendix F. Continued Page 34 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
facilities. The SFCJPA will be responsible for ensuring that the plan is effectively implemented.
The traffic control plan will include, at a minimum, information regarding working hours, allowable and restricted streets, allowable times for lane closures, emergency vehicle access, detours, and access to private and public properties. All construction traffic control plans will contain the following general requirements:
Restrict work site access to the roadways
indicated on the traffic control plan.
Prohibit access via residential streets unless
expressly approved by the City with jurisdiction.
Maintain two‐way traffic flow on arterial
roadways accessing active work to
accommodate construction of Project facilities,
or unless otherwise allowed by the City with
jurisdiction.
Provide 72‐hour advance notification if access to
driveways or private roads will be affected.
Limit effects on driveway and private roadway
access to working hours and ensure that access
to driveways and private roads is uninterrupted
during non‐work hours. If necessary, use steel
plates, temporary backfill, or another accepted
measure to provide access.
Provide clearly marked pedestrian detours to
address any sidewalk or pedestrian walkway
closures.
Provide clearly marked bicycle detours to
address bicycle route closure or if bicyclist
safety would be otherwise compromised.
Provide crossing guards and/or flagpersons as
needed to avoid traffic conflicts and ensure
pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
Each plan will be developed with oversight from a licensed traffic engineer.
All SFCJPA and contractor staff will adhere to the plans.
draft traffic control planswill be submitted for review and approval for each work site.
Traffic control plans will be in effect for the entire duration of construction at each site.
Appendix F. Continued Page 35 of 36
Mitigation Measure Required for the Following
Sites/Project Phases
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing Monitoring, Enforcement,
and Reporting Responsibility
Use nonskid traffic plates over open trenches to
minimize hazards.
Locate all stationary equipment as far away as
possible from areas used by vehicles, bicyclists,
and pedestrians.
Notify and consult with emergency service
providers, and provide emergency access by
whatever means necessary to expedite and
facilitate the passage of emergency vehicles.
Ensure clear emergency access to all existing
buildings and facilities at all times.
Trucks will be queued only in areas and at times
allowed by the City with jurisdiction.
Provide adequate parking for construction
vehicles, equipment, and workers within the
designated staging areas throughout the
construction period. If inadequate space for
parking is available at a given work site, provide
an off‐site staging area at another suitable
location, and coordinate the daily transport of
construction vehicles, equipment, and personnel
to and from the work site as needed.
Fences, barriers, lights, flagging, guards, and
signs will be installed as determined
appropriate by the public agency having
jurisdiction to give adequate warning to the
public of the construction and of any dangerous
condition to be encountered as a result thereof.
Appendix F. Continued Page 36 of 36
References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. June. San Francisco, CA.
California Native Plant Society. 2001. Botanical Survey Guidelines of the California Native Plant Society. (Originally published on December 9, 1983; revised
on June 2, 2001.) Fremontia 29:3–4.
ICF International. 2012. Preliminary Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States, San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project. San Jose,
CA. Prepared for San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, San Jose, CA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000. Guidelines for electrofishing waters containing salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act. June.
6550.txt
Plans
Page 1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3242)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 11/5/2012
Summary Title: Parking Program Update
Title: Update of Parking Program and Review and Direction on Parking Policy
Strategies
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council review this Parking Program Update and provide direction to
staff on the Parking Policy Strategies outlined, focused on parking supply options, technology
and residential improvements.
Executive Summary
In the spring of 2011, the City began extensively monitoring downtown parking utilization in
response to resident concerns that downtown parking structures were underutilized and on-
street parking was intruding into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Extensive parking data
collection efforts began immediately in both the Downtown and California Avenue Business
Districts so that parking utilization baselines and strategies could be developed for Council
consideration along with input from business and residential interests.
On July 16, 2012, the City Council discussed a range of proposed work efforts by staff, but
focused on potential residential permit parking program (RPPP) for the Professorville
neighborhood. The Council directed staff to not proceed with the RPPP at this time and instead
to focus on several other parking and zoning efforts. The Council asked for more specifics and
an update of the efforts prior to the end of the year.
This update provides a summary of parking strategies implemented-to-date within the
Background section and outlines policy strategies for enhanced parking supply, technology
solutions, and residential improvements in the Discussion section for consideration of the
Council. Staff will be making substantive progress on these items over the coming 3-6 months
subsequent to Council direction.
Background
The Council directed at the July 16, 2012 meeting that staff would not move forward with the
trial Residential Permit Parking program for Professorville at this time, but would proceed with
additional studies and actions related to parking in downtown, including but not limited to:
a. Study of potential new public parking garage sites, capacities and costs;
b. Methods to increase capacity in existing garages, such as attendant parking and
adjustments to the permit/public distribution of spaces;
c. Technology enhancements, such as gate controls, parking space identification systems,
and parking permit processing improvements, etc.;
d. Zoning studies and revisions, including study of the downtown cap on nonresidential
space, the use of bonuses and transfer rights, variable parking ratios for office uses, and
how to treat non-conforming parking sites; and
e. Evaluation of paid parking options.
