HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 8613
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8613)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/4/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approve Items related to Construction of the new Junior
Museum and Zoo
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [17PLN-
00147]: Council Approval of: (1) a Resolution Adopting the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), and Rinconada Long Range Plan; (2) a Record of Land Use Action
(RLUA) for the JMZ Architectural Review application; (3) a Park Improvement
Ordinance (PIO) for Improvements to the JMZ Within the Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan area; (4) Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation
Ordinance for the Capital Improvement Fund by increasing the Other
Revenue by $270,124 and increasing the JMZ Renovation Project (AC-18001)
by $270,124; and add a part-time unbenefited 0.48 FTE position limit dated
through September 30, 2020.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council take the following actions related to the construction of the
new Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ):
Related to the planning entitlement, staff recommends that Council:
1. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the JMZ project and Rinconada Park Long
Range Plan (RPLRP); the Resolution also approves the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan (with
an illustrative site plan included as Exhibit 1);
2. Approve the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment B) referencing the
Resolution and approving the Architectural Review application for replacement of the
existing JMZ with a new JMZ and site improvements including reconfiguration of the Lucie
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Stern Community Center parking lot, vehicular driveways, enhancement of pedestrian and
bicycle circulation routes through the site; and
3. Adopt the Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) referencing the Resolution and approving
improvements to the JMZ, within the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan area (Attachment C).
Related to grants, staff recommends that Council:
4. Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the Capital
Improvement Fund by:
a. Increasing Other Revenue by $270,124;
b. Increasing the JMZ Renovation Project (AC-18001) in the amount of $270,124;
5. Approve the addition of a part-time unbenefited 0.48 FTE position limit dated through
September 30, 2020.
BACKGROUND
Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ)
The JMZ is a treasured local museum, zoo and education center situated in Rinconada Park that
serves Palo Alto families and children. The JMZ is a valued amenity of the user experience at
Rinconada Park, welcoming 184,000 visitors annually. Visitors to the JMZ often visit other parts
of the park before or after their visit to the JMZ. Overall, the JMZ is integral to Rinconada Park
and the park is integral to the JMZ.
The JMZ’s mission is “to engage a child’s curiosity in science and nature through hands-on
activities and interaction with live animals.” The JMZ provides a strong start for learning in
young children in many ways by leveraging the unique assets that the JMZ offers to nurture the
passion and skills for learning through play; promoting seamless linkages between formal and
informal learning; providing a safe place for children with special needs to experience the
museum and zoo; and engaging children from all socio-economic backgrounds so that everyone
can benefit from the new learning landscape. The JMZ works closely with researchers and
professionals to provide a rich environment that stimulates children’s natural curiosity and
creativity.
The current JMZ building, built in 1941 and zoo, built in 1969, are not adequately sized or
designed to accommodate the JMZ’s vibrant programs, current requirements to support living
and non-living collections, expanded educational programs, and current accessibility or seismic
code requirements. Major goals of the proposed rebuild project are to provide the JMZ with
adequate storage and support space to meet standards for zoo accreditation, museum
accreditation, and provide adequate storage and prep space for the on-site and off-site
educational programs. Another major goal is to improve circulation to allow universal access for
children with disabilities to all exhibits and areas of the facility, which requires considerably
more space than allowed for in the existing facility. The rebuild of JMZ will better serve its
current local visitors and schools while still maintaining an intimate experience for children to
City of Palo Alto Page 3
explore science and nature. Rinconada Park has been and will continue to be the best place to
grow the JMZ because the location leverages the park, community center, scout facilities,
libraries, and Art Center to integrate indoor and outdoor experiences, live animals, and
collections to provide a strong start for young children.
The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (Friends) engaged the architectural firm of
Cody Anderson & Wasney Architects to work with a broad array of stakeholders to complete a
facilities master plan in 2011 and 2012. They evaluated the program and operational needs, the
inadequacies of the existing facility, and options for renovation or new construction to provide
enhanced levels of service to the Palo Alto community. In 2014, the Friends completed the
master planning process that culminated in a recommendation to replace the existing facility
with a facility that is correctly sized for the JMZ’s programs and its current audience.
In 2013, the Friends generously committed to raising $25 million for the proposed JMZ
renovation project. On November 10, 2014, Council approved a Letter of Intent (LOI) for
construction and operation of the new JMZ building by the Friends, and the City and Friends
began negotiating potential terms and conditions for the construction and operation of the new
center. The Letter of Intent can be found at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44585.
On October 19, 2015 Council approved a change in direction recommended by Friends and staff
to focus first on a construction agreement to build the new JMZ, and to postpone discussions
regarding possible transition of operations to the Friends to a later date after the new facility is
built and has been operated by the City for a period of time. The City Council staff report can be
found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49387.
On November 21, 2016, in a study session with the City Council to discuss the plans for
construction of the new JMZ, staff presented a major change to stay within the $25 million
budget. The design of the new JMZ was revised from a two-story building to a single story
building, predominantly necessitated by the escalation of construction costs over the previous
three years. This change reduced the size of the future JMZ by 4,422 square feet. City staff,
Friends, and Cody Anderson & Wasney Architects (CAW) began working on a plan that would
allow a phased-in design and construction plan, where a small second story and some of the
eliminated zoo features could be added at a later date as funding becomes available. This two
phase plan would add an indoor classroom, an indoor insect and butterfly zoo experience, and
an adjacent exterior canopy walk and tree house above the zoo as Phase Two. The City Council
staff report detailing this change can be found at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54681.
In February 2017, the Friends achieved their $25 million dollar fundraising goal. The City
extends recognition and appreciation to the Friends, and to the Peery Family, who pledged $15
of the $25 million.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Rinconada Park Long Range Plan (See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 to Attachment A)
The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan is a comprehensive evaluation of Rinconada Park,
including its facilities and amenities, and is intended to guide future improvements and
renovations by analyzing current site conditions as well as community uses. The Long Range
Plan provides insight into how the park is currently being utilized and identifies areas in which
the park is under serving. The Long Range Plan will be used to guide future renovations and
development of the park, dividing the work into scheduled phases to be implemented as
funding becomes available over the next 25 years. The Long Range Plan, initiated to identify
and prioritize future renovations and upgrades, establishes a phasing plan that will guide the
use of future capital improvement funds for park renovations and will also identify new
improvements to the park to meet community demands. The Long Range Plan also focuses on
ways to better connect the adjacent community facilities surrounding the park on the site and
across Newell Road (the Palo Alto Art Center and Rinconada Library) to enhance the park as the
central feature and main link to these cultural and community assets, including the JMZ. The
Long Range Plan outlines a number of goals for the site surrounding the JMZ including retaining
parking stall count and clarifying circulation in the parking lot, creating a strong park arrival
experience from Middlefield Road and Lucie Stern Community Center, and integrating the park
visitor experience with the JMZ through art installations and educational features.
Development of the Long Range Plan began in March 2012 and over the next two years a full
park analysis was performed to identify the existing conditions. A community design process
was conducted at the same time over a series of three meetings to capture input and review
design options for enhancements to the park. Community outreach also included forming a
stakeholder group composed of representatives from the surrounding facilities and main park
user groups that provided input and participated in the planning process. The proposed Long
Range Plan recommendations were reviewed by the City’s Boards and Commissions, including
the Parks and Recreation Commission, Architectural Review Board and Planning and
Transportation Commission as well as by City staff. Other feedback was provided by Walter
Hays School, the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Palo Alto Arts
Commission. The Long Range Plan was presented at a community meeting in September 2013
and subsequently reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) in November 2013.
The proposed plan was supported by both the community and the PRC at the time of those
reviews.
The Long Range Plan approval process was placed on hold in order to coordinate efforts
between the Long Range Plan and JMZ and to prepare a single CEQA document for both. In late
2014, the City’s environmental consultant was asked to add the JMZ project to the scope of the
environmental review of the Long Range Plan.
Information regarding the Long Range Plan and history is viewable at the following link:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4032&TargetID=145 and the
link to the report is at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/60982.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The webpage above also provides links to the CEQA documents, plan options considered, and
reports and presentations prepared for prior public meetings. Meeting minutes reflecting the
Park and Recreation Commission (PRC) recommendation on August 22, 2017, are found here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61237
and the complete staff report is found here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61304.
On October 24, 2017, the PRC unanimously voted in favor of recommending that the City
Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and the Long Range Plan. The complete staff report can be found here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62155.
Community feedback on the main elements of the draft Long Range Plan included:
Improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation and connections to surrounding facilities
Consider additional drop-off areas around the park
Locate playgrounds together
Enhance shade seating, picnic and playground areas, pool deck and pool area
Preserve large turf areas for activities
Support shifting the tennis courts to the east to improve access
Renovate the pool building and consider a concession stand at its current location
Protect existing trees
Concrete Bowl should remain flexible for uses other than performances
Do not impede open space such as the Magic Forest
Consider passive recreation uses near the substation perimeter
Improve parking and pedestrian accessibility along Hopkins Street frontage
JMZ Rebuild and Impact on Rinconada Park
The JMZ rebuild will require some adjustments to the west end configuration of Rinconada Park
as described below:
Proposed Design - Inside the Park Boundary - Loose-in-the-Zoo (17,278 sq ft):
Unlike earlier JMZ designs, which showed an expansion of the JMZ and a support building into
parkland the current configuration does not expand into parkland. Only the exterior, open-air
zoo is located in the park, consistent with the existing zoo condition.
The new JMZ will have facilitated, hands-on animal encounters within a fully netted zoo with
loose animals. The zoo experience:
Has animals chosen for their appeal to children and a child’s ability to form a
bond/connection
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Features animals with distinctive qualities such as: active (e.g., meerkats); recognizable
(e.g., bunny); distinct personalities (e.g., Edward the tortoise); native/local (e.g.,
raccoon); and child-appeal (e.g., bats)
Frames animals in context of their natural environment
Offers facilitated animal encounters with a knowledgeable and child-friendly animal
care staff
Encourages physical exploration that capitalizes on a child’s natural desire to play
Offers parallel play experiences and nature-based play environments
Fosters empathy for animals and nature
Inspires conservation as a long-term goal
Offers interpretive signage that encourages sensory-rich observation, inspires curiosity
and question-asking, and fosters parent-child interaction and learning
Is universally designed and accessible to people with varying disabilities
Is sustainably designed using eco-friendly materials and building processes
In this plan, the animals will live within a lush landscape with habitats for the existing animals
and a few new ones, including a meerkat colony. The zoo will be covered with a large protective
net held above the landscape by “the big tree,” where children will climb among the roots, feel
leaf litter and duff. They will find animals living inside the root zone and beneath the tree.
A wall enclosure at the base of the loose-in-the-zoo space (8’0” tall typical, 10’0” tall in limited
locations) will meet zoo enclosure requirements as well as serve as an educational exhibit for
visitors entering the park on the outside of the zoo. For the park visitor, the zoo wall will blend
with the look of the park and will enrich their experience with recreation and education
interactives and a view into the zoo. Adjacent to the public area of the zoo will be a non-public
fenced area with exterior animal enclosures and zoo maintenance materials.
Proposed Design - Outside the Park Boundary
The proposed design creates an inviting park arrival area outside of the park boundary,
between the Girl Scout building and outdoor classroom (1,611 sq ft). The outdoor classroom
will hopefully be the location for the future classroom and butterfly building, which is currently
unfunded. This design allows the park experience to expand beyond its boundary with new
trees, benches, signage, public art, and science/nature themed exhibits. The proposed design
creates opportunities to activate and enrich both JMZ and park visits in the spaces between the
zoo and the park.
The promenade connecting Middlefield Road to the JMZ entrance plaza to Rinconada Park
becomes a journey of discovering natural phenomena and exploring science through child-
scaled experiences. A variety of installations will activate the JMZ entrance such as a bridge
over a bio-swale and boulders to hop through, a large sundial, a tunnel with a color and light
experience that responds to a child's movement, and a large scale kinetic sculpture created by
the public artist, Charles Sowers. A nature-based play area under the pecan tree will be created
with boulders and giant logs with views into the zoo beyond.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
As an outcome of study sessions with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and meetings with
City departments, the site plan was revised to create a promenade connecting Middlefield Road
to the JMZ entrance plaza to Rinconada Park. A pedestrian and bicycle path connects the Lucie
Stern Community Center, the Children’s Library, and Girl Scout building with Rinconada Park to
improve the overall site circulation. During meetings with City staff, goals were developed for
the parking lot, which include pedestrian and bicycle safety, clear organization, and
maintenance of the current parking count. The revised site plan reorients the parking lot to
align with the city grid along Middlefield Road and the grid of the proposed JMZ building. The
revised site plan results in a larger outdoor plaza space to enhance the presence of the building
in the surrounding site and create a safer buffer between children and vehicular traffic.
The revised floor plan and massing reflect a traditional courtyard building with end gabled
roofs, echoing the character of the Lucie Stern Community Center. However, the JMZ building
forms will utilize clean contemporary lines and materials reflecting a building of its time and
place in Palo Alto. In addition, the simple form of the building allows for playful interventions –
sculptural skylight forms, colorful entrance awnings, and playful window patterns.
There will be an improved drop-off zone and paved entrance plaza in front of the museum. An
existing large pecan tree will be protected and featured with a nature-based play area located
under its canopy.
Proposed Design - Museum and Education Building: (15,085 sq ft)
Located outside of the park, the single story structure includes an entrance lobby, exhibit
galleries, visitor amenities (restrooms, stroller parking, etc.), support spaces (wood shop and
general storage), educational classroom, and collections storage. The existing dawn redwood
tree just outside of building will be protected and enclosed within an educational courtyard
providing an additional outdoor exhibit space.
The JMZ plans are provided to Council members and found on the city’s website at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/jmz/building.asp. The design is recommended
by the Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board. Attachment I gives direction
as to how to review the Project plans that the ARB approved.
Interim Site
The scope of the project’s demolition and construction will require the JMZ staff, collections
and animals to move temporarily to the Cubberley Community Center. The JMZ plans to vacate
the existing JMZ in phases beginning in March 2018 to make way for construction of the new
facility. Staff has evaluated several options for temporary relocation of the JMZ during the two
year construction phase and determined relocation to the Cubberley Community Center
auditorium is the most viable option.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
In order to retain JMZ’s dedicated and expert staff to provide appropriate care for its animals,
and to retain its school partners and loyal families, the plan for temporary relocation seeks to
provide as stable of an environment as possible. The temporary JMZ will provide the same
education services it currently offers at its Rinconada Park site, including drop-in science play
experiences for children, science classes and summer camps, and will deploy instructors to
teach science classes in all elementary schools in Palo Alto, as well others in Santa Clara County
and San Mateo County, including East Palo Alto. The JMZ will not provide a public zoo at the
Cubberley site although the animals will be sheltered and cared for there. Staff anticipates
hosting “Meet the Animals” events in the temporary space, to maintain zoo outreach to visitors
during the construction period.
Staff is currently executing the contract for architectural services for the temporary relocation
and will return to Council in January 2018 for approval on that construction contract.
DISCUSSION
CEQA
The first Council action is to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Resolution (Attachment A) is the document
type for this action as well as the vehicle for adoption of the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan.
The MND includes analysis of the Long Range Plan on a programmatic level, and a full analysis
of the JMZ project with associated mitigation measures intended for that component of the
project. Additional CEQA related information is included in the Environmental Review section
of this report. The approvals are noted in the Resolution, Record of Land Use Action and Park
Improvement Ordinance.
Architectural Review Approval and Record of Land Use Action (RLUA)
The City Council is requested to approve the formal Architectural Review application for the
new JMZ, which was submitted on April 27, 2017. The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment
B) is the document type for this action. Prior to the formal application, study sessions for
preliminary review of earlier designs were held with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
Historic Resources Board (HRB). The HRB recommended approval of the formal application in a
public hearing on June 22, 2017 having found the revised project to be consistent with the
Secretary of Interior’s Standards and compatible with its context. The HRB also noted its
support for any nomination of the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House to the National Register
of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources (should the City pursue such
listing).
The ARB reviewed the revised project on August 3, 2017 and recommended Council approval of
the JMZ project on September 21, 2017 following the end of the CEQA public comment period.
The issues that were addressed during the formal ARB review process included roof massing,
exterior materials, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, site drainage and public art placement
relative to signage. The roofline and façade fronting Middlefield Road were modified
City of Palo Alto Page 9
significantly during the process to ensure compatibility with the neighboring homes and the
materials were modified to fit with the context of the Lucie Stern Community Center.
The RLUA for the MND and JMZ project was modified following the ARB public hearing on
September 21, 2017 to incorporate the ARB’s modification to enhance one of the findings to
recognize that removal of one Middlefield Road curb cut would improve school traffic,
and include a condition for ARB sub-committee review of the design of the building’s gable end
facing the parking lot, and modify an approval condition to more specifically address
management of storm water to Hopkins Avenue. The RLUA references the Resolution.
Rinconada Long Range Plan (See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 to Attachment A)
The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan will guide improvements and renovations to Rinconada
Park for the next 25 years. The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan is consistent with the Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan principles related to play, health,
sustainability, inclusivity, accessibility, flexibility, balance, and nature. The Long Range Plan
evaluates Rinconada Park as twelve separate, but connected elements and discusses the
recommendations for each element. The recommendation for each of these elements is
discussed in further detail in the Long Range Plan Report found on the City’s webpage, as noted
earlier in this report. The illustrative site plan of the park is provided as Exhibit 1 of Attachment
A. The elements include:
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
Gateways
Play Areas
Girl Scout House and Group Picnic Area
Main Lawn
Tennis Courts
Pool Area
Arboretum
Concrete Bowl
Magic Forest
Substation Perimeter
Hopkins Street Frontage
As planning and development of each of the recommendations advances, staff will return to
the community, commissions, boards and City Council for input on specific design and funding.
Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO)
Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or
development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for
park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt
a plan. The Park Improvement Ordinance is provided as Attachment C to this report.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
The Park and Recreation Commission (PRC) reviewed designs for the Junior Museum & Zoo
(JMZ) at five meetings, in February 2015, July 2015, April 26, 2016, June 27, 2017 and
September 26, 2017. City Staff and the JMZ design team heard comments from the PRC at
those meetings and presented significant revisions to program and design.
The PRC made the following comments:
Minimize the zoo expansion in parkland
Move the zoo support building out of the parkland
Preserve the heritage and specimen trees as well as the two large mature shade trees in
the parkland
Maintain parking stall count and clear vehicular circulation
The design team achieved all of the PRC recommendations by implementing the following:
The current plan develops 5,217 square feet of parkland for zoo use; a reduction of expansion
into the park of 50 percent, down from the original expansion proposal of 11,000 square
feet. The current plan removes the zoo support building from the park; only the exterior, open-
air zoo is located in the park - consistent with the existing zoo condition. The current plan
preserves all the heritage trees, working closely with Urban Forestry recommendations. The
current plan maintains the parking stall count and dramatically improves circulation.
On September 26, 2017, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) reviewed and
unanimously recommended Council approval of the JMZ PIO (Attachment C). The PRC staff
report for this Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) can be found at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61238.
A change to the PIO was noted in an ‘at places’ memo, which can be found here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61301.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
As mentioned in the background of this report, construction costs have escalated dramatically
over the past several years, which led the Friends to scale back the scope of the JMZ project.
Originally, the redesigned JMZ included several highly interactive features above and below
ground-level including an insectarium, butterfly walkthrough exhibit, bat cave, tree canopy
walkabout, touch tide pool, and additional rooms for rentals and classes. These features were
removed from the project to keep the construction cost at $25 million.
While the Friends are contributing $25 million to fund construction costs for the JMZ rebuild,
the City needs to identify funding for other construction-related costs, which will be required to
occur in tandem with the rebuild. These other necessary projects include a redesigned parking
lot with a raised pedestrian and bicycle pathway; the creation of an official park plaza entrance;
improvement of the areas near the park plaza including the landscaping around the Girl Scout
City of Palo Alto Page 11
House and re-siting of the nearby playground. The design of the parking lot has achieved no
loss of parking stalls, careful consideration of storm drainage, retention of heritage trees,
adequate bike parking, as well as increase in circulation while minimizing cut-through traffic
from Middlefield Road to Hopkins Street.
For Fiscal Year 2018, $706,000 has been allocated for the temporary relocation of the JMZ to
the Cubberley Community Center’s auditorium and the City’s portion of the project’s permit
fees through the JMZ Renovation CIP project (AC-18001). Staff is evaluating additional funding
sources, including the use of remaining unencumbered fund balance of $2,610,800 in the
existing Rinconada Park Improvements CIP project (PE-08001) to fund costs for performance
bonds; furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E); and community outreach, as well as partially
funding costs associated with reconstruction of the parking lot and the new JMZ exhibits.
In addition to the park improvements in the west end of Rinconada Park, there are other
related project costs, including the bulk of the new exhibit program, park signage, as well as
relocation costs associated with moving back in to the new JMZ facility. The current estimate
for these project costs is approximately $3,400,000, and is currently unfunded. Staff is exploring
potential funding sources for these costs, including grants and other City resources in context of
the City’s overall Capital Budget. This funding gap represents a significant challenge due to
rising construction costs in recent years. Specifically, staff notes that costs for the nine projects
included in the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan have increased resulting in the Capital
Improvement Fund Infrastructure Reserve showing a negative balance in the Five Year 2018-
2022 Capital Improvement Plan. Staff will present an update to the Council on the JMZ project
costs and the strategies for providing the necessary funding to complete the Infrastructure Plan
projects in early 2018. With limited resources available to adequately fund all the projects in
the Capital Improvement Fund, including the nine Infrastructure Plan projects, further
prioritization of all capital projects, including this JMZ project, will be necessary.
Operating Costs and Ticketing for the Rebuilt JMZ
The redesigned and expanded JMZ will be more costly to operate than the current JMZ mainly
due to the need for increased staffing as well as increased maintenance and utilities.
Additionally the JMZ will be accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the
American Alliance of Museums and must meet certain standards, such as increased animal
care, that have a budgetary impact. The increase in operating costs will be largely offset by an
increase in contributed income managed by the Friends, and a ticketed gate managed by the
City.
Staff and Friends believe that a ticketed gate is necessary in the new JMZ, breaking with a long
tradition of free admission, albeit with a current suggested donation of $5 per visitor. In the
past year, the JMZ had approximately 184,000 visits, and 80 percent of JMZ visitors identify as
repeat guests. Staff anticipates that annual memberships will be very popular, and will
recommend a basic membership be available for families for unlimited annual visits. The JMZ
City of Palo Alto Page 12
will also have programs that provide access to low income families such as special passes,
memberships, and transportation, developed in partnership with community
organizations. Friends of the JMZ will expand its fund development efforts in the form of
donations, sponsorships, underwriters and grants.
The goal of the new JMZ is to build a new operating model that will, over time, reduce the
general fund subsidy through the steady increase of contributed and earned revenue, and the
longer term goal of transitioning management of the JMZ to a non-profit model.
Similar local venues currently charge the following rates:
•Habitot, Berkeley - $10
•Happy Hollow, San Jose - $14.25
•Children’s Discovery Museum, San Jose - $15
•Curiodyssey, San Mateo (most similar to JMZ) - $8.50 – 12.50
When staff returns to Council in early 2018, the increase in operating costs and revenue will be
fully discussed and evaluated through a pro forma and report by a revenue analysis consultant.
IMLS Grant Acceptance
The JMZ was recently awarded an IMLS grant in the amount of $270,124 to ensure that all JMZ
exhibits are fully accessible to children of all abilities. Staff recommends that Council accept
this IMLS grant, as recommended in Action 4 and approve the addition of a part-time
unbenefited 0.48 FTE position limit dated through September 30, 2020 as recommended in
Action 5 above. Staff is still determining which classification would be most appropriate for the
role. For more information on this grant award, please review Attachment G IMLS
Grant. Additional grant applications have been submitted and staff expect to learn about these
awards in early 2018.
“Access from the Ground Up” is a three-year project to make the new JMZ facility and its
exhibits accessible to everyone. It will span a 36 month period, from December 2017 to
September 2020. Funded by an IMLS grant in the amount of $270,124, it will provide science
learning opportunities to children with physical and developmental disabilities. The JMZ will
build relationships with partner organizations that serve children with disabilities, provide
professional development for staff, and engage experts and families who have children with
disabilities in the development of exhibits and access resources such as noise-cancelling
headphones, wheelchair tables, braille label guides, and tactile maps. As a result, the JMZ will
be more accessible to visitors and more engaged with the disability community. The project will
serve as a regional and national model for inclusion for museums and zoos of all types and
sizes.
Receipt of grant funds and expenditures is expected to commence in Fiscal Year 2018 and be
completed by Fiscal Year 2021. The IMLS award is a matching grant, and the City will achieve its
City of Palo Alto Page 13
matching requirement with ongoing salaries as well as regular exhibition expenses. There is no
additional cost to the City.
Agreements
With groundbreaking scheduled to begin in June 2018, the City and Friends have created three
agreements needed for the construction of the new JMZ: Facility Agreement, Site Lease, and
Restrictive Use Agreement. These agreements will come to Council early in 2018 for approval,
along with the aforementioned budgetary items.
TIMELINE (See Attachment H, Project Schedule)
Remodeling of the Cubberley Auditorium will occur in Winter 2018, with a phased
temporary relocation of staff and animals occurring in March through May.
Ground breaking is planned for June 2018 and the grand opening of the new JMZ is
planned for May of 2020.
Rinconada Long Range Plan implementation schedule: because of the impact of the JMZ
Project on the Long Range Plan, the initial focus of the twenty-year Long Range Plan will
be on the improvements to Rinconada Park’s west end, closest to the JMZ.
Improvements include the parking lot, pedestrian and bicycle pathway, the park plaza
entry, the area around and near to the Girl Scout house, including the playground. The
park pathways and improvements near the swimming pool and beyond will wait until
the JMZ project is completed and more resources can be identified.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
JMZ Project
As noted in the draft RLUA, staff and the ARB found the JMZ project to be consistent with
applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. As per the newly adopted
Comprehensive Plan, specific policies relevant to this project are:
Policy C-1.4 Promote City parks, open spaces, recreational facilities, libraries, classes and
cultural activities for community members recognizing that these facilities and services
build and strengthen community. [NEW POLICY] [C11]
Policy C-1.16 Provide arts, science and recreational activities that foster healthy
children, youth and teen development. [NEW POLICY] [C30]
Policy C-1.20 Leverage available funding to support the development of, and improved
access to, programs that address all types of developmental disabilities, including
physical, sensory, cognitive or social/emotional needs. [NEW POLICY] [C42]
Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures.(Previous Policy L-12)
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Policy C-3.2 Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance.
Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure.
Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces. (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure
AES-1, LAND-1, LAND-2) (Previous Policy L-48) [L80]
Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote
personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of community
safety. (Previous Policy L-49) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1) [L87]
Policy L-8.5 Recognize public art and cultural facilities as a community benefit.
Encourage the development of new and the enhancement of existing public and private
art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible
with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. [Previous Policy L-72]
[L122]
Policy L-9.6 Create, preserve and enhance parks and publicly accessible, shared outdoor
gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of residential neighborhoods.
(Previous Policy L-15) (Comp Plan Draft EIR LAND-1) [L132]
Policy N-2.10 Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other
significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as
part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree
protection in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-17] [N45]
Staff and the ARB also found the JMZ project to be consistent with the Public Facility uses and
development standards, and with the other applicable Zoning Code regulations, including the
City’s parking regulations.
Design Approval
As noted in Municipal Code, 18.40.170 (b) and (c), approval of the design of the new JMZ is
deferred to and deemed appropriate for Council approval.
In 2017, Council added to Chapter 18.40 General Standards and Exceptions. (Please note
that this code change is not referenced in the chapter on ARB process (Chapter 18.77).
18.40.170 Deferral of Director's Action
o The director shall have the authority to forward projects to City Council for final
action in the circumstances listed below. No action by the Director shall be
required, and the appeal process and or request for hearing process shall not
apply to such referred actions.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
(a) In the case of projects having multiple entitlements, where one requires
City Council approval, all entitlements may be referred to City Council for final
action;
(b) Projects involving leases or agreements for the use of City-owned property;
and
(c) Projects, as deemed appropriate by the director.
(Ord. 5406 § 4, 2017)
Rinconada Park Long Range Plan
The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (adopted September 11,
2017) recognizes the need for an improved pool facility at Rinconada Park. In addition, several
policies support the Long Range Plan goals, including:
Policy 1.E: Apply universal design principles as the preferred guidance for design
solutions in parks, striving to exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements; and
Policy 2.A: Sustain the community’s investment in parks and recreation facilities; and
Policy 4.D: Promote, expand and protect habitat and natural areas in parks and open
space; and
Policy 5.B Support innovation in recreation programming and park features and
amenities.
The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan is found at the following link and is attached as Exhibit 2 of
Attachment A:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/60982
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated for public comment from
August 4, 2017 through September 5, 2017. The signed MND and Initial Study are provided as
one attachment (Attachment D) to this report; the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) is within the same attachment. The Initial Study is publicly
available at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58990.
The RLUA includes the mitigation measures related to nesting birds, archeological resource
protections, and construction noise (#3a – #3d). The MMRP is included as Exhibit A to the RLUA
(incorporated by reference).
On August 10, 2017, the City held a community meeting to receive comments from the public
on the CEQA Initial Study and MMRP. Two written comments on the project were provided to
the ARB for the September 21, 2107 hearing prior to its recommendation to Council on the
City of Palo Alto Page 16
project. The comments received were included as attachments to the ARB report (see
Attachment E Public Comments to ARB and Attachment F September 21, 2017 ARB Minutes).
They are also viewable as part of the staff report at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61805. One commenter was
supportive of the metal roof and the Long Range Plan. The other commenter provided input on
several aspects of the project related to the architectural look of the building, noting that the
architecture and metal roof are too rustic and industrial.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Adopting MND, MMRP, RPLRP
Exhibit 1 to Attachment 'A' - Rinconada Long Range Plan Diagram
Exhibit 2 to Attatchment 'A' - Rinconada Long Range Plan
Attachment B: ROLUA JMZ Architectural Review Approval
Attachment C Park Improvement Ordinance Rin Park JMZ
Exhibit A to Attachment 'C' - Diagram of Proposed Improvements
Attachment D: CEQA - IS/MND and MMRP for the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan and
the JMZ Project
Attachment E: Public comments to ARB
Attachment F: September 21 2017 ARB excerpt minutes
Attachment G IMLS JMZ Grant
Attachment H JMZ Project Schedule
Attachment I: Project Plans (Council Only) - How Public Can See Plans via Building Eye
NOT YET APPROVED
RESOLUTION NO. ____
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO PROJECT AND THE RINCONADA PARK LONG
RANGE PLAN, AND APPROVING THE RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN
RECITALS
A. The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan programmatic-level environmental review process
has been connected with the project-specific Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) “rebuild”
environmental review process since late 2014, to allow the full scope of comprehensive
environmental review;
B. Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Palo Alto prepared an Initial Study
and approved for circulation a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rinconada Long Range
Plan and Junior Museum and Zoo Project (the “Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration”) all
in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,
together with state and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date
(collectively “CEQA”).
C. The Rinconada Long Range Plan and Junior Museum and Zoo Project (the “Project”)
analyzed under the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is a guidance and planning
document for park, museum and zoo improvements, expansion and enhancement of facilities
and services, and renovations to the Rinconada Park area to serve the community’s needs. A
more detailed description of the Project is set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
D. The draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public
comment from August 4, 2017 through September 5, 2017.
E. The City of Palo Alto considered the comments received during the public review period
and prepared a final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration including minor revisions.
F. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that implementation of the
Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment and identified
mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-
significant level.
G. In connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an initial
study/mitigated negative declaration that identifies one or more significant environmental
effects, CEQA requires the decision-making body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible
mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environmental effects to a less-than-
significant level.
H. Whenever a lead agency approves a project requiring the implementation of measures
to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, CEQA also requires the lead agency
to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure compliance with the
mitigation measures during project implementation, and such a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program has been prepared for the Project for consideration by the decision-making
body of the City of Palo Alto as lead agency for the Project (the “Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program” or “MMRP”).
I. The City of Palo Alto is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the
decision-making body for the proposed approval of the Project.
J. On September 21, 2017, the Architectural Review Board conducted a public hearing
allowing for public comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the JMZ project, and recommended
Council approval of the JMZ project based on findings and conditions set forth in the Record of
Land Use Action (RLUA);
K. On October 24, 2017, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) unanimously voted to
recommend that the City Council adopt the MND, MMRP and the Rinconada Park Long Range
Plan;
L. The PRC recognized that the JMZ rebuild will require some adjustments to the west end
configuration of Rinconada Park but that only the exterior, open-air zoo is located in the park,
consistent with the existing zoo condition, and recommended City Council adopt the Parks
Improvement Ordinance (PIO);
M. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, together
with comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and intends to
take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines
implementing CEQA. The IS, MND and MMRP can be found as Attachment D to the staff report
related to this resolution.
N. The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan was initiated to identify and prioritize future
renovations and upgrades, and is a comprehensive evaluation of Rinconada Park, including its
facilities and amenities, which:
establishes a phasing plan that evaluates Rinconada Park as 12 separate but
connected elements and discusses the recommendations for each element,
analyzes current site conditions as well as community uses,
provides insight into how the park is currently being utilized,
identifies areas in which the park is under serving;
O. The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan:
will guide future capital improvement funds for renovations and development of
the park, dividing the work into scheduled phases to be implemented as funding
becomes available over the next 25 years;
identifies new improvements to the park to meet community demands,
focuses on ways to better connect the adjacent community facilities surrounding
the park on the site and across Newell Road (the Palo Alto Art Center and
Rinconada Library) to enhance the park as the central feature and main link to
these cultural and community assets, including the JMZ,
outlines a number of goals for the site surrounding the JMZ including retaining
parking stall count and clarifying circulation in the parking lot, creating a strong
park arrival experience from Middlefield Road and Lucie Stern Community
Center, and integrating the park visitor experience with the JMZ through art
installations and educational features, and
is consistent with the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation
Master Plan principles related to play, health, sustainability, inclusivity,
accessibility, flexibility, balance, and nature.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby make the following findings: (1) it has
independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and
other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, prior to
acting upon or approving the Project, (2) the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and is consistent with
state and local guidelines implementing CEQA, and (3) the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Palo Alto, as lead
agency for the Project. The City Council designates the Director of Public Works, at 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, as the custodian of documents and records of
proceedings on which this decision is based.
SECTION 2. THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby find that based upon the entire record of
proceedings before it and all information received that there is no substantial evidence that the
Project will have a significant effect on the environment and does hereby adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for
the Project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for viewing at City of
Palo Alto City Hall, 5th Floor – Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94301.
SECTION 3. The City Council approves the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
________________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Deputy City Attorney
RINCONADA PARK
DRAFT
LONG RANGE PLAN
July 2017
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN
CITY OF PALO ALTO
This project was a joint effort of the Community Services and Public Works Departments of the City of
Palo Alto. The core team included the following staff members:
Rob de Geus, Director of Community Services
Kristen O’Kane, Assistant Director of Community Services
Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works
Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks & Golf Division Manager
Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect
Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
The parks and Recreation Commission advised staff throughout the planning process:
Current Members:
Keith Reckdahl
Anne Warner Cribbs
Jeff Lamere
Jeff Greenfield
Ryan McCauley
Don McDougall
David Moss
Past Members:
Stacy Ashlund
Dierdre Crommie
Jennifer Hetterly
Abbie Knopper
Ed Lauing
Pat Markevitch
Jim Cowie
CONSULTANTS
Primary Consultant
Verde Landscape
2455 The Alameda # 200, Santa Clara, CA 95050
Report By
MIG, INC.
800 Hearst Ave, Berkeley, CA 94710
PALO ALTO COMMUNITY
Special thanks to the dedicated Palo Alto residents and community members who contributed their time,
energy and ideas to this effort, particularly the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group.
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
In 2012, the City of Palo Alto (the City) launched a long-range planning
process for Rinconada Park. The park is home to many of Palo Alto’s
valued recreational, cultural, and natural resources, including tennis
courts, the Junior Museum and Zoo, the City’s only public aquatic facility,
and a rich canopy of mature redwood and oak trees. The park is adjacent
to the Lucie Stern Community Center and fire and power stations.
Encompassing 11.8 acres of land, Rinconada Park is centrally located in
Palo Alto’s Community Center neighborhood and abuts Embarcadero
Road. The park is a popular destination for both Palo Alto residents and
community members from the surrounding region.
The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan will guide improvements and
renovations to Rinconada Park for the next 25 years. The development of
the Plan reflects the City’s commitment to evolving the parks system to
serve a larger and more diverse set of community needs and maintain
the high standard of living enjoyed by residents. The Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan is consistent with the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space
& Recreation Master Plan principles related to play, health, sustainability,
inclusivity, accessibility, flexibility, balance, and nature.
The planning process started in spring of 2012. The Project Team,
including the design consultant and City staff, worked closely with
community members and stakeholders to understand needs, and
establish priorities for Rinconada Park. The Project Team translated the
initial public input into three design alternatives, which were then
explored by community members and stakeholders. The preferred
design, presented in this document, represents a community supported
vision for one of Palo Alto’s most treasured parks.
RINCONADA PARK
LONG TERM PLAN
OBJECTIVES
Coordinate and update
park resources and
amenities to reflect current
and future needs of park
users.
Balance the needs of a
diversity of users.
Respond to park usage as it
relates to the surrounding
neighborhood and
community facilities.
Address safety concerns
and make building code
updates and infrastructural
improvements.
Establish priority
improvements and a
phased implementation
plan and budget.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
a
n
d
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 2
Chapter II of this Long Range Plan document includes the Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan design with descriptions of planned improvements and
a summary of the implementation approach. Chapter III describes the
process that shaped the Plan, including site analysis and community
engagement. The appendices include a complete cost analysis and
phasing.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 3
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
The technical analysis and public outreach indicated a need for improved
circulation and park gateways as well has enhanced play and social
spaces, natural areas, and recreational amenities in Rinconada Park. The
Long Range Plan includes improvements to circulation, parking, safety,
and accessibility; creating a sense of aesthetic consistency throughout
the park though clear wayfinding and program identification, site
furnishing upgrades, and pathway materials; and preservation and
integration of heritage trees and water-wise landscaping. (See Graphic
1.) The Plan divides the park into twelve elements per the overall
character or programed activity of each. These twelve park elements
include:
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
Gateways
Play Areas
Girl Scout House and Group Picnic Area
Main Lawn
Tennis Courts
Pool Area
Arboretum
Concrete Bowl
Magic Forest
Substation Perimeter
Hopkins Street Frontage
This chapter describes each element followed by a description of the
implementation phases.
PLAN ELEMENTS
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION
Rinconada Park’s internal path system will weave together the many uses
and integrate the park into Palo Alto’s citywide multimodal
transportation network. (See Graphic 2.) Insert Circulation – Pedestrian
Graphic The main pathway through Rinconada Park will connect the park
entryways at the east and west ends of the park, providing pedestrian
and bicycle access to the many amenities in and adjacent to the park.
Bike racks located at heavily used entryways and distributed throughout
the park will allow users to secure their bicycles while making use of the
entire park.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 4
The main pathway will be 15-feet wide and constructed of concrete. It
may be textured, colored, or patterned to enhance crossings, gathering
spaces, and entryways. Smaller pathways, constructed of decomposed
granite, will connect secondary park entrances and recreation and play
areas with the main path. Pathways in proximity to existing mature
native trees will be constructed of permeable paving to allow for
stormwater absorption into the soil.
Sidewalk, crosswalk, and entryway enhancements will improve the
visibility and accessibility of the park and better connect Rinconada Park
with surrounding neighborhoods.
GATEWAYS
West Entrance (Rinconada Parking Lot)
The west entrance to Rinconada Park will feature a new plaza that
showcases the existing mature trees. Other enhancements may include
an architectural structure with a welcome sign, wayfinding signage, and
pedestrian scale art work celebrating the Palo Alto Junior Museum and
Zoo. Colorful low plantings and shade trees will welcome visitors and
allow for visibility in and out of the park.
