HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 236-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 236:10
DATE: MAY 10,2010
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Site and Design Review and
a Record of Land Use Action, and Adoption of a Park Improvement
Ordinance for a New Green House and Shed Located in the Baylands at 2500
Embarcadero Road.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Save The Bay requests Site and Design Review approval of a small greenhouse, replacement tool
shed, and vegetation changes on City property between the Duck Pond and wetlands in the Palo
Alto Baylands Nature Preserve. The project is funded by Save The Bay, but the proposed
structures will be donated to and owned by the CitY of Palo Alto to provide additional
infrastructure for habitat restoration at the Baylands. The proposed landscaping is designed to
increase wildlife habitat, screen facilities from public view, and provide a native plant
demonstration garden on display for educational purposes. The project will allow Save The Bay
to meet its restoration and educational program goals. The Planning and Transportation
Commission, Architectural Review Board and Parks and Recreation Commission have
recommended approval of this project.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
staff recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
application for Site and Design Review, based upon the Findings and Conditions of Approval in
the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) and the associated Park Improvement Ordinance
(Attachment B).
BACKGROUND
On April 19, 2010, Council expressed appreciation to Save The Bay for its outstanding public
service, including its efforts to enhance native vegetation in the Baylands. The proposed
rreenhouse would allow Save The Bay to grow larger, healthier plants of a greater variety and
~th higher survival rates to better compete against non-native weeds and thereby allow the
::mization to meet restoration goals. The proposed greenhouse will allow for improved seed
ination and plant survival, an extended growing season, and the application of mUltiple
'ropagation techniques. The existing aged work shed would be replaced with a new shed to
shelter from inclement weather and a rodent-proof storage area for seeds and tools .
. there is no sheltered area for staff, volunteers or school programs to perform critical
Page 1
7
plant nursery tasks. The existing shade house is actively used and is currently visible from
various vantage points around the Duck Pond. Details about the proposed structures and
landscaping are provided in the attached ARB staff report (Attachment E).
DISCUSSION
The proposed use is an accessory use to the existing primary park use and is therefore, permitted'
in the PF(D) zone district (Public Facilities Zone with the Site and Design Review Combining
District). The Site and Design Review combining district requires a process for review and
approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas. The proposed
greenhouse and shed are in conformance with the PF(D) development requirements. The
proposed structures will have a low profile, with the heights not exceeding 8.5 feet. With the
exception of winter time, the greenhouse will be covered by a light transmitting black shade to
reduce glare and visibility. Visual impacts of the project and existing structures will be
minimized by existing and new plant material interrupting public views from the Duck Pond, and
as the new plantings mature, the project will be sufficiently screened. The proposed use and
design elements are consistent with the Baylands Master Plan and associated general design
principles of the Baylands Site Assessment and Design Guidelines.
Park Improvement Ordinance
Article VIII of the Charter 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
by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefore. Attachment B is the draft Park Improvement
Ordinance reflecting the proposed Save The Bay greenhouse project.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Architectural Review Board
On April 15, 2010 the Architectural Review Board recommended approval (5-0) of the project
based upon the ARB findings contained in'the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). The
ARB discussed the proposed material selection and construction method and were satisfied with
the applicant's response to the issues. One condition of approval was added to the project
requiring the final selection of the roof material for the shed to return to staff for approval. There
were no members of the pubic present to speak to this item.
Planning and Transportation Commission
On March 24, 2010 the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval (7-0)
of the project based upon the Site and Design Review findings contained in Attachment A, with
no added approval conditions. Commissioner Lippert requested that the ARB review the
suitability and durability for the proposed project's material selection and construction details to
minimize the failure of the building due to a significant weather event. Other than the applicant,
there were no public speakers for this item at the meeting. Meeting minutes are provided as
Attachment F to this report, and the staff report is available on the City'S website.
Parks and Recreation Commission
Although not part of the Site and Design Review process, the Parks and Recreation Commission
reviewed the proposed project and the associated Park Improvement Ordinance and
recommended approval (5-0-0-2) on September 22, 2009. The staff report and meeting minutes
are available on the City's website.
CMR: 236:10 Page 2 of4
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed proj ect is not expected to have significant impacts on City revenue or expenses.
Save The Bay is fully funding the construction of this project and the ongoing maintenance of
the structures. The planning entitlement fees covering the processing costs to complete the Site
and Design Review process have been provided by the Community Services Department.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and
Baylands Master Plan. The project site is designated as Publicly Owned Conservation Land in
the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation provides for open
lands whose primary purpose is the preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land
and its plants and animals; only compatible resource management, recreation, and educational
activities are allowed.
ENVlRONMENTALIMPACTS
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA
requirements. The 30-day public comment period for this document was completed on February
18, 2010. No comments were received on the Draft Negative Declaration. The proposed project
will not increase the number of nursery or restoration programs, nor add to the number of staff or
volunteers working in the nursery, nor increase the volume of the vehicular traffic in the area.
The proposed mitigations address protection of the existing nesting habitat within the bird
sanctuary (Biological Resources). Attachment G provides the details of the proposed mitigations.
PREPARED BY:
Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
CMR: 236:10
Draft Record of Land Use Action
Draft Park Improvement Ordinance
Location Map
Applicant's Project Description and Supplemental Information*
April 15,2010 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (w/o attachments)
and Summary Minutes
Page 3
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
March 24, 2010 Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (CEQA) (provided to
Council Members, Libraries, Development Center, and 5th floor of City Hall
only)
Project Plan Sets* (Provided to Councilmembers, Libraries, Development
Center, and 5th floor of City Hall only)
*prepared by applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Denise Della Santina, Save The Bay
Daren Anderson, Senior Ranger
Greg Betts, Director of Community Services
CMR: 236:10 Page 4 of4
DRAFT
ACTION NO. 2010-04
ATTACHMENT A
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO OF LAND USE ACTION
FOR 2500 EMBARCADERO ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 09PLN-00224 (CITY OF PALO ALTO,
APPLICANT)
On May 10, 2010, the Council approved the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and the Site and Design Review application for
a greenhouse and work shed 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 Al to ("Ci ty Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On September 22, 2009, Save The Bay applied for Site
and Design Review for the construction of a new 560 square foot
greenhouse and a 625 square foot shed (replacing the existing 400
square foot shed) 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
March 24, 2010 and voted [7-0] to recommend that Council approve
the project. The Commission's actions are contained in the CMR:
236:10.
C. Following Commission review/ the Architectural Review
Board (ARB) reviewed the Project on April IS, 2010 and voted (5-0)
to recommend approval. The ARB's actions are contained in the CMR:
236:10.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City 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) under Guideline section 15070,
Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and
it has been determined that/ with the implementation of
mitigations, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the
development and/ therefore, the Project would have a less than
significant impact on the environment. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration was made available for public review beginning January
20, 2010 through February 18 1 2010. The Environmental Impact
Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration are contained in CMR:
236:10.
1
ATTACHMENT A
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 expanded nursery use will be consistent with
the existing functions of the passive park uses around the Duck
Pond area and does not further impact the existing and potential
uses of adjoining or nearby sites than the existing uses on site.
The new structures will be screened to maintain a harmonious and
compatible relationship with the Baylands environment.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring
the desirabili ty of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activi ties, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
The Project will maintain desirability of investment in the
same and adj acent areas, the proposed design and si ze of the
project are generally consistent with the existing
nursery/shadehouse facility, 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
ecological balance are observed in the project.
design and
The Project is small in scope and will implement appropriate
sustainable building practices as deemed feasible. The Project will
not have a significant environmental impact as indicated by the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project.
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
The Project, as conditioned, complies with the policies of
the Land Use and Community Design and the Natural Environment
elements of the Comprehensive Plan that pertain to the preservation
of the Baylands environment.
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.
2
ATTACHMENT A
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
environment of the site, in that:
with the immediate
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
design and layout of the proj ect 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 new
greenhouse and shed serve a utilitarian purpose and the modest
structures and simple design 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 is not applicable.
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 nursery and park use
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
a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general
community, in that:
3
ATTACHMENT A
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the new
greenhouse and shed are located adjacent to the shadehouse facility
in an orderly and accessible manner for users of the facility.
8. The amount and arrangement of open space is
appropriate to the design and the function of the structures, in
that:
This finding is not applicable.
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 irmative in that the
project does not propose nor require any changes to the site access
and circulation.
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 the minimal removal of vegetation (all non
nat ) and the installation of new native plantings for screening,
and preserves the existing trees and mature shrubbery.
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 a nursery facili ty and the Baylands i they are
simple in form and use natural color tones and materials.
13 . The landscape design concept for the si te, as shown by
the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms
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:
4
ATTACHMENT A
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
proposed native landscape design maintains the rural Baylands
character and provides additional wildlife habitat while providing
the visual screening for the project.
14. Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site,
capable of being properly maintained on the si te, 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 irrigated only until established.
15. The project exhibits green building and sustainable
design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and
nontoxic, wi th high-quali ty spaces and high recycled content
materials, in that:
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project will implement sustainable building practices to the extent
feasible. The project type (greenhouse and storage shed) does not
allow for many of the standard green building standards to be
applied.
16. The design is consistent and
purpose of architectural review as set
18.76.020(a).
compa tibl e wi th the
forth in subsection
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 Craig
O'Connell titled "Save The Bay Greenhouse/Planting Shed",
consisting of 3 pages, dated August 28, 2009 and received September
22 , 2009, except as modi f ied to incorporate the condi t ions of
approval in Section 7. A copy of these plans is on file in the
Department of Planning and Community Development.
5
ATTACHMENT A
SECTION 7. Conditions of
Planning Division
1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial
conformance with plans received on September 22, 2009, except as
modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval and
any additional conditions placed on the project by the Planning
Commission or City Council. A complete copy of 'this Record of
Land Use Action shall be printed on the plans submitted for the
Building Permit.
2. The selection of the roof material and finish for the shed shall
return to staff for review of the reflectivity characteristics.
3. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the
following information and notes on the relevant plan sheets:
a. Sheet T-l Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urbancanopy.asp
), Applicant shall complete the Tree Disclosure Statement.
Inspections and monthly reporting by the project,arborist
are mandatory. (All projects: check #1; with tree
preservation report: check #2-6; with landscape plan: check
#7. )
b. Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on grading plans,
irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans, Type II
fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing
around Protected/Designated trees as a bold dashed line
enclosing the Tree Protection Zone per
on Detail #605, Sheet T-l, and the City Tree Technical
Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans.
4. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a
wri tten verification from the contractor that the required
protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the
Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain
required warning sign and remain in place until inspection
of the project.
5. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to
Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist
inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-
2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or
replacement any publicly owned or protected trees that are
damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual,
Section 2.25.
6
ATTACHMENT A
6. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all
trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles
or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area.
The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be
altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
7. Maintenance. For the life of the proj ect, all landscape and
trees shall be reasonably well-maintained, watered, fertilized,
and pruned according to Nursery and American National Standards
for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance-Standard
Practices (ANSI A300-1995) as outlined in the Palo Alto Tree
Technical Manual.
Required Mitigations
8. To avoid or minimize impacts to nesting herons and egrets and
chicks, all construction related activities shall not begin
until July or August, at the earliest, when the chicks are large
enough that they can thermo-regulate themselves and until
construction is approved by the San Francisco Bay Bird
Observatory (SFBBO) after nests have been monitored. However,
since late nesting attempts may extend beyond these dates, a
qualified biologist from SFBBO will confirm that herons and
egrets are no longer occupying the colony site or that
disturbance will not impact successful breeding before
construction begins.
9. During construction, no trees or tree roots shall be disturbed
or removed in order to protect perching and roosting habitat for
the snowy egret and black crowned night heron rookery.
10. Protective tree fencing, per the Tree Technical Manual, for
all trees in the proj ect vicinity shall be required for the
duration of the construction activities.
11. Removal of vegetation shall be limited to only the amount
necessary for the new facility's footprint, but no more than 600
square feet.
12. Protective fencing shall be placed outside of the root
zone/drip line of all vegetation (other than trees) in the
proj ect vicinity for the duration of the construction
activities.
SECTION 8. Term of Approval.
1. Si te and Design Approval. In the event actual
construction of the project is not commenced within three years of
the date of council approval, and if such approval is received
7
ATTACHMENT A
prior to June 30, 2010, the approval shall expire and be of no
further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Al to Municipal Code
Section 18.30(G) .080, unless extended for an additional year by the
Director of Planning and Community Environment.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES: ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
1. Those plans prepared plans prepared by Craig O'Connell titled
"Save The Bay Greenhouse/Planting Shed", consisting of 3 pages,
dated August 28, 2009 and received September 22, 2009.
8
Attachment B
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. ---
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving
And Adopting a Plan for a New Greenhouse and Shed
Located in the Bay lands
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 and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development is
commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the
Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefor.
(b) The City-owned Baylands is dedicated to park purposes.
( c) The City intends to authorize the construction of a new. greenhouse,
measuring 30 feet by 20 feet by 8.5 feet, to be located near an existing native plant nursery, and
authorize the replacement of the existing work shed at the Baylands Nature Preserve for the
purpose of meeting the Baylands' restoration goals, enunciated in the Baylands Master Plan and
the draft Baylands Conservation Plan, including providing a sheltered, moisture-and rodent
proof storage area for native plant seeds and gardening tools, as set forth in the plans relating to
the Baylands Native Plant Nursery Facility Improvement Project Plan (the "Plan"):
(1) Movement, excavation and grading of soil necessary to prepare the
site for the construction and installation of the greenhouse and work
shed.
(2) Clearing of vegetation and trimming of existing shrubs and trees in
accordance with City policies and as necessary to provide equipment
access for the construction and to complete any necessary
landscaping.
(3) Adjustment and restoration of existing plantings to accommodate the
proposed improvement.
(4) Construction of structure equipment, and irrigation system in
accordance with the Plan and the City's Baylands Design Guidelines.
(d) The improvements at the Baylands Nature Preserve will encompass the
northwestern comer of the Baylands Nature Preserve adjacent the Duck Pond.
(e) ,The project improvements will avoid protected trees and other sensitive
resources. In addition, existing park uses will be restored following the completion of project
construction.
090908 jb 0073222
NOT YET APPROVED
(f) The project described above and as more specifically described in the Plan,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is consistent with park and conservation purposes.
(g) The Council desires to approve the proj ect described above and as more
specifically described in the Plan.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for the construction of a
new greenhouse, the replacement of the existing work shed, and the installation of site amenities
at the Baylands. It hereby adopts the attached Plan.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the project to construct a new greenhouse
and replace the existing work shed at the Baylands Nature Preserve is subject to review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 4.