Amendments to the main motion further directed that staff should evaluate:
a. Parking exemptions;
b. A Transportation Demand Management Program for downtown;
c. Underutilized private parking garages;
d. Funding options for new public parking garage sites;
e. Zoning disincentives to having two car garages;
f. Selective parking for those homes without a driveway or garage; and
g. The use of the $250,000 from the Lytton Gateway Project earmarked for neighborhood
parking preservation.
Council asked that Staff to return to Council in three months with check in and return with an
update before the end of the year. The Council’s July 16 Action Minutes are included as
Attachment D and the full minutes are included as Attachment E.
The remainder of this Background section recounts efforts to date and the Discussion section
outlines the programmatic effort to address parking in the next 3-6 months.
Parking Assessment Districts
Both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts include parking assessment
districts that provide parking for the respective areas. The parking assessment districts include
fees paid by property owners/merchants to help repay city bonds issued to cover the cost of
parking garage construction and permit fees that are used to cover the operations and
maintenance costs of the parking programs including staff costs for the distribution of permits
and parking enforcement. In the downtown, fees from parking permits also help to pay for
police enforcement. Table 1 provides the current fee structure program for the Downtown and
California Avenue Business Districts – Parking Assessment Programs. The table also provides a
brief comparison of parking permit fees to those from Redwood City, San Jose, and San
Francisco for Council reference.
Table 1
Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts
Parking Assessment Fee Program
Parking Fee
Palo Alto Local Agency Comparisons
Downtown
District
California Ave
District Redwood City San Jose San Francisco
Assessment
Fee $1.11/SQ FT * - - -
Permit
(Monthly) $45.00 $14.33 $30 to $60 $100 $215 to $395
Permit
(Annual) $420.00 $123.00 $330 to $660 $1,200 $2,580 to
$4,740
Day Permit $16.00 $7.00 None None None
* Cal Av Assessment Fee varies by Parcel.
Local employees working within the Districts are allowed to purchase parking permits to park in
garages or on surface lots pending permit availability. Employees working outside of the
assessment districts, however, are not allowed to purchase parking permits, but can purchase
Day Passes to park within the facilities.
When the two assessment districts were formed, the assessment districts allowed the City to
issue bonds for the construction of parking structures and provided a guaranteed revenue
mechanism through the assessment fee to pay the bonds back. Assessment districts are not
common for jurisdictions, as many more typically opt to fund parking garage construction on
their own and then recover the cost of construction strictly through monthly permit sales.
Parking Permits
In 2011 the City began evaluating changes in the parking permit distribution process in order to
better allocate permits to employees within the districts, to fill up underutilized parking garage
space, and to reduce parking intrusion to adjacent residential neighborhoods. The following
parking permit program changes were implemented:
Establish Monthly Parking Permits Distribution Thresholds
Permits were previously distributed on a quarterly basis based on parking occupancy
counts counted by the City’s parking enforcement unit. The amount of permits available
at each lot varied per quarter depending on the results of the parking occupancy counts.
Using historical data, the City established a maximum number of permits that should be
released at any given time and the City continues to monitor parking occupancy to
determine whether the threshold should be increased or decreased. The maximum
number of permits released at any given time and the percentage of permits over
supply by parking facility is provided in Table 2. Permit sales in the Downtown were up
9% in 2011 compared to 2010 and up 13% in 2012-to-date compared to 2010. In the
California Avenue Business District permit sales have remained consistent with prior
years.
Permit Wait List Management
Previously, anyone wishing to obtain a permit within a district could sign up for as many
sites as they wanted in efforts to obtain a permit as quickly as possible. This resulted in
unusually high wait list numbers at each facility or district in the case of the California
Avenue Business District where a parking permit allows a permit holder to park at any
parking garage or surface lot. The City now only allows a person getting on the wait list
for a parking permit to do so once, and for only one site. In addition, the City charges a
$10.00 fee to get onto a wait list, which is credited towards the ultimate first purchase
of a parking permit. The number of persons waiting for a parking permit within the two
assessment districts is provided in Table 3; the changes in permit wait list management
are beginning to have a positive impact with shorter wait lists now than in previous
years.
California Avenue District – Permit Distribution
Previously, because there was no limit on the number of permits or types of permits
that a person could obtain within a district, it was not uncommon for someone in the
California Avenue District to be on the wait list multiple times. Signing up on the wait
list multiple times was a common practice of start-up owners trying to get permits for
future employees.
With the policy change to only distribute one permit per person, people who are on the
wait list multiple times are contacted for permit availability, but only allowed for one
permit to be registered to them. For the additional permits that the person may have
been waiting for, the permits are allowed to be distributed to members of the same
company but the permits are registered to the other individuals directly. This practice
does allow for “hopping” of the wait list but there were only a few individuals who were
on the wait list multiple times and staff anticipates that this condition will be phased out
over the next six months.