East Entrance (Newell)
The main east entrance is an important point of access to the park,
linking the Rinconada Library and Art Center. An improved crosswalk at
the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Newell Road, a drop-off zone, and a
meandering pathway set back from Newell Road will create an inviting
gateway that connects the park with the Rinconada Library and the Palo
Alto Art Center. To achieve the meandering path the existing row of
Redwood trees will be removed, due to high voltage electrical lines
above that require the continuous topping of the trees and subsequent
declining health. The redwood trees will be replaced with other types of
native trees more appropriate for the growing space. An enhanced
shuttle stop along this path will serve both Rinconada Park and the
Library and Art Center.
In congruence with the park’s west entrance, a welcome sign and
wayfinding signage will greet visitors at the entry. Additional lighting will
highlight the entrance while enhancing security. A three dumpster refuse
bin enclosure with access from Newell Road with solid walls and gates
will provide additional service to the park reducing trash pick-up in the
park.
WEST ENTRANCE
EAST ENTRANCE
SOUTH ENTRANCE
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 5
South Entrance (Embarcadero)
Special paving, low landscaped themed stone walls that curve into the
park and away from the curb edge, and art elements will announce the
park entrances into the Arboretum and improve circulation for the
pedestrian and bicyclists accessing the park from the sidewalk
PLAY AREAS
The Long Range Plan brings the tot lot and older child play equipment
together, creating one integrated play environment at the west end of
the park. The space will be accessible for children of all ages and abilities.
The consolidated play spaces will allow guardians to supervise children of
different ages. A low fence will provide secure enclosure and delineate
the children’s areas. Shade sails over the play equipment will protect
children from the direct sun. An adult exercise area features exterior
fitness equipment and open rubber surfacing for physical activity.
Placed between the playground and main lawn activity area, this exercise
space will provide opportunities for people of all generations and
abilities. Seating around the play equipment, the nearby Group picnic
area, and outdoor exercise equipment directly to the east will establish
this as a hub of multigenerational activity. A new restroom located at the
west end of the park will be open during park hours of operation and will
serve this play area and main group picnic area. The established large
trees in and around this space will be preserved.
GIRL SCOUT HOUSE AND GROUP PICNIC AREA
Girl Scout House
The Girl Scout House will be enhanced with ADA upgrades and additional
amenities. This element will be shared by the public and Girl Scouts, with
Girl Scouts having priority use.
Group Picnic Area
New and improved amenities include a fire pit, food preparation table,
benches, and picnic area.
MAIN LAWN
Rinconada Park’s existing large lawn area will remain open space and the
existing mature trees in the middle of the lawn area should not be
replaced when they naturally decline. Due to the limited amount of open
space for large group gathering or activities replacement trees for those
trees located in the main lawn are not recommended to be replaced in
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 6
their current locations, however, further tree planted should be
considered in the many planting areas found throughout the park. The
lawn area can be accessed from a secondary entry on Hopkins Avenue
via the main pathway. The north end of the lawn is boarded by a
secondary pathway and includes a large shaded picnic area. Walter Hays
Elementary School borders the lawn area and uses the pathway as a
running and walking loop. The improved path will include entry nodes
with educational elements, artwork, and demonstration gardens
adjacent to the pathway.
TENNIS COURTS (within the park)
The tennis courts are heavily used, valued by community members. The
Long Range Plan shifts the courts to the west to allow a pedestrian
access route along the east side of the courts. Additional seating and
viewing space will be added around the perimeter, which will help to
enhance the courts as community space where family, friends, and
passersby can watch tournaments or casual play. On the west side, a
covered pavilion will be open to the public and used by the Tennis Club
as desired for check-in and coordination. To the south of the courts, an
informal tennis plaza with shaded seating will provide space for
spectators. A permeable area designed to protect the roots of the large
heritage oak tree will replace the existing tot lot playground and provide
areas of shaded seating and gathering.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 7
POOL AREA
The pool is a popular and beloved community destination and is used for
recreation, fitness, and competitive swimming. Improvements will better
integrate the pool into the fabric of Rinconada Park and enhance the
pool as a central gathering place. Enhancements include the following:
Pool Deck Expansion
Enhancements include increasing the pool deck area on the west side of
the lap pool to provide a much needed larger deck space and to the east
side of the children’s pool providing a larger seating area for families to
gather. Increased the access to shade in the expanded deck areas will
also be incorporated.
Pool Building and Locker Room Renovations
The Long Term Plan recommends the renovation to the existing 4,700
square foot pool structure that includes the locker rooms, office, and
pool storage. The renovation will add a 2,300 square foot wing for a new
public restroom, activity room and a potential space for concessions. The
City may consider concessions operated by a private entity, managed
under the same guidelines as the café in the new Mitchell Park
Community Center and Library.
Exterior Pool Plaza Area
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 8
On the south side of the pool building, a plaza with thematic paving,
shaded seating and art work will provide an additional area for pool
related activities, including concessions. The perimeter fencing will be
replaced with a more transparent screen that will contribute to the
integration of the pool into the surrounding park and enhance the social
areas. A direct service corridor from Newell Road to the pool will allow
for improved serviceability.
Long Term Pool Expansion
Space has also been defined in the plan for the possible expansion of the
existing lap pool towards the west end of the pool area to accommodate
the demand for increased swimming programs and lanes.
ARBORETUM
The Long Range Plan preserves Rinconada Park’s established tree
canopy. The Arboretum is home to many of the park’s heritage trees and
celebrates these special natural features. The Arboretum is the face of
Rinconada Park to people traveling on Embarcadero.
Within the Arboretum, existing turf areas will be eliminated under the
existing oak trees and replaced with drought tolerant plantings to
enhance and accentuate the existing specimen trees. Improved lighting
will highlight entry elements as well as select trees. The spaces in the
Arboretum are designed for quiet activities.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 9
CONCRETE BOWL
The existing concrete bowl space will be enhanced to continue to
support community gatherings and performances. A small stage to
replace the existing and related infrastructure including electrical, data,
sound and lighting will be installed. The lawn seating area will be
maintained in its current configuration. A turf area along the mounded
berm will continue to provide overflow ‘lawn’ seating for additional
spectators. A planted screen will buffer the concrete bowl from Walter
Hays Elementary School. When the bowl is not in use for performances
and events, the City should consider temporary programming such as
portable skateboard park installations or outdoor classes.
MAGIC FOREST
The Magic Forest includes more than 60 mature redwood trees. This
unique park element will be preserved with limited improvements.
Access to the Magic Forest will be enhanced with a new sidewalk along
Hopkins Avenue, a street crossing, and secondary park entries with
signage. There will be a lighted access path to the existing ball wall and
into the park. The shuffleboard courts will be removed and individual
picnic tables will be placed throughout the Magic Forest. A more
transparent fence area will provide views to the pool.
POWER SUBSTATION PERIMETER
This area will include two bocce courts, picnic facilities, and pedestrian
scale art elements. The east end of the pool deck will provide access to
the small picnic and bocce area.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 10
HOPKINS STREET FRONTAGE
A new sidewalk in the location of the existing hedge along the tennis
courts will complete a contiguous walkway along the edge of the park on
Hopkins Avenue. New sidewalks and crosswalks will be aligned with
proposed curb cuts along Hopkins Avenue. The improvements will
provide ADA access to the tennis courts. A planted “green” screen added
to the Hopkins side of the tennis courts will provide an aesthetic street
frontage.
PARKWIDE PLANTINGS
The Long Range Plan generally recommends that turf be limited to areas
programmed for active recreation and be removed anywhere it is
underutilized and does not support programming. Where turf is
removed, the City should consider replacing it with drought tolerant
landscaping. Planting buffers and delawned areas should provide visual,
seasonal, and textural interest with consideration given to providing
pollinator gardens and habitats for birds, bees, and butterflies. The
park’s heritage trees should be preserved and a plan developed for
successional tree plantings to ensure a diverse urban forest.
IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of the Rinconada Long Range Plan will be
accomplished over the next 25 years through multiple phases of capital
improvement projects.
PHASING PLAN
Short term projects (to be completed by 2022)
Western edge improvements to the play area and parking lot
connection.
Rinconada parking lot and building frontage along the park’s
edge.
Paving improvements through the center of the park.
Improvements will align with the proposed LRP and develop
some of the plaza spaces adjacent to the aquatics and tennis
court areas. Paving will align with the existing improvements on
the western end of park.
Enhanced park entry on Newell Road with a trash bin area.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 11
Signage improvements as part of the City’s signage
improvement plan. Signage will also include wayfinding signage
in the park.
Arboretum Area with improved walkways and entries off of
Embarcadero.
Add restroom to west end of park.
Mid-term projects (to be completed between 2023 and 2030)
Expand and improve open lawn.
Remodel and expand pool building and restroom structure.
Hopkins Street improvements.
Concrete bowl improvements.
Magical Forest Improvements.
Long term implementation will include (to be completed after 2030)
Pool remodel and expansion.
Shifting of Tennis courts.
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 12
CHAPTER III: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
An analysis of existing conditions, technical sources, and community
input revealed a variety of assets, constraints, and opportunities for
Rinconada Park. The design team evaluated traffic and parking studies
and made site visits to the park to observe the existing conditions and
park users. Input was gathered from community members,
commissioners, committees, and stakeholders. The following section
summarizes the existing conditions, community input, and analysis.
CONTEXT
Established in 1922, Rinconada Park is Palo Alto’s second oldest park.
The most recent renovation was an irrigation upgrade in 1999. Since
1990, only the children’s play equipment has been upgraded and the
tennis courts resurfaced.
Now, in 2017, Palo Alto looks much different. The City has been at the
epicenter of the growth and prosperity experienced by the Silicon Valley
region in recent years. Along with many opportunities, the growth has
also brought increased housing demand, traffic congestion, and a
changing population. During this period, California also experienced
record setting drought and mandated water use restrictions.
The City of Palo Alto is dedicated to preserving a high quality of life for its
residents while also growing sustainably, addressing climate change,
supporting healthy ecosystems, and providing recreational and cultural
opportunities for a diverse community. Today, Rinconada Park is loved
and highly utilized by the community, but it needs updates and
improvements to support the changing community and environment and
to align with current park design standards and best practices.
EXISTING USER GROUPS
Rinconada Park is a hub of activity in Palo Alto and is used by a variety of
community members with a range of interests and needs. Palo Alto
residents and community members from neighboring cities visit
Rinconada Park for its unique amenities and recreational opportunities.
Community members picnic, play, exercise, and socialize. The park is
home to the Rinconada Masters Swim Team, Palo Alto Swim Club, and
the Palo Alto Tennis Club. The park is also used by the Girl Scouts and
Walter Hays Elementary School students.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 13
COMMUNITY INPUT
The Rinconada Long Range Plan was developed in collaboration with
community members and stakeholders. Engagement activities included
stakeholder meetings, community meetings, a community survey, and
City Commission meetings.
Stakeholder Advisory Committee members included representatives
from six neighborhood associations, Palo Alto Swim Club, Master Swim
Club, lap swimmers, Tennis Players Association, Girls Scout House, Lucie
Stern Community Center, Junior Museum & Zoo, Children’s Library,
Children’s Theater, Friends of the Art Center, Friends of the Palo Alto
Parks, Canopy, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Walter Hayes
Elementary School.
The design team translated initial community input and ideas into three
design alternatives. The design alternatives were presented to
community members and stakeholders who provided feedback on the
designs, identifying their preferred improvements. Community feedback
and insights are incorporated into the following Existing Conditions and
Site Analysis section.
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 14
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SITE ANALYSIS
Public input and an evaluation of existing conditions in Rinconada Park
shaped the Long Term Plan recommendations. The analysis surfaced
constraints as well as significant opportunities. Following is a discussion
of the challenges and opportunities related to each park element.
PARKWIDE
Plantings
Trees are one of the major assets of the park, particularly the Magic
Forest and the Arboretum trees along Embarcadero Road. Different
types of uses that occur under trees, and the materials that accompany
those uses should be carefully identified as longevity and health of the
trees should take priority. Tree groupings help define spaces in the park.
A reforestation and replacement plan should be developed and
implemented, as well as a possible tree identification or education
program.
Safety and Visibility
RINCONADA PARK
CONSTRAINTS AND
OPPORTUNITIES
Constraints
Interface with adjacent
uses
Existing site layout
Historical uses
Existing trees
Parking
Opportunities
Increasing connectivity
Installing educational and
interpretive elements
Expanding park programs
Preserving tree canopy
Incorporating artwork
Supporting city-wide
sustainability goals
E
x
p
a
n
d
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 15
Street crossings from park entrances should be improvement for safety
and ADA accessibility. Throughout the park, lighting is minimal and
certain areas feel more secluded and less visible. Park safety could be
improved through site lighting, emergency call stations, and defined fire
and emergency access routes. Site lines, the sense of safety in the park,
and police input should be considered.
Maintenance
The current maintenance and delivery vehicle routes conflict with users
and park features. There is damage to softscape edges and planting
areas from service vehicles needing to make tight turns. The asphalt is
damaged along the edges of pathways. concrete edge bands would help
protect asphalt from damage. Throughout the park turf areas could be
reduced to save water and maintenance.
Trash management should be improved. Dumpster enclosures and their
locations need to be reconsidered and updated. Service locations and
routes need to be separated from park use. Trash and recycling bins
should be placed throughout the park in high use locations such as picnic
areas. Composting options should be considered. Trash receptacles
should match the style of other site furnishings and be accessible.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION
Internal
Rinconada Park’s main pedestrian path and vehicular path are combined,
which causes conflicts and inefficiencies. The condition of the existing
pathways is poor. Some pathways are not dedicated or are poorly
defined. Pathways must avoid trees and pavement under mature trees
should be permeable. Dedicated vehicular routes, including adequate
vehicular load calculations, with wayfinding signage should be
considered.
External
The park’s relationship and connection to adjacent uses should be
improved. The location of entries and crosswalks should be reconsidered
and improved. Visual connections into the park from adjacent roadways
and neighborhoods are important, and should be considered when
locating or relocating program elements. Off-site directional signage to
the park should be provided.
GATEWAYS
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 16
West Entrance
The western entry and parking areas are disorganized and inefficient,
with poor connectivity to adjacent areas. There are no dedicated service
routes, signage, or wayfinding. There are more trash and recycling bins
than necessary and they are not placed strategically, which creates visual
clutter and degrades one the of the park’s main entryways. The site
furnishings in this area are antiquated and should be upgraded to create
a unifying theme.
PLAY AREAS
Western Playground
The western playground equipment, which serves older children (5-12
years old), should be replaced with more dynamic equipment, as
recommended by the Citywide Play Equipment Replacement Plan.
Despite the play area’s proximity to the Children’s Museum and Zoo, the
uses are disconnected. There are great opportunities for improving
circulation and integrating the uses into a youth-focused, dynamic play
environment.
Northern Playground Tot Lot
The northern playground tot lot area is located toward the center of the
park and isolated from the western playground area. The separation
creates a challenge for families with younger and older children. The tot
lot should be moved closer to the older children playground on the
southwest side of the park. The same observations related to the
condition of the structures and site furnishings of the western
playground apply to the tot lot. Additionally, the sand surfacing in the tot
lot limits accessibly. Alternative surfacing options should be explored to
improve accessibility and safety.
There is a large oak tree in this area that is an incredible asset and should
be protected. The playground and associated uses should be moved
from under the tree as recommended by the City Arborist. If the area
under the tree remains paved, new paving should be permeable or
include a raised platform, which could serve as a seating area.
Girl Scout House
The group picnic area, next to the Girl Scout House, is heavily used and in
need of renovation. The Girl Scout House is disconnected from the play
area. The play area and Girl Scout House should be more cohesive.
Privacy and separation from the neighbors is needed.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 17
MAIN LAWN
The western lawn area is located at the west end of the park between
the two playgrounds and abuts Walter Hays Elementary School. This area
is mostly un-programmed open space with perimeter pathways. The turf
edge bordering the school is aesthetically sterile and institutional and
underutilized. The lawn supports large events, but lacks amenities and
utilities. There are several large trees as well as others which were
recently planted. These trees should be reviewed as to their location in
the lawn and whether they classify as heritage trees. If specific trees
were to be removed it would offer the opportunity for a larger
unobstructed open space and enhanced site lines.
The Hopkins Avenue side of the western lawn includes numerous large
trees that should be protected. This area of turf and irrigated
landscaping could be reduced and replaced with a group picnic area and
drought tolerant, low maintenance plantings. Along Hopkins Avenue, the
park edges are not well defined and pathways are being impacted by
tree roots. There is a need for designated access and ADA improvements.
This edge of the park would also benefit from screening to buffer
adjacent neighbors from park elements such as trash.
TENNIS COURTS AND POOL AREA
The tennis courts and pool area is a heavily used active area of
Rinconada Park that shares parking and circulation. Circulation, parking,
and usage should all be improved around the tennis courts and pool.
Parking improvements are required along Hopkins Avenue to address
circulation and lack of accessibility. Connections to parking, including
sidewalks, signage, ramps, and curbs are limited.
There is an informal social path on the northeast side of the tennis courts
that cuts through the Magic Forest. This pathway should be widened to
allow for a variety of users or users should be directed to alternate
access routes. Currently there is conflict between maintenance,
deliveries, and pedestrian circulation, which should be addressed with
designated pathways and wayfinding. Service and utility use areas and
pathways should be separated from park use areas and pathways.
Tennis Courts
There are opportunities to improve the aesthetics and directional
wayfinding and program element identification. The hedge along
Hopkins Ave could be reduced or removed, which would provide a wider
and more accessible sidewalk along the existing parking. The parking and
tennis courts are at different elevations, which creates access challenges.
The tennis court perimeter is showing age and the fencing is too short.
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 18
The tennis users have requested a designated storage or small office
building.
Pool Area
The observations related to circulation and parking above also apply to
the pool. The pool area is not visually integrated into the park and feels
isolated. The pool building could use renovations to align with usage and
code requirements. The exterior of the building offers opportunities such
as murals, art, or integrated wayfinding, tying it into the park.
ARBORETUM
The Arboretum area is located at the southeast side of the park along
Embarcadero Road. The mature trees should be preserved and will
require protection from overwatering and root damage. Pathways
through this area should meander to avoid the trees. There is
opportunity to use this space as a passive recreation area and/or a
secluded area for weddings or other events with a small pavilion nestled
in the trees. The edge along Embarcadero Road lacks defined entrances
and site elements. Pedestrian and bicycling safety should be improved
along the park’s border with Embarcadero Road.
CONCRETE BOWL
The concrete bowl area is located towards the center of the park at the
northwest corner of the Arboretum. This area is underutilized due to lack
of features such as utilities and a well-defined stage. The adjoining
restroom building is outdated and is visually unidentifiable. This building
could be relocated to improve site lines as well as park uses.
MAGIC FOREST
The Magic Forest area is at the northeast edge of the park between the
Aquatic Center and Hopkins Avenue. The existing forest of redwood
trees is a significant park asset and should be preserved and
programmed for passive recreation and relaxation. There are over 60
mature redwoods with shallow rooting structure, which will limit the
improvements in this area. The existing shuffle board and horseshoe pits
are in bad condition and are rarely used. An established beehive exists in
the tree base near the existing shuffle board which should be protected,
per a professional bee keeper. This area is bordered by the electric
substation at the east with overhead power lines.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 19
RESTROOM
Currently there is one restroom facility located centrally in the park. The
Restroom structure dates to the 1950’s and is in need of renovations.
The current restroom configuration does not meet ADA standards. A
small informational booth where park rangers once operated is now
used as a storage closet. Due to the age of the building and required
renovations to bring it up to code, it’s recommended for removal. The
removal of the building will open sight lines from the Newell end of the
park to Lucie Stern that will create a better link between city facilities.
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Palo Alto Municipal code protects the citizens and their
environment. Municipal Code regulates certain park functions and
activities, including:
Hours of use
Approved activities and prohibited activities
Activities and events requiring permits – such as group picnics
and performances
Pet use requirements in park
Protection of flora and fauna
Amplified sound requirements
Markings and graffiti
Picnic area use restrictions
The improvements included in the Rinconada Long Range Plan are
consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the
Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe
and healthy community assets, and Policy C-22 that encourages new
community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to
the changing needs of the community. The Plan is also consistent with
the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Urban Forest
Master Plan, Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation
Master Plan.
The Rinconada Park Long Range planning process included a Historic
Resources Evaluation and an Initial Study of Environmental Impacts.
(Refer to the CEQA Initial Study).
RINCONADA LONG RANGE
APPENDIX
Existing Site Conditions Plan
Overall Site Analysis Plan
Circulation Diagram – Circulation And Connections
Circulation Diagram – Major Connectors
Circulation Diagram – Secondary Connectors
Circulation Diagram – Pedestrian Paths of Travel
Circulation Diagram – Bikes Paths of Travel
Circulation Diagram – Maintenance Vehicle Access
Park Concept Plan #1
Park Concept Plan #2
Park Concept Plan #3
Existing Tree Canopy Study
Entry Enhancements and Site Furnishing Samples
Covered Picnic Trellis and Tennis Building and Trash Enclosure Samples
APPROVAL NO. 2017-xx
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR
1451 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO (JMZ) [FILE NO.17PLN-00147],
AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR JMZ PROJECT AND RINCONADA LONG
RANGE PLAN
On _______, 2017, the City Council approved the Architectural Review
application for the replacement Junior Museum and Zoo, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”)
finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A. On April 27, 2017, the architect representing the Friends of the Junior
Museum and Zoo submitted an Architectural Review application for the new Junior Museum and
Zoo (JMZ) at 1451 Middlefield Road, zoned Public Facilities, and associated site improvements
(“Project”); the review of this application followed two preliminary review meetings with the
Architectural Review Board and one study session with the Historic Resources Board to discuss
earlier project designs;
B. On June 22, 2017, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) reviewed the Historic
Resource Evaluations and the project and recommended approval of the project,
C. On August 3, 2017, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project
and continued the hearing to allow for revisions and publication and public comments on the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND);
D. On August 4, 2017, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the City (1) published an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluating the
JMZ project and, programmatically, the Rinconada Long Range Master Plan, and (2) provided a
Notice of Intent for circulation of the document for public comments for a period ending
September 5, 2017;
E. On August 10, 2017, the City held a community outreach meeting regarding
the CEQA document and process, and no written comments on the CEQA document were
received; and
F. On September 21, 2017, following the end of the public comment period, the ARB
reviewed and recommended Council approval of the IS/MND (with respect to the JMZ project)
and the Project.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared and circulated for public comment from August 4, 2017 through
September 5, 2017, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared and these
are to be adopted by Council resolution.
SECTION 3. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD REVIEW. The Historic Resources Board
found that;
(1) the project is in substantial compliance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards,
(2) the project meets Architectural Review Finding 2b, in that the project preserves,
respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively the site and
historic character/resources, with the provision that the applicant work with an HRB
subcommittee to find a solution to the roofing issue the HRB raised prior to ARB review,
and
(3) the HRB is supportive of listing the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House as a historic
resource.
SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS. The approval findings for the
project are set forth below. The project is consistent with all relevant Architectural Review
findings in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.020(d) as follows:
1a. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, specifically:
i. Policy C-1.4 Promote City parks, open spaces, recreational facilities, libraries,
classes and cultural activities for community members recognizing that these
facilities and services build and strengthen community. [NEW POLICY] [C11]
ii. Policy C-1.16 Provide arts, science and recreational activities that foster healthy
children, youth and teen development. [NEW POLICY] [C30]
iii. Policy C-1.20 Leverage available funding to support the development of, and
improved access to, programs that address all types of developmental
disabilities, including physical, sensory, cognitive or social/emotional needs.
[NEW POLICY] [C42]
iv. Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures.(Previous Policy L-12)
v. Policy C-3.2 Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and
appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure.
vi. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible
with surrounding development and public spaces. [(Comp Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure AES-1, LAND-1, LAND-2) (Previous Policy L-48)] [L80]
vii. Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to
promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense
of community safety. ([Previous Policy L-49) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation
Measure AES-1)] [L87]
viii. Policy L-8.5 Recognize public art and cultural facilities as a community benefit.
Encourage the development of new and the enhancement of existing public and
private art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects
are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood.
[Previous Policy L-72] [L122]
ix. PUBLIC SPACES Policy L-9.4 Maintain and enhance existing public gathering
places and open spaces and integrate new public spaces at a variety of scales.
[(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan Draft EIR LAND-1)] [L130]
x. Policy L-9.6 Create, preserve and enhance parks and publicly accessible, shared
outdoor gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of residential
neighborhoods. [(Previous Policy L-15) (Comp Plan Draft EIR LAND-1)] [L132]
xi. Policy N-2.10 Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and
other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees
approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for
expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-17] [N45]
1b. The design is also consistent with the Public Facility uses and development
standards, and with the other applicable Zoning Code regulations (Parking ordinance, as
clarified in the August 3, 2017 ARB staff report and attachments thereto).
2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors,
and the general community,
b. Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute
positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the
area when relevant,
c. Is consistent with the context based design criteria of the applicable zone district,
d. Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses
and land use designations, and
e. Enhances living conditions in adjacent residential areas.
More specifically:
i. The design was revised during the process, which involved two preliminary
review sessions with the ARB and one study session with the HRB, and two
formal meetings with the ARB;
ii. The site improvements will provide a better internal sense of order at the site;
iii. The new gable-roofed JMZ building, at a height of 29 feet and set back 24 feet
from Middlefield Road, would be similar in height and setback to existing two-
story houses located across Middlefield Road near the JMZ. The netted zoo
enclosure, at 36 feet in height, would be taller than the existing building;
iv. There are no context based design criteria for the PF zone, but the building
facades feature exterior colors and textures to provide visual interest and gabled
roofs, materials and colors respond to the site context (Lucie Stern Center, Girl
Scout House and the residential neighborhood). The Middlefield Road façade
was reworked during the process to have greater modulation and improved
materials to fit the neighborhood. The lower masses along Middlefield and the
property line shared with Walter Hays respect the residential neighborhood
scale. Along with a roof line that pops up for clerestory windows and, with the
wall cladding, help to break the long façade, the building eave, skin and structure
extend beyond the exterior wall for a section as shade protection for the
storefront windows facing south east;
v. The project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and does not
cause significant impact to the historic resources including the Girl Scout House.
Existing protected trees and important trees will be retained;
vi. Two street trees would be removed (Little Leaf Linden along Middlefield Avenue
and a London Plane Tree along Hopkins) for driveways, but new street trees will
be added to the project in the locations of the old driveway aprons to mitigate
the removals (subject to additional study of adjusted driveways at Middlefield
and Hopkins, per approval condition, and coordination with Urban Forestry staff
regarding planned street tree plantings and removals);
vii. No heritage or protected trees will be removed, and tree removal and
replacement will comply with the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Tree
Preservation Ordinance. Transplanting of one coast redwood and one coast live
oak is proposed; and
viii. Approximately 41 public trees would be removed (and 57 trees would be
planted, as noted in Finding #5) as part of the JMZ project, including the above-
noted street trees (six are for the parking lot reconfiguration near the Girl scout
House, 12 in the Zoo area for zoo reconfiguration, 13 for the new JMZ building,
six, non-native trees in poor condition from the oak grove near Lucie Stern to
improve the growing conditions for the remaining native oaks, and one from the
edge of Rinconada Park for the new entry plaza).
3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and
appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other
details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area, in that:
a. The materials to be used include smooth, hand-troweled plaster; clear-stained
cedar, horizontal siding and ceilings, and use of wood slats horizontally and
vertically for fences and enclosures; netting; durable standing-seam metal
roofing and accent panels; low-E aluminum curtainwall and punched windows;
wood-topped concrete seat-walls; with use-appropriate whimsical signage,
public art and rainbow tunnel; and
b. Colors are warm, earth tones, plus off-white and red colors enhancing the
composition by their reference the Lucie Stern Center buildings and the bright
colors used for the whimsical components of the Project.
c. The architectural details of the building and site invoke whimsy and child-like
scale into the simple massing and contemporary materials.
d. Facing Middlefield Road, the wall cladding further breaks up the long façade and
provides warm natural material accents.
4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic
and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g.
convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and
amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.) in that:
a. The project responds to the new crosswalk planned on Middlefield Road at
Kellogg Avenue, and improved crosswalk on Newell Road at Hopkins Avenue,
allowing connection from Middlefield to Rinconada Park with ADA compliant
paths and featuring a raised pedestrian crossing through the parking lot
providing a direct connection between the Lucie Stern Community Center and
Rinconada Park; a new pedestrian path connecting the sidewalk on Middlefield
Road to the JMZ as a ‘promenade’ to the park entry plaza, including bicycle
parking facilities at key locations;
b. One of the existing curb cuts along Middlefield is being removed, which is a
benefit to all the pedestrian traffic going to Walter Hayes School; and
c. The proposed parking lot would provide efficient circulation with no dead-end
drive aisles, and meet the City’s standard width for two-way drive aisles with
safer, 90-degree parking spaces allowing sufficient room for vehicles to back out
of parking spaces. The vehicular circulation will be improved with the project,
including maneuverability of buses and large trucks.
5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its
surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes regional indigenous
drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat, and that can be
appropriately maintained in that:
a. New landscaping is proposed at the JMZ facility and parking lots, designed to
meet the 50% shade requirement of PAMC Section 18.54.040 and “no net loss of
canopy” goals; conditions of approval for use of Silva cells will ensure this goal
and code requirement will be achieved;
b. The project features 57 new trees including five native oaks, intended to offset
tree removals and many (but not all) of the plants to be used are ‘regionally
indigenous drought resistant’ species; and
c. Use of non-natives in key locations is appropriate for this use (educational) and
setting (important community center and children’s facility requiring drought
resistant, sustainable and appropriate plants).
6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related
to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site
planning, in that:
a. The project is designed to CALgreen guidelines for design and operational and
efficiency provisions to minimize wasteful energy consumption;
b. The building is oriented to optimize daylight to interiors, and features low-
emissivity glazing, energy efficient LED lighting; and
c. The project includes new bicycle parking spaces for greater sustainability in the
transportation sector.
SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.
Planning Conditions
1. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the
time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
2. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City,
its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified
parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized
hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole
discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
3. Mitigation Measures (#3a – #3d): The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
associated with the project (Exhibit A) is incorporated by reference and the mitigation
measures (below) shall be implemented as described in such document:
3a. BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the
project shall implement the following measures:
i. Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to identify
active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. All potential
nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree
removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding season (February 1 –
August 31). If more than 30 days pass between the completion of the
preconstruction survey and the initiation of construction activities, the
preconstruction survey shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day intervals
until construction activities are initiated.
ii. If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be postponed until all
the young have fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established around the nest site,
in consultation with the CDFW. Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests
shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree or shrub.
iii. Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge. No construction
activities, parking, staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall be allowed
within the exclusion zones until the young have fledged from the nest.
3b. MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during
construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-feet of the
find shall be halted, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be
notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate
recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate
mitigation. The recommended mitigation shall be implemented and could include
collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of
findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to
the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
3c. MM CR-1.2: If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the
proposed project, the City shall comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC)
Section 7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as
to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98.
i. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner
has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The
NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent
(MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours
to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects.
Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the
reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the
reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC.
ii. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a
recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and
the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails
to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her
authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated
with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property
in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance.
3d. MM NOI-1: With the implementation of the following measures, construction noise
would be reduced to a less than significant level:
i. Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and
6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with
no construction occurring on Sundays or holidays (consistent with Palo Alto
Municipal Code).
ii. Construction of the JMZ shall be undertaken with consideration for school
activities and hours:
iii. Schedule high noise generating construction activities (such as the use of the
concrete saws) that are located directly adjacent to school structures during
periods when school is not in session, such as summer, school breaks, weekends,
and after school dismissal. Coordination of construction activity times with
school officials may be necessary.
iv. Construct portions of the museum located directly adjacent to the school first,
where practical, in an effort to provide shielding to the school from construction
activities located further to the west and south.
v. Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers to shield on-site construction and
demolition noise from the school. To be most effective, the barrier should be
placed as close as possible to the noise source or the sensitive receptor.
Examples of barriers include portable acoustically lined enclosure/housing for
specific equipment (e.g., jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which generate
the loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences or
portable panel systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or acoustical blankets.
vi. Establish construction staging areas at locations that will create the greatest
distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive
receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
vii. Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used judiciously to be
as quiet as practical.
viii. Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources
where technology exists.
ix. Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines and equip all
internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.
x. Locate all stationary noise-generation equipment, such as air compressors and
portable power generators, as far away as possible from businesses or noise-
sensitive land uses.
xi. Notify all adjacent noise sensitive land uses of the construction schedule in
writing.
xii. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are
not audible at existing residences or the school bordering the project site.
xiii. Designate a disturbance coordinator, responsible for responding to
complaints about construction noise. The name and telephone number of the
disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and made
available to noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to the construction site
4. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the
approved plans entitled, "New Construction Junior Museum & Zoo, 1451 Middlefield
Road,” stamped as received by the City on September 6, 2017 on file with the Planning
Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these
conditions of approval.
5. LANDSCAPE PLAN REFINEMENTS:
The following additional modifications to the landscape plan and civil plans for further
refinements shall be addressed prior to City Council review:
a. For auxiliary pathway consider a material modification in the area between Lucie
Stern and Middlefield;
b. Employ rounded curb corners (small radius) at angled curb areas adjacent to
traffic to save the curbs from future chipping;
c. Update plan sheets as needed to reflect relocation of gates so they do not block
pedestrian and bike connectivity from parking lot to JMZ, and from Rinconada
Park to Middlefield;
d. Update plan sheets to reflect sheet A2.0 sidewalk width to ensure a minimum
sidewalk width of at least five feet between the bus drop-off and planter;
e. Consider a vegetative swale instead of an 18” berm and consider placing step
stones or access paths to minimize trampling of Carex grass;
f. Provide step stones or access path between Girl Scout House front yard and
parking lot, to minimize pedestrian damage to new plantings or alter plant
material;
g. Adjust plantings at the Lucie Stern loading area (Texas Redbuds will not have
enough clearance to avoid being damaged by delivery trucks) to more columnar
trees to reduce canopy interference with loading activities;
h. Adjust width of the raised crosswalk (10 feet) to allow a more gradual ramp (at
least five feet wide);
i. Add a street tree in the planter strip at Middlefield at the front of the JMZ
building;
j. Reconfigure driveway approaches slightly to be more aligned and aesthetically
pleasing (at Middlefield and at Hopkins).
k. The tunnel area will need to include signage to advise bicyclists to walk their
bikes through the tunnel (or otherwise direct bicyclists) to avoid conflict with
pedestrians.
6. BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the
Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments.
7. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second
page of the plans submitted for building permit.
8. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be
submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit
review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the
responsibility of the applicant to contact amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org to obtain
approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any
proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention.
9. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
return to the ARB sub-committee for approval of the following items, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment:
a. Resolution of the design for the gable end above the main entry to the JMZ, if
the public art piece is not placed on that gable end, or
b. If public art does get placed on the gable end, sub-committee review of
details for mounting of the public art on the gable end.
10. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to
determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a
Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by
Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations.
Contact Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection.
11. SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No additional freestanding signs are approved at this time.
The wall sign at the front of the JMZ is not approved at this time, and shall be subject to
separate architectural review and may be in a different location if public art is proposed on
that façade. The existing, previously approved freestanding ‘whimsical’ sign installed per
PCE Director’s amendment September 13, 2004), and located approximately 12 feet from
the back of sidewalk on Middlefield Road, may be reinstalled at a similar setback as
indicated on Sheet A1.1. All other signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of
Planning.
Fire
12. Fire
The building permit plans shall include installation of a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14
standpipe system, NFPA 24 underground fire service and NFPA 72 fire alarm system.
Public Art
13. Public Art. The project will incorporate public art. Artist Charles Sowers has been
selected as the project artist and approved by the Public Art Commission. The artist was
scheduled to being design development process in the summer of 2017, and anticipates
completing design development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Public Works – Engineering Conditions
14. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water
regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge
permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and
incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to
land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of
impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and
uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of
impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project
on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of
permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to
protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department.
The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water
pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as
bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that
require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm”
specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system.
The qualified third-party reviewer the applicant has retained shall submit certification
that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with
the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2
copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task
and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to
approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the
installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance
of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the
City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were
constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings.
15. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace
those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the
public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked,
displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter
strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the
inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with
the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a
note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must
note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a
licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the
Development Center.
16. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new
street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public
Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street
tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the
building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has
determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation
requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street
tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the
applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from
Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953).
17. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan
prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations
and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades
must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splash blocks
should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales.
Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage
from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be
collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep
rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other
pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single
Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717
18. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and
fill volumes. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public
Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are
available at the Development Center and on our website.
19. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention
- It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available
here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732
20. SWPPP: The applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This
entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and
implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that
addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality
protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft
SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the
building permit.
21. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any
removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement
within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-
496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of
the trees per City requirements.
22. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is
proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach,
or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City
standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work
Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different
location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway
must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section.
Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be
replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. Please also call out City standard
details as applicable and include those details within the plan set.
23. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square
feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations
of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit
application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and
instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website.
24. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to
maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a
maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the
permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance
agreement shall be executed prior to grading and building permit issuance. The City
will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee.
25. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works
Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-
way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes,
material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise
control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of
affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work
permit.
26. PAVEMENT: Hopkins Ave and Embarcadero Rd were resurfaced in 2011 and 2015
respectively. These streets are under a moratorium. Any cutting into the pavement will
trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan:
“Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Hopkins Ave
and Embarcadero Rd based the roadway surface condition after project completion and
limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street
along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as
hatched on the site plan.
27. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site.
Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The
proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and
use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the
plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district.
28. The applicant shall continue to work with Public Works and Utilities toward a long
term solution for relocation of utilities out of the corridor prior to construction of the
JMZ project.
29. Due to the lack of storm drain infrastructure on Hopkins and the historical storm
drainage issues on that street, please revise DMA VI to drain elsewhere.
30. Civil plans should clearly call out where details 1 and 2 as shown on sheet C2.3 apply.
31. Proposed new trash enclosure should drain to sanitary sewer.
32. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Provide an analysis that compares
the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City
of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot
below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street
right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please
provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan.
This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to
handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables
and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage
Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the
public storm drain system.
33. Building and Grading Permit plans should only include work proposed for this
project.
Urban Forestry
34. Silva cells shall be included in the design to ensure the project will meet the city’s
goal for no net loss of canopy and 50% shading of parking lot area. The planting
strategy submitted with the building permit describes the following:
a. Total number of replacement trees to be planted and shown on a table with
removals
b. Attributes (for each area or grove) that will be used for selecting species such
as native, large stature at maturity, drought-tolerant, and complementary to
established trees that are retained
c. Soil volume and distance to nearest impervious area/obstacle to growth
d. Projected canopy diameter of each planted tree in 15 years
35. TREE PROTECTION REPORT (TPR). Provide a construction level report for building
permit plan check.
36. If City Council formally designates as Landmark Trees, Pecan #330 and Dawn
Redwood #327, they shall be retained and protected during construction and shall be
subject to the same tree ordinance provisions as the oaks, with a mitigation measure
providing for their retention or replacement if lost.
37. Civil engineering and grading plans. Plans shall show finish grade (FG) and the lower
limit of excavation. Engineer shall receive from the project arborist for each tree root
zone to be preserved, a spot grade of the lowest excavation depth for new driving
surface, landscape area or other activity.
38. Ensure that the existing Utility Easement that bisects the site shall not in any event
allow for excavation via an open trench thru the root zone of (Designated Landmark)
Pecan Tree # 330.
39. Add Project Arborist contact information to the Project Directory. If CPA-LA, list
direct contact information for construction-phase contact ability.
Utilities Electrical
40. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department
service requirements noted during plan review.
41. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both
public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the
applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48
hours prior to beginning work.
42. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation
#18.
43. The new pad-mount transformer is shown on plan sheet E1.00 located in the
landscaped area just north of the electrical room. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16
(see detail comments below). The proposed transformer pad appears to meet the 3-
feet minimum clearance on the non-operable sides and 8’ feet clearance on the
operable side.
44. Plan sheet E1.00 shows the electrical room adjacent to the padmount transformer
and appears to provide the location for electrical panel/switchboard.
45. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads)
required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and
installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on building permit plans.
Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18.
46. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required
equipment according to the California Electric Code requirements and City standards.
47. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond
what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges.
The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well
as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20.
48. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or
reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be
coordinated with the Electric Utility.
Public Works Watershed Protection
49. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities
New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection,
except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a
dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with
grading or a berm system to prevent water run-on and runoff from the area. The trash
area must meet these requirements as well as the Zero Waste sizing requirements.
50. Include Construction best management practices (BMP) sheet in plans.
Prior to building permit approval:
51. Disconnect downspouts and allow to drain to landscaping (outward from
building as needed). (C 2.1 mentions connecting roof leader to storm drain).
52. New storm drain/drop inlets in parking lots and high visitor areas should include a
trash capture device. Inlets should also be labeled with a ‘flows to Bay’ message.
53. Permeable concrete
a. County-wide design specs should be followed (ensure pg. C 2.3 is appropriate specs.)
b. Installation specs per company should be followed
c. Clear, detailed maintenance agreement must be drafted and agreed upon by all City
staff in pertinent Departments (Public Works, Parks).
d. Set up meeting with parties before project is approved by City Council.
e. Funding for maintenance needs to be approved.
54. Ensure all interior and exterior drainage from zoo/animal area is piped to sanitary
sewer system.
55. Stormwater treatment measures
a. Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements
b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3
Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for
details
c. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil
amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost.
Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines:
http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines-
sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance.
56. Stormwater quality protection
a. At a minimum, follow the BMP sheet that must be submitted with plans.
b. Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and
having rainwater enter the containers. Have clear maintenance plan for trash and
recycling containers to not allow overflow.
57. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related
permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate
of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.
a. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge
water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or
designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either
or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground
water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable
waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to
the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code
(16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained
prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in
authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
b. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water
i. Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect
connection to the sanitary sewer system.
ii. And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices
iii. Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system
only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from
rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater
treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional
information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k)
c. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters,
copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall
not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for
which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates
and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement
roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided
that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the
purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to
structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition
of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
d. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks
i. Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if
equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed
during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock
operation.
ii. Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are
handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain
system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be
allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept
closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock
operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or
protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate
wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided
for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site.
e. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain
system.
f. PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers
No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain
system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger,
any substance that contains any of the following:
i. Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter;
ii. Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter;
iii. Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
iv. Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or
v. Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to
dilution with the cooling system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall
be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling
tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are
required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter.
g. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in
sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for
domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes
where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper
piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing.
h. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains
Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in
areas where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial
process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment cleaning
wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all
such materials and equipment
i. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(1) and 16.09.105 Segregated Plumbing and Sampling
Locations
a. The owner of every new commercial and industrial building or portion
thereof shall cause the building to be constructed so that industrial waste
is segregated, by means of separate plumbing, from domestic waste prior
to converging with other waste streams in the sanitary sewer system. For
the purposes of this section only, the term "new" shall also include
change to a use that requires plumbing for industrial waste
b. Establishments from which industrial wastes are discharged to the
sanitary sewer system shall provide and maintain one or more sampling
locations or metering devices or volume and flow measuring
methodologies or other sampling and measuring points approved by the
Superintendent which will allow the separate measuring and sampling of
industrial and domestic wastes. Unless otherwise approved by the
Superintendent, domestic and industrial waste shall be kept completely
separated upstream of such sampling locations and/or measuring points.
Establishments that are billed for sewer service on the basis of sewage
effluent constituents shall provide a suitable means for sampling and/or
measurement of flow to determine billing constituents in accordance
with the utilities rules and requirements. Sampling locations shall be so
located that they are safe and accessible to the Superintendent at any
reasonable time during which discharge is occurring.
j. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
k. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat
Exchangers
It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas,
fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system.
l. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling
Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to
Bay," or equivalent.
SECTION 6. Term of Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of
one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not
secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of
no further force or effect.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney
NOT YET APPROVED
171024 ts ORD ‐ PIO for JMZ and Rinconada Park
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting
A Plan for Improvements to the Junior Museum & Zoo and Associated Facilities Located
Within Rinconada Park.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and section 22.08.005 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction
reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or respect to any land
head by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by
ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefore.
(b) Rinconada Park is dedicated to park purposes. See Municipal Code section
22.08.210 et seq.
(c) The City Intends to authorize construction of certain park improvements
within Rinconada Park, as shown in Exhibit “A” to this ordinance, including:
(1) Selective demolition of the zoo;
(2) Construction of new zoo habitats, exhibits, enclosures, and facilities;
(3) Construction of perimeter walls and fences;
(4) Installation of poles, cables and netting; and
(5) Construction of landscaping and irrigation.
(d) The Improvements at Rinconada Park will include the approximately 8,800
square foot area of the existing zoo plus adding an additional 5,217 square
foot area of the park to the northeast edge of the existing zoo.
(e) The project improvements will avoid protected trees and other sensitive
resources. In addition, existing park uses will be restored following the
completion of project construction.
(f) The project described above and more specifically described in the Plan
attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is consistent with park and conservation
purposes.
(g) The council desires to approve the project described above and as more
specifically described in the Plan.
NOT YET APPROVED
171024 ts ORD ‐ PIO for JMZ and Rinconada Park
SECTION 2. The Council herby approves and adopts the Plan as shown in
Exhibit “A” for the construction of a new zoo and related facilities at Rinconada Park.
SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed and adopted by resolution a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and a related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for this project prior to adoption of this ordinance on December 4, 2017. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the project would not have a sufficient
effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first day after the
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
______________________________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Community Services
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
Rinconada Park Long Range Plan
&
Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo
Initial Study
Architectural Review Application
#17PLN-00147
August 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ i Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Page
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................................ 3
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 4
2.1 PROJECT TITLE ............................................................................................. 4
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................... 4
2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT .......................................................................... 4
2.4 APPLICATION NUMBER .............................................................................. 4
2.5 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICT ............. 5
2.6 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 5
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 9
3.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 9
3.2 USES OF THE INITIAL STUDY ................................................................. 13
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ................ 18
4.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................ 18
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................. 22
4.3 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................. 24
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES........................................................................ 31
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 40
4.6 GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 51
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................. 54
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................... 59
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................... 64
4.10 LAND USE .................................................................................................... 71
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 74
4.12 NOISE ............................................................................................................ 75
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................. 86
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................... 88
4.15 RECREATION ............................................................................................... 90
4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ......................................................... 92
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................... 113
4.18 ENERGY CONSERVATION ...................................................................... 119
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 127
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS ............................................................... 130
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ ii Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Page
Figures
Figure 2.0-1: Regional Map ................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 2.0-2: Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2.0-3: Aerial Photograph and Proposed Project Site ............................................................... 8
Figure 3.0-1: Rinconada Park LRP Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................ 14
Figure 3.0-2: Palo Alto JMZ Conceptual Site Plan .......................................................................... 15
Figure 3.0-3: Palo Alto JMZ Elevations ........................................................................................... 16
Figure 3.0-4: Palo Alto JMZ Elevations ........................................................................................... 17
Figure 4.16-1: Study Intersections ...................................................................................................... 96
Figure 4.16-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................... 97
Figure 4.16-3: Existing Transit Facilities ........................................................................................... 98
Tables
Table 4.12-1: Summary of Long and Short-Term Noise Measurement Data ................................... 77
Table 4.16.1: Level of Service Definitions ..................................................................................... 100
Table 4.16-2: Existing and Background Conditions Levels of Service .......................................... 100
Table 4.16-3: Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation .................................................................... 102
Table 4.16-4: Existing and Estimated Weekday Trip Generation ................................................... 104
Table 4.16-5: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ................................................ 104
Table 4.16-6: Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service .......................................... 105
Table 4.16-7: Saturday Project Trip Generation Estimates ............................................................. 107
Table 4.16-8: Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................... 108
Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality Analysis
Appendix B: Arborist Reports
Appendix C-1: Archaeological Literature Review
Appendix C-2: Historic Resources Evaluation – Palo Alto JMZ
Appendix C-3: Historic Resources Evaluation – Rinconada Park
Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E: Noise Assessment
Appendix F: Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix G: Rinconada Park Long Range Plan
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 3 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The City of Palo Alto proposes two projects: 1) a long-range plan to guide the development of
Rinconada Park, and 2) the rebuilding of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ).
Rinconada Park is a regional destination for a variety of passive and active recreational activities and
is co-located near the JMZ and other City facilities. The purpose of the Rinconada Park Long Range
Plan (LRP) is to make park improvements based on current and future community needs. In this
respect, the LRP provides guidance on changes anticipated over the next 25 years.
The current JMZ building (built in 1941) and zoo area (built in 1969) are not adequately designed or
sized to accommodate the JMZ’s various educational programs, nor do they meet current State
building code requirements for accessibility and seismic safety. The goal of the proposed re-build is
to construct a new JMZ facility that would provide adequate space for its educational programs while
meeting all State building code requirements along with standards for zoo accreditation and museum
accreditation. In addition, the project aims to improve circulation within the JMZ to allow universal
access for children with disabilities to all exhibits and areas of the facility, which requires
considerably more space than allowed for in the existing facility. The proposed JMZ facility is
intended to better serve its current local visitors and schools while still maintaining an intimate
experience for children to explore science and nature.
This Initial Study (IS) of environmental impacts is being prepared to conform to the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the City of Palo Alto. This Initial
Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts which might reasonably be anticipated to result
from implementation of the proposed Rinconada Park LRP and Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo
(JMZ) project. Although the proposed LRP and JMZ are separate development projects, they are
located adjacent to one another within a larger City-owned parcel, and will have overlapping
timeframes for development. For these reasons, the LRP and JMZ projects are being evaluated as
one project under CEQA. The City of Palo Alto is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared
this Initial Study to address the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 4 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 PROJECT TITLE
Rinconada Park Long Range Plan and Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo.
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site consists of the 11.8 acre Rinconada Park, located at 777 Embarcadero Road, the Palo
Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ), located at 1451 Middlefield Road, and a paved parking lot
located adjacent to the JMZ. The site is located within an 18.3-acre City-owned parcel (APN 003-
46-006) with frontage on Hopkins Avenue, Newell Road, Melville Avenue, Embarcadero Road and
Middlefield Road in the City of Palo Alto. In addition to Rinconada Park and the JMZ, the parcel
includes Fire Station #3 located at 799 Embarcadero Road, the Girl Scout House (aka Lou Henry
Hoover House) located at 1120 Hopkins Avenue, the Children’s Library located at 1276 Harriet
Street, the Lucie Stern Community Center located at 1305 Middlefield Road, and an electric
substation located at 1350 Newell Road.
The parcel is bordered primarily by single-family residential uses. Walter Hays Elementary School is
located on the northern corner of Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road, adjacent to Rinconada
Park and the JMZ. The Palo Alto Art Center and Rinconada Library are located east of the parcel
across Newell Road. Regional and vicinity maps of the site are shown on Figures 2.0-1 and 2.0-2,
and an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding area is shown on Figure 2.0-3.
2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Department of Planning and Community Development
250 Hamilton Avenue
5th Floor- City Hall
Palo Alto, CA 94301
2.4 APPLICATION NUMBER
A Formal Architectural Review application was submitted for the JMZ redevelopment on April 27,
2017 (File Number 17PLN-00147). No application has been filed for the Rinconada Park Long
Range Plan.
Revised JMZ plans dated July 24, 2017 are on file and viewable via this webpage
https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning by searching the address “1451 Middlefield Road” and
clicking on the green dot to review the record details, opening the “more details” option, using the
“Records Info” drop down menu and selecting “Attachments” and opening the attachment named
“Revised Plans July 2017”.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 5 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
2.5 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICT
General Plan: Public Parks, Major Institutions/Special Facilities
Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF)
2.6 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is comprised of two areas within the 18.3-acre City-owned parcel: Rinconada Park
and the Palo Alto JMZ. Rinconada Park is a multipurpose park offering a variety of recreational
amenities, including: two children’s playgrounds, turf area for activities, nine tennis courts and
backboard, picnic area with barbecues, municipal swimming pool and children’s pool, restroom and
pool buildings, redwood grove, heritage oak tree stand, multipurpose concrete bowl, benches, and
jogging/walking paths.
The JMZ site includes the JMZ facility and a paved parking lot adjacent to the facility that extends
northward between the Girl Scout House and Lucie Stern Community Center. The JMZ is situated
adjacent to the southwest portion of Rinconada Park, and consists of a two-story, 9,000 square-foot
(sf) museum building and a 13,000 sf fenced, outdoor zoo area.
The remainder of the City-owned parcel, which includes Fire Station #3, the Girl Scout House (aka
Lou Henry Hoover House), the Children’s Library, the Lucie Stern Community Center, and an
electric substation, is not a part of the project site.
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.0-1
Fremont
Newark
Santa Clara
MountainView
Sunnyvale
Los Altos
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
San Carlos
Belmont
Foster City
Fremont
Newark
Santa Clara
MountainView
Sunnyvale
Los Altos
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
San Carlos
Belmont
Foster City
Redwood City
238
237
880
880
680
85
82
84
84
82
101
101
101
Project Site
San Francisco Bay
Pacific Ocean
Monterey Bay
San José
Fremont
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Mountain View
Morgan Hill
San José
Fremont
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Mountain ViewPalo AltoPalo Alto
Morgan Hill
Project SiteProject Site
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.0-2
Channing Avenue
Walter Hays Drive
Lois Lane
Iris Way
Newell Road
Newell Road
Greenwood Avenue
Harker Avenue
Parkinson Avenue
Guinda Street
Fulton Street
Middlefield Road
Middlefield Road
E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d
E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d
Cowper Street
Waverley Street
Webster Street
Webster Street
Fulton Street
Seale Avenue
Louis Road
Barbara Drive
Northampton Drive
Southampton Drive
Lowell Avenue
Tennyson Avenue
Byron Street
Hopkins Avenue
Melville Avenue
Melville Avenue
Channing Avenue
Walter Hays Drive
Lo
i
s
L
a
n
e
Iris Way
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
Greenwood Avenue
Harker Avenue
Parkinson Avenue
Gui
n
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Fult
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
tre
e
t
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
tree
t
Fult
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Seal
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lou
i
s
R
o
a
d
Bar
b
a
r
a
D
r
i
v
e
Nort
h
a
m
p
t
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
Sout
h
a
m
p
t
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
Low
e
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Tenn
y
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Byr
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Hopkins Avenue
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Me
l
v
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Project Site
0 100 500 750 1000 Feet
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2.0-3
Parkinson AvenueParkinson Avenue
Community LaneCommunity Lane
Harriet Street
Ha
r
r
i
e
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Cedar Street
Ce
d
a
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pine Street
Pi
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Newell Road
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
Coleridge Avenue
Cole
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Byron Street
By
r
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Guinda Street
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Middlefield Road
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Hopkins AvenueHopkins Avenue
E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Fulton Street
Fu
l
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Project Boundary
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, July 28, 2016.Photo Date: Apr. 2016
0 50 200 400 Feet
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential Residential
Residential
Rinconada Library
Palo Alto Art Center
Lucie Stern Community Center
Walter Hays Elementary School
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 9 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT
3.1.1 Project Description
The proposed project includes two components: 1) implementation of the Rinconada Park Long
Range Plan (LRP) and 2) redevelopment of the JMZ facility and reconfiguration of the adjacent
parking lot, including provision of landscaping, storm drainage system, and lighting.
The two project components are described in detail below.
3.1.1.1 Rinconada Park Long Range Plan
The LRP was developed by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department to guide the future
development and renovation of Rinconada Park. Implementation of the plan is anticipated to take up
to 25 years. The LRP includes the following components:
Entry Plazas, Internal Pathways, Access, and Alternative Transportation Improvements
Two main pedestrian entry plazas would be developed at the west and east entrances to the park. The
west entrance to Rinconada Park, north of the proposed JMZ building, would be improved with an
entry plaza that would showcase the large existing trees and provide elements such as an enhanced
entry noting the point of arrival, way-finding signage, and pedestrian scale art work.
A formalized entry would be located at the east edge of the park on Newell Road, north of Fire
Station #3, and would include improvements such as an enhanced entry, reduction of turf with accent
drought tolerant plantings, and way-finding signage.
The existing pathways in the park are asphalt and in need of renovation. Pathways within the park
would be expanded and enhanced. The project includes multimodal circulation improvements to
connect the site to the surrounding neighborhood. Perimeter sidewalks and on-street parking would
be expanded and enhanced along Hopkins Avenue and Embarcadero Road. Bike racks would be
provided throughout the park. An enhanced shuttle stop would replace the existing stop on Newell
Road to promote the use of alternate forms of transportation to the park. Fourteen (14) non-protected
trees are proposed to be removed as part of the pathway improvements to provide space for a larger
and more direct main circulation route through the park and to maintain the openness of the main
active turf area. Trees removed will be replaced with native trees located in the area between the
path and the school fence.
West Playground Area/Girl Scout Picnic Area/Large Turf Area
The two existing playgrounds in Rinconada Park are proposed to be combined into one playground
located in a defined children’s play area at the west end of the park in close proximity to the JMZ and
Walter Hays School access points. An expansion of the existing picnic area would be part of the new
playground configuration. Adult exercise equipment would be provided at the eastern edge of the
playground. The existing trees in this area would be protected and maintained. The area next to the
Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House would serve public use but cater to use by the Girl Scouts, with
a fire pit, food preparation table, benches and picnic tables in a small gathering area.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 10 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
The existing turf area in the central portion of the park, south and east of the picnic areas, is highly
used and would be maintained in its current condition to the extent possible. This area is currently
utilized for community gatherings such as outdoor performances, movies and concerts and is used by
the City’s community services department for youth activities and camps. The turf area will continue
to maintain the current schedule of use and programming. A new restroom is proposed to
accommodate this western area of the park.
Street and Access Improvements on Hopkins Avenue, Newell Road, and Embarcadero Road
New sidewalks and crosswalks aligning with adjacent sidewalk curb cuts are proposed along
Hopkins Avenue. Additionally, new head in parking stalls are proposed to be installed along
Hopkins Avenue, west of the tennis courts. The City is also exploring shifting the sidewalks along
Embarcadero Road northward to provide additional street parking and a turning lane.
The 12 topped redwood trees along Newell Road would be replaced with small scale trees that would
not interfere with the overhead power lines. In the area where the redwoods will be removed, new
plantings and a meandering pathway pulled away from Newell Road will provide a connection from
the park’s main east entry to the crosswalk at the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Newell Road. An
enhanced shuttle stop would also be located along this new pathway. Artwork panels are proposed to
replace the existing fencing currently screening the electric substation located at the northeast corner
of the park when replacement of the fence is required.
Tennis Courts
The existing tennis courts on Hopkins Avenue would be shifted to the west to allow for a pedestrian
access route along the east side of the courts. The proposed shifting of the courts would occur when
the tennis courts paving receive full renovation and replacement.
Magic Forest
The Magic Forest area consists of over 60 mature redwoods which will be retained. Minimal
improvements to this area would include a lighted access path to the existing ball wall and into the
park, a new sidewalk at the curb edge to provide pedestrian access along Hopkins Avenue, picnic
tables and benches, and a proposed children’s natural play area.
Pool Area Improvements
The existing pool deck areas would be expanded on the east and west sides for lounging, supervision,
and aquatic events. The area east of the pool and adjacent to the electric substation would include a
new picnic area, and seating. Other amenities such as a bocce ball court will also be considered
when the area is renovated. On the south side of the pool building, a plaza with thematic paving,
shaded seating areas, and artwork to support the pool area activities and concessions, would be
installed.
The LRP includes a full renovation of the existing 4,700 sf pool building, which includes locker
rooms, offices, and pool storage. In addition to the renovated building, a 2,300 sf wing would be
added to the west end to include a public restroom, activity room and possible concession area. The
restroom would replace the existing restroom building currently located in the same area.
Arboretum
The priority of this area in the LRP is to maintain the native and heritage oak trees for years to come.
The current pathways would be upgraded throughout this area with a permeable material and new
oak trees will be planted to preserve the oak stand.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 11 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Multi-Use Concrete Bowl
The existing concrete bowl space south of the pool area will maintain its current use as a small multi-
use space for outdoor activities and performances with the same seating capacity. Outdoor events are
currently programed for the bowl; therefore, this is not a new use on the site. The hours of operation
and number of events scheduled for the bowl would continue and be consistent with its current use.
The project proposes to install a new stage to reduce sun glare for spectators. The stage would be
oriented to the southwest, away from the nearest residential uses, approximately 20 feet from its
current location. Coordination with Walter Hays Elementary School to utilize the bowl for
educational gatherings is also proposed as part of the LRP.
3.1.1.3 Junior Museum and Zoo
As described in further detail below, the proposed JMZ redevelopment would occur in two phases.
The majority of the proposed improvements would occur during Phase I, construction of which is
anticipated to last 18 to 24 months. Improvements associated with Phase II may not be completed
for up to 10 years.
Phase I
JMZ Building and Outdoor Zoo
The project includes the demolition of the existing 9,000 sf, one- and partial two-story museum
building and construction of a new one-story 15,033 sf museum and educational building in the same
location as the existing building. The new building would have a gabled roof reaching a maximum
height of 27 feet. Amenities in the building would include educational classrooms and educational
courtyard, a teacher area, general storage area, a small exhibit maintenance shop, indoor exhibits, and
restroom facilities. The main JMZ entrance plaza would lead into the lobby and reception area of the
JMZ building. New walkways near the new JMZ building would connect with parking lot
improvements, Middlefield Road, and the Rinconada Park.
The project would also construct a new open-air netted enclosure and supporting outdoor animal
management area in the location of the existing 13,000 sf outdoor zoo area. The 17,415 sf, 36-foot
tall netted enclosure would be accessible from the JMZ building. The netted enclosure, referred to as
“Loose in the Zoo”, would feature animal exhibits with landscaped features. The netting would
allow for exhibition birds to fly about the enclosure.
Parking Lots Redesign
The existing parking lots located adjacent to the JMZ and between the Lucie Stern Community
Center and Girl Scout House would be reconfigured to improve traffic flow, maximize parking
spaces, improve landscaping and lighting, and increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Vehicular
access to the Girl Scout House’s existing garage would be maintained, and the bird bath dedicated to
a Boy Scout leader is anticipated to be relocated near the Boy Scout building in the Lucie Stern
Complex.
One of the existing driveway curb cuts on Middlefield Road to the parking lot would be eliminated
and replaced with a bike and pedestrian pathway connection to Rinconada Park, and a bus drop off
zone in front of the JMZ would be provided. The reconfigured parking lots would be connected for
automobile traffic and provide improved pedestrian pathways to the many surrounding facilities
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 12 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
while incorporating a relocated vehicular driveway entrance on Middlefield Road and a new entrance
onto Hopkins Avenue. The components include:
Dedicated bike and pedestrian entrance at intersection of Kellogg Avenue and Middlefield
Road (separated from vehicular entrance), raised pathway through the parking lot and direct
connection to pathways in the park;
Safe pedestrian pathway through parking lot leading to JMZ entry plaza defined by colored
concrete;
New, relocated single vehicular entrance mid-block on Middlefield Road and new, relocated
vehicular entrance on Hopkins Avenue;
Fire truck and bus access through the parking lot with dedicated driveway onto Hopkins
Avenue (no standard vehicular use);
Two-way circulation through the parking lot with dedicated drop-off and loading zone near
JMZ entrance and park arrival plaza;
Efficient stormwater treatment system: pervious paving, shallow treatment area, and
connection to storm drainage line in utility corridor;
50 percent shading of the paved area (as required per the Parking Facility Design Standards,
Chapter 18.54 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) would be met by existing and new trees; and
Increase in bicycle parking (including racks at the entrance to JMZ and the park) and increase
in long-term bicycle storage for staff.
The current demonstration garden on the west side of the Girl Scout House would be relocated within
the park near Walter Hays Elementary School as part of the parking lot renovations.
A total of 42 trees are proposed to be removed for the JMZ project. None of the trees proposed for
removal are protected trees. Two protected trees (a coast live oak and a coast redwood) are proposed
to be relocated within the project boundary. A total of 57 new trees will be planted to replace trees
removed.
Phase II
Outdoor Zoo Building
The JMZ project includes a proposed future two-story 3,600 sf building adjacent to the zoo area. The
building, which would have a gabled roof reaching a maximum height of 25 feet, would consist of a
classroom on the first floor and a butterfly/insect exhibit on the second floor. The massing and
material of the future Outdoor Zoo Building would be similar to the proposed JMZ building.
With construction of both Phase I and Phase II of the JMZ redevelopment, the project would result in
a net increase of 9,633 sf of floor area and 4,415 sf of outdoor zoo area compared to the existing JMZ
facility. The overall lot coverage of the JMZ facility would increase by 12,748 sf.
3.1.1.4 Temporary Relocation Plan
During demolition, building construction and modifications on the JMZ site, JMZ services would
continue without interruption at a temporary location at the Cubberley Community Center, located at
4000 Middlefield Road in Palo Alto. The Cubberley Community Center is housed on the campus of
the former Ellwood P. Cubberley High School, which opened in the fall of 1956 and closed in 1979.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 13 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
It has been home to organizations that provide many services to the community in areas education,
health, childcare, arts, dance and music instruction including Foothill College, and was home to
animal rescue operations for many years.
The old high school classrooms meet the JMZ needs for education staging and classrooms. The
Auditorium is suited to a temporary Junior Museum, indoor animal housing, education and program
areas, collections management, and offices. A fenced temporary exterior animal holding area would
be constructed to contain a few of the animals and would meet regulatory requirements and animal
husbandry needs. These JMZ animals would not be on view for the public.
No construction involving substantial ground disturbing activities would be required as part of the
temporary relocation of JMZ services. The five parking zones at the campus would provide parking
for staff and visitors to the temporary museum.
3.1.2 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan designates Rinconada Park as Public Parks and the
JMZ property as Major Institutions/Special Facilities. Both properties are located within the Public
Facilities (PF) zoning district. The project does not propose a Comprehensive Plan amendment or
rezoning.
3.1.3 Access, Circulation, and Parking
Access to Rinconada Park is provided by Embarcadero Road, Newell Road, and Hopkins Avenue.
Access to the JMZ and surface parking lot is provided by Middlefield Road. The JMZ is also
accessible by bicycle and pedestrian pathways connecting it to Rinconada Park.
3.2 USES OF THE INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study (IS) provides decision-makers in the City of Palo Alto (the CEQA Lead Agency),
responsible agencies, and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in
considering the project. This IS may also be relied upon for other agency approvals necessary to
implement the project.
RINCONADA PARK LRP CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.0-1
Source: Verde Design, July. 16, 2013.
0 50 100 150 Feet
PALO ALTO JMZ CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.0-2
Source: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, April 27, 2017.
EENTRY
LOBBY
R
D
HERPRACK(DRY)
HERPRACK (DRY)HERPRACK(WET)
HERP
UNIT
MEDIUMHERP UNITHERPRACK(DRY)
HERP UNIT
ANIMALSUPPLY
'DIRTY'
'CLEAN'
D/W
MW ABOVE
JAN.
SHOP
STORAGE
HERP ZONE
PROGRAM ANIMAL ROOM
TRASH ENCLOSURE
GIRL'S
RESTROOM
BOY'S
RESTROOM
QUARANTINE
EST
188 SF
700 SF
76 SF
160 SF
L
ANIMAL ENCLOSURES
0TRENCH DRAIN
TRENCH DR
ANIMAL
CARE
10 0
77 SFDRY
STORAGE
8 10
ZOO WORK
SPACE
267 SF
200 SF
W/
x
5 x 8
5 x 8
TRENCH DN
xx 10
DRY
STORAG
OUTDOOR CLASSROOM
+0
-24"
+0
+18
-24"
+0"
DN
32
FH
((N) FH
FIRE
RISER
UTILITY COORIDOR
RECONFIGURED
PARKING LOT
DROP-OFF
HOPKINS AVENUE
GROUP PICNICAREA
OPEN GREENSPACE
UTILITY COORIDOR
SHADED GROUP
PICNIC AREA
GIRL SCOUT
FIRE PIT
BIKE PARKING
EXTE
R
I
O
R
NE
T
T
E
D
ENC
L
O
S
U
R
E
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
(E) TRASH ENCLOSURE
(E) BRICK PATH
LP
LP
(E) BRICK PATH
(E) LOADING
ZONE
(E) BOBCAT EXHIBIT
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY A
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY B
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY A
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY B
RAISED PEDESTRIANCROSSWALK
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
BBIIOOSSWWAALLEE
BIKE PARKING
DRIVEWAY FOR BUS AND
FIRETRUCK ONLY
BIKE PARKING
PECAN TREE
PLAZA
DN
SCHOOL
PARKING LOT
LUCIE STERN
COMMUNITY
CENTER
GIRLSCOUT
BUILDING
CHILDREN
PLAY AREA
MID
D
L
EFIE
L
D R
O
A
D
K E LL O G G A V E N U E
SHARED TOT
PLAY
OLDER CHILDREN
PLAY
OUTDOOR ANIMALMANAGEMENT AREA
PARK ARRIVALPLAZA
JURASSIC GARDEN
COURTYARD PROPOSED
MUSEUM &
EDUCATION
BUILDING
OUTDOOR
CLASSROOM
RINCONADA
PARK
ADULT
EXERCISE
WALTER HAYS
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
SECONDARY
ENTRY
EXTERIOR NETTEDENCLOSURE
PROPOSED
LOOSE IN THE
ZOO
EXTERIOR NETTEDENCLOSURE
MAIN ENTRANCE
SE
R
V
I
C
E
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
+0
SLOP
E
D
O
W
N
+0"
-18"
-12"
BRID
G
E
TUN
N
E
L
BRID
G
E
PRO
M
E
N
A
D
E
ENT
R
Y
PLA
Z
A
20'-0"
39
30
29
19
25
40
21
26
2320
25
2928
19
17
22
32
32
31
27
37
28
32
17
27
1
17
1
34
33
1
1
32 31
35
36
35
36 31
41
24
41 37
12
32 17
32
31
32
12
14
13
16
37
1515
2
35
13
1332
2
32
4
5 5
6
22
34
32
35
3
332
8
8
11
7 10
3
31
31
31
16
25
42
9
38
RINCONADA PARK
BOUNDARY
PROPERTY LINE
STREET SETBACK
UTILITY CORRIDOR
FIRE ACCESS LANE
(20' WIDE MIN.)
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY B
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY A
NEW TREE: REFER
TO LANDSCAPE
DRAWINGS
LLEGEND:
EXISTING PARKING COUNT: 95 STALLS (7 ACCESSIBLE)
PROPOSED PARKING COUNT: 93 STALLS (8 ACCESSIBLE)
GENERAL NOTES:
KEYNOTES:
PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1
PALO ALTO JMZ ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.0-3
Source: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, April 27, 2017.
18’-0”
27’-0”
36’-0”
10’-0”
0’-0”
18’-0”
10’-0”
0’-0”
-4’-0”
18’-0”
27’-0”
10’-0”
0’-0”-4’-0”
18’-0”
27’-0”
36’-0”
10’-0”
0’-0”
-4’-0”
PALO ALTO JMZ ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.0-4
Source: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, April 27, 2017.
18’-0”
10’-0”
0’-0”
-4’-0”
18’-0”
27’-0”
10’-0”
0’-0”
-4’-0”
18’-0”
27’-0”
0’-0”
-4’-0”
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 18 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION
OF IMPACTS
This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project area, as well as
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as
recommended in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, identifies
environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented.
The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The
sources cited are identified at the end of this section. Mitigation measures are identified for all
significant project impacts. Mitigation Measures are measures that will minimize, avoid, or
eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guideline 15370).
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 Aesthetics Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
1-3
b. Significantly alter public viewsheds or view
corridors or scenic resources (such as trees,
rocks, outcroppings or historic buildings)
along a scenic highway?
1-3
c. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which will adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1-2
d. Substantially shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
from September 21 to March 21?
1-2
4.1.2 Existing Setting
Rinconada Park is an 11.8-acre park that contains mature trees and landscaping. There is a six-
court tennis facility on the northern portion of the site bordering Hopkins Avenue. The interior
of the park consists of various recreational amenities, including two children’s playgrounds, turf
area for activities, picnic areas, backboard, picnic area with barbecues, a municipal swimming
pool and children’s pool, shuffle board and horse shoe pit, redwood grove, multipurpose concrete
bowl for outdoor events, benches, and jogging/walking paths. Palo Alto Fire Station 3 is located
at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and Newell Road, at the site’s southeastern corner.
Walter Hays Elementary School is located directly south of the Park at the intersection of
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 19 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road, adjacent to the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo
(JMZ).
The JMZ is housed in a one- and partial two-story wood frame building located at 1451
Middlefield Road. The JMZ includes a fenced-in outdoor area containing various animal
exhibits. The building and the zoo grounds border the southwestern boundary of Rinconada Park
and are located adjacent to a complex of one-and two-story buildings consisting of the Lucie
Stern Community Center, the Children’s Library, and the Girl Scout House.
The surrounding area consists mainly of one- to two-story single family residences across the
roadways bordering the site which include Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, Newell Road, and
Hopkins Avenue. The immediate area also contains community facilities including the Girl Scout
House (also known as Lou Henry Hoover House), the Children’s Library and Theater, and Lucie
Stern Community Center located northwest of the site. Other public uses in the vicinity include the
Rinconada Main Library northeast of the Park across Newell Road, the Art Center located east of the
Park across Newell Road, three additional tennis courts across Hopkins Avenue, and community
gardens.
4.1.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
The improvements proposed by the LRP would enhance the visual character and quality of
the site through increased landscaping throughout the park, in addition to infrastructure
improvements including repaving of sidewalks and pathways. A total of twenty six (26) trees
are proposed to be removed from Rinconada Park as part of proposed park improvements
identified in the LRP. Twelve (12) of the trees proposed to be removed are Coast Redwood
trees growing along Newell Avenue that are protected trees under the Municipal Code.
Currently the redwoods are growing under high voltage power lines and are continuously
topped to maintain clearance. Native trees of more appropriate size under the power lines are
proposed to replace the redwood trees at a 4:1 ratio, and per the city of Palo Alto technical
manual on tree replacement requirements. The remaining fourteen (14) non-protected trees
identified by the LRP for removal are adjacent to the main pathway and open turf area and
have all been planted recently. Removal of these trees will allow for a wider, more
prominent pathway that connects the park to the surrounding facilities and provide a larger
open active turf area, which is currently limited in Rinconada Park. New native trees will
replace these non-native trees at a 2:1 ratio between the pathway and the school.
The proposed JMZ buildings would be larger in size and scale than the existing JMZ
building. The new JMZ building would be approximately 27 feet in height, while the netted
enclosure would be approximately 36 feet in height. The Outdoor Zoo Building proposed
during Phase II would be approximately 25 feet in height. The heights of the proposed
buildings would be similar to existing houses located across Middlefield Road in proximity
to the JMZ, many of which are two stories in height. The netted enclosure for the zoo would
appear to be “open-roofed”. The proposed JMZ buildings would be constructed with gabled
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 20 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
roofs, and the southern façade would be set back approximately 24 feet from Middlefield
Road. Additionally, the building would be built with variations in color and exterior texture
on the facades to provide visual interest. Ornamental landscaping is proposed on the exterior
of the facility and in the parking lots to be reconfigured, in addition to indoor exhibit designs.
While 42 trees are proposed to be removed in the JMZ project area, approximately 57 trees
would be added, for a net increase of 15 trees. No heritage or protected trees will be
removed, and tree removal and replacement will comply with the requirements of the City of
Palo Alto Tree Preservation Ordinance, as further discussed in section 4.4.3(e).
The project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural
Review process, which ensures compliance with City standards to promote visual
environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety. Architectural review approval
findings require improvements and structures to be compatible with the architecture and
massing of surrounding uses. Additionally, the project would be consistent with City of Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan policies, including Policy P-48: “Promote high quality, creative
design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public
spaces.” For these reasons and those described above, construction of the project would not
substantially degrade the character or quality of the site or the surrounding area. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
b. Would the project significantly alter public viewsheds or view corridors or scenic resources
(such as trees, rocks, outcroppings or historic buildings) along a scenic highway?
The project site is not located along, or visible from, a state scenic highway. The project,
therefore, would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
Embarcadero Road is identified as a “scenic route” and “major view corridor” in the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan. The JMZ project is not visible from this view corridor, but the
Rinconada Park has frontage on the corridor. Due to the flat nature of the site and the
presence of mature trees, views of the project site are limited to the immediate area.
Implementation of the LRP and construction of the proposed JMZ would not modify
identified scenic resources or views of scenic resources in Palo Alto. For these reasons, the
project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor.
[Less than Significant Impact]
c. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
As part of the LRP implementation, new security lighting to illuminate pathways may be
installed throughout different portions of Rinconada Park. The proposed JMZ building
would include minimal outdoor lighting (i.e. security lighting) and indoor lighting that would
generate similar amounts of light to the existing JMZ. Lighting would be controlled to
minimize spillover light beyond the property lines, and would be required to meet the City’s
standards (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.23.030), which restrict light levels to
minimize visual impacts of lighting on nearby residential sites. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 21 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
d. Would the project substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and
adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21?
The LRP does not propose any structures that would create substantial new shadows
compared to existing conditions.
The proposed JMZ buildings would have a maximum height of 27 feet. Based on the
project’s location in the northern hemisphere, shadows created by the building would extend
west, north, and east, depending on the time of day. The area to the west of the proposed
JMZ building would consist of a paved entrance area and parking lot, while the area to the
east would continue to consist of buildings and a parking lot associated with the existing
Walter Hays Elementary School. Neither of these areas would be considered public open
space.
The area to the north of the proposed JMZ building would consist of the 36-foot tall netted
enclosed area referred to as “Loose in the Zoo”. Shadows from the JMZ building would not
extend beyond this area. The netting proposed for the “Loose in the Zoo” area would allow
light to filter through and would not create shadows. The proposed JMZ development,
therefore, would not substantially shadow open space, including nearby portions of
Rinconada Park. [Less Than Significant Impact]
4.1.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse visual or aesthetic
impacts. [Less than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 22 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1-4
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1-4
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526)?
2,3
d. Result in a loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use? 1-3
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
1-4
4.2.2 Existing Setting
The project site is not designated as farmland or forest land. According to the Santa Clara County
Important Farmland 2012 map, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land, meaning
that the land contains a building density of at least six units per 10-acre parcel or is used for industrial
or commercial purposes, golf courses, landfills, airports, or other utilities.
4.2.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. - b. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? Would the project conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The project site is not designated, used, or zoned for agricultural purposes. The project site is
not part of a Williamson Act contract. For these reasons, the proposed project would not
result in impacts to agricultural or forest resources. [No Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 23 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
c. - d. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))? Would the project result in a loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The project site is not zoned or used for agriculture. The surrounding area is not used or
zoned for timberland or forest land. The project would not impact timberland or forest land.
[No Impact]
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012 map, the project site and
surrounding area are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. The development of the
project site would not result in conversion of any forest or farmlands. [No Impact]
4.2.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an impact to agricultural or forestry
resources in the area. [No Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 24 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.3 AIR QUALITY
This section is based in part on an air quality assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in
April 2015. The report analyzed the impacts of a larger JMZ facility based on previous site plans
than the proposed site plans analyzed in this Initial Study. Therefore, air quality impacts described
below represent a conservative analysis. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix A.
4.3.1 Air Quality Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan (such as the
2017 Clean Air Plan or the 2001 Ozone
Attainment Plan)?
1-3, 5
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
1-3, 5
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is classified as non-
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard including
releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
1-3, 5-6
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? 1-3, 5-6
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? 1-3, 5-6
4.3.2 Existing Setting
Air quality and the amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere are determined by the amount of a
pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major
determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and for photochemical
pollutants, sunshine.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
have established ambient air quality standards for what are commonly referred to as “criteria
pollutants,” because they set the criteria for attainment of good air quality. Criteria pollutants include
carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM).
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 25 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.3.2.1 Regional Air Quality
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air
pollution within the air basin.
The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act require that the CARB, based on air
quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality
standard are not met as “nonattainment areas.” Because of the differences between the national and
state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state
legislation. The Bay Area is designated as an “attainment area” for carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The region is classified as a “nonattainment area” for both the federal
and state ozone standards, although a request for reclassification to “attainment” of the federal
standard is currently being considered by the U.S. EPA. The area does not meet the state standards
for particulate matter; however, it does meet the federal standards.