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
090908 jb 0073222
This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Community Services
Director of Administrative Services
2
Project Description
Save The Bay Native Plant Nursery Facility Improvement Project
Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve • 2500 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto
Scope of Work:
The City of Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve Rangers are partnering with Save the Bay for a
native plant nursery facility improvement project to increase success of habitat restoration at the
Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve. The project site is located in the Baylands maintenance
area north of the duck pond. In 2004, Save The Bay paid for construction of the Baylands native
plant nursery shadehouse and has operated it for the benefit of the City's resources. Our
partnership with the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve has provided financial savings for the
City of Palo Alto in the form of labor, education, native plants, and technical knowledge, and has
helped protect and restore wildlife habitat. Save The Bay has provided extensive educational
and stewardship programs at the ~aylands for the past eight years.
The City of Palo Alto's management goals for the Baylands and Save The Bay's restoration
program goals will be greatly advanced by modest improvements to the existing native plant
nursery facility at the Baylands. A greenhouse will improve seed germination and plant survival
and health, provide an extended growing season, and provide a facility in which to apply
multiple plant propagation techniques. A new work shed will provide a sheltered, moisture and
rodent-proof storage area for seeds and tools.
Save The Bay proposes the addition of a 600 square foot greenhouse to be placed near the
existing shadehouse a~d a 625 square foot work shed to replace the existing dilapidated
wooden shed. Location and design will address functionality of facilities, while minimizing
impacts on natural resources and public view. Continuing to be good stewards of the land, Save
The Bay will enhance habitat adjacent to the new facilities by planting local native plants,
thereby increasing the biodiversity in the area and screening facilities from public view. A
landscaping plan is included in this project.
A public meeting was held August 5th 2009 to introduce the project to the community. Invitations
were sent to approximately ninety people and notices were posted at Baylands kiosks.
Neighboring facilities, such as the City's Landfill, Airport and Golf Course were also notified.
Eighteen people attended the meeting. The presentation included. pictures of the nursery site,
building and landscaping designs and Save The Bay's reasons for initiating the project. There
were no concerns from those in attendance to the project.
Greenhouse: The proposed location is 10 feet west of the existing shadehouse. Proposed
greenhouse dimensions are 20 feet wide by 30 feet long by 8.5 feet high. Building materials
include a redwood frame and clear polycarbonate paneling. The wood frame will match the
profile of the existing Palo Alto Baylands Ranger's maintenance shed, with a low profile gabled
roof design. The foundation will consist of a concrete footing along the perimeter of the building
and a base rock floor. An irrigation system will be installed along benches in the greenhouse
and electricity will be used for fans, which are necessary for air circulation.
Work shed: The dilapidated existing shed will be removed and the new work shed will be built
over the footprint of the existing shed. Proposed work shed dimensions are 25 feet wide by 25
feet long by 8.5 feet high. The shed will be a redwood structure with redwood paneling and will
match existing structures in color and profile. The foundation will consist of a concrete
foundation along the floor of the building. Electricity will be brought to the shed for lighting, and
outlets for charging tools and a refrigerator for seed preparation (stratification).
Save The Bay proposes to construct the greenhouse in December/January 2009-10;
Construction of the work shed is proposed for October 2010. Construction will not occur during
the months of March through September to minimize any impacts on nesting birds.This project
will be funded in its entirety by Save The Bay, with some logistical support from the Palo Alto
Baylands Rangers.
Current footprint of existing nursery structures:
Total: 2,000 square feet includes:
• Shadehouse: 1,600 square feet
• Work shed: 400 square feet
Proposed footprint of existing and proposed nursery structures:
Total: 2,850 square feet includes:
• Shadehouse: 1,600 square feet
• Work shed: 625 square feet (to be built over existing shed footprint)
• Greenhouse: 600 square feet
Increase in footprint: 825 square feet (30% of existing footprint)
Purpose of Proposed Changes:
The City of Palo Alto's management goals for the Baylands and Save The Bay's restoration
program goals will be greatly advanced by modest improvements to the existing native plant
nursery facility at the Baylands. A greenhouse will improve seed germination and plant survival
and health, provide an extended growing season, and provide a facility in which to apply
multiple plant propagation techniques. A new work shed will provide a sheltered, moisture and
rodent-proof storage area for seeds and tools. Specifically, these structures will provide the
following:
Greenhouse:
• Larger and healthier plants with proper propagation timing. By increasing the length
of the growing season, plants germinated from seed and grown inside a greenhouse are
larger and more robust. Save The Bay's monitoring program has shown that these
plants are better at out competing non-native weeds and have higher survival rates, thus
increasing restoration success. A greenhouse allows for greater control over the timing
of plant propagation by allowing us to adjust seed sowing periods in order to optimize
the health and maturity of plants for winter planting.
• Increased germination and survival rates. Delayed and low seed germination of
important plants such as Marsh Coyote Bush (Baccharis doug/asil) and Sea Lavender
(Limonium californica) and low availability of local seed for plants such as Tufted Hair
Grass (Deschampsia sp.) has interfered with Save The Bay's planting and restoration
goals for the Baylands. Seed grown in a greenhouse with controlled temperature and
humidity has a higher germination and survival rate than seed grown outside in an
uncontrolled environment. High germination and survival rates prevent seed waste and
minimize the need for additional seed collection from existing wild plant communities.
• Native Plant Propagation Research. The addition of a greenhouse will create a
controlled growing environment where we can test different seed stratification and plant
propagation techniques, such as seasonal photoperiods and light quality; temperature,
salinity and moisture regimes; propagation materials and soils; and analysis of wild seed
viability, in order to identify the most successful applications.
Work shed:
• Weather and rodent proof storage. The current site has no weather and rodent proof
storage to prolong the life of seeds, expensive tools and educational materials. The
storage area will also provide space for a refrigerator on site, which is crucial for seed
treatment necessary for seed germination.
• Staff and volunteer efficiency and protection. Natural elements of rain and wind can
discourage, delay, or prevent production during seed collection, cleaning, and sowing.
The delay of these important tasks decreases work efficiency and interrupts the vital
timing of nursery tasks and propagation schedules. Currently there is no sheltered area
for staff, volunteers or school programs to perform these tasks.
The proposed project will greatly assist the City of Palo Alto to reach goals in the City of Palo
Alto's Overall Environmental Quality Policies (Baylands Master Plan, 2008 ):
7. Restore the diversity of plants and animals to disturbed upland sites.
8. Ensure there is sufficient native food and cover for wildlife.
9. Protect the duck-breeding area with a vegetation buffer and control the high-tide bird
refuge in the flood basin.
The approval of this project will help mobilize restoration of tidal salt marsh ecosystems in Palo
Alto, and beyond, benefiting native plants, wildlife, and humans. Because tidal salt marsh plant
propagation is relatively new in the San Francisco Bay Area habitat restoration community, our
efforts to increase plant propagation success and disseminate technical information to the
restoration community will promote effectiveness and collaboration throughout San Francisco
Bay.
Existing and Proposed Uses:
There are no changes to existing uses of the site. The addition of a greenhouse and new work
shed will enhance success of uses that already occur at the nursery.
Currently the site is used by Save The Bay for propagation of native plants that are used for
habitat restoration along San Francisquito Creek and other sites at the Palo Alto Baylands.
There is a 1,600 square foot shadehouse on site that was paid for by Save The Bay and
constructed in 2004. A 400 square foot shed is used for tool storage. These facilities allow for
Save The Bay to grow 10,000 native plants annually that are' planted at the Baylands.
Under the direction of City staff, Save The Bay conducts volunteer events at the nursery once a
week, and occasionally volunteers work in the nursery during weekend field projects. Save The
Bay staff accompanies approximately 15-25 volunteers at each of these events.
The number of plants grown will not change and all plants grown at the nursery will be planted
at the Baylands. The proposed changes will allow for more efficient and successful growing of
plants for habitat restoration at the Palo Alto Baylands.
There will be no increase in the number of people using the site, nor will vehicle traffic increase
in the area as a result of this project.
Landscaping Plan
Save The Bay will enhance vegetation adjacent to the new facilities by planting local native
plants. A landscaping plan is included in this project. The goals of landscaping are to.1)
increase wildlife habitat; 2) screen facilities from public view; and 3) have a native plant
oemonstration garden on display for educational purposes.
A maximum of 600 square feet of vegetation will be removed from the site to make room for the
greenhouse. No trees or possible roosting areas for herons and egrets will be removed or
disturbed. Landscaping includes the addition of a minimum of BOO square feet of native
vegetation. Save The Bay and PA Baylands Rangers have identified additional areas near the
nursery that will be enhanced with native plants for wildlife habitat. Plants will range in heights
from ground covers to trees to maximize screening of the facilities. Plants to be used are native
to the area and tolerate local conditions. Temporary irrigation will ,be placed to ensure survival
until plants establish.
Materials, colors and construction methods:
Greenhouse: The proposed greenhouse dimensions are 20 feet wide by 30 feet long by B.5 feet
high. Building materials include a redwood frame and clear polycarbonate paneling. The wood
frame will match the profile of the existing Palo Alto Baylands Ranger's maintenance shed, with
a low profile gabled roof design. The SunTuf polycarbonate paneling will be placed on the
outside of the wood frame. The paneling has a lifetime warranty against yellowing and cracking
and is 100 % recyclable. This warranty will ensure that if the polycarbonate becomes unsightly in
the future that it be replaced to maintain aesthetic standards of the area. A high light
transmitting black shade cover will be placed over the greenhouse to decrease glare and
visibility. This cover will remain on the building most of the year, but may be removed in winter
when days are short and sun is low, in order to increase light transmission into greenhouse. The
foundation will consist of a concrete footing along the perimeter of the building with a base rock
floor.
Work shed: The dilapidated existing shed will be removed and salvaged, and the new work
shed will be placed over the footprint of the existing shed. Proposed work shed dimensions are
25 feet wide by 25 feet long by B.5 feet high. The shed will be a redwood structure with redwood
paneling and will match existing structures in color and profile. If salvaged wood material that
meets aesthetic standards is available, it will be used for the paneling. The foundation will
consist of a concrete foundation along the floor of the building.
Buildings will be constructed in a way that is easily de-constructible and salvageable, in the
case of any need to remove them.
Save The Bay proposes to construct the greenhouse December/January 2009-10; and
construct the work shed October 2010. Construction will not occur during the months of March
through September to ITlinimize any impacts on nesting birds.
Framing of the buildings, and water and electrical line installation will be completed only by
licensed contractors. Skilled Save The Bay volunteers may be used for paneling the buildings,
building benches, laying irrigation lines on benches and painting.
Palo j\.lto
l_.,~,,,.,=
Parcel Report -(w/2006 color image) (\lcc-m.p.~io$~i.\admlnlPer",,"allPlanning.mdb)
f~.·:··\
~~ ... -I -._) 'JV
..... r·--,. .......
Thi. document ia a graphic repreaentation only of best available source •.
The City of Palo Alto ... umaa no responsibility for any errore. CI989 to 2009 City of Palo Alto
Attach·ment C
2500 Embarcadero Road -Save The Bay Greenhouse Project
Duck Pond
Project Area
Attachment D
Save The Bay Native Plant Nursery Facility Improvement Project
2500 Embarcadero Road (09PLN-00224)
MEMO: Addition of Project Details requested by the Planning and
Transportation Committee on March 24, 2010.
SUBJECT: Greenhouse Paneling Product Details
FROM:
DATE:
Denise Della Santina, Proj ect Lead, Save The Bay
April 5th , 2010
Product Description:
Solexx Greenhouse Paneling is designed to provide the best possible growing conditions for
plants. It is a double-walled 5mm polyethylene material and is treated with a double UV inhibitor
during the extrusion process.
The covering has an eight-year warranty against ultraviolet breakdown and is tested and certified
by an independent lab. Solexx panels are very durable. Solexx paneled greenhouses have been in
the field for well over fifteen years with minimal UV degradation and have been undamaged
after being covered in several feet of snow, exposed to high winds, and intense heat and sun. All
plastics do eventually break down when exposed to direct sunlight for extended periods of time;
however, these panels are easy and inexpensive to replace and will not shed plastic. This product
is 100% recyclable.
Solexx panels are made with polyethylene. Polyethylene is superior to both polycarbonate and
glass, with a higher insulation factor, thus holding heat better during cold weather. Both
materials diffuse light, but polycarbonate diffuses less (because it is more transparent), making
the greenhouses much hotter in the summer and exposing plants to sun bum. Solexx panel's light
diffusion rate has been specifically designed to maximize light requirements for plants and
minimize extreme temperatures and sun-burned plants. Polyethylene panels significantly
dampen external sun reflection and glare by absorbing and diffusing light, compared to
polycarbonate which can produce significant glare. Polyethylene is very easy to clean and will
not scratch like polycarbonate.
Assembly:
For maximum strength, per manufacture's guidelines, panels will be supported at least every two
feet on center. On the perimeter of the structure, screws will be attached every six inches. For
supports, screws will be attached about eighteen inches apart. As a general rule one screw will be
attached per square foot of paneling.
Solexx brand H-Channel panel connectors will be used to join all panels together. U-Trim
finishing strips will be used to give the ends of the panels a nice finished look. All panel strips
will be painted to match other structures.
Project Description
Save The Bay Native Plant Nursery Facility Improvement Project
Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve -2500 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto
3. Written Project Description
A. Scope of Work:
The City of Palo Alto, Baylands Nature Preserve is partnering with Save the Bay for a native
plant nursery facility improvement project to increase success of habitat restoration at the Palo
Alto Baylands Nature Preserve. The project site is located in the Baylands maintenance area
north of the duck pond. In 2004, Save The Bay paid for construction of the Baylands native plant
nursery shadehouse and has operated it for the benefit of the City's resources. Our partnership
with the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve has provided financial savings for the City of Palo
Alto in the form of labor, education, native plants, technical knowledge, and has helped protect
and restore wildlife habitat. Save The Bay has provided extensive educational and stewardship
programs at the Baylands for the past nine years.
The City of Palo Alto's management goals for the Baylands and Save The Bay's salt marsh
upper transition zone restoration program goals will be greatly advanced by modest
improvements to the existing native plant nursery facility at the Baylands.A greenhouse will
improve seed germination and plant survival and health; provide an extended growing season;
and a facility in which to apply multiple plant propagation techniques. A new work shed will
provide a sheltered, moisture and rodent-proof storage area for seeds and tools.
Save The Bay proposes the addition of a 560 square foot greenhouse to be placed near the
existing shadehouse and a 625 square foot work shed to replace the existing dilapidated
wooden shed. Location and design will address functionality of facilities, while minimizing
impacts on natural resources and public view. Continuing to be good stewards of the land, Save
The Bay will enhance wildlife habitat adjacent to the new facilities by planting local native plants,
thereby increasing the biodiversity in the area and screening facilities from public view. A
landscaping plan is included in this project.
A public meeting was held August 5th 2009 to introduce the project to the community. Invitations
were sent to approximately ninety people and notices were posted at Baylands kiosks.
Neighboring facilities, such as the City's Landfill, Airport and Golf Course, and Baylands
stakeholders were also notified. Eighteen people attended the meeting. The presentation
included pictures of the nursery site, building and landscaping designs and Save The Bay's
reasons for initiating the project. There were many good questions and comments in support of
the project, and no opposition to moving forward.