Unlike Downtown, previously distributed permits in the California Avenue Business
District did not require permit holder validation at the time of renewal. People leaving
the district simply passed their permits to other people, thereby delaying permit
availability for people legitimately on the wait list. This resulted in unusually long permit
wait times, sometimes in excess of one year. The City now requires a person renewing a
parking permit to prove that they are a valid permit holder to whom the permit was
originally distributed. If the person cannot show proof that they are the original permit
holder, they are only being allowed a one-time renewal warning and then are required
to get on the wait list as the permit will be cancelled at the end of the permit term.
Online Permit Management System
In the spring of 2012 the City awarded a contract to Progressive Solutions to develop
and implement an online permit management system for the City. Using the maximum
permit thresholds established by the City, the City can now release permits weekly
(instead of quarterly) as they become available. The system also allows for monthly
permit renewal versus the traditionally available quarterly or annual renewal options;
the monthly permits costs shown in Table 1 reflect the current quarterly fee divided by
three. Implementation of the system was delayed through the fall while the online wait
list form was being developed. The City also just finalized hosting details for the system
server. The wait list module is scheduled to be completed in October and the system
should be launched in November. Persons are still required to return to City Hall to
obtain their first permit and to validate proof of employment within their business
district; the requirement to return to Revenue Collections may eventually be phased out
and permits distributed by mail as additional technology enhancements are made.
Table 2
Parking Permit Distribution Thresholds
Lot Name # Hourly
Spaces
# Permit
Spaces
Total #
Spaces
Max #
Permits
% Permits
to Supply
Downtown - Parking Garages
Q Alma/High (North) - 134 134 205 153%
R Alma/High (South) 77 134 211 200 149%
S/L Bryant St 381 307 688 575 187%
WC Cowper/Webster 201 388 589 630 162%
CC City Hall 187 519 706 820 158%
B Ramona/University 63 - 63 - -
800 High Street 10 53 63 85 160%
Downtown – Surface Parking Lots
O Emerson/High 78 - 78 - -
A Emerson/Lytton 68 - 68 - -
C Ramona/Lytton 50 - 50 - -
F Florence/Lytton 46 - 46 - -
H Cowper/Waverly 90 - 90 - -
D Hamilton/Waverly 86 - 86 -
E/G Gilman St - 87 87 130 149%
P High/Hamilton 51 - 51 - -
KT Lytton/Kipling-Waverly 40 67 107 96 143%
N Emerson/Ramona 48 - 48 - -
X Sheridan Hotel - 36 36 55 153%
California Avenue Business District
California Avenue* 915 30 945 710 75%
* Parking permits valid for any garage or lot.
Table 3
Parking Permit Wait List as of October 18, 2012
Lot Wait List Lot Wait List
CC 99 R 93
CW 152** S 70
EG 41 X 11
KT 4
Q 27 CAL AVE 333
** Permit distribution temporarily suspended due to active construction at lot.
Day Permits
The Bryant Street (Lot S/L) and Cowper/Webster (Lot C/W) garages have permit machines that
allow drivers to purchase daylong parking permits. Use of the machines has been extremely
successful with each unit averaging $8,000 in sales per month each. Each of the downtown
parking garages offer three (3) hours of free hourly parking, but requires rigorous enforcement
to identify and cite violators.
Day Permits may also be purchased at Revenue Collections in City Hall at a cost of $16.00 per
day for Downtown and $7.00 per day for California Avenue. The City has also switched to
“scratcher” day permits in 2012 in both districts to curb violators who were photocopying the
previous paper permit formats.
Parking Way-Finding Signage
The City deployed 49 parking banners throughout the Downtown in January 2012 to help better
guide motorists to surface parking lots and garages. The banners were reviewed and approved
by the Architectural Review Board prior to implementation. The City also fabricated signs that
matched the banners. However, the signs were ineffective due to the architectural color tones
used and sign implementation stopped. There are 125 existing guide signs to parking facilities
throughout the Downtown and 40 around the California Avenue Business District.
The same parking banners used in Downtown will be presented later this fall to the California
Avenue merchants as part of the California Avenue – Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Project
for input so that deployment in that district can occur before next Spring; the City estimates 40
up to 20 banners can be deployed around the existing California Avenue area parking structures
and surface lots. The City is continuing its research on effective parking guide signs as discussed
further in this report.
Neighborhood Parking Preservation
Staff spent the first half of the year trying to develop draft policies and pilot projects for a
Professorville Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program. The general community consensus on
a Professorville RPP pilot program showed that such a program was not supported by the
broader neighborhood and Council directed that staff should focus on identifying a range of
parking solutions within the Downtown core area and to identify appropriate technologies and
strategies to advance as part of a comprehensive parking program for the City.
The remainder of this report focuses on proposed parking strategies and policies for Council
consideration to help improve the efficiency of parking operations and conditions in residential
neighborhoods as a comprehensive parking program is further developed and implemented.
