HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7738
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7738)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/3/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Direction on Cal Ave Parking Garage Size
Title: Council Direction on the Parking and Retail Program and Related
Zoning Changes Needed for the Public Parking Garage Component of the
Public Safety Building and New California Avenue Parking Garage Project at
250 Sherman Avenue and 350 Sherman Avenue, Respectively
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Direct staff to proceed with full preliminary design on a new 522-space
parking garage concept with four levels of above-ground parking, one level
of basement parking and no retail space, (i.e. California Avenue Parking
Garage Option 3), and to design enhancements to the Birch Street frontage
that will create an appealing interface between the garage and the
pedestrian sidewalk, with the Council discussion serving the purpose of a
prescreening preliminary review.
2. Direct staff to prepare revisions to the Public Facility (PF) zoning ordinance
to specifically accommodate public parking garages.
Executive Summary
Construction of a new Public Safety Building (PSB) is the top infrastructure priority
for Palo Alto. The selected site requires replacement of existing surface parking in
a neighborhood with chronic parking deficiencies. Staff requests Council direction
on the size of a new parking garage adjacent to the PSB. Community feedback
appears to strongly support maximizing stall count over having a retail
component along Birch Street. The staff recommendation incorporates this
sentiment while also limiting costs by eliminating one basement parking level. In
lieu of retail, the design of the new garage could include architectural elements
City of Palo Alto Page 2
on the Birch Street frontage to activate the street frontage.
The existing Public Facility (PF) zoning of the garage site does not fit typical
commercial area parking structure concepts (e.g. setbacks, lot coverage, etc.).
Modification of the PF Zoning Ordinance specifically for parking structures is
recommended and would also benefit the proposed new garage on Downtown
Parking Lot D in the University Avenue area. An alternative would be to require
rezoning the public parking garage sites to Planned Community (PC) zone. (NOTE:
By discussing possible approaches to this zoning issue, tonight’s discussion is
intended to meet the requirement for “pre-screening” contained in Municipal
Code Section 18.79.)
Background
In December 2015, Council directed staff to begin design for a 3-story Public
Safety Building (PSB) on Parking Lot C-6 in the California Avenue business district
(CMR 6069) and a new parking garage, with a stand-alone retail building along
Birch Street, on Parking Lot C-7. The new parking garage is intended to replace
the existing surface parking on Lots C-6 and C-7 while adding a minimum of 160
new parking stalls (460 total stalls). The PSB and California Avenue area parking
garage projects are part of the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. The direction
from Council included a request for analysis of costs and other impacts for
possible options to provide more than the minimum 460 parking stalls.
In June 2016, Council authorized a contract with Nova Partners, Inc. (Nova) to
provide program management services for the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan
projects (CMR 6809). Nova assisted with developing the project delivery plan,
preliminary schedule and scope of work for procuring design, and environmental
review services for the PSB and garage.
In December 2016, Council authorized a contract with RossDrulisCusenbery
Architecture, Inc. (RDC) for design and environmental review services for the
Public Safety Building Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project PE-15001 and
the California Avenue Parking Garage CIP project PE-18000. The contract with
RDC includes preparation of environmental documents, schematic designs, design
development packages, and construction documents for a new PSB and parking
garage (CMR 7417). One of the first steps in the design and environmental review
process was to develop parking garage options that would provide more than 460
City of Palo Alto Page 3
spaces, and to bring these options to Council for direction.
Discussion
Parking Garage Options: Space Counts and Costs
Following the award of contract to RDC, several options for increasing the size of
the garage were developed. Three primary options evolved from the effort, and a
fourth resulted from public input at the March 8, 2017 community meetings.
1. 471 space garage with two basement levels and three above-ground levels
with retail space and a net increase of 129 spaces (This is the baseline
option as selected by Council in December 2015).
2. 552 space garage with two basement levels and four above-ground levels
with retail space and a net increase of 210 spaces.
3. 522 space garage with one basement level and four above ground levels
with no retail space, for a net increase of 200 spaces.
3A. 636 space garage with two basement levels and four above ground levels
with no retail space, for a net increase of 314 spaces.
Beyond comparing the existing number of spaces in Lots C-6 and C-7 to the
number of spaces in the future new garage, there are two other factors that must
be considered in determining the net number of new spaces. The Feasibility
Study presented to Council in December 2015 assumed that the 12 visitor spaces
for the PSB would be on the PSB site (Lot C-6). Preliminary design work for the
PSB determined that the PSB site area originally considered for visitor parking was
needed for other functions, and relocated the 12 visitor spaces to the public
parking garage. (These spaces would not be marked as dedicated to PSB visitor
use.) Additionally, Options 1 and 2 include an approximately 4,700 square feet
retail building. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.52.040 requires that retail
spaces provide one parking space for each 240 square feet of gross floor area.
The 4,700 square feet of retail space results in a need for 20 parking spaces.
Table 1 shows the calculations for the net parking added by each option.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Table 1
Baseline
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 3A
Total stalls in garage 471 552 522 636
- Existing surface 310 310 310 310
- Retail demand 20 20 0 0
- PSB visitors 12 12 12 12
Net Added Parking Stalls 129 210 200 314
All of the garage options have some common features. They all have a small
pedestrian arcade along Jacaranda Lane behind 321 California Avenue (currently
Antonio’s Nut House). The arcade links up to the midblock pedestrian walkway
between Jacaranda Lane and California Avenue beside 361 California Avenue
(currently Starbucks). The options all have the same vehicle entrance and exit
location along Sherman Avenue approximately 90 feet west from the corner of
Birch Street to the center of the driveway. Another common feature of all options
is a wide sidewalk along Ash Street that would be partially underneath the second
level of the structure, improving the pedestrian experience and potentially
providing a public art opportunity.
Mechanical parking was not considered for this garage. Parking demand typically
peaks around lunchtime and dinnertime and is short term. Mechanical parking
does not accommodate this type of peak parking demand very well. Building
height restrictions also limit the efficiency of most mechanical and robotic parking
concepts.
It is anticipated that all options would support the installation of Photovoltaic (PV)
panels over the top deck of the parking structure. Conceptually, this PV could be
used to help power the adjacent PSB or it could be installed, owned, and
operated via a public-private partnership with an agreement similar to the one
executed with Komuna Palo Alto LLC for 4 existing City garages (CMR 6535).
Funding for PV panels is not included in the project cost estimates. Public Works
and Utilities staff are discussing options for funding this component of the
project.
Table 2 provides the project cost estimates for the four options. The estimates
include soft and hard construction costs, but do not include staff salaries and
City of Palo Alto Page 5
benefits.
Table 2 ($ in million)
Option 1* Option 2* Option 3 Option 3A
Total stalls in garage 471 552 522 636
Construction Cost $20.9 $23.4 $18.6 $25.4
Escalation $2.1 $2.3 $1.9 $2.5
10% Contingency $2.3 $2.6 $2.0 $2.8
Soft and Other Costs $3.8 $3.9 $3.7 $4.0
Total Project Cost $29.0 $32.2 $26.2 $34.8
Cost per Stall $0.062 $0.058 $0.050 $0.055
* The retail building included in Options 1 and 2 could be expected to generate annual net
operating income of approximately $150,000 if rented at market rates.
Option 3 has a significantly lower cost because it requires excavation for only a
single basement level. Basement levels are significantly more expensive than
above-ground levels, and the cost per space for each successively lower basement
level increases significantly.
Community Meetings
The conceptual plans and renderings of these options were presented to the
public at two community meetings on March 8, 2017. One community meeting
was held in the morning and the second in the evening. The presentation
materials are included as Attachment A and are posted to the project website
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicsafetybldg). Attachment B is a summary of
public comments and initial staff responses noted during the meetings. The
preliminary massing and design information shown on Attachment A serve to
illustrate the proposal and should not be considered final or proposed formal
designs. Based on the City Council’s comments on this staff report, a more fully
developed design proposal will be developed for code compliance review and
environmental and architectural review.
An immediate outcome of the meetings was to add Option 3A which is simply
Option 3 with two basement levels of parking rather than only one level. Option
3 and Option 3A would look identical above-ground. Option 3A would have a
higher cost and a higher stall count due to the second basement level. Option 3A
was added during the morning meeting because of the immediate community
City of Palo Alto Page 6
feedback that the parking garage should provide as much parking as possible. The
sentiment towards building retail space with the garage was mixed. There were
many positive comments made about the retail, but most favored more parking
instead.
The morning meeting on March 8, 2017 had approximately 33 attendees. At the
end of the meeting an informal vote was conducted by allowing attendees to
place stickers on the renderings. The majority of attendees at the morning
meeting placed positive (green) stickers showing their preference for Option 3A
(which would look identical to Option 3). Option 1 received the most negative
(red) stickers. Option 2 received mostly yellow stickers to indicate that it was the
second most preferred choice.
The evening meeting had 7 attendees. The majority of attendees at the evening
meeting placed positive (green) stickers showing their preference for Option 2.
Option 3 and 3A received the most negative (red) stickers. Option 1 received
mostly yellow stickers.
A significant community concern about the PSB and California Avenue Garage
project expressed at the March 8 meetings and at previous meetings is mitigating
the loss of parking during construction. Staff has committed to phase the
construction of the project so that the parking garage construction will be
completed before PSB construction begins. This approach avoids simultaneously
losing the parking on both current surface lots (C-6 and C-7). Additionally, staff
has committed to developing a robust parking mitigation program during the
parking garage construction. Ideas include partnering with the County
Courthouse and Caltrain, shuttles, strictly enforcing limits on contractor parking,
and valet parking.
Public Facility (PF) Zoning Ordinance Revisions
The PSB meets the PF zoning requirements applicable to the Lot C-6 site. None of
the California Avenue Parking Garage options, however, can comply with PF
zoning requirements for lot coverage, floor area ratio (FAR), and setbacks that are
intended to apply to occupied buildings rather than parking structures. These
zoning constraints were described in the 2015 Feasibility Study in its description
of parking garage options. In addition, current zoning includes a height limit of 35
feet within a 150 feet radius of residential zoning. Otherwise, the 50 feet height
City of Palo Alto Page 7
limit applies. A portion of the proposed parking garage is within 150 feet of
residential zoning. For options 2, 3, and 3A, the safety railing on the top floor of
the garage would exceed 35 feet in height by about 1.5 feet. Planning and
Community Environment Department staff are evaluating whether the 35 feet
height limit applies to a parking garage railing that will likely use cables and be
transparent. The PV canopy for options 2, 3, and 3A would have a height of about
43 feet.
To proceed with the parking garage project, the Lot C-7 parcel will require
rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) zone or adoption of an ordinance
modifying the text of the zoning code to allow the proposed facility within the PF
zone.
The existing parking garage at 475 Cambridge Avenue is zoned PF and was built in
1968. The garage at 275 Cambridge Avenue (built in 1994) and the two newest
Downtown garages (built in 2003) are zoned PC. The existing Comprehensive Plan
includes Program L-78 “Encourage the use of PC zoning for parking structures in
the Downtown and California Avenue areas.” However, concern has been
expressed by community members and Council about PC zoning in recent years.