On September, 22, 2009, a presentation was given to the The Parks and Recreation
Commission, where they recommended to Council to approve the Recommendation for a Park
Improvement Ordinance to allow for the construction of a greenhouse and the replacement of
an existing work shed at the Baylands Nature Preserve. This motion was approved 5:0. (See
Park and Recreation Minutes Attached.)
The proposed project is consistent with Policy N-1 and N-2 of the Comprehensive Plan, which
encourages managing open space in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, and
examining and improving management practices for natural habitat. The proposed project is
consistent with the Baylands Master Plan's Environmental Quality Policies 7 and 8, which call
for restoring the diversity of plants and animals and ensuring there is sufficient native food and
cover for wildlife. The project improvements will avoid disturbance of all trees and other
sensitive resources. The location, design, materials, and color of the proposed greenhouse and
work shed are consistent with the Baylands Design Guidelines' General Design Principles,
which call for muted, natural colors and materials that will weather without degrading. Existing
park uses will not be affected during project construction.
Heavy equipment use is limited to trenching for greenhouse and work shed foundations and
electrical and water lines (approximately three days). Other construction noise will be from
electric and non-electric hand tools for building construction (approximately 14 days). Impacts to
nesting herons, egrets, other breeding birds and chicks will be mitigated by postponing
vegetation removal, demolition and construction until chicks are large enough that they can
thermo-regulate themselves, or have successfully fledged the nest, and until construction is
approved by the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory after nests have been monitored (C.
Robinson-Nilsen, SFBBO) or limiting all activities to outside the breeding season which runs
from approximately March through August. A Biological Resources Report has been completed
and has been officially peer reviewed by a qualified environmental consulting 'firm to include
mitigations protecting natural resources (Biological Resources Report Attached).
Work will begin in August or September 2010 as soon as nearby bird breeding sites become
inactive and construction has been approved by a qualified bird biologist.
Greenhouse: The proposed location is 10 feet west of the existing shadehouse. Greenhouse
dimensions are 20 feet wide by 28 feet long by 8.5 feet high. Building materials include a
redwood frame covered by translucent white polyethylene paneling. The wood frame will match
the profile of the existing Palo Alto Baylands Ranger's maintenance shed, with a low profile
gabled (almost horizontal) roof design. The foundation will consist of a concrete footing along
the perimeter of the building and a base rock floor. Water and electricity will be brought to the
greenhouse. An irrigation system will be installed along benches in the greenhouse and a
temperature controlled fan will be used for air circulation.
Work shed: The dilapidated existing shed will be removed and the new work shed will be built
over the footprint of the existing shed. Work shed dimensions are 25 feet wide by 25 feet long
by 8.5 feet high. The shed will be a redwood structure with redwood paneling and will match
existinQ structures in color and profile. The foundation will consist of a concrete foundation along
the floor of the building. Electricity will be brought to the shed for lighting, outlets for charging
tools and a refrigerator for seed preparation (stratification).
The project has been reviewed by the Bay Conservation and Development Council (BCDC) and
has been deemed outside of their jurisdiction. No BCDC pern1it is required for this project.
The Initial Study was completed by the City of Palo Alto and sent out for public review in
January 2010 (Initial Study Attached).
This project is funded by Save The Bay with logistical support from the Palo Alto Baylands
Rangers. The structures will be donated to and owned by the City of Palo Alto for the purpose
of providing infrastructure for habitat restoration at the Baylands.
B. Existing and Proposed Uses:
There are no changes to existing uses of the site. The addition of a greenhouse and new work
shed will enhance success of uses that already occur at the nursery.
Currently the site is used by Save The Bay for propagation of native plants for habitat
restoration along San Francisquito Creek and other sites at the Palo Alto Baylands. There is a
1,600 square foot shadehouse on site, built in 2004. A 400 square foot dilapidated wooden shed
is used for tool storage. These facilities allow for Save The Bay to grow 8-10,000 native plants
annually for planting at the Baylands.
Use of the site is limited to a nursery manager working at the nursery 1-2 days a week (9am-
5pm). Volunteer education/stewardship programs occur at the Baylands an average of 6 days
\ per month, with some events occurring on Saturdays. Programs run three to four hours long,
between the hours of 9am-4pm. Average attendance is 15-40 participants, including a mix of
both kids and adults. Groups with more than 20 participants work on restoration sites out on the
levees and rarely make it to the nursery. Half of these programs (approximately three per
month) meet at the parking lot by the athletic field on Geng Rd. Two to three Save The Bay
Field Educators are at the nursery site to pick up and bring back program tools and plants
before and after programs for a total of 1-2 hours of work at the nursery. Special events are
limited to an annual Volunteer Appreciation Day. Special events like this take place at the picnic
area by the Ranger's station. The Baylands Rangers approve all programs and events in
advance.
All programs that occur at the nursery are limited to 20 people. A regular nursery volunteer
program occurs the second Wednesday of every month with an average of 15 people attending.
These programs consist mainly of adults.
There will be no increase in the number of nursery or restoration programs, in the number of
staff or volunteers working in the nursery, vehicular traffic or human use of the areas as a result
of this project. The number of plants grown will not change and all plants grown at the nursery
will be planted at the Baylands.
There will be no new trails, parking lots or hardscapes constructed, nor will there be an increase
in the number of vehicles parking in existing parking lots.
Save The Bay -Palo Alto Baylands Partnership Agreement is a list of guidelines designed to
sustain and enhance the outstanding partnership between Save the Bay and the Palo Alto
Baylands by providing clear expectations (Partnership Agreement Attached). Included in this
agreement is the following:
• Save the Bay and Open Space staff will work together to ensure the nursery blends into
the surrounding area.
• Save the Bay and Open Space staff will work together to plant bushes and trees that will
hide the nursery from the view of the duck pond.
• Save The Bay parking (staff and volunteers) be at the overflow gravel parking lot to the
east of the Ranger's station as to not 'fill in parking spaces used by the public at the duck
pond.
Current footprint of existing nursery structures:
Total: 2,000 square feet includes:
• Shadehouse: 1,600 square feet
• Work shed: 400 square feet
Proposed footprint of existing and proposed nursery structures:
Total: 2,785 square feet includes:
• Shadehouse: 1,600 square feet
• Work shed: 625 square feet (to be built over existing shed footprint)
• Greenhouse: 560 square feet
Increase in footprint: 785 square feet (28% of existing footprint)
C. Purpose of Proposed Changes:
The City of Palo Alto's management goals for the Baylands and Save The Bay's restoratibn
program goals will be greatly advanced by modest improvements to the existing native plant
nursery facility at the Baylands. A greenhouse will improve seed germination and plant survival
and health, provide an extended growing· season, and provide a facility in which to apply
multiple plant propagation techniques. A new work shed will provide a sheltered, moisture and
rodent-proof storage area for seeds and tools. Specifically, these structures will provide the
following:
Greenhouse:
• Larger and healthier plants with proper propagation timing. By increasing the length
of the growing season, plants germinated from seed and grown inside a greenhouse are
larger and more robust. Save The Bay's monitoring program has shown that these
plants are better at out competing non-native weeds and have higher survival rates, thus
increasing restoration success. A greenhouse allows for greater control over the timing
of plant propagation by allowing us to adjust seed sowing periods in order to optimize
the health and maturity of plants for winter planting.
• Increased germination and survival rates. Delayed and low seed germination of
important plants such as Marsh Coyote Bush (Baccharis doug/ash) and Sea Lavender
(Limonium californica) and low availability of local seed for plants has interfered with
Save The Bay's planting and restoration goals for the Baylands. Seed grown in a
greenhouse with controlled temperature and humidity has a higher germination and
survival rate than seed grown outside in an uncontrolled environment. High germination
and survival rates prevent seed waste and minirnize the need for additional seed
collection from existing wild plant communities.
• Native Plant Propagation Research. The addition of a greenhouse will create a
controlled growing environment where we can test different seed stratification and plant
propagation techniques, such as seasonal photoperiods and light quality; temperature,
salinity and moisture regimes; propagation materials and soils; and analysis of wild seed
viability, in order to identify the most successful applications. The greenhouse will make
it possible for Save The Bay to perform science based plant propagation research in
order to increase plant propagation success and to disseminate technical information to
the restoration community that will allow for a collaborative and successful community
approach to SF Bay habitat restoration.
Work shed:
• Weather and rodent proof storage. The current site has no weather and rodent proof
storage to prolong the life of seeds, expensive tools and educational materials. The
storage area will also provide space for a refrigerator on site, which is crucial for seed
treatment necessary for seed germination.
• Staff and volunteer efficiency and protection. Natural elements of rain and wind can
discourage, delay, or prevent production during seed collection, cleaning, and sowing.
The delay of these important tasks decreases work efficiency and interrupts the vital
timing of nursery tasks and propagation schedules. Currently there is no shehered area
for staff, volunteers or school programs to perform these tasks.
The proposed project will greatly assist the City of Palo Alto to reach goals in the City of Palo
Alto's Overall Environmental Quality Policies (Baylands 'Master Plan, 2008):
7. Restore the diversity of plants and animals to disturbed upland sites.
8. Ensure there is sufficient native food and cover for wildlife.
9. Protect the duck-breeding area with a vegetation buffer and control the high-tide bird
refuge in the flood basin.
The approval of this project will help mobilize restoration of tidal salt marsh -upland transition
zone ecosystems at the Palo Alto Baylands, benefiting native plants, wildlife, and humans.
Because tidal salt marsh plant propagation is relatively new in the San Francisco Bay Area
habitat restoration community, our efforts to increase plant propagation success and
disseminate technical information to the restoration community will promote effectiveness and
collaboration throughout San Francisco Bay.
D.Materials, colors and construction methods:
Greenhouse: The proposed greenhouse dimensions are 20 feet wide by 28 feet long by 8.5 feet
high. Building materials include a redwood frame and translucent white double-walled
polyethylene paneling. The wood frame, will match the profile of the existing Palo Alto Baylands
Ranger's maintenance shed, with a low profile gabled (almost horizontal) roof design. A flat or
one-side sloped roof does not accommodate the needs of a greenhouse to circulate air and
capture sunlight. The translucent white double-walled polyethylene paneling will be placed on
the outside of the wood frame. The paneling has a 10 year warranty against yellowing and
cracking. The panels are easily removable and in the case that they become unsightly in the
future due to age, they can be replaced to maintain aesthetic standards of the area. A light
transmitting black shade cover will be placed over the roof of the greenhouse to decrease glare
and visibility. This cover will remain on the building most of the year, but may be removed in
winter when days are short and sun is low, in order to increase light transmission into
greenhouse. The foundation will consist of a concrete footing along the perimeter of the building
with a base rock floor. Vent openings will be placed along lower walls to comply with
requirements for structures located in Special Flood Hazard Areas. Roof vents will be placed on
the south side of the greenhouse to provide necessary air circulation.
Work shed: The dilapidated existing shed will be removed and salvaged, and the new work
shed will be placed over the footprint of the existing shed. Proposed work shed dimensions are
25 feet wide by 25 feet long by 8.5 feet high. The shed will be a redwood structure with redwood
paneling and will match existing structures in color and profile. If salvaged wood material that
meets aesthetic standards is available, it will be used for the paneling. The foundation will
consist of a concrete foundation along the floor of the building. Vent openings will be placed
along lower walls to comply with requirements for structures located in Special Flood Hazard
Areas.
Buildings will be constructed in a way that is easily de-constructible and salvageable, in the
case of any need to remove them. A LEED certified contractor will complete the LEED and Palo
Alto Green Building checklist for the project to increase the sustainability of the project and
minimize impacts.
Framing of the buildings, and water and electrical line installation will be completed only by
licensed contractors. Skilled Save The Bay volunteers may be used for paneling the buildings,
building benches, laying irrigation lines on benches and painting.
5. Photographic Display: See next page
6. Plans:
A. Plan Sets: Attached: A-001 (Overall Site Plan) A 100 (Greenhouse); A 200 (Work Shed).
B. Vicinity Map: Additional Map Attached
C. Floor Area and Coverage
Current footprint of existing nursery structures:
Total: 2,000 square feet includes:
• Shadehouse: 1,600 square feet
• Work shed: 400 square feet
Proposed footprint of existing and proposed nursery structures:
Total: 2,785 square feet includes:
• Shadehouse: 1,600 square feet
• Work shed: 625 square feet (to be built over existing shed footprint).
• Greenhouse: 560 square feet
Increase in footprint: 785 square feet (less than 280/0 of existing footprint)
Parking: There is no additional required parking for this project.
D. Site Plan: See attached A-001
F. Building Elevations: See attached A100 (Greenhouse) and A 200 (Work Shed)
G. Floor Plans and H. Sections: See attached A100; A200.
E. Landscaping Plan
Save The Bay will enhance vegetation adjacent to the new facilities by planting local native
plants. A landscaping plan is included in this project. The goals of landscaping are to 1)
increase wildlife habitat; 2) screen facilities from public view; and 3) have a native plant
demonstration garden on display for educational purposes. These native plants will be from
locally collected seed and will be grown in Save The Bay's nursery.
A maximum of 600 square feet of vegetation (90 0/0 non-native) will be removed from the site to
make room for the greenhouse. No trees or possible roosting areas for herons and egrets will
be removed or disturbed. Landscaping includes the addition of a minimum of 800 square -feet of
native vegetation. Save The Bay and Baylands Rangers have identified additional areas near
the nursery that will be enhanced with native plants for wildlife habitat. Plants will range in
heights from ground covers to trees to maximize screening of the facilities. Plants to be used
are native to the area and tolerate local conditions. Temporary irrigation will be placed to ensure
survival until plants establish. Since we are planting native plants, irrigation will only be needed
through the first summer, during extreme heat and dry temperatures. Irrigation lines will be
removed once plants have established.
Younger plants are better able to adapt to the conditions on the site and establish stronger and
healthier roots. STB will be planting all 1-2 year old plants (pot size 19a1 and less). The
Elderberry will form a screen that will be approximately 4-5 feet tall in 5 years and 8-10 feet in
10 years. The Coyote Bush will be approximately 3-4 feet in 5 years and 5-7 feet in 10 years.
The small to medium shrubs and perennial plants will reach their max height of 3-4 feet in 5
years.
Plants and descriptions:
Large to medium shrubs: Sambucus mexicana (Blue Elderberry): Large shrub, deciduous;
Height: 8-10 feet; Width: 6-8 feet; Rapid growth; 4 feet in 5 years and 8-10 feet in 10 years
Baccharis pilularis (Coyote Bush): Medium to large shrub, evergreen; Height: 4-7 feet; Width: 4-
6 feet;
Small to medium shrubs: Artemisia douglasiana (Mugwort), Baccharis douglassi (Salt Marsh
Coyote Bush), Aster chilensis (CA aster): All small shrubs, deciduous; Height 2-4 feet; Width 2-4
feet and spreading to form large patches.