The recommendations in the Discussion section are priotized in a time line provided in
Attachment A.
Discussion
The modifications to the City’s permit management program are showing a positive change in
the City’s ability to more quickly distribute permits. The impact has been more profound in the
Downtown Business District where permits are managed by lot, rather than the California
Avenue Business District, where permits can be used at any surface lot or garage and where
changes in permit distribution will have a gradual effect over the next year. Permit
management has also been the focus of the City’s efforts to get vehicle users to obtain and use
permits. Permit management will be ongoing for efficiency purposes but new strategies beyond
permit management are now required to enhance the parking program in both districts. It
should be noted that in the Downtown District, the Cowper-Webster Garage (Lot C/W) is
currently undergoing facade improvements that have resulted in the temporary loss of permit
parking through the construction period. Persons with permits for the Cowper-Webster Garage
are being temporarily allowed to park at the Bryant Street Garage (Lot S), further slowing down
permit distribution at that garage as well. Construction at the Cowper-Webster Garage should
be complete before the start of the Holiday shopping season.
Several other key efforts are underway to enhance parking supply, more efficiently use
available supply, reduce parking demand, and address the impacts of new development.
Downtown Parking Garage and Attendant Parking Study
The City completed a Request for Proposals (RFP) solicitation in October and will be awarding a
contract this fall to complete a feasibility study for an additional parking structure(s) in the
Downtown. The study will focus on five surface parking lot sites including:
Lot D Hamilton Avenue & Waverley Street
Lot EG Gilman Street
Lot P High Street between University Avenue & Hamilton Avenue
Lot O High Street between University Avenue & Lytton Avenue
Caltrain Lot Urban Lane between University Avenue and PAMF
For each of the sites the feasibility study will identify potential Parking Garage Footprints,
Parking Space Counts, 3D Modeling of Parking Structure Massing, Constructability Factors, and
Engineer’s Estimates. Staff will also evaluate potential funding options in its report-out to
Council.
The Constructability Factors will include elements to determine which sites provide the best
value for parking versus construction constraints, such as: parking space count; private property
impacts (during and post-construction); construction staging impacts; number of
driveway/pedestrian access points for convenience measure; cost; adjacent land uses to
determine whether a preferred long-term land use opportunity would be lost if garage
construction were pursued; and utility relocation impacts.
The study will also include an Attendant Parking Study to determine whether the deployment
of a parking attendant program may be a viable option to temporarily or permanently
supplement the City’s parking permit program needs. The Attendant Parking Study will
determine the number of additional parking spaces that can be gained at each of the existing
parking garages in Downtown and provide program outlines to implement them on a trial basis
including key-return stations. Two options for attendant programs are typically used: a) where
a motorists parks the vehicle themselves, guided by an attendant, and the keys are then
handed over to the attendant in case the vehicles needs to be moved; or b) a motorists leaves
the vehicle with the attendant who then parks the vehicle. In other cases, a motorist may be
issued a valet card to confirm car release later and the vehicles are typically parked behind
other parked cars. The study will also focus on likely hours of operation to maximize benefit
and minimize cost.
The Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Business and Professional Association – Parking Committee,
which is responsible for helping the City provide oversight on the Downtown Parking
Assessment District, has indicated a preference towards immediately implementing an
attendant pilot project, focused on permit parking. Staff believes such a trial for permit spaces
should proceed, however, only after the work on the Cowper-Webster garage is complete and
all spaces are then available, and probably after the Holiday season, to avoid any confusion for
shoppers. Funding for the trial would come from the Downtown Permit Fee program.
The study will take up to 6 months to complete and the results presented to the City Council in
the spring. The study is funded substantially by a community benefit contribution from the
Lytton Gateway Project, which provided $60,000 to complete the study. The study will cost
$100,000 and the gap is being funded by the City through the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP), PL-12000 (Transportation & Parking Improvements).
The results of the study will be used to determine whether the City should pursue construction
of a new parking structure using its own local funding, enterprise funding to build a parking
structure in conjunction with additional office facilities, or to pursue a private partnership with
land developers to help build a parking facility. The City currently has approximately $2.6
million in the Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee program (once the building permit is issued for
Lytton Gateway, expected prior to the end of the year).
During the July 2012 discussion on parking the Council expressed interest in also pursuing
opportunities to make available private structure parking for public parking. Staff surveyed the
existing private lots around downtown and found them either fully parked or inaccessible due
to security procedures.
Recommendation No. 1: Direct staff to implement a trial Parking Attendant Valet Parking
Program for permit parking in at least one garage, beginning
shortly after the first of the year in 2013. The study should
monitor operations, estimate costs, and identify
benefits/challenges with implementation.