Clean Air Plan
Regional air quality management districts such as BAAQMD must prepare air quality plans
specifying how state air quality standards would be met. BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is
the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP focuses on two closely-related
BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. To protect public health, the
plan describes how the BAAQMD will continue its progress toward attaining all State and federal air
quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay
Area communities.
The 2017 CAP includes a wide range of control measures designed to decrease emissions of the air
pollutants that are most harmful to Bay Area residents, such as particulate matter, ozone, and toxic
air contaminants; to reduce emissions of methane and other “super-GHGs” that are potent climate
pollutants in the near-term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel
combustion.
BAAQMD Guidelines
As discussed in the CEQA Guidelines, the determination of whether a project may have a significant
effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based
to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Palo Alto and other jurisdictions in
the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin often utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air
emissions and/or health effects developed by the BAAQMD based upon the scientific and other
factual data prepared by BAAQMD in developing those thresholds.
The BAAQMD Guidelines have largely survived a legal challenge brought by the California
Building Industry Association. While the litigation is not yet concluded, and while there is a limited
portion of the Guidelines being set aside following the most recent appellate decision (California
Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Quality Management District (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1067),
that limited portion does not impact the City’s use of the Guidelines for the purpose of the current
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 26 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
project. The court only set aside a portion of the Guidelines which suggest that CEQA mandates
evaluation of impacts to future new occupants of a project.
4.3.2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or
mortality (usually because they cause cancer or serious illness) and include, but are not limited to,
criteria air pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by
industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are
typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a
highway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the
regional, state, and federal level. The identification, regulation, and monitoring of TACs is relatively
new compared to that for criteria air pollutants that have established ambient air quality standards.
TACs are regulated or evaluated on the basis of risk to human health rather than comparison to an
ambient air quality standard or emission-based threshold.
Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel exhaust, in the form of diesel particulate matter (DPM), is the predominant TAC in urban air
with the potential to cause cancer. It is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk
from TACs (based on the statewide average). According to the CARB, diesel exhaust is a complex
mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects
of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as
benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as
carcinogens either under the State’s Proposition 65 or under the federal Hazardous Air Pollutants
programs. California has adopted a comprehensive diesel risk reduction program. The U.S. EPA
and the CARB have adopted low-sulfur diesel fuel standards in 2006 that reduce diesel particulate
matter substantially. The CARB recently adopted new regulations requiring the retrofit and/or
replacement of construction equipment on-highway diesel trucks and diesel buses to lower fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions and reduce statewide cancer risk from diesel exhaust.
4.3.2.3 Sensitive Receptors
There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the
following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the elderly
over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are
classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive
population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities,
elementary schools, and parks. For cancer risk assessments, children are the most sensitive
receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing TACs. Residential locations are
assumed to include infants and small children.
The sensitive receptors nearest to the project site are students of Walter Hays Elementary School
which is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the JMZ and the southern boundary of Rinconada Park.
The closest residences are approximately 115 feet south of the project site across Middlefield Road.
Additional residences are located at farther distances south and north of the project area.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 27 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.3.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan
(such as the 2010 Clean Air Plan or the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan)?
Because the project proposes to make improvements to existing land uses and, therefore,
would not support substantial additional jobs or cause an increase in the population, the
project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plan.
Additionally, the would not result in a substantial increase in vehicle trip generation. [Less
Than Significant Impact]
b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
Implementation of the LRP would not result in a substantial increase in project operations
compared to existing conditions.
The proposed project would increase the footprint of the JMZ facility by roughly 12,748 sf
(including Phase II Outdoor Zoo Building). A net increase in developed space typically
results in an increase in traffic and an associated increase in local and regional pollutant
emissions. BAAQMD screening levels were developed to assist lead agencies in identifying
projects that would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air pollution
and air quality impacts. According to BAAQMD thresholds, a project that generates more
than 54 pounds per day (or 10 tons per year) of ROG (reactive organic gases), NOx, or PM2.5;
or 82 pounds per day (or 15 tons per year) of PM10 would be considered to have a significant
impact on regional air quality.
Although no screening threshold exists that specifically applies to museums or zoos, the
screening threshold for libraries would be the most applicable to the proposed
project. Libraries are a land use where patrons arrive throughout the day, stay for a period of
time and utilize the facilities for education and recreation, then depart. The BAAQMD
screening threshold for libraries is 78,000 sf. The proposed 12,748 sf expansion of the JMZ
would fall well below this screening threshold. Additionally, as described in Section 4.16
Transportation, the proposed project would result in minimal net new vehicle trip generation.
Since the project size is well below these BAAQMD screening levels and projected net trip
generation is relatively low and would not impact the LOS of nearby intersections, it can be
assumed that the project would result in a less than significant operational impact from
criteria pollutant emissions and from construction air quality impacts. The proposed project
would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to any existing or
projected air quality violations. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 28 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors?
The long-term operation of the proposed projects would not substantially increase the number
of vehicle trips in the area or increase regional emissions, and therefore would not result in a
cumulatively considerable increase in any pollutant. [Less Than Significant Impact]
d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Predicted Cancer Risk and Hazards
The maximum modeled diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5 concentrations would
occur at a receptor at Walter Hays Elementary School adjacent to the project site. Increased
cancer risks for a school child were calculated using the maximum modeled DPM
concentrations and BAAQMD-recommended risk assessment methods for a child exposure
(two to 16 years of age). For residential exposures, infant (third trimester through two years
of age), child, and adult exposures were included.1 The cancer risk calculations were based
on applying the BAAQMD-recommended age sensitivity factors to the DPM exposures.
Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer
causing TACs. BAAQMD-recommended exposure parameters were used for the cancer risk
calculations.2 Infant and child exposures were assumed to occur during the entire
construction period.
Results of this assessment indicate that for project construction the incremental school child
cancer risk would be 1.1 in one million, the maximum residential child increased cancer risk
would be 2.3 in one million, and the incremental residential adult cancer risk would be 0.1 in
one million. The maximum increased cancer risks for a school child and residential
exposures would be lower than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million or
greater.
The maximum modeled annual PM2.5 concentration would be 0.09 μg/m3, occurring at the
same location where the maximum DPM concentration would occur. This PM2.5
concentration is lower than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 μg/m3 used to judge
the significance of health impacts from PM2.5.
Potential non-cancer health effects due to chronic exposure to DPM were also evaluated.
Non-cancer health hazards from TAC exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index (HI),
which is the ratio of the TAC concentration to a reference exposure level (REL). California’s
Office of Environmental Health and Hazards (OEHHA) has defined acceptable concentration
levels for contaminants that pose non-cancer health hazards. TAC concentrations below the
1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and
Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May.
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening
Analysis Guidelines. January.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 29 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
REL are not expected to cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals. The
chronic inhalation REL for DPM is five μg/m3. The maximum modeled annual DPM
concentration was 0.08 μg/m3, which is much lower than the REL. The maximum computed
hazard index based on this DPM concentration is 0.016 which is much lower than the
BAAQMD significance criterion of a hazard index greater than 1.0.
Construction Dust
Nearby residential uses and students of the Walter Hays elementary school may be exposed
to short-term construction emissions during construction. Construction activities, particularly
during demolition, site preparation, and grading would temporarily generate fugitive dust in
the form of respirable particulate matter (PM10) and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would
include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils.
Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets,
which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD CEQA
Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less than significant if best management
practices are employed to reduce these emissions. The project would be required to
implement BAAQMD measures recommended for all projects as City of Palo Alto conditions
of approval, further reducing any short-term construction impacts. These measures are as
follows;
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day if water is available due to
drought and water shortage conditions.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly turned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of
Palo Alto’s Department of Public Works regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number
shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic associated with the LRP
would generate diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. However, construction of the LRP is
anticipated to be substantially less intensive than construction of the zoo and museum. As
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 30 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
discussed above, and based on dispersion modeling using BAAQMD-recommended
methodology, construction of the JMZ would have a less than significant impact with regards
to community risk. Therefore, based on the relatively limited magnitude of LRP
construction, it is anticipated that excess cancer risk and non-cancer impacts would not
exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds during construction of the LRP. Implementation
of best management practices below, would further reduce impacts from fugitive dust
associated with LRP construction.
Based on the relatively small size of the project and the implementation of BAAQMD dust
control measures as standard conditions of approval, as described below the project would
result in a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors from pollutant concentrations.
[Less Than Significant Impact]
e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
The project does not include any odor-causing operations, and any odors emitted during
construction would be temporary and localized. [No Impact]
4.3.4 Conclusion
The projects would result in less than significant air quality impacts. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 31 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The discussion in this section is based in part on arborist reports prepared by Hort Science in June
2015 and updated in June of 2017. The reports are included in this Initial Study as Appendix B.
4.4.1 Biological Resources Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1-3, 9
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1-3, 9
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
1-3
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
1-3
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City
of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.10)?
1-3, 7-8
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
1-3, 9
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 32 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.4.2 Existing Setting
The proposed project is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP and the construction of a new
JMZ facility. The project is within the existing Rinconada Park and JMZ facility boundaries. There
are no waterways, wetlands, or other sensitive habitats on or adjacent to the project site.
The Park contains various tree and animal species that are commonly found in parks throughout the
San Francisco south bay area. The JMZ contains native and non-native animal species that are under
the care and supervision of zoo staff.
4.4.2.1 Regulatory Background
Federal and California Endangered Species Acts
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and
endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) prohibits the take
of any fish or wildlife species that is federally listed as threatened or endangered without prior
approval. “Take” is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat
modification or degradation that directly results in death or injury of a listed wildlife species.
Special status species in California include plants or animals that are listed as threatened or
endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), species identified by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as California Species of Special Concern, as
well as plants identified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)3 as rare, threatened, or
endangered. The CDFW has jurisdiction over state-listed species and regulate activities that may
result in take of individuals.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 USC Section 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits
killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and
eggs. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of
fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment, a violation of the MBTA.
California Fish and Wildlife Code
The California Fish and Wildlife Code includes regulations governing the use of, or impacts on,
many of the state’s fish, wildlife, and sensitive habitats. Certain sections of the Fish and Wildlife
Code describe regulations that pertain to certain wildlife species. Fish and Wildlife Code Section
3503, 2513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections) protect native birds, including their nests
and eggs, from all forms of take. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in
3 The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a non-profit organization that maintains lists and a database of rare
and endangered plant species in California. Plants in the CNPS “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of
California” are considered “Special Plants” by the CDFW Natural Diversity Database Program.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 33 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance
that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW
Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan
There are two adopted Habitat Conservation Plans in Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara Valley
Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (SCVHP), which encompasses a study area of
519,506 acres (or approximately 62 percent of Santa Clara County) and the Stanford University
Habitat Conservation Plan. The project sites are outside of the covered areas of both Habitat
Conservation Plans.
4.4.2.3 Tree Resources
A tree survey was completed by Hort Science in June 2015 for both Rinconada Park and the
JMZ. The tree surveys, including a detailed description of the size, health, and preservation
suitability of each tree surveyed is included as Appendix B of this Initial Study.
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 5 (Natural Environment) of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (1998) includes policies,
programs and implementing actions to ensure the preservation of biological resources, including
trees. The following policies and programs would apply to the proposed project:
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Relevant Policies
Policy Description
Policy N-14 Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest.
Policy N-15 Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects to
provide street trees and related irrigation systems.
Policy N-17 Preserve and protect heritage trees.
Program N-16 Require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development.
Program N-17 Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, irrigation, and replacement of
trees.
Program N-19 Achieve a 50 percent tree canopy for streets, parks, and parking.
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code
The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code regulates specific types of trees on public and private property
for the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and
permitted by the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department or Public Works
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 34 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Department. Three categories within the status of regulated trees include protected trees (PAMC
Chapter 8.10), public trees (PAMC Section 8.04.020), and designated trees (PAMC Chapter 18.76,
when so provisioned to be saved and protected by a discretionary approval).
Section Chapter 8.10 of Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, “Tree Preservation and
Management Regulations,” (referred to as the “Tree Preservation Ordinance”), protects categories of
trees on public or private property from removal or disfigurement. These categories of regulated
trees include:
Protected Trees. Includes all coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak (Quercus
lobata) trees 11.5 inches or greater in diameter, coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) trees
18 inches or greater in diameter (PAMC Section 8.10.020), and heritage trees designated by
the City Council according to any of the following factors: it is an outstanding specimen of a
desirable species; it is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto; or it possesses distinctive
form, size, age, location, and/or historical significance (PAMC Sections 8.10.020(j) and
8.10.090).
Street Trees. Also protected under Chapter 8.04 of Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
“Street Trees, Shrubs and Plants” are City-owned street trees (all trees growing within the
street right-of-way, outside of private property). A permit is required for work that would in
any way damage, destroy, injure, or mutilate a street tree. The excavation of any ditch or
tunnel or placement of concrete or other pavement within ten feet from the center of any
street tree trunk also requires a permit. Street trees require special protection by a fenced
enclosure, according to the City’s Standard Tree Protection Instructions, before demolition,
grading or construction.
Designated Trees. Designated trees are established by the City when a project is subject to
discretionary design review process by the Architecture Review Board that under PAMC
Section 18.76.020(d)(11) includes as part of the findings of review, “whether natural features
are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project.” Outstanding tree specimens or
groups of trees that function as a screening buffer or have other value may contribute to an
existing site, neighborhood or community, and may have a rating of “High” suitability for
preservation.
Palo Alto Tree Preservation Guidelines
For all development projects within the City of Palo Alto, discretionary or ministerial, a Tree
Disclosure Statement (TDS) is part of the submittal checklist to establish and verify trees that exist
on the site, trees that overhang the site but originate on an adjacent property, and trees that are
growing in a City easement, parkway, or publicly-owned land. The TDS stipulates that a Tree
Survey is required (for multiple trees), when a Tree Preservation Report is required (when
development will occur within the dripline of a Regulated Tree), and who may prepare these
documents. The City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (Tree Technical Manual) describes
acceptable procedures and standards to preserve Regulated Trees, including:
The protection of trees during construction;
If allowed to be removed, the acceptable replacement strategy;
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 35 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Maintenance of protected trees (such as pruning guidelines);
Format and procedures for tree reports; and
Criteria for determining whether a tree is a hazard.
4.4.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
(CDFW) and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
The project site is currently developed and consists of disturbed urban habitat. Given the
site’s urban setting, isolation from larger areas of natural lands, and high level of human
disturbance, the value to wildlife is limited. Therefore, redevelopment of the site would not
result in a significant impact to wildlife habitat. The proposed project would not affect
federally protected wetlands, riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural community. The
project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted state or federal conservation
plan.
No special status species are expected to occur on the project site, given the lack of suitable
habitat and highly developed nature of the site. Due to the presence of large trees, urban-
adapted bird species could occur on the project site as occasional transients. Because the
project site represents only a very small proportion of the suitable habitat available for bird
species regionally, the proposed project would not have a measurable effect on regional
populations of any species.
Nesting Birds
The mature trees on the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds,
including tree nesting raptors, such as small hawks. Construction-related disturbances have
the potential to “take” nests, eggs, or individuals, and otherwise lead to the abandonment of
nests, which would be considered a violation of the MBTA and the California Fish and Game
Code. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or destruction of nests would be a
significant impact.
Impact BIO-1: Construction of the proposed project could result in disturbance to
active migratory bird nests. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: The proposed project shall implement the following measures to
reduce construction-related impacts to nesting migratory birds and their nests to a less than
significant level, as construction activities proceed:
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 36 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
MM BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game
Code, the project shall implement the following measures:
Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified
ornithologist to identify active nests that may be disturbed during
project implementation. All potential nesting areas (trees, tall
shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree
removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding
season (February 1 – August 31). If more than 30 days pass
between the completion of the preconstruction survey and the
initiation of construction activities, the preconstruction survey
shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day intervals until
construction activities are initiated.
If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be
postponed until all the young have fledged. An exclusion zone
shall be established around the nest site, in consultation with the
CDFW. Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests
shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree or shrub.
Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge.
No construction activities, parking, staging, material storage, or
other disturbance shall be allowed within the exclusion zones
until the young have fledged from the nest.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
The proposed project site is an existing park and JMZ facility. There are no riparian habitats
or sensitive natural communities within Rinconada Park or within the JMZ facility property.
[No Impact]
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
The proposed project site is an existing park and JMZ facility and does not support any
wetlands. [No Impact]
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The proposed project site is an existing park and JMZ facility and does not support
migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites. [No Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 37 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree
Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)?
The proposed project will retain the majority of the trees on the project site, including all of
the identified heritage trees within the project boundaries. There are two heritage trees on the
project site, both of which would be unaffected by project implementation. A total of 12
protected trees are proposed to be removed from Rinconada Park and two (2) protected trees
are proposed to be transplanted as part of the JMZ redevelopment associated with the
reconfigured parking lot. All tree removals would follow the public tree removal process,
including adequate neighborhood notification. Below, the trees proposed for removal are
broken down per both projects and divided into Protected Tree, Street Trees and Public Trees
categories. Arborist reports for the project with the specific tree information can be found in
Appendix B. Construction of the proposed project would require new sidewalks, which may
require the additional removal and replacements as determined by the Public Works
Department. The project would be required to replace street trees in such a way as to avoid
existing underground utilities and infrastructure, and also to follow the Palo Alto Tree
Preservation Guidelines.
Protected Trees to be Removed:
LRP: Twelve (12) protected Sequoia sempervirens, Coast Redwood trees are proposed to be
removed as part of the LRP Improvements. The redwoods currently exist under high power
electrical lines and are being continuously topped at approximately 20 feet in height. New
native trees of appropriate size for the high voltage line will be planted in the locations of the
redwoods at a 4:1 ratio.
JMZ: No protected trees are proposed to be removed as part of the Junior Museum and Zoo
Project. Two protected trees, one Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak and one Sequoia
sempervirens, Coast Redwood are proposed to be transplanted within the boundries of the
project site as part of the proposed parking lot reconfiguration.
Street Trees to be Removed:
LRP: No street trees are proposed to be removed as part of the LRP.
JMZ: Two (2) street trees are proposed to be removed as part of the Junior Museum and Zoo
project. One (1) Tilian cordata, Little Leaf Linden along Middlefield Avenue will be
removed for the new driveway apron for the reconfigured Rinconada parking lot. One (1)
Plantanus, London Plane Tree along Hopkins Avenue will be removed for the new fire access
lane into the reconfigured parking lot to service the surrounding facilities. New street trees
will be added to the project in the locations of the old driveway aprons to replace the
removed street trees.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 38 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Public Trees to be Removed:
LRP: Fourteen (14) public trees are proposed to be removed as part of the LRP. All the trees
occur along with main park walkway and will be removed to realign the walk. All trees
removed will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio of native trees, and would be located in more suitable
planting areas outside the larger open turf space or small paving cut-outs as do the majority
of the trees being proposed for removal.
JMZ: Forty two (42) public trees are proposed to be removed as part of the JMZ project none
of the trees are native or protected. Six (6) of the trees proposed for removal are being done
so for the parking lot reconfiguration in the area adjacent to the Girl scout House. Fifteen
(15) trees that currently exist in the Zoo area will be removed as part of the zoo
reconfiguration. Thirteen (13) trees will be removed as part of the new JMZ building. One
(1) tree will be removed along Middlefield for the new driveway apron/approach. Six (6)
trees in poor condition will be removed from the natural oak grove stand adjacent to Lucie
Stern to improve the growing conditions for the native oak trees and one (1) tree will be
removed from Rinconada Park for the new entry plaza into the park and connection to the
main park pathway.
New trees and landscaping would be installed in compliance with the requirements of the
City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, and, therefore, the removal of these trees
would not be considered a significant impact. Although not considered a significant impact
under CEQA, the following Conditions of Approval, as required by City ordinances, would
be included in the project to protect trees to remain on site, and to replace removed trees.
Tree Protection Measures:
CONDITION BIO-2.1:
A Tree Preservation Report (TPR) shall be prepared for trees to be preserved and
protected, consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. An updated
tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist shall be
submitted for review and acceptance by the City Urban Forester. The TPR shall
incorporate the following measures, safeguards, and information:
The TPR shall be based on the latest plans and amended as needed to address activity
or improvements within the dripline area, including but not limited to incidental work
(utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, patio material, leveling, etc.) that
may affect the health of the trees. The project shall be modified to address TPR
concerns and recommendations identified to minimize below ground or above ground
impacts.
The TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the Tree Preservation
Ordinance, PAMC Section 8.10.030 and the City’s Tree Technical Manual, Sections
3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urban_canopy.asp.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 39 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
To avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the health of the trees, the TPR
shall review the applicant's landscape plan to ensure that patio flat work, irrigation,
planting or potted plants are consistent with the Tree Technical Manual. The
approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and
monthly reporting to the City Urban Forester.
CONDITION BIO-2.2:
Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of one or more public street trees.
Publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-way along Middlefield Road and
Embarcadero Road. Provide mitigation in the event of a public tree removal. The new
frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design and materials to include the
following elements:
Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree Management Program. Provide
adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources.
Create conflict-free planting sites by locating tree sites and underground utility
services at least 10-feet apart (electric, gas, sewer, water, fiber optic, telecom, etc.).
Utilize City-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such as
permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, and
generous planter soil volume (800 to 1,200 cubic feet) to sustain a medium to large
tree. [Less than Significant Impact]
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
The proposed project site is located outside of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan and the
Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan. [No Impact]
4.4.4 Conclusion
The project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources. [Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Included in the Project]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 40 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based in part on an archaeological literature search by Holman &
Associates, Inc. in June 2015, and on historic resource evaluations prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc.
in July 2016 and June 2017. The archaeological literature search and historic resources evaluations
are included in this Initial Study as Appendices C-1, C-2, and C-3 respectively.
4.5.1 Cultural Resources Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a.Adversely affect a historic resource listed or
eligible for listing on the National and/or
California Register, or listed on the City’s
Historic Inventory?
1-3, 11-
12
b.Eliminate important examples of major
periods of California history or prehistory?
1-3, 10-
12
c.Cause damage to an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
d.Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
1-3
e.Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site, or unique
geologic feature?
1-3, 10
f.Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
1-3, 10-
12
g.Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either:
1.A site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms
of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing
on the California Register of Historical
Resources, or on a local register or
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
2.A resource determined by a lead agency
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
according to the historical register
criteria in Public Resources Code
section 5024.1(c), and considering the
significance of the resource to a
California Native tribe.
1-3, 10
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 41 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.5.2 Eligibility Criteria for Historic Resources
4.5.2.1 National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is a comprehensive inventory of known
historic resources throughout the United States. The National Register is administered by the
National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess
historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological or cultural significance at the national, state or
local level. A historic resource listed in, or formally determined to be eligible for listing in, the
National Register is, by definition, included in the California Register (Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1(d)(1)).4
National Register Bulletin Number 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,
describes the Criteria for Evaluation as being composed of two factors. First, the property must be
“associated with an important historic context.” The National Register identifies four possible
context types, of which at least one must be applicable at the national, state, or local level. As listed
under Section 8, “Statement of Significance,” of the National Register of Historic Places Registration
Form, these are:
A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history.
B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction
or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.
D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
Second, for a property to qualify under the National Register’s Criteria for Evaluation, it must also
retain “historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance.” While a property’s
significance relates to its role within a specific historic context, its integrity refers to “a property’s
physical features and how they relate to its significance.” To determine if a property retains the
physical characteristics corresponding to its historic context, the National Register has identified
seven aspects of integrity: 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling,
and 7) association.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation
The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for establishing standards for all programs under the
Department of the Interior’s authority, and for advising federal agencies on the preservation of
historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
The Standards for Rehabilitation (codified in 36 CFR 67 for use in the Federal Historic Preservation
Tax Incentives program) address the most prevalent treatment. “Rehabilitation” is defined as “the
process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible
4 See Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(d)(1)
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 42 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are
significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.”
The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property's significance through
the preservation of historic materials and features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all
materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and interior of the
buildings. They also encompass related landscape features and the building's site and environment,
as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. To be certified for federal tax purposes, a
rehabilitation project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the historic character
of the structure(s), and where applicable, the district in which it is located.
As stated in the definition, the treatment “rehabilitation” assumes that at least some repair or
alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary
use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes
that are important in defining the building's historic character. Similarly, exterior additions that
duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the extent that they compromise the
historic character of the structure, will fail to meet the Standards.
The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy,
and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and
environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The Standards are to be
applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic
and technical feasibility.
4.5.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources and CEQA
Specific guidelines for identifying historic resources during the project review process under CEQA
are set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a).
These provisions of CEQA create three categories of historical resources: mandatory historical
resources; presumptive historical resources; and resources that may be found historical at the
discretion of the lead agency.
Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the listed criteria
of significance and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as
historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its
historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it
maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.
The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical
resources and hence in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity
of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed
during the resource's period of significance.” The process of determining integrity is similar for both
the California and National Registers, and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity
that are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 43 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.5.2.3 Palo Alto Historic Inventory
The City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of individual designers and
architectural eras as well as buildings associated with local, state, or national historic events. The
inventory identifies buildings on the California and/or National Registers, whether a building is in a
recognized historic district, and lists categories related to architectural style and stylistic
development. Development incentives, such as reduced parking requirements and bonus floor area,
are allowed for in the Palo Alto Municipal Code in exchange for historic rehabilitation of Category 1
and 2 buildings.5
The specific categories in the Historic Inventory include:
Category 1: An “Exceptional” Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These
buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific
architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States.
These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall
appearance of the building is in its original character.
Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious
works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate
stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some
exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.
Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an
architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials,
proportion, or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent
changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of
architectural details, or wooden façades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.
In accordance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code), the Historic Resources Board (HRB) is responsible for making recommendations
to the City Council on proposed additions to the Historic Inventory and on reclassifications of
existing Historic Inventory buildings.6
For properties that are considered eligible for listing in the City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory and
to be designated as either a “Historic District,” or “Historic Structure/Site,” the property must meet
the following criteria:
1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in
the city, state, or nation;
2. The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life
important to the city, state, or nation;
5 The City’s incentive program for preservation and rehabilitation of historic buildings is provided for in the PAMC
(Title 16 and Title 18), and in Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policy and programs.
5 City of Palo Alto. Historic Preservation. Accessed: July 26, 2017. Available at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/preservation.asp.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 44 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now
rare;
4. The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now
rare;
5. The architect or building is important;
6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural
design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.
All properties listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory are subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act. In general, Category 1 and 2 resources are defined as “significant” buildings, subject to
local regulations, while Category 3 or 4 resources are defined as “contributing” buildings. Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 16.49, Section 16.49.060 requires Historic Resources Board review and
Council action on applications for demolition of significant buildings in the downtown area. The
existing JMZ building is not listed as a significant building nor as a contributing building, and is not
located in the downtown.
4.5.3 Existing Setting
Cultural resources are evidence of past human occupation and activity and include both historical and
archaeological resources. These resources may be located above ground, underground or underwater
and have significance in history, prehistory, architecture or culture of the nation, State of California,
or local or tribal communities. Paleontological resources are fossils, the remains or traces of
prehistoric life preserved in the geological record. They range from the well-known and well
publicized fossils (such as mammoth and dinosaur bones) to scientifically important fossils (such as
paleobotanical remains, trace fossils, and microfossils). Potentially sensitive areas with fossil
bearing sediments near the ground surface in areas of Santa Clara County are generally in or adjacent
to foothill areas rather than the younger Holocene age deposits on the valley floor.
4.5.3.1 Prehistoric Resources
The site is located in downtown Palo Alto, and is fully developed and previously disturbed. The site
is located in an area of “moderate sensitivity” for archaeological resources, based on the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report (2014), although areas of “extreme
sensitivity” are located nearby in the downtown area.
An Archaeological Literature Review that was conducted by Holman & Associates at the Northwest
Information Center of the California Historical Resource Information system (NWIC) did not
identify prehistoric resources on or adjacent to the project site.
4.5.3.2 Tribal Cultural Resources
Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was signed into law in 2014, creating a new category of environmental
resources (tribal cultural resources), which must be considered under CEQA. A tribal cultural
resource is defined under Public Resources Code Section 21074 as a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. AB 52
also requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated
with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified of projects proposed within that
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 45 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
area. Where a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, consultation is
required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural
resource or when it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
4.5.3.3 Historic Resources
History of Development on the City-Owned Parcel
Rinconada Park has developed into its current form over a period of 95 years, with improvements
that reflect a variety of civic and park design influences.
Prior to development of the park, the location that is now Rinconada Park was used as the City’s first
waterworks and power plant. An electricity-generating unit in the water plant was installed in 1914.
The cooling pool of the power plant was converted into a public swimming pool around 1918, and
drew crowds of both local residents and out-of-town tourists.
The park was officially named Rinconada Park in 1924, after the City sponsored a public contest for
its official name. Development plans were created in 1924 for the entire park. Because bond
measures to finance the development of the park were defeated, however, the full 1924 development
plan appears to have gone unfinished. Despite delays and cuts to the extensive development plan,
four tennis courts, a baseball diamond, and a children’s playground were constructed.
The Girl Scout House was completed in 1925, following designs by prolific Palo Alto architect Birge
Clark. Funding for the Girl Scout House was provided in 1922 by Lou Henry Hoover, wife of
President Herbert Hoover, and two other board members of the Palo Alto Girl Scout chapter. Hoover
established the first West Coast troop in Palo Alto and served as president of Girl Scouts of the USA
from 1922 to 1925 and again from 1935 to 1937. The building is the oldest active scout meeting
house in the country.
In the early 1930s, Lucie Stern, widow of Louis Stern who was a nephew of Levi Strauss, and her
daughter Ruth gifted the city with money to build the Lucie Stern Community Center. The theater
was the first part of the Lucie Stern Community Center to be completed in 1934. Construction of the
Lucie Stern Community Center was completed in 1940, and included the main theater, Boy Scout
headquarters, Children’s Theater, and the Children’s library. The library is the oldest freestanding
children’s library in the county, and was designed by Birge and David Clark in the Spanish Colonial
Revival style to match the Lucie Stern Community Center.
The JMZ building was constructed in 1941, and has since been used solely used as a museum and
zoo facility. The institution of the Palo Alto JMZ was founded in 1934 and belongs to a nation-wide
pattern of children’s museums established in the early 20th century. The paved parking lot and
adjacent landscaping between the JMZ and Lucie Stern Community Center was installed in the
1940s. The existing JMZ building has undergone significant alterations since its construction,
including a remodel and expansion in 1969.
Throughout the 1940s, various park improvements were made, including the addition of park
benches around the swimming pools and an addition to the Girl Scout House. The Fire Station,
located at the corner of Embarcadero and Newell Road was constructed in 1948. Additional park
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 46 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
improvements were made through the 1950s, namely an activities house to store recreational sports
gear. In 1957, plans for a modernized park were produced by the landscape architecture firm Eckbo,
Royston, and Williams of San Francisco. Later in 1964, the park was expanded to include a half-
block piece of land the City owned across Hopkins Avenue. In 1970, three more tennis courts were
constructed across Hopkins Avenue at Newell Road, and the Magic Forest was officially dedicated as
such in 1971. The walkways were renovated in 1973 and the pools were renovated in 1978.
Renovations to existing park facilities including the adult swimming pool and tennis courts were
renovated in 1986 and 1989, respectively. During the 1990s, more facilities underwent additions
including the children’s theater and children’s pool. The children’s library was renovated and
expanded in 2005, with work completed in 2007.
Historic Resources on the City-Owned Parcel
The entire City-owned parcel is designated in City of Palo Alto records as a Category 1 property
because of the Lucie Stern Community Center. The Category 1 designation does not apply to any
other building or facility within the parcel. The Lucie Stern Community Center is considered a
historic resource under National Register Criterion A/California Register Criterion 1 for its role in
providing community gathering spaces and amenities, National Register Criterion B/California
Register Criterion 2 for its association with benefactors Lucie and Ruth Stern, and National Register
Criterion C/California Register Criterion 3 for its Spanish Colonial Revival style buildings and
integrated landscape design.
A historic evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc. in July 2016 evaluated the JMZ building
for its historic significance based on national and state criteria. The report concluded that due to
significant modifications made to the building, it is not eligible for listing on the National Register or
California Register under any criteria.
A subsequent historic evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc. in June 2017 evaluated the
remaining development on the City-owned parcel. The Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House site was
found to be significant under Criterion A/1 for its early role in scouting and Criterion B/2 for its
association with Lou Henry Hoover. No additional historic resources were identified on the City-
owned parcel.
4.5.4 Impacts Evaluation
a., b., f. Would the project adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the
National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? Directly or
indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution?
Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory?
The proposed project includes two components: 1) implementation of the Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan (LRP) and 2) redevelopment of the JMZ facility and reconfiguration of the
adjacent parking lot.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 47 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
As described above, Rinconada Park and its existing features are not considered a historic
resource. Implementation of the LRP, therefore, would not result in impacts to historic
resources.
The Girl Scout House and Lucie Stern Community Center, which are located north and
northwest of the JMZ facility, respectively, are both considered historic resources. The
existing JMZ building, however, was determined not to be a historic resource. The JMZ
building and site are sufficiently separated from the Girl Scout House across a paved and
planted “park arrival plaza” that the new construction will not directly affect the character of
the historic building. Demolition of the existing JMZ building and construction of a new
JMZ facility, therefore, would not result in impacts to historic resources.
The project includes reconfiguration of the parking lot that is located adjacent to the Girl
Scout House and Lucie Stern Community Center. The redesigned parking lot would not
affect the Lucie Stern Community Center site; the pavement would occupy a smaller
footprint compared to the current paving at the south side of the complex, adding more lawn
and plantings to the building’s setting. While the driveway approach would be removed from
Middlefield Road to the south, a pedestrian circulation approach would replace the driveway.
Thus, the view on approach to the south courtyard would remain. The historic building
complex and landscaped courtyards and lawn to the west would not be affected.
The parking lot would be enlarged at the northeast, coming closer to the primary façade of
the Girl Scout House. The space of the “front yard” of the Girl Scout House would change,
as the paving would extended across the full length of the building’s façade and the area
would be paved with an organic concrete pathway, new oak trees, bark mulch ground cover,
and native grass plantings. While the proposed project includes alteration of some
contributing landscape/hardscape features at the “front yard,” these features will be altered
but not eliminated. Additionally, the bird bath would be moved to a location near the Boy
Scout Building at the Lucie Stern Community Center, which is an appropriate treatment for
this feature. While the proposed project includes removal of some landscape features,
particularly the demonstration garden in the front yard area of the Girl Scout House, the
significance of the historic building (National Register Criteria A and B/California Register
Criteria 1and 2) would continue to be represented through the building. The building’s T-
shaped form, board and batten siding, multi-lite wood sash windows, solid and board-and-
batten wood doors, stone chimney, and cross-gable roof would not be altered and would
continue to be the primary conveyance of the building’s significance. Overall, the project
does not significantly impact the historic character of the Girl Scout House and the building
continues to convey its historic significance, which justifies its eligibility for listing in the
National and California Registers. Thus, the reconfiguration of the parking lot would not
result in impacts to historic resources. [Less than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 48 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
c., d. Would the project cause damage to an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?
Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Although existing development has altered the project site, there is always the potential to
discover unknown cultural resources during site excavation. In the event any archaeological
or human remains are discovered on the site, impacts would be potentially significant.
Impact CR-1: Construction activities could result in significant impacts to buried
cultural resources. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce
this impact to a less than significant level.
MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during
construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-
feet of the find shall be halted, the Director of Planning and Community
Environment shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine
the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the
significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The
recommended mitigation shall be implemented and could include
collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials.
A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring
shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment.
MM CR-1.2: If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the proposed
project, the City shall comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC)
Section 7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County Coroner
and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made
the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC
Section 5097.98.
If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the
coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the
Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the
remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner
the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human
remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the
human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the
NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial
with the CHRIS-NWIC.
If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to
make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of
the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 49 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the
landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall
inter the human remains and items associated with Native American
human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not
subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. [Less than
Significant Impact with Mitigation]
e. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or
unique geologic feature?
The proposed project is located in an urban area on alluvial soil materials. There are no
known paleontological resources in the vicinity of the proposed project site. [No Impact]
g. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either:
1) A site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native
American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing of the California Register of Historical
Resources, or on a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k), or
2) a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1 (c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe?
In May 2016, the City of Palo received a single request from the Torres Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians to be contacted in accordance with AB 52. Through subsequent
correspondence with Tribal Representatives, however, it was concluded that the Tribe had
contacted the City of Palo Alto in error and did not wish to be contacted regarding future
projects within the City’s jurisdiction. The Tribe is not traditionally or culturally affiliated
with the geographic area within the City of Palo Alto; rather, the area they are affiliated with
lies over 400 miles southeast of the project site. Because no other tribes have requested to be
contacted, no notices in accordance with AB 52 were sent.
The project site is located in a fully developed area and no tribal cultural resources have been
listed or determined eligible for listing in the California Register or a local register of
historical resources. As described previously, An Archaeological Literature Review that was
conducted by Holman & Associates at the Northwest Information Center of the California
Historical Resource Information system (NWIC) did not identify prehistoric resources on or
adjacent to the project site. The project would improve existing development on the site and
would not substantially change the character of the site or its surroundings compared to
existing conditions. To date, no California Native American tribes that are or have been
traditionally culturally affiliated with the project vicinity have requested notification from the
City of Palo Alto regarding projects in the area and their effects on a tribal cultural resource.
The project, therefore, is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse effect on a tribal
cultural resource. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 50 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.5.5 Conclusion
With implementation of the mitigation measures included in the project, the proposed project would
result in a less than significant impact on cultural and historic resources. [Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 51 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.6 GEOLOGY
This discussion is based in part on a Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Silicon Valley Soil
Engineering in January 2015. A copy of this survey is attached to this Initial Study as Appendix D.
4.6.1 Geology and Soils Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
described on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? (Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.)
1-3
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1-3
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? 1-3
iv. Landslides? 1-3
v. Expansive soils? 1-3
b. Expose people or property to major geologic
hazards that cannot be mitigated through the
use of standard engineering design and
seismic safety techniques?
1-3
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that will become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
1-3
d. Cause substantial soil erosion or siltation? 1-3
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
1-3
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 52 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.6.2 Existing Setting
4.6.1.1 Background and Topography
The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, an alluvial basin, bound by the Santa Cruz
Mountains to the west, the Hamilton/Diablo Range to the east, and the San Francisco Bay to the
north. The Santa Clara Valley was formed when sediments derived from the Santa Cruz Mountains
and the Hamilton/Diablo Range were exposed by continued tectonic uplift and regression of the
inland sea that had previously inundated this area. Bedrock in this area is made up of the Franciscan
Complex, a diverse group of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks of Upper Jurassic to
cretaceous age (70 to 140 million years old). Overlaying the bedrock in the vicinity are alluvial fan
and fluvial sediments of Quaternary age.
4.6.1.2 Expansive Soils
Based on lab testing results, near-surface soils on the site have a high potential for expansion.
4.6.1.3 Faults and Seismicity
The project area is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area, which is classified
as Zone 4, the most seismically active zone in the United States. The San Andreas, Hayward, and
Calaveras faults are significant regional active faults that could produce earthquakes affecting the
proposed project during its anticipated life span. No known faults cross the project site, and the site
is not within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone. The San Andreas fault is approximately 6.8
miles southwest of the site, the Hayward fault is approximately 12.3 miles northeast of the site, and
the Calaveras fault is approximately 16.9 miles east of the site. With the relative proximity of these
faults, the site is likely to be subject to ground shaking during moderate to large earthquakes
produced along these active fault zones.
4.6.1.4 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loose,
water-saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state after ground shaking. There are many
variables that contribute to liquefaction, including the age of the soil, soil type, soil cohesion, soil
density, and ground water level. No liquefiable soils were detected in soil borings taken on the site,
and the potential for liquefaction is minimal.