Mimulus californica (Sticky Monkeyflower), Artemesia californica (California Sagebrush),
Scrophularia californica (CA Beeplant), Nassella pulchra (Purple Needle Grass), Elymus
glaucus (Blue wild Rye), Euthamia occidentalis (Western Goldenrod); All have height and width
of 3-4 feet.
Landscaping Details are noted on Site Plan A-001. New vegetation listed as (N) and existing
vegetation listed as (E). No additional landscape elements, fences trellises, etc. will be installed.
Water Use Statement: A permanent irrigation system on a timer will be place along benches in
the greenhouse. The total area to be irrigated is 150 square feet of bench space. Since plants
grown are natives, minimal water is used for irrigation, i.e. just enough to keep soil moist, not
saturated, once a day for a maximum of 10 minutes during the height of surnmer, and much less
in the winter.
Drainage Plan: Minimal water will be used for irrigation and additional native vegetation will
allow water to percolate through the soil with no run off. No drainage plan is necessary.
J. Parking Layout: There is no required parking for this project. Human use will remain as it
exists. There will be no new parking lots constructed, nor will there be an impact on the number
of vehicles parking in existing parking lots. Save The Bay and Baylands' Partnership Agreement
has designated that all Save The Bay parking (staff and volunteers) be at the overflow gravel
parking lot to the east of the Ranger's station as to not fill parking lot at the duck pond.
K. Lighting Plan: There will be no lighting on the exterior of these structures.
L. Schematic Details: See A 100
7. Colors and Materials: See Greenhouse pictures for materials. The design, materials, and
color of the proposed greenhouse and work shed are consistent with the Baylands Desig n
Guidelines' General Design Principles, which call for muted, natural colors and materials that
will weather without degrading.
8~ Tree Disclosure Statement: No trees or tree roots will be disturbed. Protective fencing will
be placed outside of the root zone/drip line of all vegetation to remain.
9. Hazardous Materials Disclosure Checklist: No hazardous materials will be used at the
project site.
Current Pictures of Proposed Project Site
Save The Bay -Palo Alto Baylands Native Plant Nursery
Work shed and Shadehouse
":')
"J:o.~~ •• ~T':'_.. ,;-" ('.-:i
Work shed expansion site
View from Road by EcoCenter
-".. .
Shadehouse (left) and Proposed
. Greenhouse Building Site (right)
Proposed Greenhouse Building Site
View from Duck Pond Parking Lot
by Ranger's Station
Save The Bay -Native Plant Nursery Facility Improvement Project
Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve
3-D Renderings of Project Site with Landscaping
Looking Northwest . Looking Northwest with Vegetation Screen
Looking South with Vegetation Screen Looking South with Vegetation Screen
Looking Northwest with Vegetation Screen
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Attachment E
April 15, 2010
Architectural Review Board
Clare Campbell, Planner
Architectural Review Board
StaffRe ort
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
2500 Embarcadero Road [09PLN-00224]: Request by Save The Bay, on
behalf of the City of Palo Alto, for Site and Design Review for a new 560
square foot greenhouse and a 625 square foot shed (replacing the existing 400
square foot shed) adjacent to the existing Duck Pond. The project involves the
minimal removal of vegetation to accommodate the new structures; existing
trees are not impacted. Zone: PF(D) Environmental Review: An Initial Study
has been completed and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared for this proj ect in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recomnlend that the City Council
adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment E) and approve the project based upon the
findings and recommended conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
On September 22,2009, Save the Bay submitted an application for Site and Design Review for a new
560 square foot greenhouse and a 625 square foot shed to replace an existing 400 square foot shed
used for tool storage located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve adjacent to bay wetlands
and the Duck Pond. The proposed project also includes limited removal of non-native plants to
accommodate the new structures and the planting of native plant material. The project is funded by
Save The Bay, but the proposed structures will be donated to and owned by the City of Palo Alto for
the purpose of providing additional infrastructure for habitat restoration at the Baylands.
Currently the project site is used by Save the Bay for propagation of native plants for habitat
restoration along San Francisquito Creek and other sites at the Palo Alto Baylands. 8,000 to 10,000
native plants are grown annually for planting at the Baylands in a 1,600 square foot shade house
located on the site. Use of the site is limited to a nursery manager working at the nursery one to two
days a week. Save the Bay volunteer education/stewardship programs occur at the Baylands an
average of six days per month and all programs are limited to twenty people.
Other than passive recreational uses in the immediate vicinity, there is also a small-scale airport
operated by the County of Santa Clara in close proximity to the site. The project area, with its
adjacency to the Duck pond, is exposed to many visitors throughout the year.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
On March 24, 2010 the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval (7 -0-0-0) of
the project with no added conditions. Commissioner Lippert requested that the ARB review the
suitability and durability for the proposed project's material selection and construction details to
minimize the failure of the building due to a significant weather event. Other than the applicant, there
were no public speakers for this item at the meeting.
DISCUSSION
Proj ect Description
The' proposed 560 square foot greenhouse will be 20 feet wide by 28 feet long by 8.5 feet high and
located next to the existing shade house. The building materials include redwood framing and clear
polycarbonate paneling. The greenhouse will have a gable roof. The foundation will consist of a one
foot deep concrete footing along the perimeter of the building with a base rock floor. The 400 square
foot existing shed will be removed and salvaged, and the new work shed will be placed in the same
location as the old shed. The proposed 625 square foot redwood work shed will be 25 feet wide by 25
feet long by 8.5 feet high.
Approximately 600 square feet of non-native vegetation, primarily salt bush, will be removed to
accommodate the new greenhouse structure. The project includes adding local native vegetation in
various locations in the project area, totaling approximately 800 square feet of planting area. The
goals of the new landscaping are to increase wildlife habita~, screen facilities from public view, and
provide a native plant demonstration garden on display for educational purposes.
According to Save The Bay's monitoring program, greenhouse-grown plants are larger, healthier, and
better competitors against non-native weeds, and have higher survival rates. There are also certain
species of plants that have been unable to grow successfully in the existing shade house. A
greenhouse, with controlled temperature and humidity, will allow the growth of these species needed
to meet restoration goals. The proposed greenhouse will allow for improved seed germination and
plant survival, an extended growing season, and the application of multiple plant propagation
techniques. Replacing the existing aged 400 square foot work shed with a new shed will provide
shelter from inclement weather and provide a rodent-proof storage area for seeds and tools. Currently
there is no sheltered area for staff, volunteers or school programs to perfortn critical plant nursery
tasks.
The proposed project will not cause an increase in the nurrlber of nursery or restoration programs, nor
add to the nunlber of staff or volunteers working in the nursery, nor increase the volume of the
vehicular traffic in the area. See Attachment C for details of Save The Bay activities and usage.
Site and Design Findings
The following information should enable the ARB to conclude that the sixteen required architectural
09PLN -00224 Page 2
review findings for project approval can be met by the project. The list of required findings is
attached (Attachment F).
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The project site is designated in the
plan as Publicly Owned Conservation Land. This land use designation provides for open lands whose
prinlary purpose is the preservation and enhancenlent of the natural state of the land and its plants and
animals; only compatible resource managenlent, recreation, and educational activities are allowed.
The proposed design elements are consistent with the Baylands Master Plan and the general design
principles of the 2005 Site Assessment and Design Guidelines prepared for the Baylands Nature
Preserve. The proposed structures will have a low profile, with the heights not exceeding 8.5 feet.
Except during winter, the greenhouse will be covered by a light transmitting black shade to reduce
glare and visibility. Visual impacts of the project will be minimized by new plant material initially
interrupting public views from the Duck Pond. The existing bushes in the immediate project area
would provide additional screening of the new structures.
The new structures will be screened to maintain a harmonious and compatible relationship with the
Baylands environment and improve the existing environment. The existing shade house is currently
visible from various vantage points around the Duck Pond; the added vegetation will provide visual
screening for both the new structures and the existing shade house. As the plantings mature, the
project will be sufficiently screened. The proposed expanded nursery use is consistent with the
existing functions of the passive park uses around the Duck Pond area and does not further impact the
existing and potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites than the existing conditions.
The proposed design and size of the project are generally consistent with the existing shade house
facility, 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. The project will not have a significant environmental impact as indicated by
the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project.
The project site is zoned PF(D), Public Facilities with the Site and Design Review Overlay. The PF
zone district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community
service or recreational facilities. The proposed use is an accessory use to the existing primary park use
and is, therefore, permitted in this district. The Site and Design Review combining district (D) is
intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in environmentally and
ecologically sensitive areas. The proposed greenhouse and shed are in conformance with the PF(D)
development requirements and allowable uses.
Due to the unique nature of the building type and use, the majority of the specifications called out in
the green building checklist do not apply to this proj ect. The applicant is required to complete the
checklist and will make a concerted effort to incorporate green building components as much as
feasible. The City's Sustainability Planner has been working closely with the applicant to customize
the green building requirenlents based on this unique proj ect type. The proj ect is required to comply
with the Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed proj ect is subj ect to environmental review under provisions of the California
09PLN-00224 Page 3
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements.
The 30-day public comment period for this document was completed on February 18, 2010. No
comments were received on the Draft Negative Declaration. The proposed mitigations address
protection of the existing nesting habitat within the bird sanctuary (Biological Resources). Attachment
E provides the details of the proposed nlitigations.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action
Attachment B: Location Map
Attachment C: Applicant's Project Description and Supplemental Information*
Attachment D: PTC Excerpt Verbatim Minutes, March 24, 2010
Attachment E: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment F: Findings for Architectural Review Approval
AttacIvnent G: Site Plans (ARB only)*
* Submitted by Applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Denise Della Santina, Save The Bay
Daren Anderson, Senior Ranger
Greg Betts, Director ofComnlunity Services
PREPARED BY: Clare Campbell, Planner
REVIEWED BY: Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official
09PLN-00224 Page 4
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BOARD DRAFT MINUTES
==MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
ROLLCALL:
Board members:
Thursday April 15, 2010
REGULAR MEETING -8:30 AM
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Staff Liaison:
Alexander Lew (Chair) Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Clare Malone Prichard (Vice Chair)
Grace Lee
Judith Wasserman
Heather Young
Staff:
Amy French, Planning Manager
Elena Lee, Se1:1ior Planner
Clare Campbell, Planner
Jason Nortz, Planner
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is asfollows:
• Announce agenda item
• Open public hearing
• Staff recommendation
• Applicant presentation -Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board.
• Public comment -Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3)
minutes depending on large number of speakers per item.
• Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments
• Applicant closing comments -Three (3) minutes
• Close public hearing
• Motions/recommendations by the Board
• Final vote
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the
agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must
complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural
Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Minutes of April 1, 2010 were approved, (5-0-0-0, Board member Malone Prichard moved,
seconded by Board member Young).
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. 910 Charleston Road: request by ACS Architects, on behalf of Ai Yueh Lee, for an
exception to allow, two above -canopy sign placements and two projecting signs exceeding
the three square feet per sign maximum area. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the
provisions of CEQ A, 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zone District: CS
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the ARB review the approval findings for the Sign Exception application and
recommend approval of the Sign Exceptions to reaffirm the ARB's recommendation from the March
18, 2010 hearing.
Architectural Review Board Action:
The Board recommended approval of the project, (5-0-0-0, Board member Wasserman moved,
seconded by Board member Lew).
NEW BUSINESS:
2. 2500 Embarcadero Road [09PLN-00224]: Request by Save The Bay, on behalf of the City
of Palo Alto, for Site and Design Review for a new 560 square foot greenhouse and a 625
square foot shed (replacing the existing 400 square foot shed) adjacent to the existing Duck
Pond. The project involves the minimal removal of vegetation to accommodate the new
structures; existing trees are not impacted. Zone: PF(D) Environmental Review: An Initial
Study has been completed and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for
this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requirements.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend that the City Council
adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment E) and approve the project based upon the
findings recommended conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
Architectural Review Board Action:
The Board recommended approval of the project, (5-0-0-0, Board member Wasserman moved,
seconded by Board member Malone Prichard) with an additional condition that the shed roof material
come back to staff to review reflectivity.
BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
SUBCOMMITTEE:
3. 425 High Street [08PLN-00338]: Review of minor fac;ade change to previously approved
ARB. Exempt from CEQA. Zoning CD-C (P)
Subcommittee Action:
Previously approved stone veneer faced pilasters will be faced with stucco at time of occupancy.
Stone veneer will be added to pilasters after occupancy when material is available.
STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW:
Project Description: Approval for minor Architectural Review for the installation of three
illunlinated signs (78.75 sq.ft., 13.62sq.ft., and 78.75sq.ft) and one non-illuminated sign
(12.51sq.ft).
Applicant: Northwest Signs
Address:4233 Middlefield Road
Approval Date: March 2,2010
Requestfor hearing deadline: March 16,2010
Project Description: Approval for minor Architectural Review of new signage including two
illunlinated wall signs on the existing building and one nlonument sign.
Applicant: Jack Leyden on behalf of Park Place Associates
Address: 3101 Park Boulevard
Approval Date: March 12,2010
Request for hearing deadline: March 26, 2010
Project Description: Approval for minor Architectural Review for the installation of one
non-illuminated wall sign for Presidio.
Applicant: John McDowell on behalf of TTC Partners
Address: 325 Lytton A venue
Approval Date: March 16, 2010
Request/or hearing deadline: March 30,2010
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to
access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City's
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City's ADA Coordinator at
650.329.2550 (voice) or bye-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org.
Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section
54956.Recordings. An audiotape of the proceedings may be obtained/reviewed by contacting the Planning Division at
(650) 329-2440. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk's Office at (650)
329-2571.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during
normal business hours.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
March 24, 2010
EXCERPT
ATTACHMENT F
Chair Garber: So that brings us to 2500 Embarcadero Road. A request by Save The Bay on
behalf of the City of Palo Alto for Site and Design Review of a new 560 square foot greenhouse
and a 625 square foot shed replacing a 400 square foot shed adjacent to the existing duck pond.
The project involves the minimal removal of vegetation to accommodate the new structures,
existing trees are not inlpacted. Does Staff have a presentation? One moment.
For the Commissioners information we will hear the Staffs presentation. I take it there is no
applicant making a presentation.
Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Yes, the applicant is here.
Chair Garber: Okay, so we will hear from Staff, then the applicant, and we will hear from the
public directly without questions. Then we will come back to the Commission for questions,
discussion, and a motion. Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
2. 2500 Embarcadero Road*: Request by Save the Bay, on behalf of the City of Palo Alto,
for Site and Design Review of a new 560 square foot greenhouse and a 625 sq. ft. shed
(replacing a 400 sq. ft. shed) adjacent to the existing duck pond. The project involves the
minimal removal of vegetation to accommodate the new structures; existing trees are not
impacted. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration have been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) requirements. Zone District: Public Facilities with Design Review Combining
District (PF)(D).
Ms. Campbell: Good evening Commissioners. The project before you tonight would be
considered a minor project in scope ifit were not for the location in the Baylands in a
biologically sensitive area.
The proj ect area is located within a migratory bird sanctuary. With that being the case a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and full Site and Design Review was required for
the proj ect.