Downtown Cap Study
Staff is currently developing a Request for Proposals to study the land use types, densities, and
recent and projected development around the Downtown to determine future land use and
parking needs/strategies to support land use changes. The study is a requirement of the City’s
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan, which establishes a Downtown Cap of 350,000 square foot net
increase since the adoption of the 1986 Downtown Plan. The Zoning Ordinance requires a re-
evaluation of the cap when a 235,000 square foot “study threshold” is met. That threshold is
nearly met with the approval of the Lytton Gateway project approved earlier this year and will
be exceeded if the 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley projects are approved. While the 27
University project is not within the bounds of the Downtown zone prescribed in the 1986 study,
staff will be reviewing ways to appropriately consider it in the Downtown study and specific
impacts would be considered in that project’s Environmental Impact Report .
Staff expects that the Downtown Cap Study will cost approximately $100,000-$150,000 and will
take approximately 6 months to complete. The budget does not currently include funding for
the study, but staff proposes that at least some of the funding come from the Lytton Gateway
“Neighborhood Parking Preservation” benefit (of a total $250,000) and perhaps be
supplemented by other development project contributions.
Recommendation No. 2: Direct staff to pursue the RFP for the Downtown Cap study, and
report back to Council in six months regarding results and
recommendations.
Zoning/Parking Revisions and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
Staff will, simultaneous with the Downtown Cap study, review a variety of zoning provisions
related to parking, particularly in Downtown. Staff has recently proposed and Council has
enacted a moratorium on one such zoning provision that exempted up to 1.0 floor-area ratio
from parking requirements for certain properties. Staff expects to also evaluate:
a. Other exemptions from parking requirements, including but not limited to transfer of
development rights (TDR);
b. Parking reductions for transit proximity, mixed use, transportation demand
management (TDM) measures, and for affordable and senior housing;
c. Appropriate ratios of parking, particularly for office development, more reflective of
recent employee densities, and possible parking incentives for retail over office uses;
d. How conversions of existing uses to more intense office uses are treated/managed in
the zoning requirements; and
e. The relationship between required/covered parking and floor area, particularly for
homes (e.g., to avoid discouraging garages, though respective of historic issues where
applicable)
Planning and Transportation staff also will work with on-call transportation consultants to
initiate a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for the City and its employees
to demonstrate exemplary means of reducing work and non-work trips. This effort will be a
precursor to facilitating a downtown-wide TDM program, coordinated with the Palo Alto
Downtown and area businesses to take advantage of programs that can benefit the Downtown
as a whole.
Recommendation No. 3: Direct staff to develop zoning ordinance revisions to address
parking impacts from development, including: a) parking ratios, b)
parking exemptions, c) requirements for both TDM programs for
new development; and to work with the Downtown businesses to
develop a coordinated downtown area TDM effort.
Technology Enhancement: Garage Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment
The City’s new Permit Management System will allow the City to more easily distribute permits
but when used in combination with garage parking access controls (gates) the City will also be
able to track parking permit usage to further manage the permit program. For example, the City
currently does not have any data that shows how regularly people use their parking permits.
Later this fiscal year, the City will release its first ever transportation survey that aims to
measure transportation mode use by region of the City. The high percentage of permits sold
over supply (Table 2) shows that within the Downtown, people are likely regularly using
another form of transportation to get to work such as Caltrain or are choosing to park
elsewhere when it’s more convenient, even though they have a permit.
Garage Parking Access control is another step the City can take in the long-term management
of its parking infrastructure by helping to reduce operations costs for enforcement. The access
controls regulate entry and exit from a garage and allow visitors to continue to enjoy the
current three hours of free parking to support downtown business activities, but include
Revenue Control equipment that allow visitors to stay parked beyond the free 3-hour period at
a fee up to the $16.00 day permit fee.
Staff has a prepared a Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) so that cost estimates can be
determined and to “bring the best of the technology” to the city for review with participation
from the Downtown Parking Committee. The Draft RFP proposes conversion of the Bryant
Street Garage (Lot S/L) to gate control with revenue collection elements but identifies the Alma
Street/High Street Garage (Lot R) as an alternative site for inclusion depending on bid results.
The City estimates the cost of installing Garage Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment
at each garage at approximately $250,000. The RFP proposes unique technology development
through the use of QR Codes in combination with apps for processing of payments as a
convenience alternative to motorists. The same technology would allow businesses to establish
convenient validation alternatives for visitors, patron and employee parking needs. The RFP
was shared with the Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Parking Committee during its September and
October 2012 meetings. Concerns have been expressed about the controls being the first step
to imposing “paid” parking on downtown, but staff believes that this technology actually
provides flexibility for a wider range of parking options, with no increase in parking costs for
those visitors staying less than 3 hours. Revenue realized from the metering beyond the free 3-
hour period could be partially dedicated towards the Parking In-Lieu Fee program to help fund
construction of future parking facilities, consistent with the setup of typical assessment district
programs. Funding for a trial garage parking access and revenue control equipment project is
available within the existing CIP but, if interested, funding through the current Parking
Assessment or Parking In-Lieu fee program are viable alternatives.