4.6.3 Impacts Evaluation
a., b., c. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) rupture of a known earthquake fault,
ii) strong seismic ground shaking, iii) seismic-related ground failure, iv) landslides or v)
expansive soils? Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be
mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? Be
located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 53 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
The project site is located within the seismically-active San Francisco Bay region, but are not
located within a mapped fault zone. There are no known earthquake faults crossing the sites;
therefore, the likelihood of primary ground rupture is low. [Less Than Significant Impact]
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has reported that the Working Group on
California Earthquake Probabilities (2007) has estimated that there is a 63 percent probability
that one or more major earthquakes would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between
before 2038. An earthquake occurring on any of the fault lines in the region may induce
seismic ground shaking at the project site.
The proposed JMZ building would be designed and constructed in accordance with state and
City of Palo Alto building codes and standards, as well as the recommendations of the
geotechnical investigation prepared for the site, to reduce damage from seismic activity.
These conditions would require a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the
Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any grading and building permits. [Less
Than Significant Impact]
d. Would the project cause substantial soil erosion or siltation?
The project site is generally flat and not adjacent to any steep slopes. Park redevelopment
and construction of the JMZ facility would not result in soil erosion, the loss of topsoil, or in
substantial siltation.
Construction of the proposed JMZ building would require excavation for building
foundations. The project would be required to comply with the City of Palo Alto’s
conditions of approval to reduce erosion during demolition, grading, and excavation.
The soils on site have a relatively low potential for expansion, and construction of the new
JMZ facility in conformance with the California Building Code and City of Palo Alto
requirements would avoid risks associated with soil conditions. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems. [No Impact]
4.6.4 Conclusion
The project would not result in significant geology and soil impacts. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 54 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
1-3
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
1-3
4.7.2 Existing Setting
4.7.2.1 Background Information
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which are discussed in Section 4.3, and have
local or regional impacts, emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) have a broader, global impact.
Global warming associated with the “greenhouse effect” is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in
the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere over time. The
principal GHGs contributing to global warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. Emissions of GHGs
contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with
the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors.
An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global warming is currently
affecting changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates,
and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several
naturally occurring resources within California could be adversely affected by the global warming
trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise could increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion,
and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also
occur.
The potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more
extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent
and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air
pollution.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 55 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.7.2.2 Regulatory Information
California Assembly Bill 32
The Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill (AB) 32) was passed in California in September
2006 to address the State’s contribution to global climate change. Assembly Bill 32 requires that
GHG emissions in California be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The California Air Resources
Board (CARB) approved the state’s first Climate Change Scoping Plan in 2008. It proposed a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s dependence on oil, diversify energy
sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan
must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on
track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal.
In May 2014, CARB adopted an updated Scoping Plan document. The 2014 Update defines CARB’s
climate change priorities for the next five years and lays the groundwork to start the transition to the
post-2020 goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012 (see below). The 2014 Update
highlights California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 greenhouse gas emission
reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan and evaluates how to align the State’s longer-term
greenhouse gas reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, such as for water, waste,
natural resources, agriculture, clean energy, and transportation and land use.
Executive Orders
In addition to AB 32, Executive Order S-3-05 (EO S-3-05) established a reduction target of 80
percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and Executive Order B-16-2012 established benchmarks for
increased use of zero emission vehicles and zero emission vehicle infrastructure by 2020 and 2025.
On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued Executive Order B-30-15, setting a new
interim statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction target. The purpose of establishing the interim
target is to ensure California meets its previously established target of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as set forth in Executive Order S-3-05 in 2005.
Under Executive Order B-30-15, the interim target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40
percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
California Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection
Act, was signed into law in September 2008. It builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop
regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020
and 2035 in comparison to 2005 emissions. The per capita reduction targets for passenger vehicles in
the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by
2035.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area in July 2013 as part of SB 375 implementation. The strategies in
the plan are intended to promote compact, mixed-use development close to public transit, jobs,
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 56 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities, particularly within Priority Development
Areas (PDAs) identified by local jurisdictions.
Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP) focuses on two closely-related BAAQMD goals:
protecting public health and protecting the climate. Consistent with the GHG reduction targets
adopted by the state of California, the 2017 CAP lays the groundwork for the BAAQMD’s long-term
effort to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2017 CAP includes a wide range of control measures designed to
decrease emissions of methane and other “super-GHGs” that are potent climate pollutants in the
near-term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.
BAAQMD Guidelines
As discussed in the CEQA Guidelines, the determination of whether a project may have a significant
effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based
to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Palo Alto and other jurisdictions in
the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin often utilize the thresholds and methodology for greenhouse
gas emissions developed by the BAAQMD.
City of Palo Alto Plans and Programs
At the local level, the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a number of goals and policies to reduce
its impact on global climate change through promoting energy efficiency and/or conservation,
alternative modes of transportation, water efficiency, and specific building standards. In addition, the
City adopted a Climate Protection Plan in December 2007 and a Green Building Ordinance on June
2, 2008. The Green Building Program applies to residential and non-residential private development
projects (PAMC 16.14).
4.7.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment?
The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction and
normal park and JMZ operations. BAAQMD does not provide GHG screening thresholds for
museums or zoos. A similar land use, based on visitation rates and duration of patron visits
are libraries. Based on the established screening thresholds for libraries, the project would be
under the BAAQMD thresholds for GHG emissions, and additionally would comply with the
City’s green building requirements.
The BAAQMD guidelines and the City of Palo Alto do not suggest a threshold of
significance for short-term construction-related GHG emissions. Based on the size of the
project and the amount of construction-related activities necessary to complete the project,
and implementation of Basic Construction Measures discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality, the
project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution of greenhouse gas
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 57 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
emissions to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, and, therefore, would result in a less than
significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions. [Less Than Significant Impact]
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As discussed in Section 4.7.2.2, Regulatory Information, the State of California has adopted a
Climate Change Scoping Plan. Greenhouse gas emissions are also addressed in the adopted
2017 CAP and Plan Bay Area. The CARB-approved Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines
a comprehensive set of actions intended to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in
California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy
sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. The Scoping Plan includes
recommended actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While the Scoping Plan
focuses on measures and regulations at a statewide level, local governments play a key role in
implementing many of the strategies contained in the Scoping Plan, such as energy efficient
building codes, local renewable energy generation, and recycling programs.
The project includes green building measures as required by the City of Palo Alto’s green
building program. These measures include, but are not limited to:
Non-residential Development:
Must comply with the California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory + Tier 2
requirements,
Must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Building Code
(CBC);
Must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the
City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months;
Must comply with potable water reduction Tier 2;
Must be designed and installed to reduce irrigation water;
Must install recycled water infrastructure and meters;
Must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2; and
Must comply with the City’s Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance.
For these reasons, the project would be consistent with recommended actions in the Scoping
Plan and 2010 CAP measures, and would not conflict with implementation of recommended
actions in these plans intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 (and
ultimately 2050).
Given that demolition and construction materials would be salvaged or recycled in
conformance with City of Palo Alto requirements, and the project would meet Title 24
standards to reduce energy usage, construction and operation of the project would not
contribute substantially to local or regional GHG emissions that have a cumulative significant
effect on the global environment. [Less than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 58 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.7.4 Conclusion
The proposed project would not generate substantial new greenhouse gas emissions considered to
have a significant impact on global climate change. Voluntary implementation of BAAQMD’s
recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Guidelines and compliance with green building
requirements would further reduce impacts to greenhouse gas emissions to a less than significant
level. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 59 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.8.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1-3
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
1
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
1-3
d. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment from existing hazardous
materials contamination by exposing future
occupants or users of the site to
contamination either in excess of ground soil
and groundwater cleanup goals developed for
the site or from location on listed hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5?
1-3
e. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
1,2,18
f. Result in a safety hazard from a public
airport for people residing or working within
the project area?
1
g. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, will the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
1
h. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 60 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.8.2 Background
Hazardous materials encompass a wide range of substances, some of which are naturally-occurring
and some of which are man-made. Examples include motor oil and fuel, metals (e.g., lead, mercury,
arsenic), asbestos, pesticides, herbicides, and chemical compounds used in manufacturing and other
activities. A substance may be considered hazardous if, due to its chemical and/or physical
properties, it poses a substantial hazard when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed
of, or released into the atmosphere in the event of an accident. Determining if such substances are
present on or near project sites is important because exposure to hazardous materials above
regulatory thresholds can result in adverse health effects on humans, as well as harm to plant and
wildlife ecology.
Hazardous waste generators and hazardous materials users in the City are required to comply with
regulations enforced by several federal, state, and county agencies. The regulations are designed to
reduce the risk associated with human exposure to hazardous materials and minimize adverse
environmental effects. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations require
protective measures during construction activities where workers may be exposed to asbestos, lead,
and/or other hazardous materials.
4.8.3 Setting
4.8.3.1 Regulatory Setting
Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List)
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the state,
local agencies, and developers to find information about the location of hazardous materials release
sites. Government Code section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to
develop an updated Cortese List at least annually. The Cortese List includes lists maintained by the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
The DTSC, SWRCB, and CIWMB do not list the site as containing hazardous materials. Within a
1,000 foot radius of the project site, there are three sites identified by the SWRCB as having leaking
underground storage tanks. All three sites have received case closure status from the SWRCB and
are considered fully remediated.7
4.8.3.2 Existing Setting
There are no known hazardous material concerns on the project site. Land uses in the project area
consist mainly of single family residences and public facilities (Girl Scout house, Lucie Stern
Community Center, Children’s Library and Theater, Walter Hays Elementary School, Fire Station,
Main Library, Art Center). There are no industrial uses near the project site that pose a hazardous
materials concern.
7 Cal State Water Resources Control Board, August 17, 2015. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 61 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.8.4 Impacts Evaluation
a., b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The proposed JMZ would have similar operations as the existing JMZ, including the minor
use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials such as janitorial, landscaping, and
maintenance chemicals. Future JMZ maintenance staff would be required to comply with
federal, state, and local requirements for managing hazardous materials. These materials
would be used in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws, as required by the City of
Palo Alto.
Project construction would require the temporary use of heavy equipment, including
excavation equipment. Construction would also require the use of hazardous materials
including petroleum products, lubricants, cleaners, paints, and solvents. These materials
would be used in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws, as required by the City of
Palo Alto. If used as directed, these materials would not pose a hazard to the environment or
workers or persons in the vicinity. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Asbestos-containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint
Demolition of the existing JMZ could expose asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or
lead-based paint. These materials, if present could pose a risk to construction workers and
adjacent uses during building demolition within the JMZ. To reduce the potential for
construction workers and adjacent uses to encounter hazardous materials contamination from
ACMs and lead-based paint, the following measures are included in the project as conditions
of approval to reduce hazardous materials impacts related to ACMs and lead-based paint.
CONDITION HAZ-1.1:
In conformance with local, state, and federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a
lead-based paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the
presence of ACMs and/or lead-based paint on the JMZ. The surveys shall be completed
prior to demolition work beginning on these structures.
If found, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and
dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials, in accordance with the
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines, prior
to building demolition that may disturb the materials. All construction activities shall be
undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure
to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 62 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be
removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR
1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any
debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that
meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. [Less Than Significant Impact]
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Walter Hays Elementary School is located adjacent to the project site. The proposed project
would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste
during operation. The project does not propose construction of a school. [No Impact]
d. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing
hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users to the site to
contamination either in excess of ground soil and groundwater cleanup goals developed for
the site or from location on listed hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5?
The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5, and none of these sites are adjacent to the site (refer to Appendix D).8 The
proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from
contamination in excess of soil and groundwater cleanup goals. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
f., g. Would the project result in a safety hazard from a public airport for people residing or
working within the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area?
The project sites are located approximately 2.1 miles west of the Palo Alto Airport, and are
not within the Palo Alto Airport’s Comprehensive Land Use Planning area. Implementation
of the projects would, therefore, not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area. [No Impact]
h., e. Would the project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The development of the proposed project would not impair or interfere with implementation
of the City’s emergency response plans or any statewide emergency response or evacuation
plans. The sites are located in a developed area of Palo Alto, and therefore not subject to
hazards from wildland fires.9 [No Impact]
8 State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Accessed July 8, 2016.
9 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara County.
October 8, 2008. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php. Accessed July 8, 2016.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 63 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.8.5 Conclusion
The project do not propose new hazardous materials uses and are not located on a site contaminated
with hazardous materials. Implementation of the required City of Palo Alto conditions of approval
would reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant hazards and hazardous materials impact.
[Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 64 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.9.1 Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 1-3
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge, such that there will be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells will drop to
a level which will not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
1-3
c. Substantially increase the rate, volume, or
flow duration of storm water runoff or alter
the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner
which will result in substantial erosion or
siltation on-or off-site?
1-3
d. Result in stream bank instability? 1
e. Significantly increase the rate, volume, or
flow duration of storm water runoff in a
manner which would result in new or
increased flooding on-or off-site?
1-3
f. Create or contribute runoff water which will
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
1-3
g. Provide substantial additional sources of
pollutants associated with urban runoff or
otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
1-3
h. Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
1,16
i. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which will impede or redirect
flood flows?
1,16
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 65 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
j. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding by placing housing or other
development within a 100-year flood hazard
area or a levee or dam failure inundation
area?
1,2
k. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,19
4.9.2 Existing Setting
4.9.2.1 Regulatory Background
Federal Emergency Management Agency
In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising
cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused
by floods. The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance available for communities that agree to
adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the NFIP and creates Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that designate 100-year floodplain zones and delineate other flood
hazard areas. A 100-year floodplain zone is the area that has a one in one hundred (one percent)
chance of being flooded in any one year based on historical data. Portions of the City are identified
as special flood hazard areas with a one percent annual chance and two percent annual chance of
flooding (also known as the 100-year and 500-year flood zones) as determined by the FEMA NFIP.
As noted previously, the developable portion of the site is located in the 100-year flood zone.
Water Quality (Nonpoint Source Pollution Program)
The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the
primary laws related to water quality. Regulations set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill the
requirements of this legislation. EPA’s regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into
the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented
at the regional level by the water quality control boards, which for the Palo Alto area is the San
Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)/C.3 Requirement
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
(Permit Number CAS612008) (MRP). In an effort to standardize stormwater management
requirements throughout the region, this permit replaces the formerly separate countywide municipal
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 66 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
stormwater permits with a regional permit for 77 Bay Area municipalities, including the City of
Mountain View. Under provisions of the NPDES Municipal Permit, redevelopment projects that
create or replace more than 10,000 sf of impervious surfaces are required to design and construct
stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff.
4.9.2.2 Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by
pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as
non-point source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other
exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil
and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy
metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic
habitats to which they drain.
Stormwater runoff water quality is regulated by the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from surface water
discharge. Locally, the NPDES program is administered by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB worked with cities and counties throughout the region to
prepare and adopt a Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit (Regional Permit). This Regional Permit
identifies minimum standards and provisions that the City of Palo Alto, as a permittee, must require
of new development and redevelopment projects within the City limits. Compliance with the
NPDES Regional Permit is mandated by state and federal statutes.
The project site is the existing Rinconada Park with JMZ, which is located in a developed suburban
area. Stormwater runoff from the project site currently drains into the Palo Alto storm drain system,
which eventually empties into the San Francisco Bay10.
4.9.2.3 Flooding
The project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain or a groundwater recharge area.11
4.9.2.4 Dam Failure
The Association of Bay Area Governments compiled the dam failure inundation hazard maps
submitted to the State Office of Emergency Services by dam owners throughout the Bay Area.
The project site is located in the Searsville inundation area.12
10 City of Palo Alto, Storm Drain Master Plan. Accessed: July 8, 2016. Available at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org.
11 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Community-Panel Number 06085C0010H, May, 18 2009.
12 San Mateo County, Dam Failure Inundation Areas. Accessed on August 11, 2015. Available at:
http://planning.smcgov.orgf.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 67 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.9.2.5 Seiches, Tsunamis, and Mudflows
A seiche is an oscillation of the surface of a lake or landlocked sea varying in period from a few
minutes to several hours. There are no landlocked bodies of water near the project site that, in the
event of a seiche, will affect the site.
A tsunami or tidal wave is a series of water waves caused by the displacement of a large volume
of water in a large body of water, such as an ocean or a large lake. Due to the immense volumes
of water and energy involved, tsunamis can devastate coastal regions. There are no large bodies
of water near the project site and the site does not lie within a tsunami inundation area.13
A mudflow is the rapid movement of a large mass of mud formed from loose soil and water. The
project area is relatively flat and there are no mountains near the site that in the event of a mudflow,
will affect the site.
4.9.3 Impacts Evaluation
a., g. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Provide substantial additional sources of pollutants associated with urban runoff or
otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
The City’s standard conditions of approval include a requirement that a project develop and
implement best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion during construction and
permanent features to treat stormwater runoff, such as swales. Such BMPs include, but are
not limited to the following measures:
Implement site-specific erosion and sediment control methods during demolition and
construction periods.
Cover soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute non-visible pollution prior to
rainfall events.
Cover stockpiles and disturbed surfaces with secure plastic sheeting or tarp.
Clean sediments from streets, driveways, and paved areas using dry sweeping methods.
Dispose of all wastes properly and keep site clear of trash and litter. Clean up leaks,
drips, and other spills immediately.
Implementation of Construction BMPs and compliance with the City’s standard conditions of
approval and compliance with provisions of the NPDES permit would ensure that adverse
effects on water quality associated with stormwater runoff during construction and operation
of the project area avoided and/or reduced to a less than significant level. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
13 California Emergency Management Agency, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning San Francisco
Bay Area, < http://www.conservation.ca.gov> June 15, 2009.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 68 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge, such that there will be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells will
drop to a level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
The project is the implementation of the Rinconada Park LRP and the construction of a new
JMZ facility in the same location as the existing JMZ facility. The amount of pervious
surfaces on the project site after buildout of the project would be similar to existing
conditions.
Implementation of both the LRP and proposed JMZ would not result in the depletion of
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
c., d. Would the project substantially increase the rate, volumes, or flow duration of stormwater
runoff or alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Result in stream bank instability?
San Francisquito Creek is approximately 0.9 miles northeast of the project site; however, the
project area is not in the floodplain of the creek and does not propose any alterations or
impacts to the creek. The projects would not cause stream bank instability in or near San
Francisquito Creek. [No Impact]
e. Would the project significantly increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of storm water
runoff in a manner which would result in new or increased flooding on-or off-site?
The proposed project would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area and does not include any alterations to a waterway. Implementation of Construction
BMPs and erosion control measures would reduce surface runoff impacts during construction
and project operation to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact]
f. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
The proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surface or increase
stormwater runoff such that it would have the potential to exceed the capacity of existing
stormwater drainage systems. The project would be required to comply with Section
16.11.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which mandates permanent stormwater pollution
prevention measures for new development projects. Applicable measures to the proposed
project include:
Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration,
minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates other appropriate
sustainable landscaping practices and programs such as bay-friendly landscaping;
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 69 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Efficient irrigation systems;
Conservation of natural areas, including existing trees, other vegetation, and soils;
Minimization of impervious surfaces;
Minimization of stormwater runoff by implementation of one or more of the
following site design measures:
o Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.
o Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.
o Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.
o Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated
areas.
o Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.
Compliance with Section 16.11.030 of the Municipal Code would ensure that any runoff
generated from project implementation would not be a substantial source of pollution. [Less
Than Significant Impact]
h. - k. Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which will impede or
redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Be subject
to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the project area is not located in a special flood hazard area
subject to inundation by the one percent chance flood. The one percent annual flood (100-
year flood), is the flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any
given year.14 [No Impact]
Reservoirs whose failure would affect the City of Palo Alto include Felt Lake, Searsville
Lake, Lagunita Reservoir, and Foothills Park. Based on the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
and the Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services, the project site is not within a dam failure
inundation area.15 [No Impact]
There are no landlocked bodies of water nor large bodies of water near the project site that, in
the event of a seiche or tsunami, would affect the site. The project area is relatively flat and
there are no mountains near the site that in the event of a mudflow, will affect the site. [No
Impact]
14 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 060850010H. Map.
Effective Date: May 18, 2009.
15 City of Palo Alto, Office of Emergency Services. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Report.
August 2014.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 70 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.9.4 Conclusion
With implementation of the best management practices and conformance with the City of Palo Alto
Municipal Code, the project would result in a less than significant impact to hydrology and
stormwater quality. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 71 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.10 LAND USE
4.10.1 Land Use Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Physically divide an established
community? 1,2
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
1-3
i. Substantially adversely change the
type or intensity of existing or
planned land use patterns in the
area?
1,2
ii. Be incompatible with adjacent land
uses or with the general character
of the surrounding area, including
density and building height?
1,2
iii. Conflict with established
residential, recreational,
educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
1,2
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1-3,9
4.10.2 Existing Setting
The project site is located centrally in the City of Palo Alto in an area developed with residential and
public facility uses. The site consists of the Rinconada Park and JMZ properties. The 11.8-acre
Rinconada Park is designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as Public Park and currently
contains various recreational amenities, including two children’s playgrounds, turf area for
activities, picnic areas, nine tennis courts, backboard, picnic area with barbecues, municipal
swimming pool and children’s pool, shuffle board and horse shoe pit, redwood grove,
multipurpose concrete bowl, benches, and jogging/walking paths. The Public Park land use
designation is defined as open lands whose primary purpose is active recreation and whose
character is essentially urban. These areas have been planted with non-indigenous landscaping and
are regularly maintained by City Park’s staff.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 72 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
JMZ is designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as a Major Institutions/Special Facilities and is
currently used for community education and recreational activities. This land use designation is
defined as institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are
either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations. Examples are hospitals and City
facilities.
The entire project site is located within the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. The PF public
facilities district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and
community service or recreational facilities.
Rinconada Park is bounded by Hopkins Avenue to the north, Newell Road to the east, Embarcadero
Road to the southeast. The JMZ is located adjacent to the southwest corner of Rinconada Park and is
bounded by Middlefield Road to the southwest. Walter Hays Elementary School is located on the
eastern boundary of the JMZ and the southern boundary of Rinconada Park. Palo Alto Fire Station 3
is located adjacent to Rinconada Park at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and Newell Road.
Surrounding land uses consist primarily of single family residences and public use facilities. An
aerial photograph of the project site and the surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 3.1-3.
4.10.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?
The proposed project is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP and the construction of
the JMZ at the site of the existing JMZ. The project would not change the existing uses of
Rinconada Park or JMZ and would, therefore, not physically divide an established
community. [No Impact]
b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
The proposed uses and intensity of the project is consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation for the sites, and it would replace, modify, and
expand existing sites’ uses with similar uses. [No Impact]
bi). Would the project substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned
land use patterns in the area?
Implementation of the Rinconada Park LRP would guide future development and renovation
of Rinconada Park. Proposed renovations and improvements would maintain the type and
intensity of existing uses in the park.
The proposed JMZ building would be slightly larger than the existing facility; however, it
would maintain the uses of the existing facility.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 73 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
For these reasons, the proposed projects would not substantially adversely change the type or
intensity of existing or planned land use in the area. [Less Than Significant Impact]
bii – iii.) Would the project be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of
the surrounding area, including density and building height? Would the project conflict with
established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area?
The proposed JMZ facility would be consist of a one-story JMZ building (Phase I) reaching a
maximum height of 27 feet, and a two-story Outdoor Zoo Building (Phase II) reaching a
maximum height of 25 feet. The highest point of the combined museum and zoo facility
would be 36 feet at the netted enclosure. The project is subject to design review and approval
by the City through the Architectural Review process, which ensures compliance with City
standards to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety.
The proposed project would maintain the existing land uses and would be compliant with the
activities and building densities of each respective General Plan designations and zoning
district. For these reasons, implementation of the project would not result in incompatible
land uses or conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or
scientific uses of the surrounding area. [Less Than Significant Impact]
c. Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
The project site is outside of the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, Stanford
Conservation Plan, or any other adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan. [No Impact]
4.10.4 Conclusion
The proposed projects would not result in a significant land use impact. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 74 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
4.11.1 Existing Setting
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation
(DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1).
This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has
not classified the City for other resources. There are no known locally or regionally valuable
mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
4.11.2 Mineral Resources Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that will be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
1-3
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
1-3
4.11.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. – b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that will be of
value to the region and the residents of the state or in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan?
The project is in eastern Palo Alto, and is not located in an area containing known mineral
resources. There are no known mineral recovery sites in the vicinity of the project site. [No
Impact]
4.11.4 Conclusion
The project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. [No Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 75 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.12 NOISE
The following discussion is based upon the noise assessment prepared for the proposed project by
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., noise consultants, in June 2015. The report analyzed the impacts of a
larger JMZ facility based on previous site plans than the proposed site plans analyzed in this Initial
Study. Therefore, noise impacts described below represent a conservative analysis. This report is
included in this Initial Study as Appendix E.
4.12.1 Noise Environmental Checklist
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Exposure of persons to, or generation of,
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
1-3,21
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
1-3,21
c. A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
1,2
d. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, will the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
1,2
e. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, will the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1
4.12.2 Background
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Acceptable levels of noise are relative to the designated
land use. In any one location, the noise level will vary over time, from the lowest background or
ambient noise level to temporary increases caused by traffic or other sources. State and federal
standards have been established as guidelines for determining the compatibility of a particular use
with its noise environment.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 76 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A-
weighted sound level or dBA.16 This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which
the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time,
different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Typical noise descriptors
include maximum noise level (Lmax), the energy-equivalent noise level (Leq), and the day-night
average noise level (Ldn). The Ldn noise descriptor is commonly used in establishing noise exposure
guidelines for specific land uses. For the energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor called Leq the
most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary
duration.
Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any
instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a
conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in
which no particular source is identifiable.
Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening hours, 24-hour descriptors have been
developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Day/Night
Average Sound Level, Ldn (sometimes also referred to as DNL), is the average A-weighted noise
level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of 10 dB to noise levels measured in the
nighttime between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a
24-hour A-weighted noise level from midnight to midnight after the addition of five dBA to sound
levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after the addition of 10 dBA to sound
levels occurring in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
4.12.3 Existing Setting
An ambient noise monitoring survey was conducted by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. on March 17,
2015 and included three long-term (120-hour) and three short-term (10-minute) measurements.
Measurement locations are shown in Figure 4.12-1. A summary of the long-term and short-term
measurement results are shown in Table 4.12-1.
Long-term measurement LT-1 was located across from 1290 Cedar Street roughly 55 feet north of
the center of Hopkins Avenue. The predominant noise source at this location was traffic on Hopkins
Avenue. Daytime hourly average noise levels typically ranged from about 52 to 56 dBA Leq, with
nighttime noise levels as low as 37 dBA Leq. The day/night average noise level at this location ranged
from 55 to 56 dBA Ldn.
Measurement LT-2 was situated in front of 1108 Fulton Street, roughly 60 feet southeast of the
center of Embarcadero Road. The predominant noise source at this location was traffic along
Embarcadero Road, although the loudspeaker at the adjacent school was occasionally audible during
the attended portion of this measurement. Daytime hourly average noise levels typically ranged from
about 61 to 64 dBA Leq, with nighttime noise levels as low as 50 dBA Leq. The day/night average
noise level at this location ranged from 63 to 66 dBA Ldn.
16 The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network.
All sound levels in this discussion are A-weighted, unless otherwise stated.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 77 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Long-term noise measurement LT-3 was situated across from 685 Kellogg Avenue, roughly 50 feet
southwest of the center of Middlefield Road. The predominant noise source at this location was
traffic along Middlefield Road. Daytime hourly average noise levels typically ranged from about 60
to 64 dBA Leq, with nighttime noise levels as low as 42 dBA Leq. The day/night average noise level at
this location ranged from 61 to 63 dBA Ldn.
Short-term noise measurement ST-1 was located across from 12808 Pine Street, roughly 30 feet
north of the center of Hopkins Avenue. Traffic along Hopkins Avenue was the predominant noise
source at this location. The 10-minute average noise level, measured from 11:30 AM to 11:40 AM on
Thursday, March 17th, 2015 was 52 dBA Ldn.
Noise measurement ST-2 was situated in front of 1249 Harriet Street, roughly 20 feet from the center
of the roadway and across the street from the library. The primary noise source at this location was
local traffic, which generated a 10-minute average noise level of 55 dBA Leq from 11:20 AM to
11:30 AM on Thursday, March 17, 2015.
Measurement ST-3 was located across from 1722 Newell Road, near Embarcadero Road. The
primary noise source at this location was traffic on Embarcadero Road, with some jet noise occurring
during the measurement interval. The 10-minute average noise level, measured from 11:50 AM to
12:00 PM on Thursday, March 17, 2015 was 61 dBA Leq.
Table 4.12-1: Summary of Long and Short-Term Noise Measurement Data
Noise Measurement Location Daytime
Measure Leq
Ldn* Primary Noise
Sources
LT-1: Front of 1290 Cedar St
(3/12/15 to 3/15/15)
52-56 55-56 Traffic on Hopkins
Avenue
LT-2: Front of 1108 Fulton St
(3/12/15 to 3/15/15)
61-64 63-66 Traffic on
Embarcadero Road
LT-3: Front of 685 Kellog Ave
(3/12/15 to 3/15/15)
60-64 61-63 Traffic on Middlefield
Road
ST-1: Front of 1280 Pine St
(3/17/15, 11:30 AM – 11:40
AM)
52 57 Traffic on Hopkins
Avenue
ST-2: Front of 1249 Harriett St
(3/17/15, 11:20 AM – 11:30
AM)
55 55 Local Traffic
ST-3: Front of 1722 Newell Rd
(3/16/15, 11:50 AM – 12 PM)
61 64 Traffic on
Embarcadero Rd
* Ldn for short-term noise measurements calculated by comparing short-term data to data collected during a corresponding
time period at long-term measurement site.
NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS FIGURE 4.12-1
Parkinson AvenueParkinson Avenue
Community LaneCommunity Lane
Harriet Street
Ha
r
r
i
e
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Cedar Street
Ce
d
a
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pine Street
Pi
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Newell Road
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
Coleridge Avenue
Cole
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Byron Street
By
r
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Guinda Street
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Middlefield Road
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Hopkins AvenueHopkins Avenue
E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d
Embarca
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Fulton Street
Fu
l
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
LT-3ST-2
LT-3ST-3
LT-3ST-2
LT-3LT-1 LT-3ST-1
LT-3LT-3
Photo Date: Apr. 2016
Short-Term Noise Measurement Location
Project Boundary
Long-Term Noise Measurement Location
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, July 28, 2016.
0 50 200 400 Feet
LT-#
ST-#
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 79 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.12.4 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the project result in the exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction of the LRP would occur over a period of 25 years. Construction of the
proposed JMZ would include the demolition of the existing museum and zoo to construct a
new, larger museum and zoo facility over a period of 18 to 24 months.
The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or
impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) are used in areas adjacent to developed
properties. A significant impact would be identified if the construction of the project would
expose persons to groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec peak particle velocity
(PPV) because of the potential to result in cosmetic damage to buildings of normal
conventional construction.
Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and
equipment used. The closest residences are located approximately 80 feet north of the tennis
courts and approximately 120 feet from the proposed JMZ building. Construction of the JMZ
would be as close as 25 feet from Walter Hays Elementary School structures.
During construction of the JMZ, vibration levels at the nearest Walter Hays Elementary
School structures could reach 0.21 in/sec PPV during the use of heavy equipment (vibratory
rollers, clam shovel drops), but would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for
architectural damage. At a distance of 80 feet, approximately at the location of residences
across Middlefield Road, vibration levels would be expected to be less than 0.06 in/sec PPV,
which is well below the significance threshold. Vibration levels would be less as activities
move further from the school. Vibration generated by construction activities near the
common property lines would at times be perceptible, however, would not be expected to
result in architectural damage to these buildings. [Less than Significant Impact]
b. Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Project Exposure to Noise
The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan designates Rinconada Park as Public Park and
the JMZ as Major Institution/Special Facilities. Current uses of Rinconada Park include
outdoor sports and recreation areas (pool area, tennis courts, bocce court), neighborhood
parks and playgrounds (park, picnic areas, children play areas, fire pit, paths), and an outdoor
multi-use performance area and stage (concrete bowl). The JMZ includes museum and
outdoor recreational uses (i.e., the zoo).
Based on standards established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, a significant noise and
land use compatibility impact would be identified if exterior noise levels at new project
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 80 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
development areas would exceed 65 dBA Ldn at outdoor sports and recreation, neighborhood
parks and playgrounds; 60 dBA Ldn at schools, museums, libraries, hospitals, personal care,
meeting halls, and churches; or 75 dBA Ldn at auditoriums, concert halls, and amphitheaters.
Based on a review of the traffic volumes prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, Inc., traffic noise levels at the project site are anticipated to increase by one dBA
Ldn above existing levels under cumulative plus project conditions.17 With this one dB
increase, cumulative traffic noise levels are calculated to exceed 60 dBA Ldn within 180 feet
of the center of Embarcadero Road and within 80 feet of the center of Middlefield Road.
Cumulative traffic noise levels are calculated to exceed 65 dBA Ldn within 80 feet of the
center of Embarcadero Road.
Portions of the proposed JMZ would be located within 80 feet of the center of Middlefield
Road and would therefore be exposed to exterior noise levels that exceed the exterior noise
and land use compatibility guideline for museum uses. Noise levels at the exterior façade of
the museum facing Middlefield Road, at a distance of 60 feet from the center of the roadway,
would reach 66 dBA Ldn. It should be noted that the existing JMZ building is currently
exposed to these noise levels. There are no unshielded outdoor use areas associated with the
museum in this area.
A typical museum structure would provide 25 to 30 dBA of noise reduction from exterior
noise sources with windows in the closed position. Interior noise levels would, therefore, be
below 45 dBA Ldn throughout the museum and would be considered compatible with the
proposed use.
A small portion of Rinconada Park located within 80 feet of the center of Embarcadero Road
would exceed the 65 dBA Ldn guideline for parks under cumulative conditions. The project
would not introduce new recreational land uses in this area. All other uses on the site would
have noise levels that are considered compatible with their land use. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
Project Generated Noise
Existing operational noise sources at the site include vehicular traffic noise and recreational
activity noise. Future usage is anticipated to be similar to the existing usage. A significant
impact would occur if project operations or traffic would increase noise levels at noise
sensitive receptors by three dBA Ldn or greater where exterior noise levels would exceed the
normally acceptable noise level standard or by five dBA Ldn or greater where exterior noise
levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the
project.
17 It should be noted that the projected noise levels of future traffic conditions were based on a report prepared by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. in May 2015. Since completion of the noise report, an updated traffic
report was prepared to reflect changes in the site plans of the JMZ (July 2017). Such changes do not affect the
results of the original noise report, thus results and conclusions made in the noise report are still applicable to the
updated project.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 81 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Project Traffic Noise
The traffic report analyzed traffic volumes at seven intersections in the vicinity of the project.
The report found that traffic noise levels are anticipated to increase by less than one dBA at
all study intersections with project implementation.
Project Operational Noise
Improvements to the JMZ, outdoor playground areas, concrete multi-use bowl, and sports
and recreation areas on the site are not anticipated to change the noise generation of these
facilities because the general layout and programming would not change. The relocation of
the tot-lot adjacent to the children’s play area to the west would not result in detectable
changes to noise levels at the nearest residences, which are located across Hopkins Avenue
and more than 100 feet north of the playground areas.
The addition of picnic tables and group picnic areas would not generate substantial noise at
residences north of the site across Hopkins Avenue. The shifting of the tennis courts to the
west would bring the courts slightly closer to some residences and slightly further from
others. During extensive measurements of noise levels generated by tennis that were
conducted for a facility in Palo Alto, tennis generates an hourly-average noise level of about
48 dBA Leq at a distance of 40 feet from the end of the court. Noise levels during volleying
are lower. Based on the data collected at sites LT-1 and ST-1 during the noise monitoring
survey, the primary noise source at these residences is currently traffic on Hopkins Avenue,
which generated noise levels in the range of 55 to 57 dBA Ldn at the residences. The closest
residences are located about 140 feet from the center of the nearest tennis court. At this
distance, tennis would generate noise levels of about 37 dBA Leq. Maximum noise levels
generated by tennis would continue to be audible during lulls in traffic, but would not
generally be measurable above the existing ambient noise environment. Programming for the
concrete bowl is regulated to 10:00 PM, which eliminates any increase in nighttime hourly
average noise levels and thus, will not result in a noise impact.
Noise levels generated by proposed uses are not anticipated to change substantially from
existing noise levels and will comply with the City’s Municipal Code. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Construction is limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00
AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with no construction permitted on Sundays or holidays.
Project-generated construction noise is required to meet the following standards established
in the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10): 1) no individual piece of equipment
shall produce a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the piece of
equipment or, when applicable, outside the equipment housing structure; and 2) the noise
level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 110 dBA.
Temporary noise increases from construction activities would be considered significant if
hourly average noise levels received at noise sensitive residential land uses would be 60 dBA
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 82 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Leq and at least five dBA Leq above the ambient noise environment when the duration of the
noise-generating activities last for more than one year.
Construction equipment noise varies greatly depending on the construction activity
performed, type and specific model of equipment, and the condition of equipment used.
Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of
construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, the distance
between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors, any shielding provided by
intervening barriers or structures, and existing ambient noise levels. Each construction
activity would include a different mix of equipment operating. Construction noise levels
would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and location where the equipment
is operating.
LRP
Construction of the LRP would occur over a 25-year period. However, construction activity
would be very limited with the main noise generating components coming from the
expansion of the existing pool building by 2,200 sf, shifting the tennis courts over by
removing roughly 6,000 sf on one side and adding 6,000 sf to the other side, and repaving
internal pathways and plazas. The only construction near existing residences would be at the
tennis courts.
Residences are located as close as 80 and 300 feet to the north of the proposed tennis court
and pool building improvements, respectively. At a distance of 80 feet, tennis court
construction activities are calculated to generate noise levels in the range of about 65 to 80
dBA Leq. Pool building construction activities are calculated to generate noise levels in the
range of about 52 to 68 dBA Leq at the nearest residences.
Construction noise associated with the LRP improvements could exceed 60 dBA Leq and at
least 5 dBA Leq above the ambient noise environment at adjacent residences. However, the
overall construction period would be less than 12 months at any one location and predicted
construction noise levels are not anticipated to exceed the Municipal Code limits of 110 dBA
at the property line of the park.
JMZ
Construction of the proposed JMZ project would include the demolition of the existing zoo to
construct a new, larger zoo facility over a period of 18 to 24 months. Construction phasing
would include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, trenching, exterior
building construction, interior building construction, and paving. Walter Hays Elementary
School is located directly adjacent to the JMZ with structures as close as 25 feet, and the
closest residences are roughly 120 feet from proposed construction activities.
Construction activities are anticipated to generate hourly average noise levels of 74 to 86
dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet during busy construction periods. Maximum instantaneous
noise levels would be roughly 78 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels would
typically drop off at a rate of approximately six decibels per doubling of distance from the
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 83 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
construction noise source. At the school, noise levels would be about six dBA higher when
activities are located adjacent to the school, resulting in hourly average noise levels of about
80 to 92 dBA Lmax and maximum instantaneous noise levels of about 84 to 96 dBA Lmax.
At the closest residences, located 120 feet from construction activities, construction noise
levels would be about eight dB lower, generating hourly average noise levels of about 66 to
78 dBA Leq and the maximum instantaneous noise levels of roughly 70 to 82 dBA Lmax. At
the school, which is located directly adjacent to construction activities, interior noise levels
could be as high as 65 to 72 dBA Leq with windows open (assumes a 15 dB noise reduction)
and 55 to 62 dBA Leq with windows closed (assumes a 25 dB noise reduction). These noise
levels are likely to be disruptive to the learning environment. As construction moves away
from noise sensitive receptors or into shielded locations, noise levels would be reduced.
Construction noise is not anticipated to exceed the Municipal Code limits of 110 dBA at the
property lines of the JMZ. However, construction noise could exceed 60 dBA Leq and at least
five dBA Leq above the ambient noise environment at adjacent residences and the school for a
period of greater than 12 months.
Impact NOI-1: Construction activities associated with the JMZ could result in
significant noise impacts. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures:
MM NOI-1: With the implementation of the following measures, this impact
would be reduced to a less than significant level:
Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of
8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM
and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with no construction occurring on
Sundays or holidays (consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code).