The proposed proj ect is an extension of the existing Save The Bay uses at the duck pond. The
existing nursery operation has been there since the early 2000's and has been actively utilized.
The proposed greenhouse and replacement shed have been designed and sited to create minimal
visual impacts to the users of the duck pond and the immediate surroundings.
Page 1
ATTACHMENT F
1 As noted in the Site and Design Findings on page two of the Record of Land Action and in the
2 Mitigated Negative Declaration the project will not create environmental impacts and is in
3 compliance with our Comprehensive Plan and Baylands Master Plan.
4
5 Tonight along with the applicant, Denise Della Santina, we have two City Staff members present
6 to also answer questions for you. Greg Betts, the Director of Community Services and Darren
7 Anderson, Senior Park Ranger are here. This concludes Staff s presentation. Thank you.
8
9 Chair Garber: Does the applicant wish to make a presentation? You will have ten minutes.
10
11 Ms. Denise Della Santina. Save The Bay: I am the Native Plant Nursery Manager for Save The
12 Bay. Tonight I am going to be talking about the native plant nursery facility improvement
13 project. So I am going to talk about the current facilities at the nursery site, the need for facility
14 improvement, the designs of both the greenhouse and the work shed, as well as natural resource
15 aesthetics and policy implications.
16
17 So to begin with I just want to let you know that Save The Bay works very hard with the Staff of
18 the Palo Alto Baylands to protect this critical habitat of the wetlands found down at the Palo Alto
19 Baylands for fish and wildlife. We also provide services for floor and erosion control, clean
20 water, recreation, and the economy as well as the equality of life. So although we are working
21 on habitat restoration our work does affect a lot of other issues that involve the public.
22
23 So we also have restoration sites down at the Palo Alto Baylands in addition to the nursery. Here
24 are some on the left hand side you can see highlighted along the Baylands the airport runway.
25 We have been working for seven years down there trying to remove invasive species as well as
26 revegetate the area with native plants for wildlife habitat. On the right are some pictures from
27 our public programs that we hold down at the Baylands weekly. Things that we do down there
28 are creek and shoreline cleanup, picking up trash, nonnative plant removal, propagating native
29 plants, and also nl0nitoring those plants.
30
31 Being in a public area is actually a very wonderful place for the native plant nursery. We
32 involve students and volunteers in hand-on stewardship activities, able to teach the public plant
33 identification and propagation, and work with corporate groups and public groups with team
34 building and ecological education. We also provide additional recreational opportunities at the
35 Baylands that can help improve the area.
36
37 So here is a picture of the site, the vicinity at the duck pond found at the Palo Alto Baylands. On
38 the right hand side you can see that we are located at the northwestern side of the duck pond. On
39 the right hand· side is an aerial photo of our current facilities. ill the center is our shade house,
40 which is a 1,600 square foot wooden framed building with a screen on the outside. That is where
41 we house 10,000 of our native plants that we plant annually down at the Baylands. On the left
42 hand side of that shade house you can see two little squares and that is where we are proposing to
43 add a new greenhouse and actually rebuild the wooden shed that is located there.
44
45 Currently the facilities have a footprint of 2,000 square feet and with the addition of a new
46 greenhouse as well as a new work shed we will be increasing the footprint by 825 square feet, so
Page 2
J
1
ATTACHMENT F
1 that would be 30 percent of the existing footprint. Just to clarify, the work shed is an existing
2 shed there right now that is quite dilapidated, falling down, concrete that is uneven, and so we
3 are proposing to take that building down and rebuild a new one.
4
5 I will go quickly through this. We are a native plant nursery and most nursery facilities do have
6 greenhouses. We have done our best to get by without a greenhouse for some time but we have
7 realized that it would really help improve our propagation of native plants as well as the
8 revegetation and restoration of the Baylands. That would be by preventing seed waste, by
9 increasing germination of the seeds that we do collect at the Baylands. Everything is locally
10 collected so we want to maximize the use of those seeds, as well as providing the properly
11 controlled environnlent for growing plants. Save The Bay is also very interested in doing
12 research on germination and propagation and sharing that with the greater San Francisco Bay
13 Area. We are the leaders in shoreline restoration in San Francisco Bay and a greenhouse will
14 allow us to increase our research and experimentation. Also we would very much benefit from
15 having a weatherproof work area because we do have thousands of volunteers coming down
16 there each year. Not having that weather protected area does cause difficulties and makes it
17 difficult for us to stay on track with our restoration priorities.
18
19 This is just a picture of a makeshift cold frame to show you that we have tried other alternatives
20 to increase our success of propagation. Alternatives to adding a greenhouse and they just have
21 not worked out. We hoped that they would so that we wouldn't have to put up a greenhouse but
22 we have come to the conclusion that a greenhouse would best fulfill our needs.
23
24 Basically the greenhouse is a simple wooden frame design with a polycarbonate siding on it. I
25 do have an example of the siding that we are going to be using. This was chosen because it
26 allows for sufficient sun penetration but it is also low reflective relative to a lot of the options out
27 there. In addition, the top of the greenhouse will be covered by a black shade cloth. That is
28 needed because we do have to protect our plants during the summer when the sun is really
29 intense as well as to nlininlize the inlpacts visually and reflectivity of the top of the building.
30
3 1 We have worked with an architect to come up with drawings. You can look at those up on the
32 board over there if you have detail questions about that.
33
34 The work shed. I mentioned that our work shed really is not weather resistant at all. We do
35 work with seeds which I and Save The Bay considers a very valuable conlnl0dity and we have
36 things like rain, wind, lots of ground squirrels. So we would like to have a proper storage area
37 and also have a place for volunteers to work when the weather is really poor.
38
39 Here are just a couple of pictures of the design examples. We are looking at a fairly low-sloped
40 roof to fit into the existing structures down there at the Baylands. It is a very simple storage
41 structure basically. The bottom picture is a current building that is found right on the site. That
42 is the Bayland Ranger's maintenance shop. We do have work plans for the work shed as well.
43
44 So these are pictures of the building site. On the left hand side you can see the structure in the
45 back that is the existing shade house. The location would be just in front of that between the
46 vegetation and the shade house is where we are proposing to put the greenhouse. On the right
Page 3
ATTACHMENT F
1 hand side is the side of our work shed and that is where we are proposing the expansion of the
2 footprint of the work shed. This site has been previously used by park operations. It is fill
3 material and there are disturbed soils there. The vegetation that is existing is predominantly
4 nonnative plants. These are just details of the overall site plan that we are doing. We will be
5 putting in water and electricity to the greenhouse and electricity to the work shed. That is just
6 for a couple offans that are going to go into the nursery to keep air circulation going and water
7 obviously to irrigate the plants in there. The electricity going to the work shed is just to power a
8 refrigerator that we use for our seed stratification as well as some cordless work tools.
9
10 So in planning this project we have focused a lot on the aesthetics because the Baylands is a
11 highly used area and want to be very sensitive to that. So the locations of the buildings have
12 been taken into account on how they appear to the public visiting the area. we chose this
13 location because they are best screened by the existing vegetation out there, some eucalyptus,
14 palms, and some other nonnative trees.
15
16 Chair Garber: Please continue. I had inappropriately said ten minutes and you actually have
1 7 fifteen. So you have another five.
18
19 Ms. Della Santina: Okay, great. So the buildings will match the existing buildings on the site.
20 We will also be doing a comprehensive landscape plan. These are some photos. I might have to
21 breeze through them quickly, of what the site would look like from public paths. I am just going
22 to forward onto our landscaping plan because all of the areas, there are two areas where these
23 buildings would be most apparent to public visitors but we have come up with a landscaping plan
24 of native plants that would not only provide wildlife habitat but would also screen the buildings
25 from public view. You can see that there are multiple canopies so that we can go from ground
26 level up to eight or ten feet. The circled areas on the center map are areas that I was talking
27 about that are most visible to the public where we will be focusing our landscaping.
28
29 We have considered the natural resource impacts and gone through the initial study in a
30 Mitigated Negative Declaration. So we will not be building during the nesting season. We
31 won't disturb any trees, and the landscaping out there will actually increase habitat for the
32 wildlife and the migratory bird sanctuary.
33
34 These are pictures of public access and parking lots. There is a parking lot at the duck pond that
35 Save The Bay volunteers and volunteers and staff do not use. We have an agreement with the
36 Palo Alto Bayland Rangers and up on the right hand comer there is a very large gravel parking
37 lot where all of our visitors or participants use that parking lot to park in. So we are not taking
38 parking away from visitors to the area.
39
40 This project will not increase the use of the area by Save The Bay or the number of people. We
41 will not be adding new trails or parking lots. There will be no need for increased parking
42 requirements by our participants because those participant numbers will renlain the same.
43
44 As Clare mentioned, this project is consistent with the Baylands Master Plan as well as the
45 Comprehensive Plan, and managing open space and providing habitat for wildlife. In addition,
Page 4
ATTACHMENT F
1 we have followed the Bay1ands site assessment and design guidelines as far as the colors of the
2 building, the profiles of the building, as well as the locations.
3
4 Currently we are working with the Planning Department right now and the Bay1ands Ranger
5 Staff. All the work will be completed by a qualified contractor and volunteers may be used to
6 build benches, shelves, and paint the facilities. This project is completely funded by Save The
7 Bay and it will be owned by the City of Palo Alto and the Baylands Nature Preserve for the use
8 of habitat restoration at the Bay1ands. There is a lot of habitat restoration needed at the
9 Bay1ands.
10
11 The project timeline. We have completed a public meeting, the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
12 and the Parks and Recreation Commission has approved this project. We will move onto the
13 ARB and the City Council project approval to complete the major project review. We are
14 planning on completing these structures in September/October 2010. These are just some of our
15 partners who have helped us with this process and restoration at the Bay1ands. That is all I have
16 for you.
17
18 I do also actually have some color schemes that we were going to use for the building. This is
19 the color that we would like to use. It is a green. It is a color that has been approved by the Park
20 District for City owned buildings. That is the best color but this is also an alternative. We were
21 hoping to go with the green just because of its ability to blend in with the area.
22
23 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, discussion and questions. Would anyone like to
24 start with a motion and move backwards? We should open the public hearing. However, I am
25 seeing no cards. Zariah, are there any? Thank you. We will keep the public hearing open
26 should anyone come in late and want to speak to the topic. Commissioners? Commissioner
27 Martinez. I would be happy to entertain a motion and then we can work through any discussion
28 and/or questions in reference to that.
29
30 MOTION
31
32 Commissioner Martinez: Therefore I move that we recommend the Staffs recommendations for
33 approval of this project to the City Council.
34
35 SECOND
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Second.
38
39 Chair Garber: I hear a second from Commissioner Keller. Would the maker like to speak to
40 their motion?
41
42 Commissioner Martinez: First I would like to really thank you for your incredibly fine work and
43 for your presentation. I don't know why but everybody does better PowerPoint than I do.
44
Page 5
ATTACHMENT F
1 I think this has proven over the last several years that they provide a valuable service, an
2 important part of the work required for the Baylands, and I think we should fully support their
3 work with this modest request for a new building project.
4
5 Chair Garber: The seconder?
6
7 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. With the approval of the maker I would like to restate his
8 motion as the Planning and Transportation Commission recommends that the City Council adopt
9 the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve this project based on the findings and
10 recommended conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action. Is that restatenlent okay
11 with the maker?
12
13 Commissioner Martinez: That is even better than mine. I do accept it.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think that this is a worthwhile project. Are all the plants
16 used for the Palo Alto Baylands or are any of the plants used elsewhere?
17
18 Ms. Della Santina: No, all of the plants grown at the nursery are for the Palo Alto Baylands. We
19 plant approximately 8,000 to 10,000 plants a year out on the Baylands from grown in the
20 nursery.
21
22 Commissioner Keller: Just for my curiosity, do you have an idea how many hours of volunteers
23 a year, volunteer hours or people that might be using this facility? I am just curious what large
24 amount of effort you are bringing to us with this facility.
25
26 Ms. Della Santina: This is just an estimate but I would say in a year we have about 20,000 hours
27 of volunteer work brought to the Baylands. We have about 5,000 volunteers that come to the
28 Baylands regularly in a year to work down there.
29
30 Commissioner Keller: So doing the math quickly that comes out to ten full time equivalents.
31
32 Ms. Della Santi~a: Exactly.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Considering the full time equivalent just as a reasonable valuation of
35 $100,000 per person, which is probably a low estimate of what we would pay fully burdened for
36 people. That is basically at least $1.0 million in benefit to our city from this effort. So I
37 commend you for the work you are doing. I assume that no native vegetation is going to be
38 removed, is that correct?
39
40 Ms. Della Santina: No native vegetation is going to be removed, no. The building site is all
41 nonnative and we will be adding about 800 square feet of native vegetation within the site.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you very much.
44
45 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Lippert.
46
Page 6
ATTACHMENT F
1 Commissioner Fineberg: I would also like to say that the work that you are doing is fantastic.
2 Having had some limited experience working in greenhouses and now being the proud owner of
3 one for the last month I really understand how important it is to provide those young tender
4 plants the right environment. It is going to make a huge beneficial difference to the quality of
5 your work and the scope of what you can do.
6
7 I do have a few clarifications if I could please. In the Staff Report it is saying that some of these
8 plants are used for habitat restoration along San Francisquito Creek and in the Baylands. So just
9 for clarification the creek part is that within the Baylands or outside the Baylands?
10
11 Ms. Della Santina: It is within the Baylands, yes. we work closely with Darren Anderson, the
12 Senior Ranger, to come up with areas that we work with. So they are all within his jurisdiction.
13
14 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, great. I have a couple of questions about the construction itself
15 of the greenhouse and the sheds. I understand you will be using the black screening over the
16 greenhouse during the months where we have plenty of sunshine to keep it out of the greenhouse
1 7 frankly, and to screen it. Are there going to be times when you are lighting the greenhouse
18 during non-daylight hours? If you are trying to start seeds early and give them a head start is
19 there going to be 15 hours of sunlight when there are maybe 11 hours naturally? Will there be
20 problems at nighttime with a blaringly lit greenhouse without the cover in the winter?
21
22 Ms. Della Santina: That is a good question. There is no lighting that is going to be used for the
23 propagation of the plants. We will be putting in one small light bulb that will be used very rarely
24 on the occasion that I am there after dark trying to get my days work done. That light is going to
25 be maybe a 40-watt bulb but the plants will not be lit up, or the greenhouse will not be lit up.
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: So you will be dependent on daylight.
28
29 Ms. Della Santina: All natural light. So what we are really looking for with the greenhouse is
30 increasing the temperature and that is why we have chosen that polycarbonate because it is more
31 the heat that is going to help with seedling germination.
32
33 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. Then you have talked about using a fan to reduce the
34 temperature from the solar gain. Are those fans noisy and will there be any impact of the fans on
35 the wildlife in the area?