Recommendation No. 4: Direct staff to release an RFP for Garage Parking Access and
Revenue Control Equipment for near-term deployment, and to
involve the Downtown Parking Committee in the operations and
design process.
Technology Enhancement: Parking Occupancy Tracking and Dynamic Way-Finding
Directing motorists immediately to available parking helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
enhances the customer experience in the downtown, improves the economic vitality of the
downtown, and improves safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. The City currently does not have
any mechanism in place to monitor parking occupancy “real-time,” so deployment of dynamic
way-finding with accurate information is not feasible, nor is pushing parking availability
information online feasible either.
The City has outreached to three vendors over the past year to help develop new technology to
monitor parking occupancy and tabulate information that can be made available to the public
online, through apps, and to Parking Guidance Systems that offer dynamic way-finding
technology. Unfortunately, no viable option has yet been identified. The City was approached
by Streetline Networks in partnership with Cisco Systems over the summer to deploy their
technology to monitor and push parking occupancy information online but that was not
desirable due to the high on-going annual operations cost. The Streetline Networks/Cisco
System solution included one free year of service and included maintenance of field equipment,
but the solution though would cost the City over $350,000 per year. Solutions such as that of
Streetline Networks only make sense at locations where metering is utilized to offset the cost of
the technology, as is the case in the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Staff is not
recommending metering on-street parking spaces at this time, but does want to identify
parking monitoring solutions that can be City-owned solutions versus leased to reduce long-
term operations costs. Effective monitoring of parking occupancy also introduces the ability to
consider congestion-pricing parking on-street if the Council wants to consider that type of
technology in the future. Being immediately adjacent to the second largest Caltrain Station
along the Peninsula supports that type of activity by making alternative modes of
transportation more attractive to people over driving.
The City will continue to try and outreach to technology firms to develop new market solutions
for the City. The Gate Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment would allow for dynamic
way-finding to be deployed, highlighting parking availability at parking structures. Alternative
solutions may include establishing detection technology only now, that may be used later by
future Garage Parking Access technology, to estimate garage occupancy.
In the meantime, the City will continue its seasonal parking occupancy data collection of the
Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts, that includes counting each vehicle parking
space on-street and within each parking facility by time-of-day to track changes in parking
patterns. The City collected parking occupancy data in the Spring/Fall/Winter 2011 and is
scheduled to collect data gain in early November. Data collection includes monitoring parking
occupancy between 12AM-2AM, 8AM-10AM, 12PM-2PM, and 7PM to 9PM on a weekday and
12PM-2PM on a Saturday.
Recommendation No. 5: Direct staff to continue research of technology-based parking
solutions to monitor parking occupancy.
Electric Vehicle Parking
The City currently has 7 electric vehicle charging stations available in the Downtown at the Civic
Center Parking Garage (Lot CC – Level A, 3 chargers), Bryant Street Garage (Lot S/L – Level 2, 3
chargers), and the Alma/High North (Lot R – Level 2, 1 charger). The charging stations are
extremely popular and realize regular occupancy usage throughout a typical week.
There are no charging stations available in the California Avenue Business District. The City has
considered the development of a Request for Proposals for the development of a privately-
owned network of electric vehicle charging stations network. The Stanford Shopping Center
currently has 3 charging stations including Northern California’s only Rapid Charging (Level 3)
Charger. The Stanford Shopping Center chargers are privately owned and require a fee-per-use
to charge. Development of a private network of chargers in Palo Alto would operate under the
same model and convert the existing charging stations into the private network to avoid
competition with the private network given the high cost to install the network.
To meet the immediate demand for electric vehicle charging in the City, staff recommends
conversion of at least five (5) parking spaces in the California Avenue Business District to
electric vehicle charging spaces and an additional six (6) parking spaces in the Downtown. Staff
recommends additional Level 2 Chargers similar to those currently deployed that can charge a
vehicle in as fast as 2 hours. The Downtown Library, which was renovated last year, includes
infrastructure for providing electric vehicle charging stations in its parking lot; this could be a
location for some of the additional Downtown spaces.
The City has 6 electric charging stations included as part of development conditions of approval
for the 101 Lytton Gateway Project (4 chargers) and the Edgewood Plaza (2 Chargers) shopping
center. These stations will not be available until next year when construction at each site is
complete.
Recommendation No. 6: Direct staff to pursue the installation of 6 additional electric
vehicle charging stations in Downtown and up to 5 electric vehicle
charging stations around California Avenue.
Bicycle Parking and Bicycle Share Programs
The City has approximately 150 bicycle racks (250 bicycle capacity) in the Downtown. This
includes 6 recently deployed bicycle corrals deployed around Downtown which offer up to ten
bicycle parking spaces in lieu of one on-street parking space. Downtown has an additional
three bicycle corrals planned for installation this calendar year as part of the New Apple Store
construction at University Avenue & Florence Street (2 bicycle corrals) and one at Lyfe Kitchen,
which requested installation by the City this fall. The City offers free installation of bicycle
corrals upon submittal of an application (Attachment B) and investigation by the City, including
outreach to adjacent businesses to validate support for installation of the facility.