Construction of the JMZ shall be undertaken with consideration
for school activities and hours:
Schedule high noise generating construction activities
(such as the use of the concrete saws) that are located
directly adjacent to school structures during periods when
school is not in session, such as summer, school breaks,
weekends, and after school dismissal. Coordination of
construction activity times with school officials may be
necessary.
Construct portions of the museum located directly
adjacent to the school first, where practical, in an effort to
provide shielding to the school from construction
activities located further to the west and south.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 84 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers to shield on-
site construction and demolition noise from the school.
To be most effective, the barrier should be placed as close
as possible to the noise source or the sensitive receptor.
Examples of barriers include portable acoustically lined
enclosure/housing for specific equipment (e.g.,
jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which generate the
loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid
plywood fences or portable panel systems, minimum 8
feet in height), and/or acoustical blankets.
Establish construction staging areas at locations that will create
the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources
and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all
project construction.
Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used
judiciously to be as quiet as practical.
Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary
noise sources where technology exists.
Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines and
equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with
mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the
equipment.
Locate all stationary noise-generation equipment, such as air
compressors and portable power generators, as far away as
possible from businesses or noise-sensitive land uses.
Notify all adjacent noise sensitive land uses of the construction
schedule in writing.
Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where
they are not audible at existing residences or the school bordering
the project site.
Designate a disturbance coordinator, responsible for responding to
complaints about construction noise. The name and telephone
number of the disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the
construction site and made available to noise-sensitive land uses
adjacent to the construction site. [Less Than Significant Impact
With Mitigation]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 85 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
e-f. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not yet been
adopted, within two miles of a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Palo Alto Airport is located roughly 1.8 miles northeast of the project area. There are no
private airstrips in the site vicinity. Although aircraft-related noise is occasionally audible at
the project site, the project site does not lie within the land use plan area, or within the 65
dBA CNEL noise contour of the airports. Noise levels resulting from aircraft would be
compatible with the proposed project.
The project site is located in a developed area of Palo Alto, and there are no reasonably
foreseeable projects in the site vicinity which, when considered together, are anticipated to
compound or increase the noise impacts resulting from the project. A review of the data
contained in the traffic report indicates that cumulative traffic noise levels without the project
would be increased by zero to one dB above existing levels by the year 2035. Cumulative
plus project traffic noise levels are not calculated to be substantially increased over
cumulative no project conditions (increase would be less than one dBA). Construction noise
impacts or operational noise impacts resulting from the project would not combine with noise
from other projects in the vicinity, or increased noise levels resulting from the general growth
of the area, to increase the severity of project noise impacts as discussed above. [No Impact]
4.12.5 Conclusion
With compliance with the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and implementation of mitigation
measure MM NOI-1, noise impacts would be less than significant. [Less than Significant Impact
with Mitigation]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 86 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.13.1 Population and Housing Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
1,2
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1,2
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1,2
d. Create a substantial imbalance between
employed residents and jobs? 1,2
4.13.2 Existing Setting
According to the California Department of Finance, the 2015 population of Palo Alto was 66,932
residents18. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the population of Palo
Alto will increase to 73,700 residents by 2025 in 30,370 households19.
4.13.3 Impacts Evaluation
a.,d. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Create a substantial imbalance between
employed residents and jobs?
The proposed project is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP and the demolition and
construction of a new JMZ facility in the existing facility’s area. The project does not
propose residential uses. The projects would have staffing needs similar to that of existing
uses (i.e. park grounds staff, JMZ maintenance and zoo staff, etc.). The project, therefore,
would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the area or create a substantial
imbalance between employed residents and jobs. [No Impact]
18 California Department of Finance, E-1 Data Population Estimates for the City, County, and the State January 1,
2014 and 2015. July 18, 2016.
19 Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Plan Projections 2013, 2013.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 87 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
b., c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project would occur within the existing Rinconada Park and JMZ site, which
do not contain housing or other residential uses. The project would, therefore, not result in
the displacement of a substantial number of residences and would not result in the need to
construct replacement housing. [No Impact]
4.13.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not induce unplanned growth or result in significant
adverse impacts to the existing housing supply. [No Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 88 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14.1 Public Services Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional school facilities in
order to maintain acceptable performance
standards?
1,2
b. Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional fire protection
facilities in order to maintain acceptable
performance standards?
1,2
c. Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional police protection
facilities in order to maintain acceptable
performance standards?
1,2
d. Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional parks and
recreation facilities in order to maintain
acceptable performance standards?
1,2
e. Result in an adverse physical impact from the
construction of additional library facilities in
order to maintain acceptable performance
standards?
1,2
4.14.2 Existing Setting
4.14.2.1 Fire Services
The City of Palo Alto Fire Department is located at City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. The nearest
fire station to the project site is Fire Station #3, located adjacent to the park’s southeastern border.
4.14.2.2 Police Services
The Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) provides law enforcement services within the City limits.
The PAPD headquarters is located adjacent to City Hall at 275 Forest Avenue, roughly one mile west
of the site.
4.14.2.3 Public Schools
All public schools in Palo Alto are operated by the Palo Alto Unified School District. The nearest
public school is Walter Hays Elementary School, adjacent to the site’s southern border. The nearest
middle school is Jordan Middle School (0.5 miles southeast), and the nearest high school is Castilleja
High School (0.7 miles southwest).
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 89 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.14.2.4 Parks
The City of Palo Alto has 29 neighborhood and district parks that total approximately 190 acres,
including the 11.8-acre Rinconada Park. The project site is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s
LRP, within the existing 11.8-acre park.
4.14.3 Impacts Evaluation
a.-e. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of construction of new school, fire protection, police protection, parks and
recreation, or library facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards?
The proposed project is located in an urban area that is currently served by the City Police
and Fire Departments. The projects would not cause an increase in population that would
demand additional services. Given that the projects would include renovations to an existing
park and the construction of a new JMZ facility to replace the existing facility, the projects
would not generate new or increased demands upon City services. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
4.14.4 Conclusion
The proposed projects would result in a less than significant impact to public services. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 90 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.15 RECREATION
4.15.1 Recreation Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility will occur or be accelerated?
1,3
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
1
4.15.2 Existing Setting
The City of Palo Alto has 29 neighborhood and district parks that total approximately 190 acres.
These parks vary in size and features, but recreational facilities generally include playground and
grass areas. The City also owns and manages several open space preserves, including Foothills Park,
Baylands Preserve, and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Other parkland managed by the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District is also located within the city limits.
The project site is Rinconada Park, an existing City park that was established in 1922.
4.15.3 Impacts Evaluation
a., b. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or
be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
The proposed project would renovate the existing Rinconada Park over the course of 25
years, and construct a new JMZ facility in place of the existing one. The planned future
development of the park could increase the use of the park because of new and improved
facilities; however, this increase would not accelerate physical deterioration of the park.
[Less Than Significant Impact]
The project itself includes recreational facilities, the effects of which are identified in this
Initial Study. Mitigation measures are included in the project and impacts are therefore, less
than significant. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 91 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.15.4 Conclusion
The projects would not adversely impact recreation facilities within the City of Palo Alto. [Less
Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 92 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
The discussion in this section is based in part on a transportation impact analysis prepared by
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. in July 2017. This report is included in this Initial Study
as Appendix F.
4.16.1 Transportation Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Cause an intersection to drop below its level
of service standard, or if it is already
operating at a substandard level of service,
deteriorate by more than a specified amount?
1,2,24
b. Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F
or contribute traffic in excess of 1 percent of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1,2,24
c. Impede the development or function of
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1,2,24
d. Increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle
facilities that cannot be met by current or
planned services?
1,2,24
e. Impede the operation of a transit system as a
result of congestion or otherwise decrease the
performance of safety of such facilities?
1,2,24
f. Create demand for transit services that cannot
be met by current or planned services? 1,2,24
g. Create the potential demand for through
traffic to use local residential streets?
i. Cause any change in traffic that would
increase the Traffic Infusion on
Residential Environment (TIRE) index
by 0.1 or more?
1,2,24
h. Create an operational safety hazard? 1,2,24
i. Result in inadequate emergency access? 1-3,24
j. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
1-3
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 93 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.16.2 Existing Setting
4.16.2.1 Roadway Network
Regional Access
Regional access to the project site is provided via US 101 and SR 82 (El Camino Real). These
facilities are described below:
US 101 is a primarily north-south freeway extending north through San Francisco and south through
San Jose and Gilroy. In the vicinity of the project area, US 101 provides four travel lanes (with one
HOV lane) in each direction. Access to the site from US 101 is provided via Embarcadero Road.
SR 82 (El Camino Real) is a six-lane, north-south arterial street that extends south towards
Mountain View and Santa Clara and north towards Redwood City, Millbrae, and San Bruno. El
Camino Real provides access to local and regional commercial areas. Access to the site, from El
Camino Real is provided via its intersections at Page Mill Road and Embarcadero Road.
Local Access
Local access to the site is provided via Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road, Embarcadero Road,
Middlefield Road, University Avenue, Alma Street, Louis Road, Newell Road, and Hopkins Avenue.
These roadways are described below.
Oregon Expressway is a four-lane, east-west expressway that extends from US 101 to El Camino
Real. Oregon Expressway becomes Page Mill Road west of El Camino Real. Page Mill Road is a four-
lane, east-west divided arterial road that extends west to Los Altos Hills. Page Mill Road/Oregon
Expressway is part of the County expressway system and provides access to local residential areas as
well as freeway access.
Embarcadero Road is a four-lane east-west arterial street that extends from the vicinity of the Palo
Alto Municipal Airport to El Camino Real. Embarcadero Road becomes Galvez Road west of El
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
k. Cause queuing impacts based on a
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at turn lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spill back queues on ramps.
1,2,24
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 94 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Camino Real. Embarcadero Road provides access to local residential areas as well as access to US
101 from the project site.
Middlefield Road is an east-west arterial that runs parallel to US 101. It begins at the intersection of
Central Expressway in Mountain View and traverses west through Redwood City. Within the vicinity
of the project site, Middlefield Road is two to four lanes wide, with sidewalks on both sides of the
street. On-street parking on Middlefield Road varies within the study area, with parking permitted on
both sides of the street near the project site.
University Avenue is a two- to four-lane, east-west, road that extends from Bayfront Expressway to
El Camino Real, where it becomes Palm Drive. Bicycle lanes and on-street parking are present for
most of the section between US 101 and Middlefield Road. University Avenue is the main street
through downtown Palo Alto.
Alma Street is primarily a four-lane, north-south, roadway that extends from San Antonio Road to
Lytton Avenue. It continues north of Lytton Avenue as a two-lane roadway and terminates at its
intersection with Oak Grove Avenue. Alma Street is located west of the project site and provides
access to residential and commercial uses.
Louis Road is a two-lane local collector in the vicinity of the project. It extends from Embarcadero
Road southeast to Charleston Road, where it changes designation to Montrose Avenue. Louis Road
has bicycle lanes and on-street parking for its full length.
Newell Road is a two-lane local collector adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site. It
extends from Woodland Avenue south to California Avenue. Newell Road features bicycle lanes and
limited on-street parking for its full length
Hopkins Avenue is a short local street adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site. It
includes a significant amount of on-street parking. Hopkins Avenue also provides access to the
parking lot that serves the Lucie Stern Community Center and the JMZ.
4.16.2.2 Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Facilities
Transit
Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the VTA and the City of Palo Alto. The
transit service is described below and shown on Figure 3. There are local bus and/or free shuttle stops
on Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, and Newell Road within walking distance of the project
site.
Route 35 provides service between the Downtown Mountain View Transit Center and Stanford
Shopping Center via Middlefield Road, with 20-minute commute hour headways. The nearest stops
to the project are located on Middlefield Road at the intersection with Embarcadero Road.
The City of Palo Alto operates two free shuttle routes to serve commuters and visitors within the
study area. All shuttles are wheelchair accessible and are equipped with bicycle racks on the exterior
of the vehicle that can accommodate up to two conventional bikes.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 95 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
The Crosstown Shuttle (Line C) operates with 40- to 60-minute headways from 7:40 AM to 5:26 PM
Monday through Friday. The Crosstown Shuttle provides service between Downtown Palo Alto and
numerous libraries, schools, recreation centers, and commercial districts. Line C also provides direct
service to Caltrain. In the vicinity of the project site, the Crosstown shuttles operates on Newell
Road. The nearest stops to the project site are adjacent to Rinconada Park, on Newell Road at the
intersection with Hopkins Avenue.
The Embarcadero Shuttle operates with approximately 15-minute headways from 6:51 AM to 9:49
AM and 3:10 PM to 6:48 PM Monday through Friday. The Embarcadero Shuttle provides service
between Downtown Palo Alto and numerous libraries, schools, recreation centers, and commercial
districts. Line E also provides direct service to Caltrain. In the vicinity of the project area, the
Embarcadero shuttle operates on Embarcadero Road. The nearest stops to the JMZ are located on
Embarcadero Road at the intersection with Middlefield Road, less than 500 feet from the project
area. The nearest stops to Rinconada Park are located on Embarcadero Road at the intersection with
Newell Road, at the southeast corner of the park.
Pedestrian
Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist of sidewalks and crosswalks. Sidewalks are found
along all previously described local roadways in the study area. Crosswalks are located across all of
the legs of the study intersections. Pedestrian signal heads are present at all signalized intersections in
and around the study area.
Bicycle
According to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) Bikeways Map, there are
numerous bike lanes in the vicinity of the project site. The following roadways have either bike lanes
or shared lane bicycle markings:
Newell Road, between Woodland Avenue and California Avenue
Channing Avenue, between Addison Avenue and California Avenue
Addison Avenue, between Alma Street and Channing Avenue
Coleridge Avenue, between Middlefield Road and Bryant Street
California Avenue, between Alma Street and Louis Road
Louis Road, between Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road
Bryant Street (Bike Boulevard), between Palo Alto Avenue and East Meadow Drive
While there are numerous bicycle facilities in the vicinity of Rinconada Park, neither Middlefield
Road nor Embarcadero Road have bike lanes, making these roadways a less than ideal route option
for bicyclists traveling around the perimeter of Rinconada Park.
STUDY INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 4.16-1
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consults, Inc.
EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITATES FIGURE 4.16-2
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consults, Inc.
EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITATES FIGURE 4.16-3
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consults, Inc.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 99 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.16.2.3 Existing Intersection Operations
Methodology
The potential transportation impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and
methodologies set forth by the City of Palo Alto. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) administers the County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The following
intersections in the project area were evaluated:
1. Middlefield Road and University Avenue
2. Middlefield Road and Melville Avenue
3. Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road
4. Newell Road and Embarcadero Road
5. Newell Road and Hopkins Avenue (unsignalized)
6. Louis Road and Embarcadero Road
7. Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway (CMP)*
* Denotes a VTA CMP Intersection
Traffic conditions at the intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of
traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is
typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic
conditions occur on an average weekday.
All study intersections are located in the City of Palo Alto and are therefore subject to the City of
Palo Alto level of service standards. The City of Palo Alto evaluates level of service at signalized
intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology
using TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of
average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Since TRAFFIX also is the CMP-
designated intersection level of service methodology, the City employs the CMP default values for
the analysis parameters. The City of Palo Alto level of service standard for signalized non-CMP
intersections is LOS D or better. For CMP intersections, the City’s level of service standard is LOS E
or better.
The methodology used to determine the level of service for unsignalized intersections is based on the
2000 HCM. This method is applicable for both two-way and all-way stop-controlled intersections.
For the analysis of stop-controlled intersections, the 2000 HCM methodology evaluates intersection
operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles on the stop-controlled
approaches. For the purpose of reporting level of service for one- and two-way stop-controlled
intersections, the delay and corresponding level of service for the stop-controlled minor street
approach with the highest delay is reported. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, the reported
average delay and corresponding level of service is the average for all approaches at the intersection.
The City uses a minimum acceptable level of service standard of LOS D for unsignalized
intersections, in accordance with its adopted threshold of significance in its Guidelines for
Preparation of Transportation Impact Reports. Table 4.16-1 shows the intersection level of service
definitions.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 100 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Table 4.16.1: Level of Service Definitions
Level of
Service Description Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec)
A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less
B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 15.0
F Extreme traffic delays Greater than 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2.
Existing LOS of Study Intersections
Table 4.16-2 below, shows the LOS of study intersections under existing conditions. Background
traffic conditions are defined as traffic conditions in the area when the project construction is near
completion. The background scenario predicts the traffic conditions which would occur as approved
but not yet constructed development gets constructed and occupied.
The results of the existing intersection operations analysis show that six of the seven study
intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under existing conditions.
Table 4.16-2: Existing and Background Conditions Levels of Service
Existing Background
Intersection Peak
Hour
Average
Delay LOS
Average
Delay LOS
1. Middlefield Rd & University Ave AM 28.8 C 29.9 C
PM 29.4 C 30.1 C
2. Middlefield Rd & Melville Ave AM 15.4 B 15.3 B
PM 8.4 A 8 A
3. Middlefield Rd & Embarcadero Rd AM 49.9 D 52.3 D
PM 54.6 D 60.4 E
4. Newell Rd & Embarcadero Rd AM 15.4 B 15.5 B
PM 20.2 C 20.5 C
5. Newell Rd & Hopkins Ave (unsignalized) AM 10.7 B 10.9 B
PM 10.6 B 10.7 B
6. Louis Rd & Embarcadero Rd AM 25 C 25.4 C
PM 25.1 C 25.5 C
7. Middlefield Rd & Page Mill Rd/Oregon
Expwy* AM 39.5 D 40.6 D
PM 58.1 E 59.8 E
Notes:
* Denotes a VTA CMP Intersection
Bold denotes an unacceptable level of service under City of Palo Alto LOS standards.
4.16.2.4 Observed Existing Traffic Conditions
Traffic conditions in the field were observed to identify existing operational deficiencies and to
confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 101 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of services, and (2)
to identify any locations where the level of service calculation does not accurately reflect level of
service in the field.
Overall, the study intersections operate adequately during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic,
and the level of service analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. While
no significant traffic-related problems were observed during field observations, some operational
issues do occur as described below.
Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway
During the AM peak hour, most movements operate adequately. However, the northbound left turns
on Middlefield Road and eastbound left turns on Oregon Expressway do not always clear the
intersection in one signal cycle.
During the PM peak hour, southbound traffic on Middlefield Road is heavy and occasionally queues
back to California Avenue. All other movements operate adequately.
Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road
During the AM peak hour, all approaches of this intersection carry heavy traffic volumes. As a result,
none of the approaches clear the intersection in one signal cycle.
During the PM peak hour, traffic on Middlefield Road is heavy in both directions. The southbound
vehicle queues on Middlefield Road at Embarcadero Road occasionally back up just past Melville
Avenue (about 0.25 miles northwest of the intersection of Middlefield and Embarcadero Road)
affecting traffic operations at that intersection as well. As a result of the long queue, if often takes
two signal cycles for all of the queued vehicles on southbound Middlefield Road to clear the
intersection.
Middlefield Road and University Avenue
During the PM peak hour, the intersection generally operates adequately. However, the westbound
vehicle queues on University Avenue were observed to extend all the way to US 101.
4.16.2.5 Existing Freeway Operations
According to CMP guidelines, an analysis of freeway segment levels of service is only required if a
project is estimated to add trips to a freeway segment equal to or greater than one percent of the
capacity of that segment. Since the number of project trips added to the freeways in the area is
estimated to be well below the one percent threshold, a detailed analysis of freeway segment levels of
service was not performed. A simple freeway segment capacity evaluation to substantiate this
determination is presented in Table 4.16-3, below.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 102 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Table 4.16-3: Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation
Freeway Segment Direction # of Mixed
Flow Lanes
Capacity1
(vph)
Peak
Hour
1% of
Capacity
Project
Trips
US 101 San Antonio Rd. to
Oregon Expwy.
NB 3 6900 AM 69 1
PM 1
US 101 Oregon Expwy. to
Embarcadero Rd.
NB 3 6900 AM 69 1
PM 1
US 101 Embarcadero Rd. to
University Ave.
NB 3 6900 AM 69 0
PM 1
US 101 University Ave. to
Willow Rd.
NB 3 6900 AM 69 0
PM 2
US 101 Willow Rd. to
University Ave.
SB 3 6900 AM 69 1
PM 1
US 101 University Ave. to
Embarcadero Rd.
SB 3 6900 AM 69 1
PM 1
US 101 Embarcadero Rd. to
Oregon Expwy.
SB 3 6900 AM 69 0
PM 2
US 101 Oregon Expwy. to
San Antonio Rd.
SB 3 6900 AM 69 0
PM 2
Notes: 1 Capacity was based on the ideal capacity cited in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
4.16.2.6 Background Intersection Operations
Background peak-hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing peak hour volumes the
projected growth in traffic due to approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments. The
projected annual growth in traffic due to most of the approved development in the City of Palo Alto
was obtained from the Santa Clara County VTA Travel Demand Model (2035) and was applied over
three years. In addition, a list of more recently approved developments was obtained from the City of
Palo Alto. That list includes recent developments that have been approved within approximately the
last year and, therefore, were not included in the VTA model growth estimates. Trips associated with
the more recently approved developments were estimated and were also added to existing peak hour
volumes in order to develop background peak hour traffic volumes.
The results of the intersection LOS analysis under background conditions are summarized in Table
4.16-2. The results show that all but one of the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels
of service. The intersection of Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road would operate at an
unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour under background conditions.
4.16.3 Impacts Evaluation
a.. Would the project cause an intersection to drop below its level of service standard, or if it is
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 103 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
already operating at a substandard level of service, deteriorate by more than a specified
amount?
4.16.3.1 Project-Generated Traffic
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would
appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip
assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the
site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is
made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip
assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets. These procedures are described below.
Trip Generation
Existing trip generation for Rinconada Park and JMZ were derived based on counts conducted on
March 31 and April 1, 2015. Based on the counts, Rinconada Park is generating 29 trips during the
AM peak hour and 65 trips during the PM peak hour. The JMZ is generating five trips during the AM
peak hour and 21 trips during the PM peak hour. The existing trip generation is shown in Table 4.16-
3.
The proposed LRP for Rinconada Park involves expanding the existing pool deck area and adding a
2,200 sf building on the west end of the pool for a new public restroom, food concession and
supplies, as well as increasing the seating capacity of the existing outdoor multi-use concrete bowl
and stage. Several other improvements to park facilities are planned, including the addition of group
picnic areas, playgrounds, exercise areas, shaded areas, picnic tables, and bike racks, as well as
renovations to the existing tennis courts on Hopkins Avenue. Numerous pedestrian access
improvements, including crosswalk and ADA improvements are also planned as part of the LRP.
The proposed expansion of the JMZ would increase the total lot coverage of the facility from 21,500
sf to 34,248 sf. New trips generated by the museum and zoo expansion were estimated based on the
proportional increase in square footage. The expansion project would generate three trips during the
AM peak hour and 12 trips during the PM peak hour.20
New trips generated by the proposed improvements to the Rinconada Park were estimated based on
population forecasts provided by the City of Palo Alto. Population in the City of Palo Alto is
projected to increase by approximately 10 percent by the year 2030. Based on the projected growth in
population, improvements to Rinconada Park would produce three new trips during the AM peak
hour and seven trips during the PM peak hour.
When the two components of the project are combined, the JMZ and Rinconada Park LRP would
generate six new trips during the AM peak hour and 19 new trips during the PM peak hour. Applying
the inbound/outbound splits (based on existing counts), the project would produce four inbound trips
20 Please note that the trip generation estimates in the TIA are based on a previous site plan which resulted in an
increase in lot coverage of 11,950 sf for the JMZ facility compared to existing conditions. The current site plan
results in a lot coverage increase of 12,478 sf. While the proposed lot coverage increase is slightly larger than what
is described in the TIA, the 528 sf difference is not large enough to affect the trip generation estimates.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 104 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
and two outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and nine inbound trips and 10 outbound trips
during the PM peak hour compared to the existing museum, zoo and park. The project trip generation
estimates are presented in Table 4.16-4, below.
Trip Distribution
The trip distribution pattern for Rinconada Park was developed based on existing traffic patterns and
the locations of complementary land uses, most notably the surrounding neighborhoods. The trip
distribution pattern for the JMZ was developed based on JMZ visitor survey data provided by the
City of Palo Alto.
The peak hour trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system in
accordance with the trip distribution pattern.
4.16.3.2 Existing Plus Project Conditions
The results of the intersection LOS analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in
Table 4.16-5, below. The results show that all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable
levels of service under existing plus project conditions. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Table 4.16-5: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Existing +
Project
Study
Number Intersection Peak
Hour
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
1 Middlfield Rd. & University Ave. AM 28.8 C 28.8 C
PM 29.4 C 29.4 C
2 Middlefield Rd. & Melville Ave. AM 15.4 B 15.4 B
Table 4.16-4: Existing and Estimated Weekday Trip Generation
Land Use
Existing Trip Generation Project Trip Generation Estimates
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
Trips In Out Total
Trips In Out Total
Trips In Out Total
Trips
Rinconada Park
(and associated
uses)1
17 12 29 39 26 65 2 1 3 4 3 7
Palo Alto JMZ 2 4 1 5 9 12 21 2 1 3 5 7 12
Totals: 21 13 34 48 38 86 4 2 6 9 10 19
Notes:
Existing site trip generation based on counts conducted on March 31 and April 1, 2015 (highest counts were used). The AM peak hour is
7:45-8:45AM and the PM peak hour is 4-5 PM, based on the count data.
1New trips associated with the improvements to Rinconada Park were calculated based on applying a growth factor of 10% to the existing
trips. This increase in trips is consistent with the projected population increase of 10% that is being used for the current Comprehensive Plan
update
2New trips associated with the improvements to the Junior Museum and Zoo were calculated based on the total increase in lot coverage square
footage of 11,950.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 105 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Table 4.16-5: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
Existing Existing +
Project
Study
Number Intersection Peak
Hour
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
PM 8.4 A 8.4 A
3 Middlefield Rd. & Embarcadero Rd.1 AM 49.9 D 49.2 D
PM 54.6 D 53.6 D
4 Newell Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 15.4 B 15.4 B
PM 20.2 C 20.3 C
5 Newell Rd. & Hopkins Ave. (unsignalized) AM 10.7 B 10.8 B
PM 10.6 B 10.6 B
6 Louis Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 25.0 C 25.0 C
PM 25.1 C 25.2 C
7 Middlefield Rd. & Page Mill Rd./Oregon Expwy* AM 39.5 D 39.5 D
PM 58.1 E 58.1 E
Notes:
* Denotes a VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection
Bold denotes an unacceptable level of service under City of Palo Alto LOS standards.
1 The average vehicle delay at this intersection will improve with the project due to the planned addition of a westbound right-turn lane on Embarcadero
Road.
4.16.3.3 Background Plus Project Conditions
The net project trips were added to background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project
traffic volumes. The results of the intersection level of service analysis under background plus
project conditions are summarized in Table 4.16-6, below. Using City of Palo Alto standards, the
results show that none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project.
While the intersection of Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road would continue to operate at an
unacceptable LOS E during PM peak hour under background plus project conditions, none of the
study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Table 4.16-6: Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
Background Background + Project
Study
Number Intersection Peak
Hour
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Incr. In
Crit.
Delay
(sec)
Incr. In
Crit.
V/C
1 Middlefield Rd. &
University Ave.
AM 29.9 C 29.9 C 0.0 0.001
PM 30.1 C 30.1 C 0.0 0.001
2 Middlefield Rd. &
Melville Ave.
AM 15.3 B 15.3 B 0.0 0.001
PM 8.0 A 8.0 A 0.0 0.001
3 Middlefield Rd. &
Embarcadero Rd.1
AM 52.3 D 51.1 D -0.1 -0.050
PM 60.4 E 59.2 E 0.3 0.002
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 106 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Table 4.16-6: Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
Background Background + Project
Study
Number Intersection Peak
Hour
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Incr. In
Crit.
Delay
(sec)
Incr. In
Crit.
V/C
4 Newell Rd. &
Embarcadero Rd.
AM 15.5 B 15.5 B 0.0 0.001
PM 20.5 C 20.5 C 0.0 0.000
5
Newell Rd. &
Hopkins Ave.
(unsignalized)
AM 10.9 B 10.9 B 0.0 0.001
PM 10.7 B 10.8 B 0.1 0.003
6 Louis Rd. &
Embarcadero Rd.
AM 25.4 C 25.4 C 0.0 0.001
PM 25.5 C 25.6 C 0.1 0.002
7
Middlefield Rd. &
Page Mill
Rd./Oregon Expwy*
AM 40.6 D 40.6 D 0.0 0.000
PM 59.8 E 59.8 E 0.0 0.000
Notes:
* Denotes a VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection
1 The average vehicle delay at this intersection will improve with the project due to the planned addition of a westbound right-
turn lane on Embarcadero Rd.
4.16.3.4 Saturday Conditions
At the request of City of Palo Alto staff, a discussion of Saturday peak traffic conditions at and
around the JMZ and Rinconada Park is provided for informational purposes. The evaluation of
Saturday conditions includes a description of existing traffic conditions along Embarcadero Road and
Middlefield Road, a discussion of general parking conditions at the JMZ during a typical Saturday
afternoon, and Saturday peak hour trip generation estimates due to the expansion of the JMZ and
planned Rinconada Park improvements.
Existing Saturday Traffic Conditions
Existing Saturday traffic conditions along Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road were observed
in the field on a typical Saturday between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM, which is considered the peak hour
for park and JMZ uses.
Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road Intersection Operations
Vehicles traveling northbound or southbound were able to clear the intersection in one signal cycle.
Westbound vehicles on Embarcadero Road consistently queued back to Fulton Street, with some
vehicles unable to clear the intersection in one signal cycle.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 107 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Eastbound vehicles on Embarcadero Road queued past the eastbound left-turn pocket taper. As a
result, the queue often blocked one or two vehicles from entering the left-turn pocket. All vehicles
traveling eastbound on Embarcadero Road cleared the intersection in one cycle.
Existing bicycle traffic along Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road was relatively low.
Saturday Project Trip Generation Estimates
Based on visitor data in February and March 2016, weekend visitation at the JMZ is approximately
2.3 times greater than a typical weekday visitation. To provide the most conservative trip estimate,
Saturday peak trip generation due to the JMZ expansion was calculated by applying this factor to the
weekday PM peak hour trips, which are three times higher than the weekday AM peak hour trips.
Similar to the increase visitation at the JMZ facility on Saturdays, Rinconada Park was assumed to
experience a similar increase in weekend visitors, thus the same factor of 2.3 was applied to
determine Saturday peak trip generation at Rinconada Park.
Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that the JMZ and Rinconada Park LRP would generate 44
new trips during the Saturday peak period of traffic. Implementation of the proposed projects would
result in an additional 21 inbound trips and 23 outbound trips during the Saturday peak period of
traffic compared to the existing park and JMZ. The trip generation estimates are provided in Table
4.16-7, below.
Table 4.16-7: Saturday Project Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use
Saturday Peak Hour
In Out Total New Trips
Rinconada Park (and
associated uses)
9 7 16
JMZ 12 16 28
Totals: 21 23 44
4.16.3.5 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Cumulative Traffic Volumes
Cumulative conditions represent traffic conditions that are expected to occur in the future year 2035.
The cumulative no project peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from the Santa Clara County
VTA Travel Demand Model.
Cumulative traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to cumulative no project peak
hour traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Cumulative plus project
conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions in order to identify whether
the project’s contribution to any potential cumulative impacts would be significant.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 108 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the intersection level of service under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions
are summarized in Table 4.16-8, below. The result shows that, measured against the City of Palo Alto
standards, none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project. However,
the intersections of Middlefield Road/Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway
would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour under cumulative
conditions both with and without the project.
As shown in the above analysis, the project would not cause an intersection to drop below its level of
service standard, or if it is already operating at a substandard level of service, deteriorate by more
than a specified amount. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Table 4.16-8: Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service
Cumulative Cumulative + Project
Study
Number Intersection Peak
Hour
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Avg.
Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Incr. In
Crit.
Delay
(sec)
Incr. In
Crit.
V/C
1 Middlefield Rd. &
University Ave.
AM 28.6 C 28.6 C 0.0 0.001
PM 46.1 D 46.2 D 0.2 0.001
2 Middlefield Rd. &
Melville Ave.
AM 16.6 B 16.6 B 0.0 0.001
PM 9.4 A 9.4 A 0.0 0.001
3 Middlefield Rd. &
Embarcadero Rd.1
AM 51.3 D 50.2 D -0.3 -0.043
PM 203.1 F 192.4 F 0.9 0.002
4 Newell Rd. &
Embarcadero Rd.
AM 15.5 B 15.6 B 0.0 0.001
PM 24.2 C 24.2 C 0.1 0.002
5
Newell Rd. &
Hopkins Ave.
(unsignalized)
AM 11.9 B 11.9 B 0.0 0.002
PM 11.6 B 11.7 B 0.1 0.002
6 Louis Rd. &
Embarcadero Rd.
AM 28.1 C 28.2 C 0.0 0.001
PM 28.3 C 28.4 C 0.1 0.002
7
Middlefield Rd. &
Page Mill
Rd./Oregon Expwy*
AM 50.6 D 50.6 D 0.1 0.001
PM 87.4 F 87.5 F 0.1 0.000
Notes:
* Denotes a VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection
BOLD indicates a deficient level of service.
1 The average vehicle delay at this intersection will improve with the project due to the planned addition of a westbound right-
turn lane on Embarcadero Rd.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 109 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
b. Would the project cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in
excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F?
The proposed project would not result in impacts to freeway segments as shown in Table 4.16-3.
[No Impact]
c., d. Would the project impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle
facilities? Would the project increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that
cannot be met by current or planned services?
The Rinconada Park LRP proposes numerous improvements to pedestrian facilities, including
updated sidewalks, new and improved crosswalks, and expanded bus access and shuttle stops. The
project will improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. A new crosswalk is already planned to be
added on Middlefield Road at Kellogg Avenue, and an improved crosswalk is proposed on Newell
Road at Hopkins Avenue. Other pedestrian improvements include updating and retrofitting park
paths and sidewalks to be ADA compliant, and improved crosswalks across Hopkins Avenue.
Bicycle racks would be provided at key locations. These improvements would help to accommodate
all existing and future park visitors who walk, bike or take transit.
Crosswalks would be provided on-site between the JMZ entry plaza and the reconfigured parking lot.
A raised pedestrian crossing also would be provided through the parking lot providing a direct
connection between the Lucie Stern Community Center and Rinconada Park. A new pedestrian path
would connect the sidewalk on Middlefield Road to the entry plaza. The project also includes a new
pedestrian path that would bisect the JMZ and Walter Hays Elementary School, providing a direct
connection between Middlefield Road and Rinconada Park. Additional paths would provide
pedestrian connections between the JMZ and Hopkins Avenue and Rinconada Park.
There are no bicycle facilities along Embarcadero Road or Middlefield Road. The City of Palo
Alto’s Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (adopted July 2012) includes proposed bicycle
facilities in the study area. Planned future bicycle facilities within a one mile radius of Rinconada
Park include the following:
Rinconada Park- Class I pathway between the intersection of Middlefield Road and
Embarcadero Road through Rinconada Park, connecting to Newell Road in the vicinity of
Newell Road and Hopkins Avenue.
Middlefield Road – Class II bike lanes between Loma Verde Avenue and Moreno Avenue,
and Sharrows between Moreno Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue
Greer Road – Bike Boulevard between Louis Road and Edgewood Drive
Ross Road – Bike Boulevard between Louis Road and Oregon Expressway
Webster Street – Bike Boulevard between California Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue
Amarillo Avenue & Moreno Avenue – Bike Boulevard between W. Bayshore Road and
Middlefield Road
Seale Avenue – Bike Boulevard between Embarcadero Road and Alma Street
Kingsley Avenue – Bike Boulevard between Guinda Street and Embarcadero Road
Guinda Street – Bike Boulevard between Melville Avenue and Homer Avenue
Boyce Avenue & Chaucer Street – Bike Boulevard between Guinda Street and Palo Alto
Avenue
Center Drive – Sharrows between Channing Avenue and University Avenue
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 110 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with planned bicycle facility
improvements, as described in the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan or other programs
regarding public bicycle or pedestrian facilities. [Less Than Significant Impact]
e., f. Would the project impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion or
otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities? Would the project create
demand for transit services that cannot be met by current or planned services?
As described previously, the project would not result in the generation of substantial new vehicle
trips, nor would it result in impacts to nearby intersections. The project, therefore, would not result
in congestion that would impede the operation of a transit system, nor would it decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities.
The project site is well-served by existing transit facilities in the project area. No improvements
beyond those already planned as part of the LRP would be necessary to serve the demand created by
the project. [Less Than Significant Impact]
g., h. Would the project create the potential demand for through traffic to use local residential
streets? Would the project cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic
Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
Vehicles coming to and from the site would primarily utilize major thoroughfares such as
Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road, and are not expected to spillover onto nearby residential
streets. Based on the minimal amount of trip generation resulting from the project, as well as the
anticipated distribution of those trips, the proposed project would not increase the TIRE index by 0.1
or more. [No Impact]
i., j. Would the project create an operational safety hazard? Would the project result in
inadequate emergency access?
Site Access and Circulation
The project proposes reconfiguration of the parking lot that currently serves the JMZ and Lucie Stern
Community Center. The existing parking lot configuration, which includes mostly one-way drive
aisles and diagonal parking, will be reconfigured to include two-way drive aisles and 90-degree
parking. The existing driveway on Middlefield Road located adjacent to Walter Hays Elementary
School will be closed to make room for the new JMZ Education Wing and entry plaza. Additionally,
the driveway at the Kellogg Avenue intersection will be removed and replaced with a new bicycle
and pedestrian entry pathway, providing an entrance for cyclists and pedestrians separate from
motorized vehicles.
A new 24-foot wide driveway for motorized vehicles will be located approximately 50 feet north of
the closed driveway adjacent to Walter Hays Elementary School. A striped pedestrian crosswalk will
be included at this driveway. The existing driveway on Hopkins Avenue will remain in place and a
second driveway will be added on Hopkins Avenue approximately 40 feet east of the existing
driveway. The eastern driveway will be gated and will provide emergency vehicle access (EVA) and
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 111 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
bus access only. Both driveways will be 20 feet wide, measured at the throat. Striped pedestrian
crosswalks will be added at both driveways.
The reconfigured JMZ parking lot will be an improved design over the existing lot, though the new
layout will result in one less parking space. The redesign includes removing the raised curb that
currently serves as a barrier between the northern and southern portions of the parking lot, and
realigning all the drive aisles in a north-south orientation. The realignment will significantly improve
vehicle ingress and egress at the Hopkins Avenue driveway location. An on-site passenger drop-off
area would be located adjacent to the new entry plaza. The drop-off lane is shown to be
approximately 90 feet in length, which will provide enough queuing space for four average length
passenger vehicles. Overall on-site circulation will be efficient with no dead-end drive aisles within
the parking lot.
School Bus Parking and On-Site Circulation
Due to the JMZ expansion project, City staff anticipates an increase in field trip buses at the JMZ
during the weekday midday period. An on-site passenger drop-off area would be located adjacent to
the new entry plaza. The drop-off lane would be approximately 90 feet in length, which will provide
enough space for two school buses parked end to end. Thus, field trip buses will have an adequate
area to park for loading and unloading of passengers and are not expected to have a negative effect
on parking conditions or circulation within the JMZ parking lot. School buses will enter the parking
lot via the Middlefield Road driveway, utilize the on-site drop-off lane, and ultimately exit the
parking lot via the gated Hopkins Avenue driveway. Use of the gated exit will require coordination
with JMZ staff.
The project does not include any other roadway improvements, modifications, or changes, and would
not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible land uses.
Parking
Weekday AM and PM peak hour observations of existing parking conditions at the JMZ and along
the roadways surrounding Rinconada Park show that the existing parking supply is adequate to
accommodate weekday JMZ and park visitors. The weekday parking surveys included observations
of the JMZ parking lot and street parking along Hopkins Avenue, Embarcadero Road, and
Middlefield Road. The total available parking in the area, including the JMZ lot and all the streets
surrounding the park that provide parking, was never more than approximately 50 percent occupied
during both the weekday AM and PM peak hour observation periods.