36
37 Ms. Della Santina: The fans are not noisy. It sounds like a regular house fan. They are 16-inch
38 fans and that is required in order to keep air circulation so that we don't have problems with
39 pests and fungus. So the idea of the greenhouse is to have it completely screened from any
40 wildlife getting into it like mice, birds, squirrels, all of that. So the fans won't cause any damage
41 to any of the native wildlife or any wildlife down there.
42
43 Commissioner Fineberg: Are they going to be venting to the exterior though because a lot of
44 greenhouse fans are tremendously noisy?
45
Page 7
ATTACHMENTF
1 Ms. Della Santina: No, we are talking about a 16-inch indoor fan that is approved for use in
2 moist areas. I am sure you have probably seen the swamp coolers that are huge and actually
3 suck air in and out of the greenhouse. We are not going to be doing that. So think more the size
4 of a regular household fan and noise level.
5
6 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. That is it.
7
8 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and Martinez.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple of questions and then I have a couple of minor concerns
11 Ijust want to raise. The first is this a sample of the actual material that you are going to be
12 using?
13
14 Ms. Della Santina: Yes.
15
16 Commissioner Lippert: This, looking at it is not what I am used to in a polycarbonate plastic. In
17 fact I am familiar with ribbed polycarbonate plastic. I do use it on projects and there are two
18 nlain manufacturers that I use Lexan Thermal Clear and then the other one is a material Dugas
19 which is made by Dugas and Rome I think in Germany.
20
21 Ms. Della Santina: Yes, there is a Paul Rome as well which is - I know what you are talking
22 about the clear polycarbonate.
23
24 Commissioner Lippert: This is more the kind of plastic that they use for posting. I guess real
25 estate brokers use them as signs. They come in solid colors as well as clear. I use them as
26 construction signs, as throwaways. The City uses them for posting notices for ARB or IR
27 review. So this is not a very durable material and my concern is especially in the Baylands the
28 durability of the structure.
29
30 Ms. Della Santina: The reason we actually chose this material, we were looking at that pure
31 corrugated polycarbonate I think that you are referring to. It did have a high glare value and we
32 were concerned with that just being near the airport and with the aesthetics. So this is actually a
33 product that is made by a greenhouse company. It has that lower reflective value which would
34 improve the aesthetics of the area. In addition, it is also a somewhat cheaper alternative but it is
35 something that we could easily replace ifit were to yellow or degrade. There is a ten-year
36 warranty on yellow and degrading of this product where we will get more that we can easily
37 reside the greenhouse with, but there were several factors that came to mind when choosing this
38 partiCUlar type of paneling.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: The material comes in a variety of finishes as well as matte "and glossy.
41 So the materials that I am used to using they come both ways. My biggest concern is that you
42 already had a shed that was plastic that was basically visqueen and it was ripped apart out in the
43 bay area. With this I am concerned about panels ripping, tearing, coming loose, and then
44 blowing through the Baylands and then having to retrieve the material.
45
46 Ms. Della Santina: We would retrieve the material.
Page 8
ATTACHMENT F
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: Well, there is a problem. You are next to basically wildlife habitat.
3 Chasing through the wildlife habitat to retrieve pieces of plastic.
4
5 Ms. Della Santina: Right, that has been considered in the construction of the building and the tie
6 downs for the material. In addition the polycarbonate that you are talking about is only single
7 walled so what we are really looking for is to increase the heat and that is what this material
8 provides. It is recyclable and that is one thing that was important for me in choosing this product
9 with the tie downs. Ifwe need to replace a degrading piece of paneling we could easily do that
10 before it starts to degrade and litter the area, and dispose of it and recycle it properly. Again,
11 because of the cost of this material versus the other polycarbonate paneling that you are doing it
12 is something that is in the long-term more realistic as far as being able to afford that.
13
14 Commissioner Lippert: That actually bring us to my second line of questioning which is that
15 there are also polycarbonate materials, which have a UV property, which capture heat and then
16 there are also ones that reflect heat. Did you look at any of those materials?
17
18 Ms. Della Santina: I did. This does have a UV protectant in the plastic itself. So the way that it
19 is double walled actually increases the amount of light and dispersion that we need in the
20 greenhouse. So not only is it UV resistant that is why the company can say that they have a ten
21 year warranty against yellowing and cracking because they have done the UV resistance in the
22 product. So that is why I chose this particular product.
23
24 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then one last line of questioning. Are you platming on heating
25 the greenhouse at all or augmenting it with any ..... ?
26
27 Ms. Della Santina: No heating at all. We are working with the natural sunlight out there and the
28 greenhouse effect.
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: The 40-watt bulb is the heat source? Not any more, we don't allow
31 people to use they have to use a I3-watt. How are you going to handle those periods where we
32 get those terrible January cold snaps? Are just not using it then?
33
34 Ms. Della Santina: Well, we will actually start the propagation of our seeds, the sowing of our
35 seeds, in February, FebruarylMarch. These are native plants so they are used to having this type
36 of stratification. In fact those cold snaps are a part of how they have evolved to survive in the
37 area and in the wild. So we will probably start, each seed has a different time in which it is best
38 sown. So from February to March is when we are going to be doing most of our seed sowing.
39 That is necessary because all of the plants that we sow, all of the seeds that we sow in February
40 and March will be planted out in the Baylands by volunteers in November/December/January of
41 that same year. So that is really the need for the greenhouse is getting the seeds sown and started
42 early so that they have time to grow, to have the amount of roots that they need, and the health
43 and vigor to be planted that same year out at the Baylands so that we are not holding plants over.
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I am going to support the motion and I am not going to make an
46 amendment, but I am going to ask that Staff take a look at this material and compare it to some
Page 9
ATTACHMENTF
1 other materials as well as I think it is important to look at construction details of what the
2 manufacturer recommends in terms of fastening and the size of panels. The last thing I want to
3 see is this building come apart in a windstorm and be blowing through the Baylands. I don't
4 think it is practical nor acceptable to have debris retrieved by humans because something wasn't
5 looked at in terms of the detailing.
6
7 That would be good. Why don't you move that forward to the ARB and maybe those details and
8 the materials can actually come forward at that time with the ARB. That is excellent. Thank you
9 very much Commissioner Keller.
10
11 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez and then Fineberg.
12
13 Commissioner Martinez: Did I read it correctly that you are planning on reusing the concrete
14 slab for the woodshed?
15
16 Ms. Della Santina: No, we are going to be removing the concrete slab that is there. It is broken
17 up, uneven, it is just unusable. We will be recycling that and replacing it with a new concrete
18 slab.
19
20 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, that makes better sense. Are you going to place the new
21 building in the area where the previous building has already disturbed the earth?
22
23 Ms. Della Santina: Yes.
24
25 Commissioner Martinez: The site plan looks like it is kind of canted.
26
27 Ms. Della Santina: Yes, it is turned. Four hundred square feet of the building will be within the
28 same footprint of the existing building. So since our new work shed will be larger it is going to
29 add an additional 225 square feet outside of that existing footprint.
30
31 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, good. Are you going to underground the utilities for electrical
32 so we won't see any overhead lines?
33
34 Ms. Della Santina: No, no overhead lines. Everything is going to be underground for both water
35 and electrical.
36
37 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. Your details on the building section seem a little unorthodox.
38 Like why are you using redwood framing?
39
40 Ms. Della Santina: That is because we are at the Baylands, which is a flood hazard zone. So we
41 are required to be using a water resistant material and that would be redwood or pressure treated
42 wood. Because we are at the Baylands we do not want to use pressure treated wood because of
43 the possible negative effects on the water quality.
44
45 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, that makes good sense.
46
Page 10
;: r.
j) ,:
:i
J
II I!
!I il
i]'
Ii
fl
-1
I ;
ATTACHMENTF
1 Ms. Della Santina: Weare taking the next step and investing in redwood and hoping to find
2 locally salvaged in appropriate shape redwood.
3
4 Commissioner Martinez: Good. The plate line of the roof seems kind of low at six foot, eight
5 inches. When you go inside it is actually initially a little bit lower than six feet. Is that going to
6 be a problem? Isn't it worth raising it six inches or so?
7
8 Ms. Della Santina: Right, so the benches will be around the outside of the greenhouse where we
9 are not concerned about having that height limit. The doors will actually be a bit higher. The
10 reason the profile is so low, the height is so low, is because we were trying to be sensitive to the
11 aesthetics of the area and just the visibility.
12
13 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. Why are you using 5,000 psi concrete?
14
15 Ms. Della Santina: Because the contractor recommended that. I am actually not sure of that
16 question to be honest.
17
18 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, because normal is 2,500 and you have to have a pretty heavy
19 structure to warrant 5,000.
20
21 Ms. Della Santina: Okay.
22
23 Commissioner Martinez: Then along that you show that it looks like you are setting the wall on
24 an existing footing by epoxy doweling into it rather than using anchor bolts. That was also sort
25 of my question.
26
27 Ms. Della Santina: Which building are you talking about?
28
29 Commissioner Martinez: The woodshed.
30
31 Ms. Della Santina: The woodshed. Can you repeat that?
32
33 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. At the footing you show a line, which is a bolt that is drilled into
34 the concrete rather than set into the wet concrete.
35
36 Ms. Della Santina: What we are going to be doing is ~ctually setting in a plate with -excuse me
37 for my not very good construction terminology. The plate is actually going to be sunk into the
38 concrete and then a J -bolt is going to be attached to that plate. The idea of doing that is that we
39 would like to be able to ifnecessary at any point in the future to deconstruct this building and
40 reuse the materials. There will be a footing that is sunk into the concrete before it is dried or
41 there will be a bolt.
42
43 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. The perforated drain that you have around it is for the flooding
44 issue that you raised earlier.
45
Page 11
ATTACHMENT F
1 Ms. Della Santina: Yes, we are actually not going to be doing the perforated drain or the French
2 drain. From our experience with the current building down there there isn't an issue with water
3 drainage. So when the whole Baylands are flooding obviously that area is flooding but we have
4 not found that to be an issue. The irrigation that we are doing is minimal. Again, these are
5 native plants so we are using very little water when you are comparing to maybe an urban
6 landscape. So we are not concerned about having large volumes of water runoff. So I apologize
7 that that is still on the plans that you have. We are not going to be doing the perforated drain.
8
9 Commissioner Martinez: That is okay. Great job. Thank you.
10
11 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Lippert, and then let's get to a vote.
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: I have a question I think might be more for Staff but if you have the
14 knowledge please also. A question about flood considerations given that this is in an AE8
15 Special Flood Zone. Basically FEMA says there could be one percent chance of tidal flooding
16 that the bay would inundate the area with salt water. In residential areas the homes have to be
1 7 raised up out of the floodplain. Are there any requirements for raising the base elevation in
18 sheds and greenhouses or can they be built at grade?
19
20 Ms. Campbell: I think we can let Denise answer that because she spoke at length with Public
21 Works and with Building about this particular issue.
22
23 Ms. Della Santina: Yes, so I do have an answer for that. The use of the redwood paneling was
24 part of the requirements. In addition there are screen or vents along the base of the buildings that
25 will allow appropriate ingress and egress of water so if a flood does come in the water will
26 actually come into the building so it doesn't collapse. So we are compliant with those
27 requirements for the flood hazard area or the Army Corp and City of Palo Alto requirements.
28
29 Conlffiissioner Fineberg: So just to confirm the flood vents are adequate. There is no
30 requirement to raise base elevation.
31
32 Ms. Della Santina: Yes, at least my conversation with Public Works that this was the alternative,
33 either raise it eight feet at the flood zone level or have the water resistant wood with these floor
34 vents. We are doing the redwood and floor vents.
35
36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: In your presentation it showed a different foundation than in your
39 drawings here.
40
41 Ms. Della Santina: Are you talking about either the greenhouse or the shed?
42
43 Comnlissioner Lippert: It showed a foundation that looked almost like a grade beam.
44
45 Ms. Della Santina: A what?
46
Page 12
ATTACHMENT F
1 Commissioner Lippert: A grade beam. The size of it looked pretty ....
2
3 Chair Garber: I believe you are thinking of the greenhouse section that was shown.
4
5 Ms. Della Santina: Let's see here. That is the work shed.
6
7 Chair Garber: I guess I am wrong. I was thinking of the greenhouse but maybe this is what
8 Commissioner Lippert was thinking of.
9
10 Ms. Della Santina: Okay.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: That is the proposed detail for the work shed?
13
14 Ms. Della Santina: Yes it is.
15
16 Commissioner Lippert: The reason you are going with such a deep footing there?
17
18 Ms. Della Santina: Because of the possibility of flooding in the area and the types of swales that
19 are down there, the unconsolidated bay fill soils. So that is why we went with the deeper footing
20 as well as having the six inches of that footing be above the soil grade.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: You know, I am thinking of something and maybe one of the other
23 architects might want to comment on this as well. Just a couple of thoughts that are going
24 around in my head. Number one, these are agricultural buildings. Even though it is a public
25 facility these are agricultural buildings and they need a different standard than most of the
26 buildings that we are used to, houses, etc. This kind of footing or foundation may not be
27 necessary for this type of building. I am thinking in terms of its impact on the environment. The
28 second thing that I am thinking of is that I think Commissioner Martinez made a very good point
29 with regard to the redwood and not using pressure treated copper green lumber. Have you
30 thought about doing a redwood foundation?
31
32 I have come across them in fact in school projects where they go and take a redwood plate, it
33 actually has contact with the soil, they use spikes that go through that and a certain depth into the
34 ground. In fact they have soil screws that they use that connect it to the soil. Then they build a
35 redwood deck or whatever they need on top of that or you just simply build the walls and you do
36 a rat-proof slab of thin slab on grade. Thereby reducing the impacts of these buildings on the
37 environment and they might in fact be a cheaper more durable solution. Then when it is time to
38 leave it is real simple to disassemble and get it out of there.
39
40 Ms. Della Santina: Actually, I do like that idea and I have built greenhouses in the past like that
41 with using a four-by-six redwood post and then putting rebar down two feet into the soil or
42 whatever. I guess the thing that I am up against is having difficulty getting clarity on
43 requirements for this type of building from the Building Department. When I go to the help desk
44 they look at me like what are going? So if anybody has any suggestions for me on how I can
45 really find information like this. If that would be okay for us to build our greenhouse like this we
Page 13
ATTACHMENT F
1 would like to do that. We want to be as minimal impact as possible. I guess I just need to find
2 my way through the Building Department requirements a little better.
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: That is why you hire an architect.
5
6 Ms. Della Santina: Right.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: What I am saying is that there is a section of the Building Code that
9 identifies this as an agricultural building as opposed to an institutional building and the
10 requirements for that are going to be different, number one. I can't believe that there isn't
11 something in the Building Code that talks about redwood foundations because the Office of the
12 State Architects accepts them. They are used for classroom and other outside.
13
14 Chair Garber: Agricultural buildings as you say. Anything else?
15
16 Commissioner Lippert: No. So I think there is a little bit more work to do here. I am not
1 7 terribly impressed by the foundation or the footprint that you are going to be leaving there,
18 particularly the carbon footprint.