PC zoning was placed on “time out” in 2014, and may be replaced or significantly
revised in the future. Therefore, staff recommends pursuing a modification to the
text of the zoning ordinance to allow construction of the public parking garage in
the PF zone instead. This approach would also benefit the proposed new garage
on Downtown Parking Lot D. The PF zoning ordinance modifications would
consist of at least the following new provisions:
• Zero setbacks for public parking structures along site property boundaries.
• Height limits for public parking structures that reflect adjacent commercial
properties allowances unless single-family residential is within 150 feet
of the property.
• Elimination of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) restrictions for public parking
structures.
• Elimination of lot coverage restrictions for public parking structures.
Upon Council direction to pursue PF zoning ordinance modifications, staff would
prepare the code revisions and initially review the changes with the Planning and
Transportation Commission before returning to City Council for approval.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Project Costs and 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan
The 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan established the following budgets for the
PSB and California Avenue Garage projects:
1. Public Safety Building (PE-15001), $57 million
2. California Avenue Garage (PE-18000), $9.6 million
The PSB cost estimate of $57 million was developed in 2012, and the California
Avenue Garage estimate of $9.6 million was developed in 2013 using the current
Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fee at that time. Construction costs have escalated
significantly since 2012 and 2013, and project costs for most of the Infrastructure
Plan projects are increasing as a result. The current project cost estimate for the
PSB is $75.3 million. The PSB cost estimate is still under development, and staff is
evaluating opportunities to reduce the cost of the project. As described in Table 2
above, the project cost estimates for the California Avenue Garage options
described in this report range from $26.2 to $34.8 million. (It is important to note
that the garage estimates are not comparable to the 2013 estimate, as the project
scope now includes replacing the existing parking on two surface parking lots
rather than only the lot on which the garage will be constructed, and the baseline
option that provides the original number of additional parking spaces also
includes the retail building component.)
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to proceed with Option 3 (522-space
garage with no retail building, one basement level, and four above-ground levels),
and to develop additional enhancements to the Birch Street frontage of the
garage. Option 3 adds 71 net parking spaces more than the base Option 1, while
reducing the project cost by $2.8 million. Option 3 is responsive to the
community feedback that additional parking is important, while also considering
the need to contain costs so that the Infrastructure Plan can be successfully
executed. Although the retail building provided in Options 1 and 2 is desirable
from an urban design perspective, the Option 3 project can focus on enhancing
the Birch Street frontage to create an appealing interface between the garage and
the pedestrian sidewalk.
Overall, current estimates for the Infrastructure Plan projects exceed the funding
provided in the FY 2017-2021 capital budget and 5-year plan by approximately
$10-15 million. Staff is working to refine the individual project cost estimates,
City of Palo Alto Page 9
evaluating options to reduce project costs, and coordinating with our program
management consultants (Nova Partners) to control costs through the design and
construction process. Additionally, staff is evaluating options for providing
additional funding. More detailed information on the Infrastructure Plan project
costs will be provided as part of the upcoming FY 2018 budget process.
Timeline
Following Council direction on the parking garage size and program, RDC will
continue developing the design and preparing the environmental review. Staff
anticipates that Council will have the opportunity to review and certify the final
EIR in December 2017. Completion of the Parking Garage is targeted for late
summer 2019, and completion of the PSB is expected in late spring of 2021.
Resource Impact
Total funding in the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan for both projects was
established at $66.6 million, excluding staff salaries and benefits. Updated
construction cost estimates and corresponding total project budgets will continue
to be developed during the preliminary design phase.
Policy Implications
The staff recommendation does not represent a change in existing policies. A new
Public Safety Building was designated the top priority of the nine projects
established by the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. In addition, the following
policy statements in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan support the construction
of a new PSB:
Policy C-22 – Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible
functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community.
Policy C-29 – Strategically locate public facilities and parks to serve all
neighborhoods in the City.
The following policy statements in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan support the
construction of new parking supply in addition to Council direction to staff on
December 14, 2015:
Policy T‐45 – Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown
City of Palo Alto Page 10
and California Avenue business districts to address long range needs.
Policy T‐47 – Protect resident areas from the parking impacts of nearby
business districts.
The policy implications involve discussion of the potential for increasing traffic in
the immediate vicinity of a new garage and balancing this against the benefits
(e.g. a reduction in the over‐flow parking in nearby residential neighborhoods and
convenient parking for area employees and visitors).
Environmental Review
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the Public Safety
Building and California Avenue Garage. To start the EIR process, an Initial Study
and Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
filed on March 24, 2017. An EIR scoping meeting is scheduled for the Planning
and Transportation Commission meeting on April 12, 2017. The NOP and Initial
Study is included as Attachment C.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Community Meeting Presentation from March 8, 2017
Attachment B - Community Meeting Comments from March 8, 2017
Attachment C - Signed Notice of Preparation and Initial Study
PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
2017.03.08
UP DNUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN C - 6
Bi
r
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
As
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pa
r
k
B
l
v
d
.
Sherman Ave.
Jacaranda Ln.
California Ave.
C - 7
148 SPACES 158 SPACES++--
EXISTING SITE 310 SPACES+-
PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
2017.03.08
UP DNUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPDDDDDDDNNNNNNNNNNN
(N) PSB
(N) 190 Onsite
Parking Spaces
(N) Public Plaza AreasPedestrian Arcade
Pedestrian
Arcade &
Public Art
(N) Parking Garage471 Spaces
Bi
r
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
As
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pa
r
k
B
l
v
d
.
Sherman Ave.
Jacaranda Ln.
California Ave.
(N)Retail
OPTION 1: 471 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES + RETAIL
(NN) PPubbldedePPP
PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
2017.03.08
UP DNUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPDDDDDDDNNNNNNNNNNN
(N)Retail
Bi
r
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
As
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pa
r
k
B
l
v
d
.
Sherman Ave.
Jacaranda Ln.
California Ave.
(N) Parking Garage552 Spaces
(N) 190 Onsite
Parking Spaces
(N) PSB
OPTION 2: 552 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES + RETAIL
(N) Public Plaza AreasPedestrian Arcade
Pedestrian
Arcade &
Public Art
PPP
PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
2017.03.08
UP DN
BIKE RACK
UUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPP DDDDDDDNNNNNNNNNNN
BBBBBBBBBBBIIIIIIIIIKKKKKKKKKKKEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKK
Bi
r
c
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
As
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pa
r
k
B
l
v
d
.
Sherman Ave.
Jacaranda Ln.
California Ave.
(N) Parking Garage522 Spaces
(N) 190 Onsite
Parking Spaces
(N) PSB
OPTION 3: 522 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES - NO RETAIL
(N) Public Plaza Areas
Pedestrian
Arcade &
Public Art
Pedestrian
Arcade &
Public Art
PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
2017.03.08
Birc
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Park
B
l
v
d
.
California Ave.
Jacaranda Ln
Sherman A
v
e
.
Ash S
t
r
e
e
t
(N) PSB
(N
)
R
e
t
a
i
l (N) Parking
G
a
r
a
g
e
471 Spaces
OPTION 1: AERIAL VIEW
PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
2017.03.08
Birc
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Park
B
l
v
d
.
California Ave.
Jacaranda Ln
Sherman A
v
e
.
Ash S
t
r
e
e
t
(N) PSB
(N)
R
e
t
a
i
l
(N) Parking
G
a
r
a
g
e
552 Spaces
OPTION 2: AERIAL VIEW
PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
2017.03.08
Birc
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Park
B
l
v
d
.
California Ave.
Jacaranda Ln
Sherman A
v
e
.
Ash S
t
r
e
e
t
(N) PSB
(N) Parking
G
a
r
a
g
e
522 Spaces
OPTION 3: AERIAL VIEW
PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
2017.03.08
FREE DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COM DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREE
PUBLICSIDEWALKSHERMAN AVE.PUBLICSIDEWALK
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREEFREE DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COM DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREE
Potential Public Art
DRIVEAISLEPUBLICSIDEWALKASH STREETPUBLICSIDEWALK
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
PEDESTRIANARCADE
25’-8”
25’-8”
385
SHERMAN AVE
2454
ASH STREET
PARKING GARAGE
471 SPACES
PARKING GARAGE
471 SPACES
Solar Panel
Solar Panel
Top of Rail
Top of Rail
OPTION 1: STREET SECTIONS
PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
2017.03.08
FREE DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COM DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREE
PUBLICSIDEWALKSHERMAN AVE.PUBLICSIDEWALK
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREEFREE DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COM DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREE
Potential Public Art
DRIVEAISLEPUBLICSIDEWALKASH STREETPUBLICSIDEWALK
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
PEDESTRIANARCADE
385
SHERMAN AVE
2454
ASH STREET
PARKING GARAGE
471 SPACES
PARKING GARAGE
471 SPACES
36’-4”
36’-4”
Top of Rail
Top of Rail
OPTION 2: STREET SECTIONS
PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
2017.03.08
FREE DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COM DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREE
PUBLICSIDEWALKSHERMAN AVE.PUBLICSIDEWALK
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREEFREE DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COM DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREE
Potential Public Art
DRIVEAISLEPUBLICSIDEWALKASH STREETPUBLICSIDEWALK
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
PEDESTRIANARCADE
385
SHERMAN AVE
2454
ASH STREET
PARKING GARAGE
471 SPACES
PARKING GARAGE
471 SPACES
36’-4”
36’-4”
Top of Rail
Top of Rail
OPTION 3: STREET SECTIONS
PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
2017.03.08
Parking Garage w/
Solar Panels
22’-2”+10’H. Top of
PV System
Retail 20’H
OPTION 1: BIRCH STREET VIEW FROM CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
2017.03.08
Parking Garage w/
Solar Panels
32’-10”+10’H. Top of
PV System
Retail 20’H
OPTION 2: BIRCH STREET VIEW FROM CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE
2017.03.08
Parking Garage w/
Solar Panels
32’-10”+10’H. Top of
PV System
OPTION 3: BIRCH STREET VIEW FROM CALIFORNIA AVENUE
Page 1 of 4
Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage Project
Community Meeting Comments and Initial Responses
Meeting Date: 3/8/2017
Morning Meeting (started at 9:30am)
1.Will new parking spaces be the same size as existing?
a.Many of the existing stalls on the surface lots are sub‐standard (too narrow). The stalls
proposed for the garage will meet current standards (8.5 feet wide by 17.7 feet long per
Palo Alto Municipal Code §18.54.020).
2.What is the percentage of permit parking in the garage?
a.To be determined by the Transportation Division of the Planning and Community
Environment Department.
3.Does PV need to be done at the time of construction?
a.No, the garage could be designed to accommodate PV installation at a later date.
4.Take a look at fiscal sustainability of neighborhood as a whole.