In the California Avenue Business District, the City has 24 existing bicycle racks (77 bicycle
capacity). The City has a dozen additional bicycle parking facilities identified for the California
Avenue Business District for a future bicycle parking capacity of up to 130 bicycles as part of the
active California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape project including 6 bicycle corrals.
Business owners may request free installation of bicycle racks within the public right-of-way
following an engineering investigation by staff. Where installation of bicycle racks within the
public right-of-way is not feasible for convenient, the City offers free bicycle racks to business
and property owners for their installation on their private property; persons interested in free
bicycle racks may simply contact the city via email at transportation@cityofpaloalto.org.
The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle Share Program will be providing 100 bicycle
share bicycles to Palo Alto as part of its partnership program with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) to deploy a program along the Peninsula. The program was
delayed due to technology development but should return to the City with a deployment
schedule by the end of the year. The sites reviewed by the Architectural Review Board include:
University Avenue & Emerson Street (adjacent to Lytton Plaza in an on-street Parklet), King
Plaza at City Hall, University Avenue & Cowper Street, the University Avenue Caltrain Station,
and the California Avenue/Park Boulevard Park Plaza. Additional facilities will be provided
around the Stanford Campus as part of the program. As part of the bicycle share investigation,
staff identified dozens of additional potential bicycle share sites including the Stanford
Research Park, libraries and community centers, senior facilities, and Midtown but during this
initial deployment both MTC and the VTA request to keep the deployment focused along the
Caltrian stations. As bicycle share deployment continues, staff will outreach to existing
business parks to solicit and encourage participation in the program.
Recommendation No. 7: Direct staff to pursue additional bicycle parking stations around
both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts.
Residential Parking Policies
During the discussion of the Professorville trial Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program in July,
the Council requested that staff consider options to allow designated on-street parking spaces
for historic homes within the Professorville neighborhood that do not have on-site parking
(driveways and/or garages), since consideration for RPP programs is being deferred until a
broader parking program is put in place. In response to the Council request, staff has developed
two policy approaches focused more collectively to the entire neighborhood concerns:
1) On-Street “Disabled Accessible” Parking Spaces
The City does not currently have a policy to allow for the installation of on-street
parking spaces for the disabled within residential neighborhoods. Staff recommends
Council consider a policy allowing for residents to apply the consideration of on-street
accessible parking spaces in front of their homes for convenience and quality of life
benefits.
If the Council is supportive of this concept, staff will return with a draft policy and
application for the Council’s review to define the criteria and investigation that staff
would be required to complete to ensure consistent distribution of accessible parking
spaces. The policy would address factors including costs of installation and maintenance
of the accessible parking, proof of “accessibility” need, and compliance and
misuse/removal procedures if abused. The accessible spaces would not be designated
spaces for the applicant but by providing the space immediately in front of one’s
residence increases the likelihood of having the space available for use by the resident.
As an accessible space, however, the parking could be used by any motorist displaying a
valid accessible placard issued by the State of California.
2) Neighborhood Short-Term and Commercial Loading Zones
One of the frequent concerns from residents adjacent to business districts includes the
lack of parking for service vehicles such as landscapers, plumbers, etc., who are trying to
provide basic services to residents but cannot do so at times depending on parking
availability. Professorville residents who do not have any on-site parking facilities feel an
even greater impact.
Staff recommends consideration of the deployment of Neighborhood Short-Term and
Commercial Loading Zone spaces around the Professorville and Downtown North
neighborhoods, at least one per block and spaced a maximum of 500-FT apart to allow
for parking availability to accommodate basic service vehicles and short-term parking
needs. The spaces can be either a short-term parking restriction (30-minutes) or
commercial/service vehicle use (2-hours) to support residents. This solution provides an
equitable solution for all residents regardless of whether the homes are historic or not.
If the Council is supportive of this concept, staff will provide outreach to neighborhood
groups to identify the appropriate on-street parking spaces to support these activities
and then will return to the Council following input from the Planning & Transportation
Commission for implementation of a demonstration project in the Spring.
3) On-Street Parking Spaces in the Professorville Area
During the July 2012 parking discussion, the Council requested that staff consider
options to help alleviate parking impacts to homes around the Professorville area
without garages, driveways, or other on-site parking. Staff has identified eleven homes
around that Professorville area without on-site parking (see Attachment C), additional
sites may exist.
The proposed Neighborhood Short-Term/Commercial Loading Zone spaces would offer
solutions equitably to the community, but may not be enough for residents of these
particular homes. If the Council is supportive of such a solution staff will initiate
outreach with affected residents and return with a policy for adoption. Staff expects
that any related implementation would be on a trial basis.
Recommendation No. 8: Direct staff to return to the City Council for consideration of an
On-Street Accessible Parking Space Policy.