19
20 Ms. Della Santina: Yes, and just to clarify as well the greenhouse we are just putting a perimeter
21 foundation and then we will be adding about four inches of base rock in the interior part of the
22 greenhouse floor. So that is not concrete although the shed is planned to have a concrete
23 foundation throughout.
24
25 Chait Garber: Perhaps Commissioner Lippert can follow up afterwards with some other
26 suggestions.
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: I forward those comments to the ARB and Staff can follow up with
29 ARB on that.
30
31 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
32
33 Chair Garber: Commissioners, I think we are ready for a vote. All those in favor of the motion
34 as it has been stated say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? The motion passes unanimously with
35 Commissioners Martinez, Tanaka, Fineberg, Garber, Tuma, Keller, and Lippert voting yea.
36 Thank you very much. Great presel!tation.
Page 14
Attachment G
Save The Bay
Greenhouse and Shed-
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed
Project·
Initial Study
Prepared by
City of Palo Alto
January 14, 2010
Page 1 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Plarining and Community Environment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
·1. PROmCT DESCRIPTION ........................................................ ~ ............................. ~ ....... 3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ..................... 8
A. AE.STHETICS ......................................................................................................... 9
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES .............................................. 10
C. AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................ 11
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 13
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 14
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY ............................................................. 15
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 16
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS' MATERIALS ............................... · .................. 17
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 19
J. LAND USE AND PL.ANNING ............................................................................ 20
K. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 21
L. NOISE ................................ ~ .................................................................................. 21
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................... 22
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 23
O. RECREATION ........ · .............................................................................................. 23
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 24
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 26
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................. 27
III. SOURCE REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 28
IV. DETERMINATION ...................................................................................................... 29
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 2 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Clare Campbell, Planner
City of Palo Alto
650-617-3191
4. PROJEC.T SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
Save The Bay
Denise Della Santina, Nursery Manager
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
09PLN-00224
6. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the most northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara County, east of U.S. Highway 101, as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The project site is
located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (Figure 2), on the northerly side of Embarcadero
Road approximately 1,100 feet north of EmbarcaderolHarbor Road intersection adjacent to the Duck
Pond (Figure 3).
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 3 Initial Study
Figure 1: Regional Map
Figure 2: Palo Alto Baylands
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 4 Initial Study
Figure 3: Vicinity Map
Figure 4: Project Area
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed PageS Initial Study
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The project site is designated as Publicly Owned ConServation Land in the Palo Alto 1.998 -2010
Comprehensive Plan. This land: use. designation Provides for open lands whose primary purpose is the
preservation and enhancement of the natural state of the land and its plants and animals; only
compatible ; resource management~· recreation, and 'educational activities . i1re allowed. The proposed
greenhoriseand shed are appropriate for this land use designation. .
8. ZONING
The project site i~ zoned PF(D), Public Facilities with the Site and Design Review Overlay. The PF
zone district is designed to accotnm.eldate governmental, .public utility, educational, and community
service or recreational facilities. The proposed Use is ·an accessory use to the existing primary park use
and is therefore. permitted in this dlstrict. The Site and Design Review combining district .(D) is
intended to provide a. process . for review and' approval of developme~t ii:t environmentally and
ecolQgically sensitive areas~ including established community areas which may be sensitive,to negative
aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and
development will be· harmonious with other· uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with
environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed greenhouse and shed are appropriate for this zone district. .
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
B.ae.kgr9und
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the Baylands Master Plan, and the draft Baylands Conservation
Plan all highlight the need for protecting and restoring the natural habitat at the Palo Alto Baylands. To
achieve the goals outlined in these plans, the City of Palo Alto formed a partnership with Save the Bay
(the larg~st regional or~zation dedicated to protecting and restoring San Francisco Bay) in 2001. In
2004,' Save the Bay constructed a Native Plailt Nursery at the Baylands to further the' City' sability to
meet their habitat protection goals. .
'According to Save the Bay's monitoring program greenhouse-grown plants, which are larger and
healthier, are better at out-competing non-native weeds and have higher survival rates. There are also
certain· species of plants that have been unable to grow successfully in the nursery. A greenhouse, with
controlled temperature and· humidity, will allow growth of theSe specie's, which is needed ,to meet
restoration· goals. The addition of a greenhouse will improve seed germination 'and plant survival,
prQvide an extended growing season, and provide a facility in which. to apply multiple plant prOpagation
techniques .. Rebuilding the existing aged work shed will provide a sheltered, moisture. and rodent-proof
storage ru::ea for seeds and tools. Curreritly there is no sheltered area for staff, volunteers or school
programs to perform critical plant nursery tasks.
Current Uses by Save The Bay
Currently the project site is used by Save The Bay for propagation of native plants that are used for
habitat restoration along San Francisqulto Creek and other sites at the Palo Alto Baylands. There is a
1,600 square foot shadehouse and 400 square foot storage; these facilities allow Save The Bay to grow
8-10,000 native plants annually that are planted at the B·aylands .
..
The use of the site is limited to a nursery manager working at the nursery 1-2 days a week (9am-5pm).
Volunteer or school education/stewardship programs occur at the Baylands an average of 6 days per
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 6 Initial Study
month, with some events occurring on Saturdays. Programs run three to five hours long,' between the
hours of 8am-4pm. The average attendance is 15-40 participants, including a mix of both kids and
adults. Groups this size work on restoration sites out on the levees ~d rarely make it to the nursery.
Half of the larger programs (approximately 3/month) meet at the parking lot by the athletic field on
Geng Road. Two to three Save The Bay Field Educators pick-up and bring back supplies and plants
before and after programs, total 1-2 hours. A regular nursery volunteer prograllJ. occurs the second
Wednesday of every month with an average of 15 people attending. This is the busiest time at the
nursery~ when volunteers are sowing seeds and transplanting. These regular programs consist mainly of
adults. Special events are limited to an annual Volunteer Appreciation Day. Special events like this take
place at the picnic area by the Ranger's station. Save The Bay coordinates closely with the Baylands
Park Rangers who approve all programs and events in advance. .
The project will no~ cause an increase in the number of nursery or restoration programs, in the number
of staff or volunteers working in the nursery or the vehicular traffic or human use of the areas.
Proposed Project
The Project includes the construction of two structures, a 560 square foot greenhouse and a 625 square
foot shed, limited removal of non-native plants to accommodate the new structures, and the planting of
native piatit material. The footprint of the existing nursery structures (shadehouse and shed) is a total of
. 2,000 square feet. The project is funded by Save The Bay, but the structures will be donated to and
owried by the City of Palo Alto for the purpose of providing' additional infrastructure for habitat
restoration at the Baylands.
Greenhouse: The proposed 560 square foot greenhouse will be 20 feet wide by 28 fe~t long by 8.5 feet
high. The building materials include redwood framing and clear polycarbonate paneling. The
greenhouse will have a gable roof. The foundation will consist of a one foot deep concrete footing along
the perimeter of the buildiitg with a base rock floor.
Work shed: The 400 square foot existing shed will be removed and salvaged, and the new work shed
will be placed over the current concrete floor footprint of the old shed. The proposed 625 square foot
redwood work shed will be 25 feet wide by 25 feet long by 8.5 feet high. The foundation will consist of
a 6rte foot deep concrete foundation along the floor of the building.
Landscape: Approximately 600 square feet of non-native vegetation, primarily salt bush, will be
removed· to accommodate the new greenhouse structure. The ·project includes adding local native
vegetation in various locations in the project area, totaling approximately 800 square feet. The goals of
the new landscaping.are to' increase wildlife habitat, screen facilities from public view, and provide a
native plant demonstration garden on display for educational purposes.
Palo Alto Review Requirements
The project requires Site and Design review by the City of Palo Alto and requires conformance with the
designated zoning and Comprehensive Plan polices. In addition to these requirements, the project must
also be in conformance with the Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan and related design guidelines.
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 7 Initial Study
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The project site is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve and is adjacent to the bay and
Duck Pond. Other than passive recreational uSes in the immediate vicinity, there is a small-scale airport
operated by the County of Santa Clara and.the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
Not applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is r~quired for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
. answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards (e. g. the project will not. expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
.. project-specific screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,. including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
-impacts.. " .
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or
less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR.is required.
4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pUrsuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 8 Initial Study
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the -mitigation measures which were incorporated or refmed from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to ,information sources for
potential impacts (e.g~ general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference -to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to th~ page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if-any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if th~
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checldistlists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer'
and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentl,!Uy Less Than No
Resourees Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual 1,2,5,7,8 X
character or quality of the site and its
SUl'(oundings?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1, 2-Map L4, X
public view or view corridor? 5, 7,8
c) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1, 2-Map L4, X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock 5
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2,5 X
policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantial light or 1,5 X
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? I
f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,5 X
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m and 3:00
-p.rn. from September 21 to March 21 ?
DISCUSSION:
This project is subject to Site and Design review, which is intended to provide a process for review and
approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in order to assure that use and
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 9 Initial Study
development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental
and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Baylands
Master Plan ..
The new structures will have a low profile, with the heights not exceeding 8.5 feet. The greenhouse will be
constructed with redwood framing and clear polycarbonate paneling. With the exception of winter time, the
greenhouse will be covered by a light transmitting black shade to reduce glare and visibility. The shed will also
be constructed with redwood. In order to minimize the visual impacts of the project, new plant material will be
installed to screen the public views from the Duck Pond. The existing bushes in the immediate project area
would provide additional screening of the, new structures. The existing· shadehouse is actively used and is
currently visible from various vantages around the Duck Pond area. The added vegetation will provi·de visual
screening for both the new structures and the existing shadehouse. As the plantings mature, the project will be
sufficiently screened so as not to create a significant visual impact.
The project shall undergo the Site and Design review, as required by the City of Palo Alto, to address any
potential visual impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
In determinirig whether impacts to· forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 1 X
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-MapL9 X
c)
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause 'I X
rezoning of, forest land (as dermed in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)l) or
I PRC l2220(g): "Forest land" is land that can support lO-percent native tree cover of any species, including
hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including
timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 10 Initial Study
I
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sour.c:es Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
MItigation
Incorporated
timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 452621?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion 1 X
offorest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing 1 X
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion offorest land to non-forest use?
DISCUSSION:
The project area is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide
Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson
Act. The project has no impacts on forest or timberland.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
c. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
SlgnlDcant SlgnlDcant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
. Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation 1,5 X
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute t"
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational 1,5 X
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), .reactive organic gases (RaG), and
fine particulate matter ofless than 10
microns in diameter (PM1O);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,5 X
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
2 PRC 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated
by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any
commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial
species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and
others.
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 11 Initial Study
!
I
1 ~I
I
[
I
l
Issues and Supporting Infornultion Resources Sources Potentially' Potentially Less Than No
Signifitant Signifttant Signifieant Impad
Would the project: Issues Unless Impaet
MItigation
Incorporated
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour{ as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be perfonned when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pouncls per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,5 X
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantiallev~ 1,5 X
of toxic air contaminants?
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1,5 X
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) ;
exceeds 10 in one million
ii. around-level concentrations of non-1,5 X
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (I) for the
MEl
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 1,5 X
t)
substantial number of people?
Not implement all applicable construction 1,5 X
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minimal construction activity and therefore will not conflict with any applicable
air quality plans, expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants, nor add any objectionable odors to the
vicinity. Palo Alto is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD); this regional agency regulates air pollutant emissions from stationary sources and through its
planning and review process. All development in Palo Alto is subject to the BAAQMD regulations.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 12 Initial Study
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Jmpaet
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1,2-MapN1, X
directly or through habitat modifications, on 5,6
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
, plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1,2-MapN1, X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 5,6
community identified in local 'or regional plans,
policies, regulations, including federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of 1,2~MapN1, X
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 5,6
species or with established native resident or . ~ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2,3,4,5,6 X
e)
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defmed by the City of
Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.10)?
Conflict with any applicable H~bitat 1,5,6 X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
The Baylands contains sensitive biological resources, including federal and state protected wetlands, federal and
state endangered salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) and California clapper rail (CCR), and nesting habitat for
birds in the Migratory Bird Sanctuary, including a heron and egret rookery within the project vicinity. The
project will have no long tenn direct or indirect impacts on sensitive wildlife, vegetation or wetland resources.
The project site is approximately 120 feet northwest of an active egret and heron rookery that exists in a grove
of palm trees near the duck pond and parking lot. Species observed to nest at this heron rookery are snowy egret
(Egretta thula) and black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). These species prefer to nest in densely
leaved trees. Foraging occurs in tidal sloughs in the project vicinity. These species have no designation as
"Special Status" (Endangered, Threatened, or Species of Concern) at either the state or federal level. They are
protected from take or capture under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In 2009, herons and egrets were, first
observed by Save The Bay staff in the project vicinity on March 17. These birds left the site and returned in
early June and began breeding. July 2009, nine pairs of black-crowned night herons were breeding in the
Eucalyptus trees above the bathroom and at the driveway entrance to the duck pond about 600 feet from the
project site. These birds did not seem impacted by cars, public use, or the feeding of hundreds of ducks nearby
and successfully fledged young.
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 13 Initial Study
There is potential for temporary indirect impact to species (primarily snowy egret and black crowned night
heron) from noise, ground vibration, and/or dust generated from the use of construction equipment. This impact
would be temporary and minimal. Heavy equipment use is limited to trenching for greenhouse foundation (one
day) and trenching for electricaVwater lines (one day) and trenching for work shed foundation (one day). Other
construction noise will be from electric and non-electric hand tools (4 days for greenhouse construction and 10
days for work shed construction). .
The removal of up to 600 square feet of upland non-native vegetation (specifically the non-native salt bush)
could potentially have a temporary indirect impact on nesting and foraging habitat for bird species. The existing
surrounding vegetation within the project vicinity is adequate to support sensitive bird species until the new
landscaping matures (2-5 years). Post-construction landscaping of the project site and adjacent tidal marsh with
native plants (approximately 800 square feet) will increase wildlife potential of .the site and have a positive
direct effect on these species. The following mitigation measures shall be iinplemented by Save The Bay to
reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level:
Mitigation Measures:
Bio Resources~l: To avoid or minimize impacts to nesting herons and egrets and chicks, all construction
related activities shall not begin until July or August, at the earliest, when the chicks are large enough that they
can thenno-regulate themselves and until construction is approved by the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory
(SFBBO) after nests have been monitored. However, since late nesting attempts may extend beyond these
dates, a qualified biologist from SFBBO will confirm that herons and egrets are no longer occupying the colony
site or that disturbance will not impact successful breeding before construction begins.'
Bio Resources~2: During construction, no trees or tree roots shall be disturbed or removed in order to protect
perching and roosting habitat for the snowy egret and black crowned night heron rookery,
Bio Resources .. 3: Protective tree fencing, per the Tree Technical Manual, for all trees in the project vicinity
sh~ll be required for the duration of the construction activities.