5.Cost and funding?
a.Cost estimates are being developed. Primary funding is based on transit occupancy tax
(TOT).
6.Concern neighborhood will turn into a “service” district.
7.Why isn’t there a 4th option of maximizing parking with no retail and two basement levels?
a.Option 3A to match this suggestion was added for consideration.
8.Convert retail to parking.
9.Go down 2 basement levels.
10.Concerned that the pedestrian arcade under the upper garage levels will be cold, damp, and
become a hangout for homeless persons.
11.Remove retail and build 2 levels down. Max parking buildout.
12.What is parking mitigation plan during construction?
a.Mitigations for construction impacts will be proposed and developed during the EIR
process.
13.Create parking service plans. Valet parking.
14.Customer loss due to unavailability of parking during construction.
15.Permit parking for construction workers is a problem.
16.Beautify Jacaranda Lane. Dumpsters, boxes are unsightly.
17.Does parking garage have smart parking?
a.To be determined. This technology is currently being explored for the University
Avenue Downtown area.
18.Discuss with Santa Clara County regarding courthouse visitor parking. The County eliminated
visitor parking on their lot a few years ago. Now Courthouse visitors use lots C‐6 and C‐7.
19.Consider top floor for business employee parking.
20.Increase garage capacity for employees.
21.Maximum parking with “option 3A”, no retail, no carve outs, build out.
22.4,700 SF retail does not produce enough revenue.
23.Extra revenue from rents, meter parking.
Page 2 of 4
24.No breaking ground on PSB until garage is complete and functioning.
25.Could garage be partially open during construction?
26.Valet parking during construction.
27.Can county courthouse parking lot be used during construction?
28.Show creative design of garage.
29.Can Lot C‐6 be maximized during garage construction? Recommendation to clear and
reconfigure C‐6 to dense parking, and implement valet service.
30. Have Option 3 look into height exemption to add 1 or 2 more levels.
31.Has it been looked at to switch garage and PSB sites?
32.Has mechanically stacked parking considered for business employees? Survey Monkey building.
33.Need parking for business employees.
34.Neighborhood changing rapidly, consider re‐zoning for what the area will be like in 15‐20 years.
Evening Meeting (started at 6:30pm)
1.How long can you park in the stalls?
a.To be determined by the Transportation Division of the Planning and Community
Environment Department.
2.What are the parking space sizes?
a.Many of the existing stalls on the surface lots are sub‐standard (too narrow). The stalls
proposed for the garage will meet current standards (8.5 feet wide by 17.7 feet long per
Palo Alto Municipal Code §18.54.020).
3.Is there a short term parking solution during garage construction?
a.Mitigations for construction impacts will be proposed and developed during the EIR
process.
4.How tall is the Visa building?
5.What is the PV concept for the garage?
6.Retail is leaving Cal. Ave due to stress.
7.Concern about raising height limit; precedent for future projects to go higher.
8.Want to stay within existing height limits.
9.Garage becomes conduit for new development parking exceptions “not providing enough
parking”
10. Whom does parking permits go to?
a.To be determined by the Transportation Division of the Planning and Community
Environment Department.
11.Need enough parking for peak hours, supporting retail, and make it a pleasant experience.
12.Want dedicated employee parking in the garage.
13.Park Blvd. has backups. How do new cars impact the area?
a.A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be prepared as part of the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR).
14.Buildings nearby have under‐developed parking.
15.Need to consider local residents.
16.Cal. Ave is a fine grained environment.
17. Visa building is greatly under parked.
18.More parking, more better.
Page 3 of 4
19.Retail is a positive component.
20.Consider going deeper with parking.
21.If there is smart parking, people would be comfortable finding parking on floors.
22.Between 11 am and 2 pm there is no parking on Cal. Ave.
23.What about switching retail from Birch to Ash St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/9/2017 7:31 AM
Page 4 of 4
Carnahan, David
From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 08, 2017 4:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Retail space in parking garages
I fully support a new parking garage near California Avenue with retail space. Since the city will own
the space, there will be a opportunity to provide retail space at a discount for nonprofits that have
been shut out of California Avenue as they can't afford the market rents. Palo Alto provided
discounted rent to the Chamber of Commerce downtown. Only this time, how about renting to a
nonprofit providing services to local residents instead of businesses?
How about re-opening one of the thrift shops that benefited local charities, or renting to a nonprofit
providing services to adolescents like the nonprofit Adolescent Counseling Services now providing
services to PAUSD? Or what about Breast Cancer Connections, now called Bay Area Cancer
Connections or Vista, both of which had to leave California Avenue locations in 2014 although
fortunately they have not had to go too far. How safe are they in their new locations?
Kathleen Goldfein
Palo Alto Resident since 1989
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning & Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
TO: Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and Other Interested Parties
FROM: City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a
proposed City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman and Parking Structure at 350
Sherman Avenue (AKA California Avenue Parking Garage).
The City of Palo Alto will be the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and will prepare a project EIR for the proposed project, identified below.
AGENCIES: The City of Palo Alto requests that public agencies provide comments regarding
the scope and content of the EIR as it relates to an agency's statutory responsibilities in
connection with the proposed project in accordance with California Code of Regulation, Title 14,
Section 15082(b), if the agency will need to use the EIR prepared by the City of Palo Alto when
considering any permit or other approval for the project.
ORGANIZATION AND INTERESTED PARTIES: The City of Palo Alto requests comments
and concerns from organizations and interested parties regarding the environmental issues
associated with construction and operation of the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking
Garage
PROJECT LOCATION: 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue; two City blocks fronting Sherman
A venue on the southeast and bounded by Jacaranda Lane to the northwest, Ash Street to the
southwest and Park Boulevard to the northeast, and bisected by Birch Street, within the city of
Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Palo Alto (City/project applicant) proposes to relocate
the City'S Police Department, Fire Administration, Emergency Communications Center (911),
Office of Emergency Services, Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and associated parking and
other support spaces from their current downtown location at the Palo Alto Civic Center at 275
Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, California, to 250 Sherman Avenue in a new adequately sized Public
Safety Building (PSB) facility designed to meet the operational and essential facility standards
for police and emergency service providers. The City also proposes to construct a new public
NOP for Sherrnan Avenue psa and garage March 20, 2017
Notice of Preparation of an EIR
City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage
parking garage at 350 Sherman Avenue to provide a net increase of 150 to 330 public parking
stalls for the California A venue commercial area.
The project site includes two City-owned surface parking lots designated as Lot C-6 and Lot C-7
on Sherman Avenue between Jacaranda Lane, Ash Street and Park Boulevard in the California
A venue commercial area in Palo Alto.
The construction of the PSB on the 1.2-acre Lot C-6 (at 250 Sherman Avenue) will displace
approximately 160 existing public parking stalls. Redevelopment of the adjoining 0.93-acre
surface parking Lot C-7 (at 350 Sherman Avenue) for a new parking garage will displace
approximately 150 existing parking stalls and will contain 460 to 640 stalls (an increase in the
number of parking spaces on-site). The construction of the 350 Sherman garage must be
complete prior to the start of construction of the new PSB, in order to minimize construction
disruption to the neighborhood and loss of parking to local merchants.
The Project includes three primary elements:
• A new three-story PSB ranging in size from 45,500 square feet (SF) to 50,000 SF, over
two levels of secure basement parking providing approximately 170 to 190 total secure
parking spaces at 250 Sherman Avenue (Lot C-6), and associated site improvements.
• A new three-to four-level public parking garage over one to two basement parking
levels, providing approximately 460 to 640 spaces at 350 Sherman Avenue (Lot C-7),
and associated site improvements.
• An approximately 4,200 SF to 4,700 SF multi-or single-tenant commercial shell space
building fronting Birch Street, to be used as commercial retail space for new or existing
businesses. This retail component is an option that would accompany the public parking
garage of 460 to 640 spaces at 350 Sherman Avenue. Without the retail component, the
parking garage would accommodate 522 to 640 parking spaces.
Further details about the project design are included in the Initial Study, which is available for
review at the City of Palo Alto website: http://www.cityofualoalto.orglplanningprojects
The two blocks that comprise the site are both zoned as Public Facilities (PF) and are located in
the California Avenue Business District. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the
PSB project site is Public Facilities (PF). The parking garage site's Comprehensive Plan land use
designation is Community Commercial.
Implementation of the proposed project will require approval from the City Council. As currently
planned, the proposed parking garage will require changes to the zoning district (from Public
Facilities to another zone) or changes to the text of the zoning ordinance to allow for the planned
lot coverage, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), height, and setbacks in the Public Facilities zone.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The following areas of potentially significant
environmental impact will be analyzed in the Draft EIR: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public
Services, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, and Energy. Potential cumulative
impacts and altematives, including the No Project Alternative, will be evaluated. An Initial Study
2 March 20. 2017
Notice of Preporation of an EIR
City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California A\'enue Parkmg Garage
evaluating the project's environmental effects in other resource areas is available for review at
the City of Palo Alto website, as noted above.
SCOPING MEETING: The City of Palo Alto will hold a scoping meeting as part of the
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)'s regularly scheduled meeting on April 12,
2017. The meeting will start at 6:00 PM and will be held at the City of Palo Alto Council
Chambers, located in City Hall at 250 Hamilton A venue. The meeting agenda will be posted to
the City's website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglgovlboardslptc!default.asp.
Interested parties are welcome to attend and present environmental information or concerns that
you believe should be addressed in the EIR.
The NOP and related CEQA documents for this project will be available for review on the web.
You can view this NOP and the Initial Study electronically at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglplanningprojects
If you require additional project information, please contact Matt Raschke, Senior Engineer,
Department of Public Works, at Matt.Raschke@cityofpaloalto.org
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: This Notice of Preparation is available for public review and
comment pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b), for 30 days.
The comment period for the NOP begins March 24, 2017 and ends on April 24, 2017. Due to the
limits mandated by state law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later
than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
RESPONSES AND COMMENTS: Please indicate a contact person for your agency and send
your responses and comments to:
3
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Planning & Community Environment Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Telephone: (650) 329-2442
Fax: (650) 329-2154
Email: Amy.French@citvofpaloalto.org
....
Date
March 20, 2017
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning & Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building (PSB) at 250 Sherman
and Parking Structure at 350 Sherman (aka California Avenue
Parking Garage)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
S. Existing Plan Area Land Uses:
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Matt Raschke, Senior Engineer
Department of Public Works
Telephone: (650) 329-2151
Fax: (650) 329-2154
Email: Matt.Raschke@cityofpaloalto.org
250 and 350 Sherman, in the California Avenue Business
District, bound by Sherman Avenue to the southeast,
Jacaranda Lane to the northwest, Ash Street to the
southwest, and Park Boulevard to the northeast, and
bisected by Birch Street, within the city of Palo Alto, Santa
Clara County, California. See Figures 1 and 2.