The project proposes several improvements to parking facilities that serve the site. First, the parking
lot on Middlefield Road will be reconfigured to eliminate one driveway, simplify circulation, and
provide accessible parking stalls that meet current standards. As a result of the reconfiguration, two
standard parking stalls will be eliminated and one accessible parking stall will be added. The 90-
degree parking on Hopkins Avenue also will be expanded to add 10 new parking stalls, increasing
the total there to 39 standard stalls and three ADA stalls. In addition, the City is exploring shifting
the sidewalk along Embarcadero Road into the park between Middlefield Road and the fire station.
This would create a new parking lane with 17 stalls. Based on existing weekday field observations, it
can be concluded that the proposed parking facilities, in combination with existing parking facilities,
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 112 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
would be sufficient to accommodate any additional weekday parking demand generated by the
project.
Saturday Parking
The existing parking lot on Middlefield Road serves Rinconada Park patrons, and visitors of the JMZ
and Lucie Stern Community Center. Based on the traffic report observations, the parking lot
provides adequate parking to accommodate weekend visitors of the park, JMZ, and community
center. Between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM, there were consistently three to eight vacant parking spaces
in the JMZ parking lot. The Walter Hays Elementary School parking lot was also being utilized
during this time period, with approximately four to 14 vehicles opting to park there. Street parking
along Middlefield Road adjacent to the JMZ and Rinconada Park was approximately 50 percent
occupied during the Saturday observation period. Based on existing Saturday field observations, it
can be concluded that the proposed parking facilities, in combination with existing parking facilities,
would be sufficient to accommodate any additional Saturday parking demand generated by the
project.
Emergency Access
As described previously, the existing driveway on Hopkins Avenue will remain in place and a second
driveway will be added on Hopkins Avenue approximately 40 feet east of the existing driveway. The
eastern driveway will be gated and will provide emergency vehicle access (EVA) and bus access
only. The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
k. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Palo Alto Airport is located approximately 2.3 miles east of the project site. The project would not
result in a change in air traffic patterns or obstruct airport operations. [No Impact]
m. Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length
and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to,
spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block
through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact
other intersections, and spill back queues on ramps.
Based on the limited number of new vehicle trips generated by the project (six AM peak hour trips
and 19 PM peak hour trips), and the distribution of those trips (refer to Figure 7 in Appendix F), the
project would not result in significant queuing impacts. [Less Than Significant Impact]
4.16.4 Conclusion
The project would not result in a significant impact to transportation or traffic. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 113 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.17.1 Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Need new or expanded entitlements to water
supply? 1-3
b. Result in adverse physical impacts from new
or expanded utility facilities due to increase
use as a result of the project?
1-3
c. Result in a substantial physical deterioration
of a utility facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
1-3
d. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
1-3
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
1-3
f. Result in a substantial physical deterioration
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
1-3
g. Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
1-3
h. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1-3, 25
i. Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? 1-3
j. Result in a substantial increase in natural gas
and electrical service demands that would
require the new construction of energy
supply facilities and distribution
infrastructure or capacity enhancing
alterations to existing facilities?
1-3
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 114 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.17.2 Existing Setting
The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is the only municipal utility in California that operates city-
owned utility services that include electric, fiber optic, natural gas, water, and sewer services. The
project site is currently developed and electricity, gas, water, sanitary sewer, and solid waste
collection services are provided to the site.
4.17.2.1 Water Services
The City’s drinking water is provided by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) and is purchased
from the San Francisco Public Utility Commission, which obtains most of its water from the Hetch
Hetchy system. The City also owns five groundwater wells, three of which are currently operational.
The wells are available in case the Hetch Hetchy system cannot meet the City’s needs in times of
drought or emergency. Water lines are available in the area to serve the project site.
The City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance incorporates a set of standards that are applied to
any new or renovated landscape for commercial, industrial, multi-family common area, or City
Facility projects with 1,000 sf or more of landscaped area. The ordinance requires projects to meet
the requirements of the City’s water efficiency standards before a building or grading permit is
issued.
4.17.2.2 Wastewater Services
The CPAU is responsible for the existing wastewater collection system. There are existing sanitary
sewer lines in the area that serve the project site.
The City of Palo Alto operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater
treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, and Stanford University. The RWQCP is on the shore of San Francisco Bay in Palo Alto
adjacent to the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve. The RWQCP discharges treated wastewater effluent to
a man-made channel, which empties into the southern reach of San Francisco Bay. In 2013, the plant
treated an average of 18 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater during the dry season, well
below its permitted dry-weather capacity of 39 MGD.21
4.17.2.3 Storm Drainage
The City’s Department of Public Works is responsible for approval, construction and maintenance of
the storm drain system in Palo Alto. The system consists of approximately 126 miles of pipe, 5,684
nodes (manholes, inlets and outfalls) and nine pump stations. Local storm drains are designed to
convey the runoff from a 10-year storm.22
21 Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan. 2015 Pollution Prevention Plan. Available at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1527&TargetID=65. Accessed July 29, 2015.
22 City of Palo Alto. Storm Drain System Facts and Figures.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2806. Accessed July 30, 2015.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 115 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Stormwater runoff from the existing site flows into catch basins throughout the park and drains into
storm lines in the surrounding roadways. The site is within the San Francisquito Creek storm drain
watershed of Palo Alto, which flows to San Francisco Bay.23
4.17.2.4 Solid Waste
Solid waste collection and disposal services are provided under exclusive franchises overseen by the
City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. The majority of the City’s solid waste is taken to the
Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMaRT® Station) where recyclables and yard
trimmings are recovered, processed, and marketed. The remaining solid waste is sent to the Kirby
Canyon Landfill, or several secondary landfills. The City has an agreement with Waste
Management, Inc. to dispose of waste at Kirby Canyon until 2031. In 2013, residents of Palo Alto
generated an average of 3.9 pounds of solid waste per person per day, with a diversion rate of 78
percent.24
The City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance (Chapter 5.24 of the PAMC) requires the
diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills. Under this ordinance, project-related
construction and demolition waste shall be diverted to an approved recycling/transformation facility
or by salvage. The City passed the Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance in
2004, and updated the ordinance in 2009.25 The ordinance requirements are currently enforced
through the City’s Green Building Program and require projects to salvage, and/or divert at least 75
percent of project debris from landfills.
4.17.2.5 Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity
The electricity supply in California involves a complex grid of power plants and transmission lines.
In 2016, California produced approximately 93 percent of the electricity it consumed and the rest was
imported. California’s non CO2-emitting electric generation (from nuclear, large hydroelectric,
solar, wind, and other renewable sources) accounted for 50 percent of total in-state generation for
2016, compared to 40 percent in 2015.26 Electricity supplied from out-of-state, coal-fired power
plants has continued to decrease since 2006, following the enactment of a state law requiring
California utilities to limit new long-term financial investments to power plants that meet California
emissions standards.27
23 City of Palo Alto. Watersheds Map. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2816. Accessed
July 14, 2016.
24 City of Palo Alto. Zero Waste Program, Progress Report.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/about/progress.asp. Accessed July 14, 2016.
25 City of Palo Alto. Construction and Demolition Debris.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/whatgoeswhere/debris.asp. Accessed July 14, 2016.
26 CEC. “Total System Electric Generation”. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html.
27 EIA. “California State Profile and Energy Estimates Profile Analysis”. Accessed July 13, 2017.
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA#40.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 116 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
California’s total system electric generation was 290,567 gigawatt-hours (GWh), which was down
1.6 percent from 2015’s total generation of 295,405 GWh. California's in-state electric generation
was up by approximately one percent at 198,227 GWh compared to 196,195 GWh in 2015, and
energy imports were down by 6,869 GWh to 92,341 GWh.28 In 2016, total in-state solar generation
increased 31.5 percent from 2015 levels and wind generation increased 10.8 percent.
Growth in annual electricity consumption from traditional power plants declined reflecting increased
energy efficiency and higher self-generation from solar photovoltaic power systems. Per capita
drops in electrical consumption are predicted through 2027 as a result of energy efficiency gains and
increased self-generation (particularly for photovoltaic systems).29 Due to population increases,
however, it is estimated that future demand in California for electricity will grow at approximately
one percent each year through 2027, and that 319,256 GWh of electricity would be utilized in the
state in 2027.30
Electricity usage for differing land uses varies substantially by the type of uses in a building, the type
of construction materials used, and the efficiency of the electricity-consuming devices. Electricity in
Santa Clara County in 2015 was consumed primarily by the commercial sector (77 percent), with the
residential sector consuming 23 percent. In 2015, a total of approximately 16,812 GWh of electricity
was consumed in Santa Clara County.31
Natural Gas
In 2016, approximately three percent of California’s natural gas supply came from in-state
production, while 97 percent was imported from other western states and Canada.32 California’s
natural gas is supplied by interstate pipelines, including the Mojave Pipeline, Transwestern Pipeline,
Questar Southern Trails Pipeline, Tuscarora Pipeline, and the Baja Norte/North Baja Pipeline.33 As a
result of improved access to supply basins, as well as pipeline expansion and new projects, these
pipelines currently have excess capacity.
In 2016, approximately 32 percent of the natural gas delivered for consumption in California was for
electricity generation, 37 percent for industrial uses, 19 percent for residential uses, 11 percent for
commercial uses, and less than one percent for vehicle fuel. As with electricity usage, natural gas
usage depends on the type of uses in a building, the type of construction materials used, and the
efficiency of gas-consuming devices. In 2016, California consumed approximately 2.03 billion
28 CEC. “Total System Electric Generation”. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
29 CEC. California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2017-2027. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-IEPR-
05/TN214635_20161205T142341_California_Energy_Demand_Updated_Forecast.pdf.
30 Ibid.
31 CEC. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County”. Accessed July
13, 2016. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.
32 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2016 California Gas Report. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-BSTD-
06/TN212364_20160720T111050_2016_California_Gas_Report.pdf.
33 Ibid.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 117 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
MBtu of natural gas (or 2.03 quadrillion Btu); a decrease from 2015 when 2.12 billion MBtu were
consumed.34 In Santa Clara County, a total of 41.1 MBtu of natural gas were consumed in 2015.35
Natural gas demand in California is anticipated to continue to decrease approximately one percent
per year through 2035. This decline is due to on-site residential, commercial, and industrial
electricity generation; aggressive energy efficiency programs; and a decrease in demand for electrical
power generation as a result of the implementation of state-mandated RPS targets (as the state moves
to power generation resources that result in less GHG emissions than natural gas).36
The CPAU is responsible for electricity and natural gas service in the City of Palo Alto. Electric
lines and gas lines are present in the project area that currently serve the site.
4.17.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. Would the project need new or expanded entitlements to water supply?
The proposed project would not require new or expanded entitlements to water supply, since
the increase in water use and wastewater generation would be minimal, if at all. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
b., c., Would the project result in adverse physical impacts from new or expanded utility facilities
due to increase use as a result of the project? Result in a substantial physical deterioration
of a utility facility due to increased use?
The proposed project would be similar in size to the existing JMZ facility and would have
similar operations. The proposed project would not require new or expanded utility facilities
for project construction or operation, and therefore, would not result in adverse impacts
resulting from new or expanded utility facilities. Since the proposed project would be similar
to the existing JMZ facility, the project would not result in a substantial physical
deterioration of a utility facility due to increase use by the project. [Less Than Significant
Impact]
d. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
The proposed project is the renovation of an existing park and redevelopment of the existing
JMZ. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase the generation of wastewater on
the project site, and would not exceed existing wastewater treatment requirements. [Less
Than Significant Impact]
34 EIA. “Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in California”. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_lsum_dcu_SCA_a.htm.
35 CEC. “Natural Gas Consumption by County”. Santa Clara County 2015 Data. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.
36 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2016 California Gas Report. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-BSTD-
06/TN212364_20160720T111050_2016_California_Gas_Report.pdf.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 118 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
e. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has
inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
The RWQCP would have sufficient capacity to serve the project, since the increase in
wastewater generation would be minimal, if at all. [Less Than Significant Impact]
f. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
The stormwater drainage facilities that serve the existing Rinconada Park and JMZ facility
would be adequate in serving the future LRP developments and the proposed JMZ facility.
No other storm drains would be required for project implementation. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
g., h. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Solid waste generated by the proposed project would continue to be hauled to the City’s
designated recycling facility in Sunnyvale. Unrecoverable refuse would be transported to
Kirby Canyon Landfill in San José for disposal. The proposed project would not generate
additional solid waste beyond the capacity of the existing disposal facilities and would
comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
i. Would the project result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service
demands that would require the new construction of energy supply facilities and distribution
infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities?
The proposed project is the renovation of an existing park and redevelopment of the existing
JMZ. The project would maintain similar operations as the existing park and JMZ facility,
and would therefore not result in substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service
demand. [Less Than Significant Impact]
4.17.4 Conclusion
The project would not result in any utility or service facility exceeding its current capacity or require
the construction of new infrastructure or service facilities. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 119 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.18 ENERGY CONSERVATION
4.18.1 Energy Conservation Environmental Checklist
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a) Have an energy impact? Energy impacts may
include:
i. Impacts resulting from amount and
fuel type used for each stage of the
project
1-3
ii. Impacts on local and regional energy
supplies and on requirements for
additional capacity
1-3
iii. Impacts on peak and base period
demands for electricity and other
forms of energy
1-3
iv. Impacts to energy resources 1-3
v. Impacts resulting from the project’s
projected transportation energy use
requirements
1-3
4.18.2 Existing Setting
4.18.2.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
At the federal level, energy standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) apply to numerous consumer and commercial products (e.g., the EnergyStar™ program). The
EPA also sets fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and other modes of transportation.
State
Renewable Energy Standards
In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, with the goal of
increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent of retail
sales by 2010. In 2006, California's 20 percent by 2010 RPS goal was codified under Senate Bill
(SB) 107. Under the provisions of SB 107, investor‐owned utilities were required to generate 20
percent of their retail electricity using qualified renewable energy technologies by the end of 2010.
In 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 was signed into law and required that retail sellers of electricity
serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 120 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
(PG&E’s) is the electricity provider to the project site. PG&E’s 2016 electricity mix was 33 percent
renewable; thus, they have already met the requirements of Executive Order S-14-08.37
In October 2015, Governor Brown signed SB 350 to codify California’s climate and clean energy
goals. A key provision of SB 350 for retail sellers and publicly owned utilities, requires them to
procure 50 percent of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030.
Building Codes
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title
24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a
legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately
every three years, and the 2016 Title 24 updates went into effect on January 1, 2017.38 Compliance
with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county
governments.39
In January 2010, the state adopted the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen),
which established mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. CALGreen was
also updated and went in to effect on January 1, 2017. The code covers five categories: planning and
design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource
efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.
4.18.2.2 Existing Conditions
Energy consumption is analyzed in Initial Studies because of the environmental impacts associated
with its production and usage. Such impacts include the depletion of nonrenewable resources (e.g.,
oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) and emissions of pollutants during both the production and consumption
phases of energy use.
Energy usage is typically quantified using British thermal units (Btu).40 As points of reference, the
approximate amount of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, a cubic foot of natural gas, and a
kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity are 123,000 Btu, 1,000 Btu, and 3,400 Btu respectively. Utility
providers measure gas usage in therms. One therm is approximately equal to 100,000 Btu.
Electrical energy is expressed in units of kilowatts (kW) and kilowatt hour (kWh). One kW, a
measurement of power (energy used over time), equals one thousand joules41 per second. A kWh is
37 PG&E. “Exploring Clean Energy Solutions”. Accessed July 13, 2017. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-
pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy-solutions.page.
38 California Building Standards Commission. “Welcome to the California Building Standards Commission”. Accessed July 13,
2017. http://www.bsc.ca.gov.
39 California Energy Commission (CEC). “2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards”. Accessed July 13, 2017.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/index.html.
40 A Btu is the amount of energy that is required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree
Fahrenheit.
41 As defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, the joule is a unit of energy or work. One joule
equals the work done when one unit of force (a Newton) moves through a distance of one meter in the direction of
the force.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 121 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
a measurement of energy. If run for one hour, a 1,000 watt (one kW) hair dryer would use one kWh
of electrical energy. Other measurements of electrical energy include the megawatt (1,000 kW) and
the gigawatt (1,000,000 kW).
Total energy usage in California was approximately 7,300 trillion Btu in the year 2015 (the most
recent year for which this specific data was available).42 The breakdown by sector was
approximately 18 percent for residential uses, 19 percent for commercial uses, 24 percent for
industrial uses, and 39 percent for transportation.43
Existing energy use associated with operation of the structures and uses at the project site primarily
consists of fuel for vehicle trips to and from the site, electricity for lighting and cooling, and natural
gas for operations within the existing buildings.
Gasoline for Motor Vehicles
California crude oil production levels have been declining over the last 30 years; however, the state
still accounts for six percent of the United States’ crude oil production and petroleum refining
capacity.44 In 2016, 143.4 billion gallons of gasoline were consumed in the United States (setting an
annual gasoline consumption record) and 15.5 billion gallons were consumed in California.45,46 The
United States has seen low gasoline prices and high demand in the last few years, though forecast
growth in demand is expected to slow as retail prices begin to increase.47
The average fuel economy for light-duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United
States has steadily increased from about 13.1 miles-per-gallon (mpg) in the mid-1970s to 22.0 mpg in
2015.48 Federal fuel economy standards have changed substantially since the Energy Independence
and Security Act was passed in 2007. That standard, which originally mandated a national fuel
economy standard of 35 mpg by the year 2020, applies to cars and light trucks of Model Years 2011
42 United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). California Energy Consumption Estimates 2015.
Accessed July 13, 2017. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.
43 EIA. “California Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector, 2015”. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://www.eia.gov/beta/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/sum_btu_1.html&sid=CA.
44 EIA. “California State Profile and Energy Estimates Profile Analysis”. Accessed July 13, 2017.
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA#40.
45 EIA. Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed July 14, 2017.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10.
46 California State Board of Equalization. Taxable Gasoline, Diesel Fuel, Jet Fuel Ten Year Reports. Accessed July
14, 2017. http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/reports/MVF_10_Year_Report.pdf.
47 EIA. “Short-Term Energy Outlook, U.S. Liquid Fuels”. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm.
48 EPA. Table 4-23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles. Accessed July 14, 2017.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_2
3.html.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 122 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
through 2020. 49,50 In 2012, the federal government raised the fuel economy standard to 54.5 mpg for
cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025.51
4.18.3 Impacts Evaluation
a. i-v) Would the project have an energy impact? Impacts include the amount and fuel type
used for each stage of the project, impacts on local and regional energy supplies and on
requirements for additional capacity, impacts on peak and base period demands for
electricity and other forms of energy, impacts to energy resources, and impacts resulting
from the project’s projected transportation energy use requirements.
Construction
Construction activities related to the JMZ would take approximately 18-24 months and would
consist of demolition of the existing building and landscaping, site preparation, grading,
construction of the new facility, and installation of landscaping. Implementation of the LRP
would occur over 25 years, and construction would occur intermittently depending on the
project component under construction.
Energy would be consumed during both the construction and operational phases of the
proposed project. The construction phase would require energy for the manufacture and
transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g., demolition and grading), and
the actual construction of the building. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and
gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks.
The overall construction schedule and process for the JMZ is already designed to be efficient
in order to avoid excess monetary costs. That is, equipment and fuel are not typically used
wastefully on the site because of the added expense associated with renting the equipment,
maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for efficiency gains during
construction are limited. The proposed project does, however, include several measures that
will improve the efficiency of the construction process. Implementation of the BAAQMD
BMPs, as described in Section 4.3 Air Quality would restrict excessive equipment use by
reducing idling times to five minutes or less and would require the applicant to post signs on
the project site reminding workers to shut off idle equipment.
There will be adverse effects caused by construction because the use of fuels and building
materials are fundamental to construction of new buildings; however, with implementation of
BMPs, the short-term energy impacts of construction, including impacts to energy resources,
would be less than significant. [Less than Significant Impact]
49 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed December 7, 2016.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.
50 Public Law 110–140—December 19, 2007. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Page 1449. Accessed
December 7, 2016. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/pdf/PLAW-110publ140.pdf.
51 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel
Efficiency Standards. Accessed July 14, 2017. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/obama-administration-
finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standards.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 123 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Operation
The proposed project would be constructed to conform to CALGreen guidelines, which
include design and operational and efficiency provisions to minimize wasteful energy
consumption. Though the proposed project does not include on-site renewable energy
resources, the proposed JMZ building would include orientation of the buildings and
windows to optimize daylight to interiors, low-emissivity glazing, and use of energy-efficient
LED lighting. The project would also comply with existing Title 24 state energy standards.
Thus, the project would not waste energy as part of normal operations and any impact would
be less than significant.
Additionally, the proposed project would provide at least 25 short term bicycle parking
spaces and 10 long term spaces which would incentivize the use of an alternative
transportation method. Since the proposed JMZ facility would be similar in size to the
existing facility and would offer a comparable experience (i.e. zoo tours, classroom visits
etc.) as the existing facility, the proposed project would result in only a minor increase in
vehicle trips, and the transportation impacts would be similar to existing conditions. For
these reasons, it is not anticipated that fuel or energy would be used in a wasteful manner,
and potential impacts related to operational energy use and transportation energy use would
be less than significant. [Less Than Significant Impact]
The size and operations of the proposed JMZ facility would be similar to that of the existing
JMZ facility. Since the design of the proposed facility would include CALGreen measures
that would help reduce the amount of energy the building would consume during routine
operation. The proposed facility would have comparable if not reduced peak and base
demands on energy as the existing JMZ and would not, therefore, result in significant energy
impacts related to peak and base demands, supply, capacity, or resources. [Less Than
Significant Impact]
4.18.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to energy
resources. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 124 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
4.19.1 Mandatory Findings Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Checklist
Source(s)
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
1-25
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
1-25
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
1-25
4.19.2 Impacts Evaluation
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air
quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, public
services, recreation, transportation, and utilities or service systems.
With the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the proposed project and
described in the biological resources, cultural resources, and noise and vibration section of
this Initial Study, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental
impacts. [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 125 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
As identified elsewhere in this Initial Study, the potential environmental impacts from the
proposed project are primarily limited to the construction period. The construction projects
associated with the LRP are expected to occur over a 25 year period, and the demolition and
construction of the JMZ would take approximately 18 to 24 months. Given the size and
duration of the projects, the projects would not significantly contribute to cumulative air
quality impacts.
As described in Section 4.16, project implementation would not degrade future level of
service of intersections in the project area. [Less than Significant Impact]
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Under this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor
must be treated as significant if it would cause substantial adverse effects to humans, either
directly or indirectly. This factor relates to adverse changes to the environment of human
beings generally, and not to effects on particular individuals.
While changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be
represented by all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those that could directly affect human
beings include air quality and noise. Due to the short construction schedule, limited areal
extent of the project, and mitigation measures included in the project, impacts to human
beings resulting from construction-related air and noise impacts would be less than
significant. No other direct or indirect adverse effects of the project on human beings have
been identified. [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation]
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 126 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Checklist Sources:
1. CEQA Guidelines - Environmental Thresholds (Professional judgment and expertise and review
of project plans).
2. Palo Alto, City of. Comprehensive Plan. 1998-2010.
3. Palo Alto, City of. Municipal Code.
4. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2012.
Map. August 2014.
5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012.
6. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Construction TAC Assessment.
April 27, 2015.
7. Hort Science. Arborist Report, Junior Museum & Zoo, Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, CA. June
2017.
8. Hort Science. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed, Long-Range Plan Rinconada Park, Palo
Alto, CA. June 2017.
9. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. (Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP)).
10. Holman & Associates. Results of an Archaeological literature search for Rinconada Park and
Junior Museum & Zoo Project at 777 Embarcadero, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County (APN: 003-
46-006). February 17, 2015.
11. Page & Turnbull. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo 1451 Middlefield Road Historic Resource
Evaluation. July 20, 2016.
12. Page & Turnbull. Rinconada Park Historic Resource Evaluation. June 8, 2017.
13. Silicon Valley Soil Engineering. Geotechnical investigation. January 2015.
14. State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Accessed July 8, 2016.
15. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Final Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
Palo Alto Airport. November 19, 2008.
16. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No.
060850010H. Map. Effective Date: May 18, 2009.
17. San Mateo, County of. Planning and Building. Dam Failure Inundation Areas. Available at:
<http://planning.smcgov.org/documents/san-mateo-county-hazards-dam-failure-inundation-
areas> August 2014.
18. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara
County. October 8, 2008.
19. California Emergency Management Agency, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning
San Francisco Bay Area, < http://www.conservation.ca.gov> June 15, 2009.
20. Palo Alto, City of. Storm Drain System Facts and Figures.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2806.
21. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Park Long Range Plan,
Environmental Noise Assessment, Palo Alto, California. June 3, 2015.
22. Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Police. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/
23. Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Fire Department. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/fir/.
24. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo and Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. July 27, 2017.
25. Palo Alto, City of. Zero Waste Program, Progress Report.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/about/progress.asp.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 127 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012.
California Building Standards Commission. 2013 California Green Buildings Standards Code
(CALGreen). California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. Available at:
http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/Free_Resources/2013California/13Green/13Green_main.html
Effective Date: January 1, 2014.
California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2012. Map.
August 2014.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara
County. October 8, 2008. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php.
Accessed July 28, 2015.
California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Santa Clara
County. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed
June 21, 2015.
California State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Accessed July 29, 2015.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara
County. October 8, 2008. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php.
Accessed July 28, 2015.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/. Accessed July 30, 2015.
County of Santa Clara, City of San José, City of Morgan Hill, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley
Water District, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Plan. August 2012. Available at: <http://www.scv-habitatplan.org/www/default.aspx.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No.
060850010H. Map. Effective Date: May 18, 2009.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo and Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. July 27, 2017.
Holman & Associates. Results of an Archaeological literature search for Rinconada Park and Junior
Museum & Zoo Project at 777 Embarcadero, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County (APN: 003-46-006).
February 17, 2015.
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Construction TAC Assessment.
April 27, 2015.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 128 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
Hort Science. Arborist Report, Junior Museum & Zoo, Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, CA. June 2017.
Hort Science. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed, Long-Range Plan Rinconada Park, Palo
Alto, CA. June 2017.
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Park Long Range Plan,
Environmental Noise Assessment, Palo Alto, California. June 3, 2015.
One Bay Area. “Plan Bay Area.” 2012. Available at: http://onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan-
bay-area.html#.USz_lKK-qzk . Accessed July 30, 2015.
Page & Turnbull. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo 1451 Middlefield Road Historic Resource
Evaluation. July 20, 2016.
Page & Turnbull. Rinconada Park Historic Resource Evaluation. June 28, 2017.
Palo Alto, City of. City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, City of Palo Alto. June 2001.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6436
Palo Alto, City of. Comprehensive Plan. 1998-2010.
Palo Alto, City of. Historic Preservation website.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/preservation.asp Accessed July 30, 2015.
Palo Alto, City of. Municipal Code.
Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Police. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/
Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Fire Department. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/fir/.
Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Green Building Program.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. Accessed July 28, 2015.
Palo Alto, City of. Rinconada Long Range Plan Report. July 2017
Palo Alto, City of. Storm Drain System Facts and Figures.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2806. Accessed July 30, 2015.
Palo Alto, City of. Office of Emergency Services. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk
Assessment Report. August 2014.
Palo Alto, City of. Zero Waste Program, Progress Report.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/about/progress.asp. Accessed July 29, 2015.
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan. 2015 Pollution Prevention Plan. Available at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1527&TargetID=65. Accessed July
29, 2015.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 129 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
PAST Consultants, LLC. “Re: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Review (SISR) for 411 Lytton
Ave., Palo Alto, CA, APN. 120-014-076.” March 13, 2015.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Shoreline Areas Potentially
Exposed to Sea Level Rise: South Bay. 2008, updated 2012. Map. Available at:
http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/pdf/bayplan/Plan_Map_7.pdf. Accessed July 28, 2015.
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Final Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
Palo Alto Airport. November 19, 2008. Available at:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Commissions/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx.
Silicon Valley Soil Engineering. Geotechnical investigation. January 2015.
Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 130 Initial Study/Draft MND
City of Palo Alto August 2017
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS
LEAD AGENCY
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners
Jodi Starbird, Principal Project Manager
Mike Lisenbee, Project Manager
Caroline Weston, Assistant Project Manager
Zach Dill, Graphic Artist
MMRP Page 1 of 6
Exhibit 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Project Name Junior Museum and Zoo Project Application
Number 17PLN-
00147
Applicant
Agreement
Signed by applicant before final approval action Date
Approved by Signed by Director after MND approval action by Council Date
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
Impact BIO-1:
Construction of the
proposed project
could result in
disturbance to
active migratory
bird nests.
MM BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the
California Fish and Game Code, the project shall
implement the following measures:
Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a
qualified ornithologist to identify active nests that
may be disturbed during project implementation. All
potential nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be
surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree removal
or pruning, if the activity will occur within the
breeding season (February 1 – August 31). If more
than 30 days pass between the completion of the
preconstruction survey and the initiation of
construction activities, the preconstruction survey
shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day
intervals until construction activities are initiated.
If an active nest is observed, tree removal and
pruning shall be postponed until all the young have
fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established
around the nest site, in consultation with the CDFW.
Project
applicant,
contractors,
and qualified
ornithologist
Within 30
days of the
start of
construction
activities and
prior to
issuance of a
Grading
Permit or
Demolition
Permit
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment,
and CDFW (if a
nest is found)
MMRP Page 2 of 6
Impact CR-1:
Construction
activities could
result in significant
impacts to buried
cultural resources.
Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests
shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree
or shrub.
Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the
young fledge. No construction activities, parking,
staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall
be allowed within the exclusion zones until the
young have fledged from the nest.
MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural
materials are encountered during construction grading
or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-feet
of the find shall be halted, the Director of Planning and
Community Environment shall be notified, and a
qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make
appropriate recommendations regarding the significance
of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The
recommended mitigation shall be implemented and
could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any
significant cultural materials. A report of findings
documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall
be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment.
Project
applicant,
contractors
During
grading and
excavation
activities
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
MMRP Page 3 of 6
MM CR-1.2: If human remains are unearthed during
implementation of the proposed project, the City shall
comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section
7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County
Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the
County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to
origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98.
If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall
then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely
Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the
remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend
to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any
associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the
human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the
reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist
shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC.
If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD
identified fails to make a recommendation, or the
landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and
the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section
5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable
to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized
representative shall inter the human remains and items
Project
applicant,
contractors
During
grading and
excavation
activities
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment,
Santa Clara
County
Coroner, and
NAHC
MMRP Page 4 of 6
Impact NOI-1:
Construction
activities
associated with the
JMZ could result in
significant noise
impacts.
associated with Native American human remains with
appropriate dignity on the property in a location not
subject to further and future subsurface disturbance.
MM NOI-1: With the implementation of the following
measures, construction noise would be reduced to a less
than significant level:
Construction activities shall be limited to between
the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through
Friday, and 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with
no construction occurring on Sundays or holidays
(consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code).
Construction of the JMZ shall be undertaken with
consideration for school activities and hours:
o Schedule high noise generating construction
activities (such as the use of the concrete
saws) that are located directly adjacent to
school structures during periods when school
is not in session, such as summer, school
breaks, weekends, and after school dismissal.
Coordination of construction activity times
with school officials may be necessary.
o Construct portions of the museum located
directly adjacent to the school first, where
practical, in an effort to provide shielding to
the school from construction activities
located further to the west and south.
Project
applicant,
contractors
During all
phases of
construction
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
MMRP Page 5 of 6
o Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers
to shield on-site construction and demolition
noise from the school. To be most effective,
the barrier should be placed as close as
possible to the noise source or the sensitive
receptor. Examples of barriers include
portable acoustically lined enclosure/housing
for specific equipment (e.g., jackhammer and
pneumatic-air tools, which generate the
loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g.,
solid plywood fences or portable panel
systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or
acoustical blankets.
Establish construction staging areas at locations that
will create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise sources and noise-
sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all
project construction.
Construction equipment shall be well maintained and
used judiciously to be as quiet as practical.
Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other
stationary noise sources where technology exists.
Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines and equip all internal combustion engine-
driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.
Locate all stationary noise-generation equipment,
such as air compressors and portable power
MMRP Page 6 of 6
generators, as far away as possible from businesses
or noise-sensitive land uses.
Notify all adjacent noise sensitive land uses of the
construction schedule in writing.
Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a
point where they are not audible at existing
residences or the school bordering the project site.
Designate a disturbance coordinator, responsible for
responding to complaints about construction noise.
The name and telephone number of the disturbance
coordinator shall be posted at the construction site
and made available to noise-sensitive land uses
adjacent to the construction site.
1
French, Amy
From:Jean Pressey <jean.pressey@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, August 12, 2017 9:37 PM
To:French, Amy
Subject:JMZ Building Project
Dear Ms. French,
I attended the meeting on April 10 at the Junior Museum where the new plans were discussed.
I want to enthusiastically endorse the decision to use a metal roof on the new building. It is both cheaper and
longer-lasting than other alternatives. I live in a condo at 449 Homer and we installed a metal roof two years
ago and are very happy with it. There are a number of houses in the Downtown North area that have metal
roofs, and other people simply are not aware of them. So I think the words might inspire negative reactions
divorced from reality.
I also want to commend your staff for the new Rinconada Park plan. I attended one of the early planning
meetings (and was somehow dropped from communication) and I know that there were a lot of wild ideas
suggested. That the final design maintains the Rinconada Park that we have loved for so long is very positive.
Jean Pressey
449 Homer Ave.
Palo Alto
1
French, Amy
From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:30 PM
To:French, Amy; Aikin, John; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Junior Museum re-send with better formatting
Attachments:P1170916.jpg; P1170918.jpg; IMG_0984.jpg; IMG_0992.jpg; IMG_0991.jpg
To Ms. French, Mr. Aikin, and the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board,
Please accept my apology for this re‐send of an email conveyed to you earlier today.
The below version should have better formatting for your screen.
One sentence was added here, suggesting that perhaps the long massive roof facing Middlefield might be broken
up, architecturally.
The rest is the same. Thank you.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Thank you for your time to read concerns sent to you in August about the proposed design for the Junior Museum.
Below are additional comments on how the proposed design appears to not comply with the required findings for
Architectural Review:
In section 2
a. “The design is to create an internal sense of order and a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the
general community”
Comment: The tall airy windows and internal spaces of the proposed design are great. However, the overall
design is utilitarian and barn‐like in
appearance, employing metal roofing and walls which appear uncomfortably cold, harsh and inappropriately
rustic for the center of town.
This does not promote a comfortable environment, nor a sense of order.
b. “The design is to preserve, respect and integrate natural features that contribute positively to the site and the
historic character including historic
Resources of the area”
Comment: Although some trees are included in the landscape plan, more incorporation of trees and natural
landscaping might enhance this
nature museum’s setting in this tree‐lined neighborhood.
Historically: the proposed building does not blend in with the adjacent elegant, historic Mediterranean style
Community Center or the nearby
established neighborhood.
Part of Palo Alto’s Spanish history (El Palo Alto, El Camino Real) and charm revolve, at least in part, around its
traditional Spanish style
architecture. While a different style of building for a nature museum may be appropriate, the Junior
Museum is part of the Community
Center, and should at least reflect the elegance and permanence of nearby classically styled buildings.
2
d. “ Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and … designations”
Comment: the massive, industrial character of the proposed building is not harmonious with the character of
the adjacent Community Center,
which is an architectural jewel of the city, nor is the proposed building compatible with the elegant, small‐
scale style of the neighborhood.
e. “Enhances living conditions….in adjacent residential areas”
Comment: the proposed design is industrial looking, and does not blend in with the adjacent residential area
in terms of style or character.
Perhaps breaking up the massive design of the long roof facing Middlefield would add more interest to the
building, and scale it down.
In Section 3
“The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction
techniques, and incorporating textures,
colors and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area”
Comment: the proposed design does not appear to utilize high‐quality materials or rich architectural
detailing. More use of natural, quality
materials would be better.
The use of metal appears harsh and cold. Painting metal in colors may not soften it or make it any more elegant.
In Section 6: … “sustainability”
Comment: although this section refers to energy efficiency, in regard to architectural style, the idea of
“sustainability” could apply to the concept
of timelessness. The city of Palo Alto should not spend valuable resources erecting a trendy industrial
structure, but instead should wisely invest
in a more timeless, elegant architecture befitting the historic Community Center and charming neighborhood
surrounding it.
Having recently been in Oregon, attached for you are some photos taken at the High Desert Museum near Bend, which
includes many live animal exhibits as well as cultural and historic exhibits.
When asked how this spectacular museum could look so new when it is actually decades old, the museum associate
immediately responded to me: “because the design is timeless.”
Thank you,
Kim Atkinson
1753 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto 94301
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Member Robert Gooyer, Peter Baltay
Absent: Board Member Wynne Furth
Action Item
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [17PLN-00147]:
Consideration of an Application for Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Junior
Museum and Zoo Building and Construction of a New 15,033 Square Foot, One-Story Museum
and Education Building, Outdoor Zoo With Netted Enclosure, and Reconfiguration of and
Improvements to the Existing Parking Lots. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been
Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: PF (Public
Facilities). For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Chair Lew: Item number three which is a public hearing for a quasi-judicial matter, 1451 Middlefield
Road. Consideration of an application for architectural review to allow the demolition of the Junior
Museum and Zoo Building and construction of a new 15,033-square foot, one-story Museum and
education building, outdoor zoo with netted enclosure, and reconfiguration of and improvements to the
existing parking lots. The environmental assessment is an initial study has been prepared in accordance
with the CEQA and the zone district is public facilities. We have our – Amy French, our City Planning
Official here.
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good morning.
Chair Lew: Do we need a minute to set up the presentation?
Ms. French: I believe that’s happening as we speak. We have a presentation from the applicant. Again,
good morning. We’ve got our PowerPoint set up now, and I wanted to call your attention to an email that
came on Tuesday that’s a little confusing, but they’re referring to another issue on the Palo Alto Online,
there is – I don’t know where these numbers are coming from. I just wanted to give an overview on that;
there’s no loss of 85 parking spaces on this site; that is incorrect. There’s no proposal to do anything at
the school site, etc. So – I should mention we will have our transportation engineering staff member in
for this project, if there are further questions about that. Just the traffic, note the peak periods are
morning and evening peak commute periods. They are not affected by this project because this project
is, the attendance at the zoo is not during those times. Just to cut to the chase, this is our second
hearing for this project as a formal application. We’ve had several over the years for preliminary review
and they’ve refined it to a point where we’re pleased to make the recommendation for approval. This will
be going to Council hopefully in November and we’re asking that you recommend the project today. We
have some follow-up opportunities for tweaks to the landscape plan that we’ve noted in the conditions of
approval. As always, the ARB can have an ARB subcommittee to look at any resulting drawings. I’ll just
go ahead and turn this over to the applicant to make the presentation now. Thanks.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
EXCERPT MINUTES: September 21, 2017
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Mr. Brent McClure: Thanks, Amy.
Chair Lew: Quick – Brent, you have 10-minutes.
Mr. McClure: Sure. We put together a short PowerPoint. I want to kind of touch on – we focused this
basically on, I think some of the major comments that we heard the last time that we were before you.