Bio Resources .. 4: Removal of vegetation shall be limited to only the amount necessary for the new facility's
footprint, but no more than 600 ~quare feet.
Bio Resources-5: Protective fencing shall be placed outside of the root zone/drip line of all vegetation (other
than trees) in the project vicinity for the duration of the construction activities.
Significance after Mitigation: Less Than Significant
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tban No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,10 X
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2 .. MapLS X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2-MapLS X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-MapLS X
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 14 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
interred .outside of formal cemeteries?
e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-MapL7, X
eligible for listing on the National and/or 10
California Register, or listed on the City's ~
HistoIic Inventory?
f) Eliminate important examples of major periods 1 X
of California history or prehistory?
D~SCUSSION:
There are no identified cultural resources within the project vicinity. Approximately 400 feet to the southeast is
the Harbor Master's Cottage, which was ·designated as a local Point of Historic Interest in 1969. It is on the
City's Historic Resources Inventory as a Category 2 resource which is defined as, A "Major Building of
regional importance." The Harbor Master's Cottage is used and maintained as a city facility. The project does
not impact this historic, resource.
For all projects, if during grading and construction activities,' any archaeological or human remains are
encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the fmd. The
Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office shall be notified to provide pioper direction on how to proceed.
If any Native American resources are encountered during construction,· construction shall cease immediately
Wltil a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of
California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation
planning.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
F GEOLOGY SOILS AND SEISMICITY • ,
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
MItigation
Incorporated
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 11 X
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology, Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-MapNI0 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 2-MapNS X
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? 2-MapNS X .'
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 15 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 1 X
of topsoil?
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 2-MapN5 X
unstable, . or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? .
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 2-MapN5 X
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
t) Have soils incapable of adequately 1 X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major 1,5 X
geologic ha:zards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
Generally, the City of Palo Alto would experience a range from weak to very violent shaking in.the event of a
major earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward fault.· Although hazards· exist, development would not
expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be addressed through the use of standard
engineering design and seismic. safety techniques, as required by building codes. The proposed project is
located within an area that has been identified as having high potential for liquefaction and strong ground
shaking. With the proper engineering, new development is not expected to result in any significant adverse short
or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
MItigation
Incorporated
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 1,5 X
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Contlict with any applicable plan, policy or 1,5 X
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 16 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
While the state of California has established programs to reduce GHG, there are no established standards for
gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide any
methodology for analysi$ of greenhouse gases. Given the "global" . scope of global climate change, the challenge
under CEQA is for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to the level ofa CEQA document for a specific
project in a way that is meaningful to the decision making process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are
whether a project creates or contributes to an environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the
environment in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts.,
Although greenhouse gas emissions generated by development projects in the City of Palo Alto, as allowed
under the Comprehensive Plan, would cumulatively contribute to. global climate change, the City's regulations
supports development while preserving and conserving natural areas. In addition, the City has l1dopted green
building regulations that apply to all development projects, residential and otherwise, which further facilitates
the reduction of the GHG emissions of all projects. Although the proposed project is small in scope, it does
include salvaging and reusing the existing building materials to the greatest extent possible, installation of a rain
water harvesting system, and planting native local vegetation.
In an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to conform with the CEQA
Guidelines [§ 16064(b)], it is the City's position that, based on the nature and size of this project, the proposed
project would not impede the state's ability to reach the emission reduction limits/standards' set forth by the
State of California by Executive OrderS-3-05, AB 32 and the City's Climate Protection Plan. For these reasons,
this project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with
greenhouse gas emissions. As such, impacts are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and SlItetv if the
ltd b' th th h d t' I primary lSSUes are re a e toa su yecto er an azan ous ma ena use .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources . Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Slgnlftcant Significant Signlftcant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 X
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 X
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,5 X
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,5 X
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list 1,9 X
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 17 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Slgnifitant Impad.
Would the proJe~t: Issues Unless Impad
Mitigation
Incorporated
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to' Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
t) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where ' such a plan has not been
1,5 X
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
h) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2·MapN7 X
i)
j)
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan ()r emergency evacuation pIau?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-MapN7 X
oftoss, ~jury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 X
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project falls within the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Plan due to the
proximity of the' Palo Alto Airport. Although new structures will be built, there will not be an increase in the
intensity of use by Save The Bay. All programs and events are to continue as they have been. The proposed
project is minor in scope and-does not involve the use, creation or transportation of hazardous materials. The
project site is not located along a designated evacuation route or located within ,or llear the wildland fIre danger
area. The proposed project would not create new impacts with regard to public safety, hazards and hazardous
materials.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 18 Initial Study
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources . Sources Potentially Potentially 'Less Than No
Significant Significant Signiflcant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
MItigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2,5 X
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 2-MapN2 X
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a 1evel which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which pennits have
been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the .existing drainage pattern 1,5 X
. of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,5 X
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,5 X
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runof'fl
t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X
g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard 2-MapN6 X
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area 2-MapN6 X
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 2-MapNS X
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam or being located within a IOO-year
flood hazard area?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudfloW? 2-MapN6 X
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minimal construction activities and is not anticipated to create any new
hydrology and water quality impacts. All development is required to comply with building codes that address
flood safety issues. Development projects are required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 19 Initial Study
construction activities as specified by the CalifomiaStorm Water Best Management Practices Handbook
(CASQA, 2003) and/or the Manual of Standards for Erosion and, Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995).
The BMPs include measures guiding the management and operation of construction sites to control and
minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to storm runoff from these areas. These measures address
procedures for controlling erosion and. sedimentation and managing all aspects of the construction process to
ensure control of potential water pollution sources. All development projects must cQmply with all City, State
and Federal standards pertaining to storm water run-off and water quality.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially. Po~entially Less Than NQ
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,5 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1,2,3,4,5 X
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2 X
conservation plan or natural community .
conservation plan?
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,5 X·
intensity of ex;isting or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,5 X
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
t) Conflict. with established residential, 1,5 X
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
use's of an area?
g) Convert prime fannland; unique fannland, or 1,2,3 X
farmland of statewide importance (fannland) to
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed construction and on-going use of the nursery facility does not impact the existing land uses at the
Baylands. The purpose and function of the project is fully supported by City policies and programs. The
improvements are intended to enhance the existing facility and are. not 'anticipated to create any land use
impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 20 Initial Study
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
MItigation
Incorporated
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 1,2
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? ..
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-1,2
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? I
I
. DIS'CUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of
Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-l). This designation signifies that there
are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is
no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there ate locally or regionally valuable mineral resources
within the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
L. NOISE
X
X
Issues an~ Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2,12 X
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 1,2,12 X
excessive grouiid borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2,12 X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2,12 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use 1 X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1 X
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 21 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tban No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1 X
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 1 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1 X
thai150 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
1) Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,12 X
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
DISCUSSION:
All development, including construction activities, must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (P AMC
Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction actiVity. Short
term temporary construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected
to be less than significant. .
Mitigation Measures: None Required
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tban No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial population growth in an 1 X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 1 X
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 1 X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1 X
employed residents and jobs?
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1 X
population projections?
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 22 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project of building a greenhouse and work shed is to support existing uses at the Baylands; it does
not encourage new development and therefore will not cre.ate any new population and housing impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
SignlOcant SignlOcant SignlOcant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered goveimnental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant enviromnental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Frre protection? 1 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project of building a greenhouse and work shed is to support existing uses at the Baylands. It does
not encourage population growth and developmen:t and is not anticipated to generate new users as to create
impacts to the existing public services provided by the City.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
O. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Signitlcant Significant Slgnltleant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of 1 X
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational 1 X
facilities or requrre the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 23 Initial Study
!
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project of building a greenhouse and work shed is to support existing uses at the Baylands. It does
not encourage population growth and development in the City and is not anticipated to generate new users as to
create impacts to the existing City recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Slgnlfieant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
. . Incorporated
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing 1,5 X
circulation system, based on an applicable
measure of effectiveness (as designated in a
general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking
into account all relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited
to intersections, streets, bighways and
·fteeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict With an applic~ble congestion 1,5 X
management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management/agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,5 X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,5 X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incorilpatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,5 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,5 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or . 1,2,5 X
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,5 X
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 24 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially ,Potentially Less Than No Impact
SignUicant Significant Signltlcant
Would the project: .,' Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
i) Cause a:local intersection already ,operating at 1,5 X
LOS H or F to deteriorate in the 'average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,5 X
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1,5 X
or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of
, segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,5 X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause 'queuing impacts based on a 1,5 X
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at turn lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback Queues on ramps.
n) Impede the development or function of 1,5 X
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) , Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,5 X
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION: "
The proposed project of building a greenhouse and work shed is to support existing uses at the Baylands; there
is no proposed increase in the intensity of use of the nursery facility and therefore the project is not anticipated
to create traffic, transportation or parking impacts.
Mitigation: None Required
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 25 Initial Study
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 1,5 X
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new 1,5 ' . X
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new 1,5 X
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to 1,5 X
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,5 X
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 1,5 X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1,5 X
and regulations related to solid waste?
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,5 X
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project does not encourage growth and development and therefore no increase in the demand on
existing utilities and service systems or impacts to these services are expected.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 26 Initial Study
i
\ .. '
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resour.:es Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the projed: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to 1,2,3A,7,lO X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to el4ninate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are .1 X
c)
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (''Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable futur~ projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects 1,5 X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed greenhouse and shed are minor in scope and are not intensifying the existing nursery activities at
the Baylands. The project is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts on humans and sensitive animal and
plant species. As discussed in the Biological Resources section, with the outlined mitigations implemented, this
project does not impact sensitive wildlife or plant habitats. The project's cumulative impacts are limited to the
GHG emissions. A project of this minor scope is not anticipated to create cumulatively considerable impacts of
any other nature. See the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section for further discussion.
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 27 Initial Study
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance
4. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
5. Project Plans/Project Description provtded by Save The Bay .
6 .. Biotic Resources Report, Prepared by Denise Della Santina & Darcie Collins, December 2009
7. Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan .
8. Sit~ Assessment and Design Guidelines, Palo Alto Baylands
9. Cortese List Data Resources (http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/CorteseListldefault.htm)
10. Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory .
11. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
12. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10-Noise Ordinance
ATTACHMENTS
A. Project Plans
B. Biotic Resources Report, Prepared by Denise Della Santina & Darcie Collins, December 2009
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed Page 28 Initial Study
'DETERMINATION
On the ba~is of this initiAl evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have :a significant efted on the
enviJJ9nDl(Ult, and a NEGATIVE, DECLARATION "lIl be pr.epayed~
I Ond thatalthqugh the. p'ropo$ed project ~o·uld· have a significant effect on. ,the
. 'environment" tJie.re wiIltot be· a slgnifi(ant ·effe·ctin this. case beca.u5e reviliQIlS in the
project have b'eenmade IlY' or agr~ed .to :by the project .proponent. A MITIGATED X
NE.GATIVE DECL~ TIO~ 'wUl b.e pr~pat~(I.
l rUld that thepr.opo.se.d proJeet MAY bave l\ signiftc'int effeot on the en-vironment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fwd that the proposed project MAY have a "potentiaUy significant impact" or
(tpot¢utially significant unless mitigated;' impact Qil t~e eJlVlronii ... ~nt". but at· least one
;effect: t)has been adequ3tely analyzed in an eatHer document'pursu:ant to appJIc.able legal
:standard.; and '2) has. been addressed 'by'mitigatioD measures b·ased·oD the· earlier analysis
'as des'cdbed on attached::sl1e~ts. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 'REPORT:is required,.
butl! 'niust 'K:ualyz¢: oniythe eff~¢ts tlI.t rent_hi to. b¢ it.d'd.t~.ecL
I. tln.d· th'a,ta}t:h.U.gh thepropose(l project '';:0\114 b'~ve a. 'ignitieant· etlect on the
environment,. because aU potentiallysignitlcant effects .(8:) have been analyzed adequately.
in' an earlier EIR or-NEGATIVE DECLARA TIONpursuant to applleable 'standards, .and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pu.rsuant to that e.arHer EIaQr' NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, .inl:l.uding revisioni o.r wJtigation measures tbat. are. 'imposed upon the
proposed proj'eet,nnthing. further is required.
0\--\4-\0
Date
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST 1RA t WE HAVE REVIEWED'THIS
INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MITI'GATED NEGATIVE DECLARATlON AND AGREE TO
IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINEDHEREIN~
1/13/10
Applicant's Signature Date
Save The Bay Gre.enhouse and Shed Page 29 Initial Study
DRAFT ADOPTED ON : ____ A_T_"T_A_C_H_M_E_NT D
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: January 14,2010
Project Name:
Project Location:
Applicant:
Owner:
Project Description:
Save The Bay Greenhouse and Shed
The project site is located in the most northern section of the City of
Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of U.S.
Highway 101. The project site is located within the Palo Alto Baylands
Nature Preserve, on the northerly side of Embarcadero Road
approximately 1,100 feet north of Enlbarcadero/Harbor Road
intersection adjacent to the Duck Pond.
Save The Bay
Denise DellaSantina, Nursery Manager
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
The Project includes the construction of a new 560 square foot greenhouse and a 625 square foot
shed (replacing the existing 400 square foot shed) adjacent to the existing Duck Pond. The
project involves minimal removal of non-native vegetation (maximum 600 square feet) to
accommodate the new structures; existing trees are not impacted.
Currently the project site is used by Save The Bay for propagation of native plants that are used
for habitat restoration along San Francisquito Creek and other sites at the Palo Alto Baylands.
There is a 1,600 square foot shadehouse and 400 square foot storage; these facilities allow Save
The Bay to grow 8-10,000 native plants annually that are planted at the Baylands.
II. DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procedures for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the
basis of that study, the City makes the following determination:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and,
therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
envirorunental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required
for the project.
In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project:
Bio Resources-I: To avoid or minimize impacts to nesting herons and egrets and chicks, all
construction related activities shall not begin until July or August, at the earliest, when the chicks
are large enough that they can thermo-regulate themselves and until construction is approved by
the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory (SFBBO) after nests have been monitored. However,
since late nesting attempts may extend beyond these dates, a qualified biologist from SFBBO
will confirm that herons and egrets are no longer occupying the colony site or that disturbance
will not impact successful breeding before construction begins.
Bio Resources-2: During construction, no trees or tree roots shall be disturbed or removed in
order to protect perching and roosting habitat for the snowy egret and black crowned night heron
rookery.
Bio Resources-3: Protective tree fencing, per the Tree Technical Manual, for all trees in the
project vicinity shall be required for the duration of the construction activities.
Bio Resources-4: Removal of vegetation shall be limited to only the amount necessary for the
new facility's footprint, but no more than 600 square feet.
Bio Resources-5: Protective fencing shall be placed outside of the root zone/drip line of all
vegetation (other than trees) in the project vicinity for the duration of the construction activities.
~Q ~rOject Planner
cn-\4-\O
Date
Adopted by City Council, Attested by Date
Director of Planning and Community Environment
Signed after the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been approved
Page 2 of2