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
350 Sherman: Regional Community Commercial
250 Sherman: Public Facilities
350 Sherman: Public Facilities (PF)
250 Sherman: Public Facilities (PF)
The project site is comprised of two city blocks fronting
Sherman Avenue. Across Sherman Avenue from the
proposed PSB is the Santa Clara County Courthouse and
parking lot. Properties fronting Ash Avenue between Grant
Avenue and Sherman Avenue include multiple-family
residential uses and Sarah Wallis Park. Land uses along Park
Boulevard from Grant Avenue to Sherman Avenue include
office/commercial uses, including several restaurants.
H:laddress projectslAddresses Nooresideniia/lpub/ic safety building and garagelJ'SB and Garage March 20 Drafl/nitia/ Sludy.docK 1
Figure 1. Public Safety Building Site at 2S0 Sherman Avenue
9. Description of Project:
tal Proposed Public Safety Building. The City of Palo Alto (City/prOject applicant) proposes to relocate the City's
Police Department, Fire Administration, Emergency Communications Center (911), Office of Emergency Services,
Emergency Operations Center (EOe), and associated parking and other support spaces from their current
downtown location at the Palo Alto Civic Center at 275 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, California, to a new adequately
sized Public Safety Building (PSB) facility at 250 Sherman Avenue, designed to meet the operational and essential
facility standards for police and emergency service providers. The City also proposes to construct a new public
parking garage at 350 Sherman Avenue, to provide 150 to 330 net new public parking stalls for the California
Avenue commercial area. The construction of the Public Safety Building and adjacent parking garage comprise the
project. (It is assumed that space vacated in the civic center will be backfilled with new City employees, and no
substantive change in use will occur at that location.)
The project site is comprised of two City·owned surface parking lots designated as Lot C·G and Lot C-7 on Sherman
H:iaddress projec1slAddresses NonresidentiafVJublic safely building and garagalPSB and Garage March 20 Dran Initial Sludy,doc< 2
Avenue between Ash Street and Park Boulevard in the California Avenue commercial area in Palo Alto. The
construction of the PSB on the 1.2-acre Lot C-6 (250 Sherman Avenue) will displace approximately 160 existing
public parking spaces. Redevelopment of the adjoining 0.93-acre surface parking Lot C-7 (350 Sherman Avenue) for
a new garage will displace approximately 150 existing parking spaces. The new parking garage will contain 460 to
640 stalls to replace and increase the parking spaces on-site, for a net increase of 150 to 330 public parking stalls.
The construction of the new public parking garage must be complete prior to the start of construction of the new
PSB in order to minimize construction disruption to the neighborhood and loss of parking to local merchants.
The project includes three primary elements:
• A new three-story PSB ranging in size from 45,500 square feet (SF) to 50,000 SF, over two levels of secure
basement parking providing approximately 170 to 190 total secure parking spaces on Lot C-6 (250 Sherman
Avenue), and associated site improvements.
• A new three-to four-level public parking garage over one to two basement parking levels, providing 460 to
640 spaces on Lot C-7 (350 Sherman Avenue), and associated site improvements.
• An approximately 4,200 SF to 4,700 SF multi-or single-tenant commercial shell space building fronting Birch
Street, to be used as commercial retail space for new or existing businesses. This retail component is an option
that would accompany a public parking garage of 460 to 640 spaces. Without the retail component, the
parking garage would accommodate 522 to 640 parking spaces.
The principal components of the project are listed below.
• Demolition and Site Preparation: The existing site improvements on parking Lots C-6 and C-7 will be
demolished and removed, including all existing landscaping and trees. Combined, approximately 2.13 acres of
existing site Improvements will be demolished and removed. Both sites will be excavated to allow for
basement construction and all excavation spoils off-hauled and legally disposed of. Additional demolition,
patching, and repair under all City streets bounding the project will be required for the potential relocation or
connection of the project to City utilities.
• Public Safety Building IPSB): The PSB is planned to be a three-story, 45,500 SF to 50,000 SF building,
approximately 50 feet tall, over two levels of secure below-grade parking. The PSB will be approximately
rectangular in shape with an articulated fa~ade, constructed with an interior light well, and set back from the
property line by an approximately 25-foot security standoff distance. Per City zoning guidelines, building
equipment penthouse spaces (e.g., for elevators and stairs) may exceed the 50-foot building height limit.
• Public Safety Building Basement Garage: The PSB will include an approximately 101,000 SF secure parking
basement with 170 to 190 parking spaces for police and staff. In addition to parking of police and staff
vehicles, a variety of programmatic functions associated with police operations will also be located in the
basement. The PSB basement will be served by two vehicle ramps. The primary two-way ramp will be located
on Sherman Avenue, approximately 85 feet to the center of the ramp from the corner of Park Boulevard. The
secondary ramp will be located on Birch Street, approximately 136 feet from the corner of Sherman Avenue.
Visitor parking for the PSB will be available in the project's new public parking garage across the street from
the main entry on Birch Street.
• Public Safety Building Exterior Operations Yard: The PSB will indude an approximately 10,000 SF to 15,000 SF
visually screened, secure exterior vehicle parking and staging area and associated one-story site support
buildings. The PSB's emergency generator, chiller plant, and other building systems will be located in an
accessory structure(s) at this location.
• California Avenue Parking Garage: The approximately 166,200 SF California Avenue Parking Garage will be a
three-to four-level parking structure over one to two levels of underground parking, providing an estimated
460 to 640 spaces to replace and increase the approximately 310 parking spaces on-site, for a net increase of
H:\address projectslAddresses NonresidenliafVJublic safely building and garagalJ'SB and Garage March 20 Draft Initial Study.docx 3
150 to 330 public parking stalls. The overall height of the building will range from approximately 35 to 45 feet
Including building equipment penthouse spaces (e.g., for elevators and stairs). As currently planned, the
garage will require changes to the zoning district (from Public Facilities to another zone) or changes to the text
of the zoning ordinance to allow for the planned lot coverage, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), height, and setbacks in
the Public Facilities zone. The top level of the garage may include carport shade structures supporting
photovoltaic panels (PV) feeding to the PSB's electrical system. The height of the carport support system
above the top parking deck will be approximately 8 feet to 10 feet above finish deck. The garage will have one
(1) two-way entry/exit onto Sherman Avenue, approximately 90 feet to center of ramp west from the corner
of Birch Street.
• Commercial Shell Space Building: A new single-or multi-tenant 16-foot to 24-foot tall, 4,200 SF to 4,700 SF
single-story commercial building will be located adjacent to the new parking garage fronting Birch Street. This
project element will be used as retail space for new or existing businesses to be leased out by the City of Palo
Alto. The retail space will be designed to integrate the public garage fa~ade into the commercial fabric of the
neighborhood. This retail component is an option that would accompany a public parking garage of 460 to 640
spaces. Without the retail component, the parking garage would accommodate 522 to 640 parking spaces.
• Communications Tower: The PSB will include an approximately 13S-feet above finish grade communications
tower on which will be mounted a mixed array of whip antennas and parabolic antenna dishes. The
communications tower may be attached to the PSB or ground mounted.
• Site Circulation and On-Street Parking: The PSB and California Avenue Parking Garage lots are bounded on all
sides by City streets. There are no anticipated changes in the existing site's vehicular or pedestrian circulation
except at Jacaranda lane. Jacaranda lane is a service alley located on what will be the north edge of both
buildings. Vehicular access to the portion of Jacaranda lane adjacent to the PSB will be restricted to
authorized entry and business owners only. Public parking will be prohibited on a portion of Jacaranda lane
and Sherman Avenue directly adjacent to the PSB. Parking spaces for oversized emergency vehicles, including
fire engines, will be provided adjacent to the PSB on Sherman Avenue and Jacaranda lane.
• Parking and Deliveries: All public parking will be located in the new public parking garage. All police vehicle
and staff parking will be in the PSB basement or in the surface exterior operations yard . PSB trash pick-up and
deliveries will be in the operations yard. Trash pick-up for the garage and commercial building will be in a
service apron on Sherman Avenue between those two structures. Authorized small truck deliveries could take
place in the PSB basement.
• Architectural Design: The project features contemporary architectural design carefully focusing on
appropriate site planning, context, massing, scale, style, and materials and finishes, and subject to review and
a recommendation by the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board (ARB). The City Council will receive the
ARB's recommendation and make a final decision on the architectural design of the parking garage, the PSB,
and associated landscaping and site improvements.
• Sustainable lEED Silver or Higher Certified Design: The PSB portion of the project will be designed and built in
conformance with the City's Green Building Policy, which requires lEED Silver or higher, and will be registered
and certified with the United States Green Building Council as lEED Silver or higher.
• Public Plazas: The project will include a new exterior public plaza including hardscape, street furniture, and
landscape plantings on Birch Street in front of the PSB, and a small public plaza space at the parking garage
pedestrian entry on Birch Street on the property corner closest to California Avenue.
• landscaping: The City proposes to provide partial replacement of trees removed from the existing lots on-site
and planted landscape areas for both sites. Street tree bulb-outs will be provided for tree planting areas along
Sherman Avenue in the current parking zone adjacent to the proposed new parking garage. The street-level
roof deck of the PSB basement garage will be landscaped. Planted areas on both sites may function as bio-
filtration and storm water retention systems for the project.
H:laddress projecls'Addresses N""residenUaf>public safely building and g.ragelPSB and Garage March 20 Dran Initi.1 Study docx 4
• Storm Water: The project will remain connected to the City's storm drain system and may include a system to
capture, store, and reuse rainwater to support landscape irrigation.
• Water Supply: Potable water will be provided to the project through the existing City system.
• Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer service will be provided through the existing City system.
• Utilities and Services: Electricity and natural gas will be provided through the City's grid. Solid waste recycling
and trash removal will be provided through City contracted haulers.
Ibl Background. The current 25,000 SF Palo Alto Police Department facility was originally constructed In 1970.
Numerous City-sponsored studies beginning in 1997, through the City's 2014 City Council Infrastructure Plan,
identified and substantiated the need for a new PSB facility. The current facility is undersized by approximately
20,000 SF and does not meet current seismic, security, survivability, accessibility, and regulatory code
requirements applicable to an essential facility. A variety of sites were considered for the project over the past 17
years, including renovating and expanding the current police facilities at the City Hall location. None of these
options proved feasible or were completed. The project meets the projected long-term facility requirements of the
Palo Alto Police Department.
Ie! Objectives. The objectives of the project are to provide 150 to 250 new public parking stalls for the California
Avenue commercial area and to relocate the City of Palo Alto Police Department, Fire Administration, Emergency
Communications Center (911), Office of Emergency Services, and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) from their
current downtown Civic Center location at 275 Forest Avenue. The existing facility's size, security, and safety have
become Increasingly inadequate over the past 47 years. The current facility no longer meets the standards for an
essential facility and lacks the necessary redundancy, hardening, and survivability necessary to support the mission
of the City of Palo Alto's emergency service providers. The project will provide a new facility designed for
Immediate Occupancy (10) per the California Building Code (CBC).