Recommendation No. 9: Direct staff to initiate outreach to residents in Professorville and
Downtown North to develop short-term parking space strategies.
Recommendation No. 10: Discuss and provide direction for On-Street Parking Permits for
homes in the Professorville area without parking or driveways.
Parking Permit Management
Regular parking permit management and recent enhancements have proven effective to date
to more quickly get permits to vehicle users and should be continued. Permit management has
benefited the Downtown Business District more quickly than the California Avenue Business
District due to the permits being designated to individual facilities. The California Avenue
Business District has two parking garages, each of which realize high occupancy during peak
noon periods on top floors, but much lesser use at other times. The availability of new parking
permits in the California Avenue Business District that can be used only at top floors of each
garage may be helpful in more quickly distributing permits to motorists and help to fill
underutilized portions of the garages and allow for premium first floor parking to be retained
for visitors until after the noon peak hour.
Recommendation No. 11: Direct staff to begin discussions with California Avenue merchants
focused around the development of new parking permit
strategies.
Timeline
This report recommends several project and policy considerations for the Council focused
around further developing parking strategies to develop a comprehensive Parking Program for
the City. Staff will return to the Council within three months with a more defined schedule for
the implementation of solutions the Council identifies as appropriate for further consideration
or immediate implementation.
Resource Impact
Two new contracts are being pursued as part of the Parking Program, including a $100,000
contract for a Downtown Parking Garage and Attedant Valet Study and $100,000-$150,000 for
the Downtown Cap/TDM Study. Each contract will be submitted separately to Council for
approval, along with any necessary Budget Amendment Ordinances. This staff report includes
recommendations for helping to develop a Parking Program Master Plan. After Council
provides feedback on which recommendations to pursue, staff will return to the Council within
3 months with a more refined cost program.
Environmental Review
This report requests direction from Council on parking strategies that it would like staff to
pursue, but at this time no specific projects affecting the environment ar being approved. Each
project within the Parking Program may require additional environmental review for
compliance with CEQA requirements and will be evaluated prior to implementation.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Summary of Parking Work Program (PDF)
Attachment B: Bicycle Corral Application (PDF)
Attachment C: Professorville Homes w/No Driveways - Oct 2012 (PDF)
Attachment D: City Council Action Minutes of July 16, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment E: City Council Full Minutes of July 16, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment F: Public Comments (PDF)
Prepared By: Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
1
Nov ‘11 Dec Jan ‘12 Feb Mar Apr May Jun FY2014
Tasks
Permit Management
Garage Study
- Garage Analysis
- Valet Analysis
Pilot Valet Study
Downtown Cap Study
Neighborhood
Programs
- ADA On-Street
- Short Term
Alternatives/Homes
with No Off-Site
Parking
Technology Solutions
Cal Ave Parking Program
Parking Program Task Timeline
Pending Council Input
On‐Street Bicycle Corral
Application
Bicycle Corrals are enhanced bicycle parking facilities installed on‐street within a traditional vehicle
parking space or appropriate on‐street location. The bicycle corral includes a green textured pavement
treatment to help designate the space from adjacent vehicle parking spaces with a 10‐bike, bicycle rack.
Yellow parking blocks are installed on each end of the bicycle corral to prevent vehicle parking intrusion.
The City of Palo Alto installs bicycle corrals to help promote bicycling activity and to help provide visible
and secured bicycle parking in high‐use bicycle areas. The bicycle corral installations are a partnership
between the City of Palo Alto and the adjacent property owners/businesses through a maintenance
agreement (attached). The City provides installation of the bicycle corrals while the property
owners/businesses take on maintenance around the bicycle corrals.
For a bicycle corral to be considered in front of your business or property, please complete the
application below and return to the City of Palo Alto – Transportation Division.
Business Owner Property Owner – (Optional)
Company Name:
Contact Person:
Address:
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Day Phone:
Email:
Signature/Date:
1. Preferred Bicycle Corral
Location
2. Estimated amount of
bicycle activity on weekday
and weekends
Note: After submission of the application, Transportation staff will contact the applicant to
discuss location feasibility and determine if bicycle parking demand exists.
Submit to: City of Palo Alto – Transportation Division Staff Review:
250 Hamilton Avenue Date:
Palo Alto, CA 94301
O: (650) 329‐2441 F: (650) 329‐2154 Recommend Install: Yes
transportation@cityofpaloalto.org No
Director Approval:
Professorville Historic Neighborhood
Homes without accessible Off-Street Parking
October 23, 2012
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3307)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/13/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Maybell Ave. Acquisition Continuation
Title: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance and Approval of a Loan
Request From Palo Alto Housing Corporation in the Amount of $5,820,220 for
the Acquisition of 567-595 Maybell Avenue (continued from November 5,
2012-staff request item be continued to November 19, 2012)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Staff requests that this item be continued to the November 19, 2012 Council meeting. Staff
continues to work with the applicant to complete the loan documents.