10. Required Approvals:
The proposed project is within the City's jurisdiction and will require approval from the City Council. As currently
planned, the proposed parking garage will require changes to the zoning district (from Public Facilities to another
zone) or changes to the text of the zoning ordinance to allow for the planned lot coverage, Floor Area Ratio (FAR),
height, and setbacks in the Public Facilities zone.
11. Tribal Consultation:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project will be contacted during the EIR preparation process.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, Involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[j!J Aesthetics [j!J Greenhouse Gas Emissions [j!J Public Services
0 Agricultural and Forestry [j!J Hazards & Hazardous Materials 0 Recreation
Resources [j!J HydrologyiWater Quality [j!J Transportation/Traffic
[j!J Air Quality [j!J Land UselPlanning [j!J Utilities/Service Systems
[j!J Biological Resources 0 Mineral Resources [j!J Energy
[j!J Cultural Resources [j!J Noise [j!J Mandatory Findings of Significance
00 Geology/Soils 0 Population/Housing
H:iIlddtess projectslAddresses Nonresiden#a~blio .. 'ely building /l11d garagelPSB and Garage "'atch 20 Dran 'nitial S/udy.dcx:x 5
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
IRJ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is
a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
o I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Prepared by:
~(fs:.-.. ~ ..
Signature: Date: March 20, 2017
Reviewed by:
Signature:
Ray Pendro, CEQA Project Manager
MIG, Inc.
Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto
Date: , )jpefJ 9-
H:1sddress projects'Addresses Nonresidentlaflpublic safely building and garagelPSB and Garage MaICh 20 Dilln Initial S/udy.docx 6
Less Than
Significant
Potentialty with Less Than
Significant Mitigation SignifICant No
tmpact tncorporated Impact Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic 0 0 0 [:&l
vista?
The project site and immediate vicinity are
flat. Existing views are of a built environment
that include mixed uselcommercial buildings,
parking lots, and several residences. There
are no views of scenic vistas from the project
site. This issue will not be evaluated in the
EIR.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 [:&l
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
There are no designated or eligible Santa
Clara County scenic roads within one mile of
the project site. This issue will not be
evaluated in the EIR.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual [:&l 0 0 0 character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Changes associated with the Public Safety
Building (PSB) and parking garage could
affect the visual character of specific locations
and adjacent buildings at the edges of the
project site, including the potential for shadow
impacts. The EIR will evaluate the impacts of
the proposed project on the visual character
and quality of the project site and its
surroundings, including the presentation of
visual simulations.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or [:&l 0 0 0 glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Existing sources of nighttime light within and
around the project site include those common
to urban areas, including street lights, parking
lot lighting, building lighting, signs, vehicle
headlamps, and interior lighting visible
through windows. Glare is created by the
reflection of sunlight and artificial light off
windows, buildings, and other surfaces in the
day, and from inadequately shielded and
improperly directed light sources at night.
Development of the PSB project in
H'lIlddlllss projectsVlddresses NOI1l1lsidentiafopublic safely building and ga",galJ'SB and GarBg1l March 20 Ora" tnftia' Study. doc, 7
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
accordance with the City of Palo Alto's
Comprehensive Plan and the California
Avenue Concept Plan could cause substantial
spill light, glare, and sky glow that may create
a nuisance for adjacent sensitive residential
uses or adversely affect community character.
The EIR will evaluate potential light and glare
impacts.
e) Substantially shadow public open space D D 0 lID
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
from September 21 to March 21?
There are no public spaces immediately
adjacent to the project site. The nearest public
space is Sarah Wallis Park, located at Grant
and Ash Streets, approximately one-half block
to the south and obscured from the project
site by existing buildings. This issue will not
be evaluated in the EIR.
II. AGRtCUL TURAL AND FORESTRY
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
modal to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state's inventory of forest land,
including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted
by the California Air Resources Board.) Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, D D D lID 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?
The California Department of Conservation
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
monitors the conversion of agricultural land to
urban uses throughout the state, using
classifications of important farmlands. Lands
designated as Prime Farmland, Unique
H:lsddress projecfslAddresses Nonres/clenUal-public safety building and g.tageIPSB and Gatage March 20 Dran Inmal Sfudy.doc% a
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact tmpact
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance are considered important
farmlands for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CECA). The
project site is designated Urban and Built Up
Land by the Department of Conservation. The
proposed project would have no impact on
important farmlands. This issue will not be
evaluated in the EIR.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 0 use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 [8]
The project site and the surrounding area are
urbanized, not zoned for agricultural use, and
do not contain any lands under Williamson Act
contracts. The proposed project would have
no impact on agricultural zoning or Williamson
Act contracts. This issue will not be evaluated
in the EIR.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause 0 0 0 [8]
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
The project site and the surrounding area are
urbanized and not zoned for forest land or
timberland. There are no lands in the vicinity
of the project site that are planned, used, or
managed for forest land or timber production.
The proposed project would have no impact
on timberland or forest resources. This issue
will not be evaluated in the EIR.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion 0 offorest land to non-forest use? 0 0 [8]
There is no forest land within or near the
project site. The proposed project would have
no impact on timberland or forest resources.
This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR.
e) Involve other changes in the existing 0
environment which, due to their location or 0 0 [8]
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
There is no farmland or forest land within or
near the project site. The proposed project
does not involve any changes which could
directly or indirectly result in conversion of
H;l8ddress projectslAddresses N""reskJentiaflpublic safety building and garagelPSB and Garage Matrh 20 Ora" Initial Study_docx 9
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporaled Impact Impacl
farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use. This issue will
not be evaluated in the EIR.
III. AIR QUALITY. (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may
be relied upon to make the following
determinations.) Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 00 applicable air quality plan? (such as the Bay D D D
Area Clean Air Plan)
The consistency of the proposed PSB project
with adopted, applicable air quality plans will
be evaluated in the EIR.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 00 substantially to an existing or projected air D D D
quality violation?
Development of the proposed project could
generate emissions of criteria air pollutants
from mobile sources (increases in motor
vehicle trips and changes in traffic
congestion), area sources (water heaters,
architectural coatings, landscaping
maintenance equipment) and stationary
sources (boilers, fueling stations) that exceed
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) significance thresholds. The
regulated regional air pollutants of greatest
concern and potential impact are fugitive dust
or particulate matter 10 microns or smaller in
diameter (PM,.) and 2.5 microns or smaller in
diameter (PM2 5), and the precursors to
ozone, which are reactive organic gases
(ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).
Construction activities generate dust, exhaust
emissions, and certain construction materials
can evaporate and contribute to urban ozone.
Operational activities could generate
additional vehicle trips relative to use of the
existing PSB at 275 Forest Avenue. This
issue will be evaluated in the EIR.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 00 increase of any criteria pollutant for which the D D D
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) ?
H:lBddress pnJjectslAddresses Nonresidentia/,public safety buiiding and garagelJ'SB and Garage Marth 20 Draa Initial Study.docx 10
See item lII.b above.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
H:lac/1iress projec!slAddresses Nonresidential'public salely building and garagelPSB and Garage March 20 oren Inmal Study. docK
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
See item IIl.b above.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
The PSB project is not expected to generate
objectionable odors that affect a substantial
number of people. There are not any planned
uses (e.g., manufacturing processes) that
would create objectionable odors. This issue
will not be analyzed in the EIR.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
SpeCial-status species are plants and animals
that are legally protected under the State
andlor federal Endangered Species Acts or
other regulations, as well as other species
that are considered rare enough by the
scientific community and trustee agencies to
warrant special consideration. Species with
legal protection under the Endangered
Species Acts may represent constraints to
development, particularly when they are wide-
ranging or highly sensitive to habitat
disturbance and where proposed
development would result in a "take" of these
species. Bird nests in active use are protected
under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
and raptor nests are further protected under
Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and
Game Code when in active use.
There are multiple trees that surround the two
surface parking areas that comprise the
project site. These trees could provide nesting
habitat for raptor species and habitat for
sensitive bat species. Some raptor species,
like Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii, a state
species of special concern on its nesting
sites) are specifically listed as sensitive, and
all raptor species are protected while nesting
by Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5.
Sensitive bat species with potential for
occurrence in large trees and groves include
Less Than
Significant
Potentlatty with
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
IX] D
D D
D
H:\addres. projects'Addres.es Nonresidentianpublic safety building and garagelPSB and Garage March 20 Drafl Inmal Study.docx
Less Than
Significant No
tmpact tmpact
D D
D
D o
12
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitlgalion Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus, a State
species of special concern), Townsend's big-
eared bat (Plecotus townsendi/), and Myotis
species. These bat species have no legal
protection under federal or State Endangered
Species Act, but may meet the criteria of
section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Therefore, this issue will be evaluated in the
EIR.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 0 0 [&J
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
The State of California recognizes some plant
communities as sensitive natural communities
if they are uncommon, regionally declining, or
vulnerable. Among these communities are
riparian habitat, coast live oak forest,
freshwater seeps, freshwater marshes, and
coastal salt marsh. However, there is no
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community within or adjacent to the project
area. The project would have no impact on
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community. This issue will not be evaluated in
the EIR.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 0 0 0 [&J
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Although definitions vary, wetlands are
generally considered to be areas that are
periodically or permanently inundated by
surface or groundwater, and support
vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil.
Wetlands are recognized as important
features on a regional and national level due
to their inherent value to fish and wildlife; use
as storage areas for storm water and
floodwaters; and water recharge, filtration,
and purification functions.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), and California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW) have jurisdiction over
modifications to wetlands and other "waters of
the United States.· Corps jurisdiction is
established through provisions of Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the
13 March 20, 2017
discharge of dredged or fill materiat into
·waters of the United States' without a permit.
RWQCB jurisdiction is established through
Section 401 of the Ctean Water Act, which
requires certification or waiver for water
quality whenever a Corps permit is required
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
CDFW jurisdiction is established under
Sections 1600-1607 of the State Fish and
Game Code, which pertains to activities that
woutd substantially divert or obstruct the
naturat flow of, or substantially change or use
any materiat from the bed, channel, or bank
of, any river, stream, or take. Any such
activities require a Streambed Atteration
Agreement to by issued by CDFW prior to
project construction.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Wetlands Mapper, there are no
wetlands or jurisdictional waters in or near the
project site. There is a creek that bisects John
Boulware Park, about one mile southeast of
the project site. The proposed project would
not involve the direct removal or fill of
wetlands or indirectly affect the hydrology,
soil, vegetation, or wildlife of wetlands. This
issue will not be evaluated in the EIR.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
Wildlife use on the project site is expected to
be relatively low due to the absence of natural
habitat, the proximity to streets in a mostly
built environment adjacent to the project site,
and the lack of protective cover. Birds (e.g.,
house sparrow, starling, crow) and wildlife
such as opossums and small rodents typically
associated with developed commercial
properties would be expected to occur. The
project site is surrounded by the built
environment, and therefore is limited as a
potential wildlife movement corridor. Trees on
the project site could potentially provide
nesting habitat for small songbirds; nesting
birds are protected by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game
Code. The project would have a less-than-
significant impact on wildlife movement or
native wildlife nursery sites. This issue will not
be evaluated in the EIR.
Potentially
Significant
tmpact
o
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
14
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
o
March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentiatly with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact tmpact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 0 0 00 0
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No portion of the project site is located in the
following land use designation categories:
Open SpacelControlied Development,
Streamside Open Space, or Publicly-owned
Conservation Land (Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, Land Use Designation Map). In addition,
the proposed project will be subject to the
City's Heritage Tree Ordinance. The findings
of the site-specific tree survey report prepared
for the project (David L. Babby, 2016) will be
reported and applicable tree preservation!
replacement regulations explained.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 0 0 0 00
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved, local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan?
There is no Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other adopted habitat conservation plan
applicable to the project site. This issue will
not be evaluated in the EIR.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 00 0 0 0
eligible for listing on the National and/or
California Register, or listed on the City's
Historic Inventory?
The State Office of Historic Preservation has
determined that buildings, structures, and
objects 45 years or older may be of historical
value. The 1979 Historic Resources Inventory
of the City of Palo Alto shows two historic
properties on 1795 and 2110 Park Boulevard;
these properties are located about one mile
north of the project site. One historic property
was identified adjacent to the project site in
the most recent historic resources survey of
1998; the proposed project will be studied for
impacts on this historic resource. Other
adjacent buildings constructed in the 1950s
have not been studied for potential historic
eligibility since the 1998 survey was
completed; the EIR will assess the proposed
project's compatibility with these adjacent
buildings.
15 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
tmpact tnc"""""ted Impact Impacl
b) Eliminate important examples of major ~ 0 0 0 periods of California history or prehistory?
See V.a above regarding historic resources.
At the time of Euro-American contact, Native
Americans in the Bay Area typically lived
along alluvial terraces and the historic
margins of San Francisco Bay. The project
site was historically along the San Francisco
Bay margin, and is therefore a location of high
archaeological sensitivity. Ground-disturbing
activities during previous development of the
site would likely have disturbed archaeological
resources that may have existed. Despite the
history of site disturbance, the proposed
project could potentially disrupt, alter, or
eliminate as-yet undiscovered archaeological
sites, potentially including Native American
remains. This issue will be evaluated in the
EIR.
c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ~ 0 0 0 significant of an archaeological resource
pursuanlto 15064.5?
See V.a and V.b above.
The Holocene Formation, the geologic
formation which underlies the project site, is a
relatively recent formation (about 12,000
years old). The Holocene Formation is likely
to contain only occasional small marine and
non-marine invertebrate fossils . Ground-
disturbing activities during previous
development of the site would likely have
disturbed, altered, or eliminated
archaeological resources that may have
existed. Despite the history of site
disturbance, the proposed project could
potentially disrupt, alter, or eliminate as-yet
undiscovered archaeological resources. This
issue will be evaluated in the EIR.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ~ 0 0 0
There are no dedicated cemeteries located on
the project site. However, the project site was
historically along the San Francisco Bay
margin, and is therefore a location of high
archaeological sensitivity. Despite the history
of site disturbance, the project could
potentially disrupt, alter, or eliminate as-yet
undiscovered archaeological resources,
potentially including Native American remains.
This issue will be evaluated in the EIR.
16 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique lID 0 0 0 paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
The Holocene Formation, the geologic
formation which underlies the project site, is a
relatively recent formation (about 12,000
years old). The Holocene Formation is likely
to contain only occasional small marine and
non-marine invertebrate fossils. Ground-
disturbing activities during previous
development of the site would likely have
disturbed, altered, or eliminated
paleontological resources that may have
existed. Despite the history of disturbance, the
proposed project could potentially disrupt,
alter, or eliminate as-yet undiscovered
paleontological resources. This issue will be
evaluated in the EIR.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council lID 0 0 0
resolution?
See V.a and V.b above.
g) Cause a substantial adverse change in the lID 0 0 0 significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code Section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, or
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American
Tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing on the
California Register of Historical Resources, or
in a local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1 (k), or
2) A resource determined by a lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
See V.b and V.d above. The proposed
project has the potential to impact Tribal
Cultural Resources. This issue will be
discussed in depth in the EIR. Pursuant to
17 March 20, 2017
Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1,
California Native American tribes traditionally
and culturally affiliated with the project will be
contacted during the EIR preparation process.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
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.)
There are no mapped through-going faults
within or adjacent to the project site, nor is
the project site within an Alquist-Priolo
Fault zone. The closest fault is the San
Andreas Fault, located about 5.5 miles
southwest of the project site. This issue will
not be evaluated in the EIR.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Ground shaking is the most widespread
cause of earthquake damage. Most loss of
life and injuries during an earthquake are
related to the collapse of buildings and
structures. The intensity of the ground
shaking at a particular site depends on
characteristics of the earthquake source
(e.g., magnitude, location, and area of
causative fault surface), distance from the
fault, and amplification effects of local
geologic deposits. Project improvements
could be exposed to strong seismic ground
shaking and related risk of loss or Injury in
the event of an earthquake on one of the
active or potentially active faults in the
region. Potential risks to life and property
from these seismic hazards would be
adequately mitigated by existing laws,
regulations, and polices, including the
California Building Code and the City's
development review procedures.
Based on the geotechnical report prepared
for the proposed project (Romig
Engineers, 2016), the primary
geotechnical concerns for the proposed
project are: (1) the need for temporary
shoring of the basement excavations; (2)
Potenllally
Significant
Impact
o
o
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigallon
Incorporated
o
18
Less Than
SIgnificant
tmpact
o
o
No
Impact
o
March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact tmpact
the likelihood that ground water will be
present above the depth of the basement
excavations, requiring dewatering; (3) the
need to design and waterproof the floors
and walls of the basement and access
tunnel; and (4) the likelihood of severe
ground shaking during a major
earthquake. The geotechnical report's site-
specific mitigation recommendations will
be described.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 [&] 0 0 liquefaction?
Soil liquefaction is a process that occurs in
water-saturated, unconsolidated sediment
due to ground shaking. During liquefaction,
soils lose strength and ground failure may
occur, affecting structures and
improvements. Soils most susceptible to
liquefaction are loose to medium dense,
saturated granular soils with poor
drainage, including Bay mud and artificial
fill.
According to the geotechnical report
prepared for the proposed project (Romig
Engineers, 2016), some portions (sand
and sandy silt strata) of the soil could
experience liquefaction during an
earthquake. However, risks to life and
property from these seismic hazards would
be adequately mitigated by existing laws,
regulations, and polices, including the
California Building Code and the City's
development review procedures, which
require a site-specific geotechnical
investigation be prepared by a licensed
professional for proposed developments
for seismic design categories C, D, E, and
F. The geotechnical investigation would be
reviewed by City staff prior to issuance of
building permits to ensure compliance.
The geotechnical report's site-specific
mitigation recommendations will be
described.
iv) Landslides? 0 0 0 [&]
The project site is flat and is not subject to
landslides. This issue will not be evaluated
in the EIR.
v) Expansive soils? 0 [&] 0 0
Expansive soils possess a 'shrink-swell"
characteristic, the cyclic expansion and
contraction that occurs in fine-grained clay
19 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially wilh Less Than
Signirtcanl Mitigallon Significant No
Impacl IncO!pOf"8ted Impact Impact
sediments from the process of wetting and
drying. Structural damage may result over
a long period of time, usually the result of
inadequate soil and foundation
engineering or the placement of structures
directly on expansive soils.
Expansive soils are likely to be
encountered on the project site, given the
underlying Holocene Formation and the
presence of clayey soils noted in the
geotechnical report prepared for the
proposed project (Romig Engineers,
2016). However, review and permitting of
specific development projects would
involve characterization and consideration
of site-specific geologic and soils
conditions, and implementation of
individual project mitigations, where
needed. State and local planning, building,
and engineering regulations also address
structures, excavation, foundations,
retaining walls, and grading activities. The
geotechnical report's site-specific
mitigation recommendations will be
described.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 0 lID 0 0
topsoil?
The potential for erosion during construction
would be subject to the best management
practices routinely implemented by the City
and required as a condition of project
approval for new development. Project
construction would involve grading,
excavation, or other activities that could
temporarily expose disturbed soils to erosion.
Construction erosion and water quality
impacts are addressed in item IX.a below.
The EIR will evaluate potential soil erosion
Impacts.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 lID 0 0
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?
The project site is generally underlain by the
Holocene Formation, a geologic unit of
Pleistocene age. According to the project
geotechnical report (Romig Engineers, 2016),
the potential for lateral spreading is low, but
there is some potential for liquefaction. The
geotechnical report's site-specific mitigation
recommendations will be described. See
20 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Vl.a.iii above.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 0 [&J 0 0 Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Gode
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
properly?
Expansive soils are likely to be encountered
on the project site, given the underlying
Holocene Formation and the presence of
clayey soils noted in the geotechnical report
prepared for the proposed project (Rom ig
Engineers, 2016). The geotechnical report's
site-specific mitigation recommendations will
be described.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting 0 0 0 [&J
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems are proposed
for the project site. Therefore, the proposed
project would have no impact related to the
capacity of local soils to effectively
accommodate septic systems. This issue will
not be evaluated in the EIR.
f) Expose people or properly to major geologic 0 [&J 0 0
hazards that cannot be mitigated through the
use of standard engineering design and
seismic safety techniques?
See Vl.a.U, iii, and v; and Vl.b, c, and d,
above. The geotechnical report's site-specific
mitigation recommendations will be described.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either [&J 0 0 0 directly or indirectly, that may have e
significant impact on the environment?
Future development of the proposed project
could result in an increase in greenhouse gas
emissions due primarily to potenUallncreases
in vehicle miles traveled, energy use,
consumer product use, and solid waste. The
greenhouse gas emissions increase may
exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds.
The EIR will evaluate greenhouse gas
emissions impacts.
21 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
tmpact tncorporated tmpact tmpact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or I&J 0 0 0
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Future development under the proposed
project could result in an increase in
greenhouse gas emissions that would conflict
with or impede the achievement of the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 (AB 32) greenhouse gas reduction
goals. The EIR will evaluate greenhouse gas
emissions impacts.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Create a Significant hazard to the public or the I&J 0 0 0 environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Hazardous substances may be generated,
stored, transported, used, or disposed of in
association with future activities allowed under
the proposed project. The proposed project is
to construct a new PSB and public parking
garage. Uses of the new PSB could involve
use of firearms, explosives, and hazardous
chemicals. These uses could result in
potentially Significant impacts, and therefore
this issue will be evaluated in the EIR.
Departmental protocols for handling, storing.
transporting, and disposing of these
substances will be described.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the I&J 0 0 0 environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
See VlIl.a above.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 I&J
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
There are no schools wHhin one quarter mile
of the project site. The EIR will not evaluate
this issue.
d) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 00 0 0 0 environment from existing hazardous
materials contamination by exposing future
occupants or users of the site to
contamination either in excess of ground soil
22 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
and groundwater cleanup goals developed for
the site or from the location on listed
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant
to Government Code section 65962.5?
Given the long history of development within
the project vicinity, there may be locations
adjacent to the project site that are included
on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code section
65962.5 (Cortese List).
According to the Phase I ESA, the project site
is located within the California-Olive-Emerson
(CO E) groundwater study area. Groundwater
containing releases of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) have migrated into this
area from releases from the former Hewlett
Packard (HP) site at 640 Page Mill Road.
Existing hazardous materials contamination
sites could pose a risk to human health or the
environment. The EIR will evaluate this
potential impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been 0 0 0
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?
The project site is not located within two miles
of the Palo Alto Airport, or within the Palo Alto
Airport Land Use Plan area. Impacts to people
working on the project site would be less than
significant. This issue will not be evaluated in
the EIR.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 [8]
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
No private airstrip exists in the project vicinity.
This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR.
g) Impair implementation of or physically [8] 0 0 0 interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Traffic from future development under the
proposed project would shift existing vehicle
trips for emergency police calls from 275
Forest Avenue to the new PSB project site.
Traffic congestion associated with the new
PSB could potentially interfere with an
23 March 20, 2017
adopted emergency response plan or
evacuation plan. This issue will be more fully
evaluated in the EIR.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
According to the Santa Clara County Fire
Hazards Map, the City of Palo Alto Is not in a
moderate, high, or very high fuel hazard zone.
Moreover, the project site and vicinity are a
built environment largely devoid of wildfire-
prone vegetation (e.g., expanses of grasses
and shrubs). This issue will not be evaluated
in the EIR.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Storm water runoff from impervious surfaces
on the project site could degrade water quality
in downstream receiving waters and San
Francisco Bay. The San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWaCB) Municipal Regional Permit
Provision C.3 requirements apply to projects
that create or replace more than 10,000
square feet of impervious area (5,000 square
feet for certain types of projects). Project
applicants must prepare and implement a
Stormwater Control Plan containing treatment
and source control measures that meet the
"maximum extent practicable" standard as
specified in the NPDES permit and the C.3
Guidebook. Project applicants must also
prepare a Stormwater Facility Operation and
Maintenance Plan and execute agreements to
ensure the storm water treatment and f1ow-
control facilities are maintained in perpetuity.
Construction activities disturbing more than
one acre would be required to submit a Notice
of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB to be covered
by the State's General Construction Permit
before beginning construction, which would
require the preparation and implementation of
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) containing Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented
during construction. The EIR will evaluate
potential construction and operational water
Potentially
Significant
tmpact
o
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigalion
tncorporated
o
o
24
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
No
tmpact
o
o
March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentiatty with Less Than
Significant Mitigation SignifICant No
tmpact tncorporated Impact Impact
quality impacts of the proposed PSB and
public parking garage.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater 0 0 119 0
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
According to the City of Palo Alto Urban
Water Management Plan, the City does not
use groundwater during normal water years.
Therefore, impacts to groundwater supplies or
recharge would be less-than-significant. The
EIR will not evaluate this issue.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern (increase the rate, volume, or flow 119 0 0 0
duration of storm water runoff) of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in new or increased flooding on
or off-site?
The proposed project does not propose
changes to existing drainage patterns. The
area to be developed consists of two surface
parking areas that are impervious surfaces.
The proposed project would dislurb more than
one acre and would be required to submit a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB to be
covered by the State's General Construction
Permit before beginning construction, which
would require the preparation and
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) containing Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that would be
implemented during construction. The EIR will
evaluate the potential impacts of needed
drainage improvements as well as the
potential construction and operational water
quality impacts.
d) Result in stream bank instability? 0 0 0 lEI
The project site is not located near a stream.
The EIR will not evaluate this issue.
e) Significantly alter the existing drainage pattern 119 0 0 0 (increase the rate, volume, or flow duration) 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
25 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact tmpact
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on-or off-site?
See IX.c above. The EIR will evaluate the
potential impacts of needed drainage
improvements and potential for on-or off-site
flooding. Also see IX.h below.
f) Create or contribute runoff water which would !XI 0 0 0 exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
See IX.a and lX.c above.
g) Provide substantial additional sources of !XI 0 0 0
pollutants associated with urban runoff or
otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
See IX.a and IX.c above.
h) Place housing within a 100-year "ood hazard !XI 0 0 0 area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
Although Palo Alto contains no areas within a
1 aO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map, portions of the project
area occasionally flood during combined high
tides and heavy rain, due to inadequate storm
drains, low etevation, and silt and debris
obstruction of the storm drain system.
Additionally, regional sea level rise predictions
for the San Francisco Bay region predict a 16-
inch rise in sea level by mid-century and a 55-
inch rise by the end of the century. Portions of
the project area are subject to flooding due to
sea level rise associated with global climate
change. However, for sea level rise to impact
the project site, it would have to first inundate
most of Palo Alto Airport, and regional
mitigation strategies directed at the airport
may also protect Palo Alto. The EIR will
evaluate potential flood hazard impacts.
i) Place within a 100-year "ood hazard area !XI 0 0 0 structures which would impede or redirect
"ood"ows
See IX.h above.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant !XI 0 0 0 risk of loss, injury or death involving "ooding,
26 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
PotenllaJly with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
Based on Figure 7-5: Dam Inundation, from
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update
Existing Conditions report, the project area is
located within a Dam Inundation Area for Lake
Lagunita, and possibly Searsville Lake. This
issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
k) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 lID mudflow?
A seiche is a tidal change in an enclosed or
semi-enclosed water body caused by
sustained high winds or an earthquake. The
project site is not located close enough to San
Francisco Bay to be affected by a seiche. A
tsunami is a series of waves created when a
body of water such as an ocean is rapidly
displaced on a massive scale, most
commonly as the result of an earthquake.
Palo Alto is not in a tsunami/seiche area. The
EIR will not address this issue.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNtNG. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? lID 0 0 0
Development of the proposed project was
anticipated in the California Avenue Area
Concept Plan (refer to Policy CAP-l.9). The
proposed project will need to be integrated
into its surrounding environment without
disrupting commercial and residential uses.
The EIR will evaluate potential impacts on the
physical arrangement of the community.
b) Conflict with any applicable City land use lID 0 0 0
plan, policy, or regulation (including but not
limited to the Comprehensive Plan, CAP, or
the City's Zoning Ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
i) Substantially adversely change' the type or
intensity of existing or planned land use
patterns in the area?
ii) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or
with the general character of the
surrounding area, including density and
building height?
iii) Conflict with established residential,
recreational, educational, religious, or
scientific uses of an area?
27 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated tmpact Impact
The California Avenue Area Concept Plan
(Policy CAP-1 .9) anticipated the development
of the proposed project. The EIR will evaluate
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the
California Avenue Concept Plan, and other
applicable plans adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 lID conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan is applicable to
the project site. The project would have no
impact related to conflicts with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. The EIR will not
evaluate this issue.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 lID mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
The California Geological Survey (CGS) has
classified lands within the San Francisco-
Monterey Bay region into Mineral Resource
Zones (MRZs) based on guidelines adopted
by the California State Mining and Geology
Board, as mandated by the Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. The
CGS classified urbanizing lands within the
South San Francisco Bay Production-
Consumption Region according to the
presence or absence of significant sand,
gravel, or stone deposits that are suitable as
sources of aggregate. Areas classified as
MRZ-1 are areas where adequate information
indicates that no significant mineral deposits
are present, or where it is judged that little or
no likelihood exists for their presence.
There are no locally important mineral
resource recovery sites delineated in the City
of Palo Alto. The proposed project would have
no impact related to the availability of mineral
resources. This issue will not be discussed in
the EIR.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally 0 0 0 lID important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
28 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impaa Incorporaled Impact Impact
See XI.a above.
XII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of lID 0 0 0 excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
Demolition and construction activities
associated with future development under the
proposed project could generate excessive
ground borne vibration. During construction,
employees that work in the project vicinity
could be exposed to excessive ground borne
vibration. Employees could also possibly be
exposed to ground borne vibration limits
exceeding Federal Transit Administration
thresholds of significance for frequent events
due to Cal train operations. The EIR will
evaluate this issue.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise lID 0 0 0 levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or the municipal code,
State standards, or applicable standards of
other agencies, including but not limited to:
i) Result in indoor noise levels for residential
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
The proposed project does not involve
residential development, so this issue will not
be evaluated in the EIR.
ii) Result in instantaneous noise levels of
50dB or more in a bedroom or 55 dB or
more measures from other rooms inside a
house?
See XII.b.i above.
The EIR will examine if the proposed PSB
project would be exposed to other standards
relevant to the project -for example, noise
standards for outdoor public places, such as
the new public plazas proposed by the
project.
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase lID 0 0 0 in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project,
including:
i) Cause the average 24-hour noise level
(Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or
more in an existing residential area, even il
the Ldn would remain below 60 dB?
29 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially wilh Less Than
Significant MItigation Significant No
tmpact Incorporated Impact Impact
ii) Cause the Ldn to increase by three dB or
more in an existing residential area,
thereby causing the Ldn in the area to
exceed 60 dB?
iii) Cause an increase of three dB or more in
an existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
Traffic generated by development in
accordance with the proposed project could
increase traffic noise levels along certain
streets and thereby affect residential or other
noise-sensitive uses.
The proposed project would generate short-
term temporary construction noise. The
effects of noise resulting from construction
depend on the noise generated by various
pieces of construction equipment, the timing
and duration of noise-generating activities,
and the distance between construction noise
sources and noise-sensitive receptors. The
EIR will evaluate construction and operation
related noise impacts.
d) A substantial permanent increase in ambient IXI 0 0 0 noise levels in the project Vicinity above levels
existing without the project.
Traffic generated by development in
accordance with the proposed project could
increase traffic noise levels along certain
streets and thereby affect residential or other
noise-sensitive uses. The EIR will evaluate
operations related noise impacts.
e) For a project located within an airport land use 0 0 0 IXI plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
The project site is not located within two miles
of the Palo Alto Airport. The EIR will not
evaluate this issue.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 IXI
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
No private airstrip exists in the project vicinity.
This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
30 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Los. Than
Signir",ant Mitigation Slgnlficanl No
Impact Incorporated Impacl Impact
a) Induc;e substantial population growth in an 0 0 0 IRJ area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposed project does not involve new
home construction or sUbstantial new
business-related construction (as part of the
project, approximately 4,200 to 4,700 SF of
commercial space is proposed for existing or
new businesses). The project would not
extend infrastructure to support substantial
population growth. The proposed project
would relocate and expand the space
available for Ihe City's Police Department.
Fire Administration. Emergency
Communications Center (911), Office of
Emergency Services. and Emergency
Operations Center, as well as provide a new
public parking garage. No further evaluation is
needed.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of 0 0 0 IRJ
replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project would be constructed
on two lots currently used for surface parking.
Existing housing would not be displaced. No
further evaluation is needed.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 0 IRJ necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
See item XIII.b above.
d) Create a substantial imbalance between 0 0 0 IRJ employed residents and jobs?
The proposed project would relocate and
expand space available for police and
emergency services, as well as provide a new
public parking garage. The PSB is being
designed to support approximately 158 jobs
by 2032, a proportion of which could be Palo
Alto residents. Since the Census Bureau
estimates that Palo Alto's workforce Is more
than 35,000 people, it is not likely that a
substantial imbalance would result between
employed residents of Palo Alto and jobs.
This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the project result in substantial adverse
31 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potantially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
a) Result in an adverse physical impact from the D D D 1:&1 construction of additional school facilities in
order to maintain acceptable performance
standards?
The proposed project is to relocate and
expand space available for police and
emergency services for the City. Construction
and operation of a new PSB and parking
garage would not require the construction of
new school facilities, parks, recreational
facilities, or library facilities. This issue will not
be evaluated in the EIR.
The proposed project would include two new
public plazas as part of the overall project
development and construction.
b) Result in an adverse physical impact from the 1:&1 D 0 D construction of additional fire protection
facilities in order to maintain acceptable
performance standards?
The proposed project would relocate the
City's Police Department, Fire Administration,
Emergency Communications Center (911 ),
Office of Emergency Services, Emergency
Operations Center (EOC), and associated
parking and other support spaces.
Construction impacts associated with the
project will be described, along with standard
City regulations that minimize those impacts
(e.g., construction traffic plan) and mitigations
already included in other EIR chapters (e.g.,
construction air quality and noise). These
potential impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.
c) Result in an adverse physical impact from the D D 0 1:&1 construction of additional po/ice protection
facilities in order to maintain acceptable
performance standards?
See XIV.b above.
d) Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional parks and recreation D 0 0 1:&1
facilities in order to maintain acceptable
performance standards?
32 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant MItigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
See item XIV.a above.
e) Result in an adverse physical impact from the 0 construction of additional library facilities in 0 0 !&l
order to maintain acceptable performance
standards?
See item XIV. a above.
XV. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing 0 0 0 !&l
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
The proposed project would relocate and
expand space available for police and
emergency services for the City. Since the
proposed project would not increase
residential uses, it is not expected to
noticeably increase use of existing
neighborhood or regional parks. The EIR will
not evaluate this issue.
The proposed project would include two new
public plazas as part of the overall project
development and construction.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities, 0 0 0 !&l or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
See XIV.a and XIV.b above.
XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the
project:
a) Cause an intersection to drop below its level [8]
of service standard, or if it is already operating
at a substandard level of service, deteriorate
by more than a specified amount? 0 0 0
Construction and operation of the PSB project
could increase traffic congestion and cause
intersections to operate below the desired
Level of Service (LOS). The EIR will evaluate
potential traffic impacts following guidelines of
the City Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VT A). Specifically, the EIR will
analyze AM and PM peak hour traffic
conditions under Existing Conditions, Existing
Plus Project Conditions, Background No
Project Conditions, Background Plus Project
Conditions, Cumulative (2035) No Project
33 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentialty with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No tmpact IncOlpOfBted tmpact Impact
Conditions, and Cumulative Plus Project
Conditions at the following intersections:
1. Park Boulevard I Sherman Avenue"
2. Park Boulevard I Page Mill Road"
3. Birch Street I Sherman Avenue"
4. Birch Street I Grant Street"
5. Birch Street I Sheridan Avenue"
6. Ash Street I California Avenue"
7. EI Camino Real I Cambridge Avenue
8. EI Camino Real I California Avenue
9. EI Camino Real I Page Mill Road
10. Middlefield Road I Oregon Expressway
"Refers to unsignalized intersections.
b) Cause a roadway segment to drop below its
level of service standard, or deteriorate lID 0 0 0
operations that already operate at a
substandard level of service?
See item XVJ.a above. Any related impacts on
roadway segments also will be evaluated in
the EIR.
c) Cause a freeway segment or ramp to operate
at LOS F or contribute traffic In excess of 1 lID 0 0 0
percent of segment capacity to a freeway
segment or ramp already operating at LOS F?
See item XVJ.a above. Any related impacts on
freeway segments or ramps also will be
evaluated in the EIR.
d) Impede the development or function of lID 0 0 0 planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities.
The traffic analysis will evaluate the proposed
project's impact on existing and any planned
pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the project
vicinity. This issue will be evaluated in the
EIR.
e) Increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle
facilities that cannot be met by cu"ent or 0 lID 0 0
planned services.
See item XVJ.d above.
f) Impede the operation of a transit system as a lID 0 0 0 result of congestion or otherwise decrease the
performance of safety of such facilities?
See item XVI.a above. The EIR will evaluate
the effects of project-generated traffic on the
operation of the transit system.
34 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impacl tncorporated Impact Impacl
g) Crftatft dftmand for transit services that cannot IKJ 0 0 0 be mftt by current or planned services?
The EIR will evaluate whether the employees
at Ihe new PSB localion would create a
subslantial demand for transit services.
h) Creatft thft potftntial dftmand for through traffic IKJ 0 0 0 to use local rftsidftntial strftftts?
The EIR traffic analysis will model changes in
LOS at 10 intersections, some of which
involve local residential streets. See item
XVI.a above.
i) Causft any change in traffic that would
increasft the Traffic Infusion on Residftntial
Environment (TIRE) indftx by 0.1 or more?
See item XVI.a above.
J) Crftatft an operational safftty hazard? IKJ 0 0 0
The proposed project would relocate and
provide additional space for police and
emergency services for the City. Vehicular
circulation on the project site and in relation to
the surrounding community is a primary
design consideration. The issue will be
evaluated in the EIR.
k) Rftsult in inadftquatft emergftncy access? IKJ 0 0 0
The proposed project would relocate and
expand space available for police and
emergency services for the City. Depending
on how trips are distributed, they could
potentially interfere with an existing
emergency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan. This issue will be evaluated
in the EIR.
I) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0 IKJ including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
The project site is not located within the Palo
Alto Airport Land Use Plan area. The project
would not generate air travel. This issue will
not be evaluated in the EIR.
35 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a
comparative analysis between the design 00 0 0 0
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 et
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.
See item XVl.a above.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Need new or expanded entitlements to water 00 0 0 0 supply?
Palo Alto receives 100 percent of its potable
water from the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC). The proposed
project's relationship to the City of Palo Alto
2015 Urban Water Management Plan (June
2016) will be evaluated in the EIR.
b) Result in adverse physical impacts from new 00 0 0 0 or expanded utility facilities due to increased
use as a result of/he project?
The utility infrastructure requirements (e.g.,
water, wastewater, storm drainage), design
solutions, and construction protocols of the
proposed PSB project will be described in the
EIR. Any additional, necessary mitigation will
be described.
c) Result in a substantial physical deterioration
of a utility facility due to increased use as a 00 0 0 0
result of the project?
See item XVll.b above.
d) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control 0 0 00 0
Board?
Palo Alto's wastewater is treated at the Palo
Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
(RWQCP), which also serves the five
communities of East Palo Alto, Mountain
View, Stanford, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills.
The Long-Range Facilities Plan for the
RWQCP, adopted in 2012, found that the
existing facilities were operating within normal
ranges. The existing secondary and tertiary
treatment systems are adequately treating the
wastewater to meet the existing discharge
36 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
SIgnificant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impoct Impact
requirements. Construction and operation of
the proposed project will be subject to
applicable regional and local water quality
standards and regulations. No further
evaluation in the EIR is necessary.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater D D lID D treatment provider that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
See item XVll.d above.
f) Would the project require or result in the
construction of new water or wastewater D D lID D
treatment facl7ities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
See item XVII .d above.
g) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of lID D D D
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
The storm water infrastructure requirements,
design solutions, and construction protocols of
the proposed PSB project will be described in
the EIR. Any additional, necessary mitigation
will be described.
h) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted D D lID D capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
The proposed project would relocate police
and emergency services to a new PSB. The
new building would generate typical amounts
of additional solid waste. Non-recyclable
material is transferred to the Kirby Canyon
Landfill owned by Waste Management, Inc.
Kirby Canyon has sufficient permitted landfill
capacity, with a remaining capacity of
approximately 21 .6 million tons and a total
projected capacity of approximately 29 million
tons. The project impact would be less-than-
significant. The EIR will not evaluale potential
impacts related to solid waste disposal
capacity.
i) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes D D lID D and regulations related to solid waste?
The proposed project would comply with all
federal, State, and local statues and
37 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
regulations related to solid waste. These
regulations are described in the Draft EIR for
the Comprehensive Plan Update. The final
version of the Comprehensive Plan Update is
contemplating adding new policies pertaining
to the City's recycling requirements. Should
new policies be adopted, the proposed project
would need to comply with these additional
policies. This issue will not be evaluated in the
EIR.
j) Result in a substantial increase in natural gas lID 0 0 0 and electrical service demands that would
require the new construction of energy supply
facilities and distribution infrastructure or
capacity enhancing alterations to existing
facilities?
The project's natural gas, electrical, and fuel
demands will be evaluated in the EIR,
including actions and design solutions for
reducing any potential for wasteful, Inefficient,
and unnecessary consumption of energy, per
CEOA Guidelines Appendix F (Energy
Conservation).
XVIII. ENERGY
a) Have an energy impact? Energy impacts may lID 0 0 0
include:
i) Impacts resulting from amount and fuel
type used for each stage of the project
ii) Impacts on local and regional energy
supplies and on requirements for
additional capacity
iii) Impacts on peak and base period
demands for electricity and other forms of
energy
iv) Impacts to energy resources
v) Impacts resulting from the project's
projected transportation energy use
requirements
See item XVll.j above.
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade lID 0 0 0 the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
38 March 20, 2017
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant MItigation SIgnifICant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
Pertaining to the quality of the environment,
biological resources, and California historyl
prehistory, this Initial Study has determined
that impacts in the following environmental
areas could be significant: aesthetics, air
quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas
emissions, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, land use and
planning, noise, public services,
transportationltraffic, utilities and service
systems, and energy.
b) Does the project have impacts that ere lID 0 0 0
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable'
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
This Initial Study has determined that some
project impacts (e.g., air quality, traffic) could
be cumulatively considerable. The EIR will
evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of
the proposed project in conjunction with other
pending and anticipated development in Palo
Alto.
c) Does the project have environmental effects lID 0 0 0
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Project effects identified in this Initial Study as
having possible substantial adverse impacts
on human beings, either directly or indirectly,
include aesthetics, air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, geology and
soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology and water
quality, land use and planning, noise, public
services, transportation/traffic, utilities and
service systems, and energy.
39 March 20, 2017