Number one big comment, the architecture of its place and how do we move away from this agricultural
aesthetic on some of the ways the finishes were being presented. The second item was modulation,
again on Middlefield. The third bridges, we talked about that briefly and then lastly was one of the
maintenance questions that relate to metal siding and we’re going to close with some of the wind façade
pieces. Talking about the architecture of its place, this is what we showed you last time. As you recall we
had the metal standing seam roof that wrapped and became wall siding as this sort of continuous
extruded form out at the front of the main museum building with some additional metal siding in over
here. We had a different colored metal roof that kind of came around and we had lots of wood siding. It
was the other material that wrapped the entire finish. The comments that we heard where can we
consider breaking the eave as a possibility? Can we look at a different type of material (inaudible)
position but not really loose the concept of the building and think carefully also about the wood siding as
well. We went back to our diagram that we showed you early in a study session at the beginning of the
year and kind of started to think about how does this translate with that extruded piece? Instead of just
extruding the whole form out, we thought what if the roof extrudes out and the building mass kind of sits
somewhat separately. This is a diagram of what we’ve come back with and that is a different way of
looking at some of the materials. We interjected cement plaster as a way to further break up some of the
mass and bring a little more playfulness and not just sort of have this monochromatic large amount of
wood siding and then also kind of break of the metal. We’re proposing to still have standing seam roof
which is this kind of charchoaly greyish material in through here but then as you get down below, we
pulled back – the wood now becomes an accent. The wood is an accent sort of back in only the recessed
areas of the building and then we have an off-white color cement plaster that becomes more of the
dominant color and material on the building. We’ve inserted some more playful windows to sort of break
up this elevation and to still kind of have a modern aesthetic to try to attempt to echo parts of Lucie
Stern in mass and form and have a bit of an eave. Have an eave projects out so it no longer reads as the
– we believe is the building, that it had read as a sort of once before or with what we had presented
before you. Here’s a sectional elevation looking at that larger volume and that nice entrance point where
the wood and then looking into the dawn redwood courtyard and that elevation on that side. The second
point to touch on briefly is the Middlefield elevation. We had presented – this was the last elevation we
had shown you. We had kind of broken the elevational façade into different sections but the roof was
kind of running long and sleek and the feedback we got from serval of the Board Members was let’s try
to break this up a little bit more. Can we use something to modulate that and be more sensitive to – we
were attempting to do that with I think sort of how this break is here with windows and wall. When we
went back and looked at was – we did a few things, one was we took where that break happened and
we shifted it closer to our entrance portal. So, if you go back to this, there’s – the piece that’s over here
kind of slides over a bit and we have some pop-up clearstory windows that come over into this zone here
that then align with this wood accent wall material here. Then by interjecting different – the cement
plaster against the wood and some additional window placement back over into here, we think that this
starts to achieve that. You start to read this elevation into a series of smaller sections as opposed to one
long sleek run. The last couple comments would be on the bridges. We’ve gone back to the clients and
they are looking to get some grant funding and so we are putting bridges at least back into the project at
this moment funding permitting. Then here are the images that we showed you last time. Further
development of the Dawn Redwood courtyard, that we’re also looking at grant funding. They are looking
at actually having a dinosaur sculpture out amongst the dawn redwood tree. Then the last couple
comments on maintenance questions, the metal roof – we pulled back the metal material significantly
from what we had before. It – we didn’t touch on this last time but it will have an intrical color Kynar 500
finish that will be pre-applied so there are no plans to paint any metal roofing. We’re going with this
medium – there’s a finished board going around but sort of this medium tone kind of charcoal grey. The
idea is that it’s – it will be compatible with – if there’s a potential for future photovoltaics. It will kind of
City of Palo Alto Page 3
fall away in the sky to some degree and just be there as opposed to this really kind of reddish color that
we were talking about before. We’ve removed it completely from any wall services. As far as the wood
siding, it’s a cedar that we would then apply a clear finish too and that was another one of the comments
that we had before that we’d noted. This is just a picture of the finished board that should be passed
around in front of you. Then lastly the wind façade, we’re really excited to be working with the Arts
Commission. They have selected an artist to provide a public art piece; (inaudible) Charles Sowers. He’s
got some really exciting science-based exhibits and art installations at the Exploratorium and he’s a local
artist; we’ve met with him. We really excited about how to beautifully articulate wind onto the site so we
are still looking at this front face elevation into here, signage off to the side like we touched on before.
So, that concludes the high points and we’ll turn it over to questions and comment.
Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Brent. I don’t have any speaker cards for this item so we can move onto
Board Member comments and questions; any questions? Kyu.
Vice Chair Kim: That’s great to hear that the artist is on board. I’m just wondering if that whole front
gable façade becomes the art piece, has there been any thought given to where the Museum’s signage
will go then?
Ms. French: I’m just going to jump in, Amy French, because we’re not interested in having this signage
go with the art and so I’ll just say that and let the applicant talk about where signage might go.
Ms. Sarah Vaccaro: Hi, Sarah Vaccaro here with CAW Architects. We’re partnering with Charles Sowers,
the public artist. He – we’ve given him a handful of locations to look at for his art installation, one is on
this main façade of the entry portico. We’ve given him a lot of our inspirational images about wind and
other science nature-based exhibitory. He is developing his ideas right now, it’s just the beginning of this
process so we don’t know exactly how his art piece will manifest but we’re working closely with him to
integrate it in this front entrance plaza. Once we have a little more direction then we can further design
how that signage will be integrated.
Vice Chair Kim: So, correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like the art piece is still in flux, which is fine
but I think as I’ve been reviewing the project through the process, I’ve always assumed that the front
was going to have this piece there so it sounds like it may not end up being there. Is that correct?
Ms. Vaccaro: If he does something differently, we will work to put something that’s close to this – the
look that we’ve been presenting.
Vice Chair Kim: Ok.
Ms. Vaccaro: It’s integrated -- rolled into the design.
Mr. McClure: We’ve been strongly urging and moving in this direction as (inaudible).
Vice Chair Kim: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Just so it’s clear, the sign that’s shown in the drawings – I mean there’s – is not part of the
ARB…
Ms. French: That is correct.
Chair Lew: … and it’s typically a staff review level.
Ms. French: It’s a concept at this point. It’s not -- they’ll have to come back with a sign application for
that wall signage. The existing sign is moved - the sculptural one out front is ok - but this other one
needs review.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Chair Lew: Any other questions? Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Thank you very much for coming back and I’m right on the edge when I think we
can push this along. I agree with the applicant's outline of five different issues that we’re looking at so I’d
like to address each one of them starting with the Middlefield Road elevation. I think that’s a big
improvement and I think that fits in well now with the residential neighborhood. Of course, it’s great if
you can get those bridged back, and I appreciate the effort that you are making and let’s see where that
gets us. As far as it being architecture of its place, it’s really close. To me, it still has a vague
reminiscence of some agricultural/industrial building but certainly, it’s moved in the right direction
sufficiently. I’m right on the edge of being able to say I think it’s ok; same thing on the materials, the
metal siding and the wood slats and stuff. Obviously, it’s great that you removed the vertical standing
steam finish on the side of the building. You do have a lot of those cedar slats and stuff and when I look
at the sample board you sent here, I can’t think of the last time we got a clear finish to stay on wood for
more than a year, and I’ve been doing this 30 years now. There’re a lot of people doing a lot of
maintenance on wood buildings I’ve built. I just don’t see the City out there every year brushing those
slats. Again, it’s at the level where we’ve made that point clear over and over again. The look is great but
I think overall, you’ve – you can – the findings can be made to support the changes to materials and I
think the logic for what you’ve done is right. I pick up on Kyu’s questions about that gable and façade,
several times through this review process he’s been thinking that’s sort of an artistic element and I think
it should be. When I see on this elevation here, I don’t think it’s quite there yet. It looks just too much –
first (inaudible) to face of a Target store or something and I think it needs more revision. I would like to
see that come back to a subcommittee perhaps and I would like to see that really be a place where we
incorporate some sort of public art or sort of an interesting whimsical design on what you call the gable
and the windscreen. That said, I’m eager to hear what my colleagues have to say, thank you.
Chair Lew: Robert.
Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. Yeah, I agree, I think it’s come a long way. The Middlefield elevation
I think is a big improvement. I also agree that this is still a little weak but then if the public artist is going
to be a part of that, that would make a big difference, and probably coming back to the subcommittee
would be a good idea on that. The one piece that is the off-white color of the stucco, I think is a bit
bland. It – I’d like to see something maybe a little richer in color rather than the off-white. It almost
seems like it’s gone from one extreme to the other to compensate for it. I would prefer to see – it’s not
like there aren’t residences or whatever the area that isn't a richer color than off-white. I agree the wood
is going to be a maintenance nightmare probably. I mean unless it’s done properly or even different
types of finishes on it or something because I agree that a clear finish is really tough to keep it looking
good for more than a year or so. Other than that, I -- like I said yeah, I’m probably close enough that we
could approve it or I can approve it at this point with a few minor modifications.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Robert. Kyu.
Board Member Makinen: Thanks for hanging in there and going through the process. I think it’s come
along way and I think even at the previous hearing I was pretty much on board. I felt that I could make
the findings even then so I appreciate you taking the extra step and bringing it back one more time. Just
very minor comments, some of them echoing previous comments that were made but I also agree that
the – I’m probably the least experienced person of architecture profession on this Board and you know
having said that, I agree that the clear finish is just terribly difficult. I think some kind of a semi-solid or
maybe even if you go with a solid stain on that. I don’t think you’re going to have a lot of people
observing it up close to make sure that they see the wood grain and whatnot; that’s one thing. I also
agree that the Middlefield elevation is – I feel it’s actually greatly improved. I think your attempt at
breaking that up is successful. I like the way that you’ve approached that. I like the clearstory windows
that have been added. I am somewhat questioning if that makes the building feel a little bit too high in
that central portion. I don’t know if there is a way of bringing the clearstory down so that maybe it
doesn’t start at the ridge but it’s not a deal breaker to me and I think overall, it’s looking great. I think
that’s it, I can make the findings. Again, I applaud your efforts and sticking through the process and
City of Palo Alto Page 5
coming with a solution that, to me doesn’t feel compromised. I think you’ve really done a great job of
instilling your own design efforts and also working with the City and I’d be happy to recommend approval
of the project, thank you.
Chair Lew: I can support the project as well. I do want to thank the members of the public who
submitted comments by email. We’ve had several over the past two months and I thank Staff for
responding to our questions. I think I had a question previously about parking and I think that’s been
answered. I think we just – I just want to acknowledge that there is – like the existing traffic, which is
highlighted in the initial study is that the traffic is bad on El Camino – is acceptable at level D but it’s
headed down toward – the accumulative impacts are going to push it down lower so I think it should just
be on the City’s radar that we’re going to have an issue at Embarcadero and Middlefield in the feature.
Then my only nitpicky thing is the landscape so you have kind of the zigzag wood fence along the park
edge. Yeah, their’ sort of – yeah, so I just wanted to – if maybe that could come back to Staff for review.
It’s really how does the existing – are you – is the existing irrigation for the lawn being retained and if it’s
– I don’t know even know what it is if it’s rotors or whatnot but you’re going to get spray on the wood.
Generally, you get this whitewashed effect on the wood and you’re not showing any new landscaping
there so I presume it’s – there’s some – I just presume its trees and lawn there but I just want to make
sure that we just address that when you – in the future. I think typically irrigation plans come before
building permit, right?
Ms. French: Just a note on that, the Rinconada Park long-range plan doesn’t have specificity at this point,
it’s looked at programmatically. Peter Jenson is our in-house landscape architect. I will be meeting with
him following this meeting and make sure that he is aware of this concern of wrecking the fence
basically, with irrigation, and we want to not have that happen to a brand-new fence. So, we’ll make sure
we touch base.
Chair Lew: Yeah, presumably you have to change the irrigation because you’re changing the boundary
between the Junior Museum and the park. It’s going to -- so…
Ms. French: We’ll make sure that’s on the to-do list.
Chair Lew: Then it’s not – at the moment there’s no – that area is not part of the landscape plans of the
Junior Museum, right? That’s still part of the…
Ms. French: That’s correct, that’s why I was kind of taking over this comment because it will be – not in
the purview of our architect here. I should say, Elizabeth Ames is here as well with the Rinconada long-
range project, so thanks.
Chair Lew: Then for staff on the findings, I just had one comment. A little tiny comment is on finding –
this is number – finding number three which is page 63 of the packet and this is just about pedestrian
and bicycle safety. That I would just – I think I would recommend adding that one of the curb cuts along
-- one of the existing curb cuts along Middlefield is being removed so that’s actually a benefit to all the
pedestrian traffic going to Walter Hayes.
Ms. French: Thank you, will do.
Chair Lew: I am willing to entertain motions now. Kyu.
MOTION
Vice Chair Kim: I’ll move that we recommend approval of the project and trust that the City project and
any other minor material things will be taken care of the planning level. So, I don’t even think there’s a
need for anything to come back at subcommittee level.
Board Member Gooyer: How about the whole idea of the art piece that – or artwork?
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Vice Chair Kim: I’m not too concerned.
Chair Lew: I didn’t…
Vice Chair Kim: Is that something that has to be approved at the ARB level of some sort?
Chair Lew: Can I – I didn’t comment on the art piece. I do want to caution that sometimes the mounting
of the art piece on the building can be an issue. We’ve had one of the – we had a low-income housing
project and the art piece was nice but the bracket that attached it onto the building weren’t really well
thought out. So, I mean something like that could come back to the Board for review if the Board is
interested.
Board Member Gooyer: I’d like to see that come back to subcommittee.
Vice Chair Kim: So, I will accept the…
Chair Lew: You have to present it as a…
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT
Board Member Gooyer: I propose that the art piece or however that’s worked out – especially because
we are talking about that it may affect the front entrance or the appearance of the front entry obviously,
considerably. I’d like it to come back to the subcommittee.
Ms. Gerhardt: We have a motion but no second at this point.
Board Member Baltay: I’ll second the motion.
Ms. Gerhardt: Then do we want to offer a friendly amendment?
Board Member Gooyer: Oh, ok, alright. Fine, then I’ll make that…
Ms. Gerhardt: Microphone.
Board Member Gooyer: …I’ll make that my friendly amendment.
Vice Chair Kim: I’ll accept the friendly amendment.
Board Member Baltay: I’ll accept the second to the friendly amendment.
Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you.
Ms. French: Can I ask a clarifying question? This amendment is to review the attachment of the art to the
façade, if it’s proposed to be on that façade? If it’s not proposed to go there as artwork, you would like to
see what is going to be showing on that façade – on that gable end?
Board Member Gooyer: I think so, yeah.
Chair Lew: This would also go – this is going to go to the Public Art Commission as well?
Ms. French: Yes, they’re looking at the content of the art, as well as the installation. I think it’s more if
the artwork doesn’t go up on that gable end, what is the gable end going to look like?
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Board Member Gooyer: Ok but the artwork – I mean I sit on an Art Committee for another City and we
look at the art piece and don’t always go into depth as to how it relates to the building adjacent to it or
behind it or whatever the case is and I think we should.
Ms. French: That – I tried to clarify just – I think the ARB subcommittee – if the art is going on that gable
end - you’re very interested in what that’s going to look like if it’s not an art piece. I think that’s what I
am picking up on, is that…
Board Member Baltay: That’s correct.
Ms. French: …and if it is an art piece, just to see what it looks like in the end.
Board Member Baltay: And how it’s mounted.
Ms. French: Mounting of it.
Chair Lew: Just to clarify the motion, it is a recommendation to Council because this is going to the
Council. It’s not a Director’s decision, and so all in favor? Opposed? None. So that’s 4-0 with Board
Member Furth absent.
MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER FURTH ABSENT
Chair Lew: Congratulations, we can’t wait to see this one under construction. It’s going to be very
exciting.
1
Attachment G
IMLS Grant Information for Access from the Ground Up
Access from the Ground Up is a three-year project to make the new JMZ facility and its exhibits
accessible to everyone. Funded by an IMLS grant in the amount of $270,124, it will provide
science learning opportunities to children with physical and developmental disabilities. The JMZ
will build relationships with partner organizations that serve children with disabilities, provide
professional development for staff, and engage experts and families who have children with
disabilities in the development of exhibits and Access Resources. As a result, the JMZ will be
more accessible to visitors and more engaged with the disability community. The project will
serve as a regional and national model for inclusion for museums and zoos of all types and
sizes. Receipt of grant funds and expenditures is expected to commence in Fiscal Year 2018 and
be completed by Fiscal Year 2021.
Nearly one in five Americans, including children, live with some type of disability. The JMZ is
passionately committed to the inclusion of people of all abilities and ages, particularly as they
embark on building a new facility and visitor experiences scheduled to open by summer 2020.
The JMZ requested IMLS support for Access From the Ground Up, a three-year project to make
the new facility and exhibits accessible to everyone and provide science learning opportunities
to children with disabilities. Leveraging deep institutional commitment and their accessibility
work to date, the JMZ will become more accessible to visitors and more engaged with the
disability community.
This project will address the challenge of a lack of quality science learning experiences for the
growing number of children with a variety of disabilities. Although ADA requirements and best
practices set accessibility standards, most museums and zoos minimally accommodate for
people with disabilities. The 2010 report, Inclusion, Disabilities and Informal Science Learning by
the Center for the Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), has greatly informed
this project’s development. Although the report “located a number of projects, initiatives, and
organizations that have sought greater inclusion of people with disabilities in [informal science
education]. These efforts are still the exception and not the rule.” Through partnerships,
professional development and engagement of the disability community, this project will create
an accessible and inclusive visitor experience from the ground up.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is the primary source of federal support for
the nation’s 132,000 libraries and 35,000 museums. Their mission is to inspire libraries and
museums to advance innovation, lifelong learning, and cultural and civic engagement. Their
grant making, policy development, and research help libraries and museums deliver valuable
services that make it possible for communities and individuals to thrive.
This grant program is highly competitive. A total of 132 projects were selected from 558
applications. One panelist that recommended our project for funding noted in their review,
“This is an overall great project and should position the museum and zoo well on a national as
well as local stage. I was impressed that there was already so much involvement with the
community that deals with disability, and it showed that the grant writers had a realistic
2
understanding of the issues that they needed to deal with, including multiple disabilities,
caregivers’ needs, etc. and that they are truly passionate about this focus for the museum and
zoo. An institution like Palo Alto can really make a difference for so many people, and I couldn’t
be more impressed with their decision to move forward so strongly in this direction.”
This IMLS grant will be used to support the JMZ’s Access From the Ground Up project. This
three-year project, spanning October 2017 to September 2020, will improve accessibility and
inclusivity of JMZ’s twenty-seven permanent exhibits as well as allow the JMZ to grow existing
and develop new partnerships with groups who serve children with disabilities and provide
funding for professional development and training for JMZ staff and volunteers to allow them
to better serve visitors with disabilities.
As a result of the Access From the Ground Up project, the JMZ will achieve its goals to build
more and deeper relationships with families who have children with physical and
developmental disabilities and the providers who serve them. Through professional
development and training this project will better prepare staff and volunteers to serve visitors
with disabilities. By collaborating with people who have disabilities throughout the exhibit
development process, the JMZ will build a Museum and Zoo from the ground-up that will be a
model for inclusion and access—exemplifying the inclusion of people with disabilities
throughout the design process and the innovation that people who experience the world
differently can bring to that process.
The Access From the Ground Up project will span a 36 month period, from October 2017 to
September 2020.
Additional Information
A: Award Notification
B: Spending Plan per Fiscal Year
C: Grant Application
1 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
1. Project Justification
What do you propose to do?
Nearly one in five Americans—including children—live with some type of disability. The Palo Alto Junior Museum
and Zoo (JMZ) is passionately committed to the inclusion of people of all abilities and ages—particularly as we
embark on building a new facility and visitor experiences scheduled to open in November 2019. The JMZ is
requesting IMLS support in the amount of $270,124 for Access From the Ground Up, a three-year project to make the
new facility and exhibits accessible to everyone and provide science learning opportunities for children with
disabilities. Leveraging deep institutional commitment and our accessibility work to date, the JMZ will become more
accessible to visitors and more deeply engaged with the disability community. The project will be a national model
for inclusion for museums of all types and sizes.
The Access From the Ground Up project goals are to 1.) Deepen the impact of the JMZ by building relationships with
families who have children with physical and developmental disabilities and the providers who serve them;
2.) Develop science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) exhibits and Access Resources in collaboration
with provider organizations and people with disabilities; and 3.) Embed access and inclusion into all aspects of our
business practices through professional development.
Specific measurable objectives for the Access From the Ground Up project are in three areas:
1. Partnerships – This grant will enable the JMZ to grow existing and develop new partnerships with groups who
serve children with disabilities. Partnerships will support the engagement of a long-term Accessibility Advisory
Committee (AAC). The disability community is well-established in the San Francisco Bay Area and leveraging the
involvement of key organizations within it will serve as an important strategy in the fulfillment of project goals (see
list of partners and support letters in Supporting Document 1). Ten members of the AAC will meet at least three
times each year to provide project consultation. Advisors will be community leaders, advocates for access and
inclusion, and experts from local provider organizations. They will provide expertise, assist with recruitment for
evaluating new exhibits and Access Resources, and help with marketing JMZ offerings to their communities.
The primary partner for this project will be the Inclusion Collaborative of the Santa Clara County Office of
Education. Their mission to ensure that children with disabilities and special needs have equal access to full participation in inclusive
learning environments makes them an ideal partner. As a clearinghouse organization, they support local schools and
teachers, families and provider organizations. They are well-suited to participate on the AAC and to assist with
marketing and recruitment of families and provider organizations. In addition to their contributions to the AAC,
they will provide formal professional development trainings for JMZ staff and select volunteers.
Through Access From the Ground Up the JMZ will at least double our number of access partnerships. Currently, we
partner with eight organizations. They have assisted us by advising on the new facility, providing volunteers with
disabilities, and marketing Super Family Sundays. These events allow free and exclusive access to the JMZ for
families who have children with disabilities. This project will allow the JMZ to deepen and increase the number of
inclusion and access organizations with which they partner. It will also invite more direct participation from
organizational leadership, including serving on the AAC.
2. Professional Development and Training – This project will provide seven intensive training opportunities
about contemporary access issues so that we can better serve both children and adult visitors with disabilities. Four
key staff will attend The Kennedy Center Leadership Exchange in Arts and Disability Conference (LEAD).
Approximately, 95% of JMZ’s year-round staff (30) and summer camp staff (20) have participated in basic inclusion
trainings over the past two years. JMZ Educators have received two additional trainings facilitated by Special
Education teachers. In spite of this, there is a need for more in-depth training for specific staff.
Our partner, the Inclusion Collaborative, will provide access training for 50 staff and 8 volunteers. In Year 1, they
will facilitate three 1.5-hour trainings on Universal Design Learning for JMZ educators, exhibits staff, and front line
staff. In Year 2 and 3, they will provide four hands-on trainings for these staff. Topics may include, “Behavior is a
2 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
Communication,” “Supporting Kids with Autism,” “Adaptations in Action,” or “Sensory Supports.” Ongoing
training supports JMZ’s commitment to an institutional culture of inclusion, as is outlined in our Strategic Plan.
3. Accessible and Inclusive Exhibits and Visitor Experiences – The JMZ will prototype, build, and remediate
twenty-seven new permanent exhibits, a respite space (Calming Nook), and Access Resources for the new Museum
and Zoo. These initiatives will enable us to strengthen opportunities for science learning by focusing on both
physical and social access. The 2010 report, Inclusion, Disabilities and Informal Science Learning by the Center for the
Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), has greatly informed the development of this project. The
CAISE report states that inclusion in informal science education (ISE) must go “further than ensuring that people
with disabilities can enter the buildings or use the exhibits, programs, and technologies that deliver such
experiences. It also requires that people with disabilities be able to learn from such experiences and participate as a
part of, and not separate from, the larger social group and community.” (CAISE, 2010) This project will allow JMZ
staff to solicit input from a broad range of stakeholders in the disability community as staff develop, prototype and
fabricate innovative access-focused exhibits and Access Resources for the new building.
Specifically, we will accomplish the following objectives in regards to an accessible and inclusive visitor experience:
A. Create sensory-rich interpretive experiences in the Zoo for people with disabilities. Children’s zoos, focused
on human engagement with animals, are fertile ground for developing sensory-rich interpretive experiences. Seven
hands-on exhibits, one for each new feature animal, will be developed and prototyped with people who have
disabilities. These sensory-rich interactives will include tactile, sound, and smell experiences. For example, at the
meerkat habitat, visitors will explore different meerkat calls. The exhibit will interpret the sounds, their meanings,
and the social nature of meerkats.
B. Enhance accessibility for the popular and inclusive Ball Machine exhibition. In a 2015 accessibility review, this
exhibit was commended for its universal design and for supporting visitors of all developmental abilities. Its
collaborative interactives and accessible design offer both physical and social access—children of all abilities learn to
negotiate, work together, share, and play together at this exhibit. This makes it an excellent candidate for expansion
and enhancement of its physical access and sensory elements. For example, there are no sound features or front-
approach wheelchair access points. During this project, people with disabilities will evaluate the existing Ball
Machine interactives to provide ideas and inspiration for new sensory-rich elements. They will also test them.
C. Develop and prototype STEM-focused exhibits for the Experiment exhibition in collaboration with people
who have disabilities. Currently in the initial planning phase, the Experiment exhibition will contain fifteen
interactive, inquiry-based STEM exhibits that promote open-ended experimentation with an emphasis on sensory-
rich, multi-modal experiences. This project will innovate on the sensory elements of science learning interactives.
People with disabilities are essential to that process. Invariably, they experience the world differently. By seeking
their input, we will undoubtedly uncover sensory and innovative approaches that we would not have otherwise.
The Experiment exhibition will demonstrate to parents that: building a lifelong interest in STEM begins with a child’s innate
curiosity and an exploration that engages all of their senses. STEM exhibits will be chosen and developed for their open-
ended exploration and sensory-rich opportunities. For example, a sand pendulum exhibit will pair music with the
real time formation of sand patterns. This pairing will enhance the experience for children who are blind or visually
impaired. At an exhibit about electricity, children will experiment with circuits that power outputs with different
sensory pay-offs. A sculptural sound exhibit will employ vibrations that can be felt, thus increasing access for
visitors who are deaf or hearing impaired. The success of some exhibits will rely on physical access. For example, an
exhibit with balls floating on air will require design improvements for wheelchair access or a special housing to
reduce sound from the air blower for visitors with sensory sensitivities. The design contributions of people with
disabilities will ensure accessible and sensory-rich STEM exhibit experiences for all visitors.
D. Provide Access Resources to improve the visitor experience for people with disabilities. Targeted resources,
3 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
such as a Calming Nook room, a social story for visitors with autism, or zoo sensory touch boxes, will be developed
and tested with guests who have specific disabilities. We will also contract with Lighthouse for the Blind and
Visually Impaired, which has a track record of working with museums such as the Exploratorium and San Francisco
MOMA. They will develop tactile wayfinding maps, and a braille and large print labels guide (see Supporting
Document 1 for details). These resources will enhance a visitor’s experience and send a message of welcome.
In order to accomplish these ambitious project goals and objectives, the JMZ will hire a part-time Access Project
Coordinator to manage the project activities. This person will work 18 hours per week for 2.7 years. From
experience implementing previous access initiatives, a dedicated staff person will be required to keep the project on
schedule. To sustain access and inclusion beyond the project, the Access Project Coordinator will train three staff
members to be Access Leaders. The Exhibits Director, Education Director, and Customer Service Lead will assume
different responsibilities (see key staff for details). Each will dedicate 5% of her time to this role. Often museums
concerned with access issues have one passionate champion in their organization. When that person leaves access
may no longer be a priority. Assigning the championship of access to specific staff positions ensures sustained and
long-term institutional importance.
What need, problem, or challenge will your project address, and how was it identified?
People with disabilities are the country’s largest minority group, and this includes children with both physical and
cognitive disabilities. The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s recent estimates show that about one in
six children, aged 3 through 17, have one or more developmental disabilities. Reflecting these national trends, in
2015-16, there were 125,486 students, K-12, enrolled in special education in the San Francisco Bay Area. While
learning disabilities and speech or language impairments are the most common disabilities in special education,
enrollment for children with autism is one of the most significant student growth areas. This project will address the
lack of quality science learning experiences for the growing number of children with disabilities. Although ADA
requirements and best practices set accessibility standards, most museums and zoos minimally accommodate for
people with disabilities. They particularly fail to consider children with developmental disabilities like autism.
Although the CAISE report (2010) “located a number of projects, initiatives, and organizations that have sought
greater inclusion of people with disabilities in ISE. These efforts are still the exception and not the rule.”
While many organizations see inclusion as an “extra” or “add-on,” at the JMZ it is integrated in our Strategic Plan
and institutional culture. The JMZ has been working on inclusion as a priority for six years and has grown its
commitment over time. In 2010, we conducted a focus group-style “Community Conversation” with people who
are parents of, or serve, children with disabilities (see Supporting Document 2). In response, staff researched
accessibility best practices, engaged volunteers with disabilities, added an accessibility webpage, and began our
popular Super Family Sunday events. To date, over 1,500 parents and children have participated in 19 such events.
The reviewer of the JMZ 2015 ILMS/AAM Museum Assessment Program (MAP) Organizational Report said of
the program, “The staff and Friends should be commended for this initiative. It goes beyond the basic ADA
requirements and is instituting a culture that serves all of its visitors no matter what their abilities.” Super Family
Sundays are integral to the project’s success. They will grow our family network, offer opportunities for formative
and summative evaluation, and build staff commitment through first-hand experience with children with disabilities.
A $25,000 grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation kick-started the JMZ Accessibility and Inclusion
Initiative. Five access trainings were conducted for staff in 2015. Subsequently, staff identified the need for more in-
depth training for JMZ educators, exhibits and front-line staff. Also in 2015, JMZ engaged universal design and
ADA museum and zoo consultants in master planning for the new building and Zoo. They also conducted
accessibility reviews of the current facility and exhibits. The consultants recommended the need for universal
design, the development of an ADA checklist and policies, improvements to signage (such as font size, illustrations,
braille), and a multi-sensory exhibits approach. In late 2015, we conducted two “Community Conversations” (see
Supporting Document 2). Participants identified the lack of access in local museums, as well as specific needs which
significantly informed this project. Recommendations include physical and social access to exhibits, improved
access for children who are blind or visually impaired, a quiet place for visitors with autism, staff training, and
4 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
continued engagement in the design process. Since then, we have developed Access Resources, which have
reinforced the need for additional resources in the new facility. As an outcome of this work in June 2015, the JMZ
Accessibility and Inclusion Plan was developed for the new JMZ (see Supporting Document 3).
Who or what will benefit from your project?
Specifically, this project will serve these two audiences, where evaluation efforts will be focused:
1) Families of children with cognitive and physical disabilities (often children have multiple challenges)
2) JMZ staff and volunteers who serve visitors with and without disabilities
Creating an accessible experience for people with disabilities ultimately means the new JMZ will be a better
experience for all visitors. While this project focuses on access for children with disabilities, there are spillover
benefits for visitors of all ages, including elders with physical or cognitive challenges. We also acknowledge that if
we do not design experiences that accommodate children with special needs, not only do we lose the opportunity to
engage that child we also lose the visit of the entire family. Additional people who will benefit from this project are
the members and staff of our partner organizations and our professional colleagues in museums and zoos.
How will your project advance your institution’s strategic plan?
The Access From the Ground Up project originates directly from the JMZ’s Accessibility and Inclusion Plan. Because
of its importance, it has been integrated into the Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022 (to be approved in January 2017). The
plan outlines actionable and measurable outcomes including the formation of the AAC, ongoing staff training, and
prototyping of exhibits and Access Resources in collaboration with people who have disabilities (see Strategic Plan
Summary and Supporting Document 3 for details).
How will your project address the goals of the Museums for America program and the Learning Experiences project category?
This project directly addresses the Museum For America program and Learning Experiences project goals. It
strengthens the JMZ’s institutional capacity to provide meaningful learning experiences for visitors of all abilities by
1) deepening existing partnerships with groups supporting children with disabilities; 2) conducting ongoing training of
staff and volunteers on the needs of children and adults with disabilities; and 3) providing multi-sensory, accessible
exhibit components, interpretive tools, and respite areas for the public.
The Access From the Ground Up project specifically addresses IMLS’s 2017 priorities of collaboration with, and
learning from, other community-based organizations through JMZ partnerships with organizations that support
children with disabilities. The JMZ will provide service for diverse and underserved audiences in the community,
including those with disabilities. Formative and summative evaluation is a priority for IMLS and for the JMZ.
Dissemination of the evaluations will influence professional practices in the museum and zoo field. By investing in
professional development of staff and volunteers at all levels, this project builds on existing capacity and allows
JMZ team members to better serve visitors of all abilities and attract new families to the facility well into the future.
2. Project Work Plan
What specific activities, including evaluation and performance measurements, will you carry out?
When and in what sequence will your activities occur?
The timeline for the Access From the Ground Up project covers a 36-month period, from October 2017 to September
2020. To fulfill our goals to make our new facility and exhibits accessible to everyone and provide STEM learning
opportunities for children with disabilities, we will undertake the following activities:
Oct. – Nov. 2017 - An Access Project Coordinator will be hired to oversee the project activities (see Resumes for
job description). They will begin by engaging existing and new partners and by recruiting new families via our
partners and Super Family Sunday network (350+ families). Prior to prototyping, feedback on initial exhibit
concepts will be gathered during three focus groups (30 participants) facilitated by the Access Project Coordinator.
Surveys conducted at Super Family Sunday events will serve as feedback on exhibit concepts. The JMZ will consult
with the AAC and other experts on architectural and master planning prior to start of this project.
5 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
Dec. 2017 – May 2018 - The Exhibits team will work with these stakeholders to test concept and technical
prototypes of Zoo sensory interpretive exhibits, the Ball Machine, and Experiment exhibit interactives in the
Prototyping Lab at the temporary JMZ. During building construction, the JMZ will operate off-site for drop-in
visitors at a local community center. Prototyping sessions will occur during five Super Family Sunday events, during
three AAC meetings, and during three additional prototyping sessions—reaching at least 400 stakeholders in all.
The Access Project Coordinator will recruit participants, facilitate the prototyping sessions, and create reports.
June 2018 – Jan. 2019 – Testing of more finished, technical prototypes will continue until Nov. 2018. As exhibit
design fabrication drawings are completed, the Access Project Coordinator will support access elements by
providing expertise and sourcing specific exhibit parts and vendors. Four staff (Education Director, JMZ Director,
Exhibits Director, Access Project Coordinator) will attend The Kennedy Center LEAD Conference in Aug. 2018.
Feb. 2019 – Nov. 2019 - As exhibits are built and installed, fabricators need additional details and parts sourcing.
The Access Project Coordinator will ensure that access elements are not compromised during this phase. In July
2019, the off-site temporary JMZ will close. Exhibit installation will begin in the new facility. The website will be
redesigned by Oct. 2019. The Access Project Coordinator will provide content for accessibility webpages and
expertise on ADA compliance and best practices. In Feb. 2019, the Access Project Coordinator will begin
developing and testing Access Resources, developing accessibility policies and an ADA checklist to prepare for the
opening in Nov. 2019. Marketing through the JMZ’s network of partners and families will begin in Aug. 2019.
Dec. 2019 – Sept. 2020 - Development of Access Resources and marketing will continue after the new JMZ opens.
Summative evaluation will begin in Dec. and last through May 2020 and will inform the subsequent remediation to
Access Resources and exhibit elements to be completed by the end of the project. The Access Project Coordinator,
whose position will conclude in May 2020, will train three succeeding Access Leaders beginning in Jan. 2020.
Dissemination of key findings from Summative Evaluation will begin in May 2020.
Throughout the course of the project, nine AAC meetings will be convened, fourteen Super Family Sundays will be
held, three LEAD conferences will be attended, and seven staff trainings will occur. The Access Project
Coordinator will manage interim IMLS reports, and dissemination of the project’s findings will occur periodically.
What are the risks to the project and are they accounted for in the work plan?
Prototyping of exhibits and Access Resources are activities associated with unknown outcomes, and this can be
challenging. Formative evaluation informs the exhibit designs, therefore budgeting for exhibit access features is
difficult. However, these unknown design outcomes are what drive the kind of innovation we seek. Being a small
and nimble staff, we are willing to try new approaches and respond to feedback from stakeholders. The reviewer
who conducted the JMZ 2014 MAP Community Engagement Report wrote, “Embrace ‘test and try’ as an integral
part of the organizational culture. It was great to experience such open-minded thinking between the Friends Board,
the City, and the staff. You have tested and tried so many things with limited resources and it is very much what
makes the museum special and flexible to adapt to change. Adopt this as part of your values and organizational
culture and you will transition to your new museum with the spirit of what has made you successful intact.”
Who will plan, implement, and manage your project?
Key JMZ staff who will be involved in this project include the following:
Project Director: Tina Keegan, Exhibits Director, JMZ has been designing exhibits for 18 years at science and
children’s museums with previous experience designing and prototyping exhibits with people with disabilities.
Since 2010 she has led the JMZ Accessibility Initiative. In 2015, she participated in the California Association
for Museums’ Accessibility Collaborative. As Project Director, she will provide direction and oversight. She will
manage the Exhibits team, exhibit development process, and supervise the Access Project Coordinator. As an
Access Leader, she will be responsible for exhibits, Access Resources, AAC, and Super Family Sundays.
Access Project Coordinator – To be hired. This part-time position will manage the project activities, budget, and
schedule with oversight from the Project Director. This position will be responsible for the development and
6 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
implementation of Access Resources and policies. The Coordinator will provide guidance and counsel on ADA
and best practices for accessibility throughout the project.
John Aikin, Executive Director, JMZ, brings 31 years of experience in museums and zoos. His backgrounds are
in biological science, exhibit design, and institutional management. At the San Francisco Zoo, he managed
projects that cost from a few thousand to tens of millions of dollars. He has extensive experience in the
administration of grants and will ensure that the project is completed on time and within budget.
Alexandra Hamilton, Education Director, JMZ, has over 29 years of experience in education and public
museum programs. Committed to advancing JMZ’s education programs, she will oversee the trainings and
ensure that JMZ educators integrate their learning into their practice, and participate in exhibition development.
As an Access Leader, she will be responsible for AAC, ongoing training, and accessible educational programs.
Ines Thiessen, Customer Service Lead, JMZ, has been the office manager and led JMZ customer service for 18
years. As an Access Leader she will be responsible for customer service regarding accessibility requests,
grievances, ADA weekly checklist, and use of Access Resources.
Wendy Meluch, Principal, Visitor Studies Services, will be the project’s summative evaluation consultant. Since
1997, Meluch has performed evaluations for many museums, including the Exploratorium and San Francisco
Zoo. She facilitated the three community conversations at the JMZ that informed these project activities.
What financial, personnel, and other resources will you need to carry out the activities?
This project funds the Access Project Coordinator position, accessible exhibit elements and Access Resources,
professional development, and support for hourly staff to attend trainings. The participation of partners, AAC
members, and families who have children with disabilities is also a critical resource. Past experiences with these
stakeholders indicate they are eager to be involved and are dedicated to the project’s success.
How will you track your progress toward achieving your intended results?
The Access Project Coordinator, in collaboration with the Exhibits team, will track progress by managing the
schedule and budget, and by creating reports with action items from AAC meetings, formative evaluations, exhibit
meetings and prototyping sessions. The Exhibits Director and Executive Director will oversee the project ensuring
it achieves its goals. Summative evaluation (detailed below and in Supporting Document 4) will measure whether
the project has achieved its goals, and remediation will make improvements based on evaluation findings.
How and with whom will you share your project’s results?
Access from the Ground Up will be a model project for small- to mid-sized cultural institutions (see letter from Elaine
Heumann Gurian in Supporting Document 5). The CAISE report (2010) outlines “the lack of systemic and
accepted professional standards for approaching the inclusion of all individuals—especially those with disabilities—
presents the greatest challenge for making inclusion a routine and commonplace practice in the field” of informal
science education. Through this project work, JMZ staff will provide resources for other museum and zoo
professionals by hosting networking events (such as the Bay Area Arts Access Collective), presenting at professional
conferences (such as ASTC, ACM, AZA, and LEAD), posting the project on ExhibitFiles, and writing articles
about the project. Evaluation results will be shared by posting it on the JMZ website and informalscience.org.
3. Project Results
The first relevant Performance Goal for the project is Learning: develop and provide inclusive and accessible learning
opportunities. The relevant Performance Measure Statements for families who have children with disabilities include:
1) My understanding has increased as a result of this program/training; 2) My interest in this subject has increased as a result of this
program/training.
The second relevant Performance Goal for the project is Train and develop museum and library professionals. The relevant
Performance Measure Statements for staff trained in the project include: 1) My understanding has increased as a result of
this program/training; 2) My interest in this subject has increased as a result of this program/training; and 3) I am confident I can
apply what I learned in this program/training.
These performance goals will be incorporated into a summative evaluation study by Visitor Studies Services. A
7 | Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, MFA Narrative
multi-modal research design will collect qualitative and quantitative data from various audience members and other
stakeholders to address our research questions (see Supporting Document 4 for details). Online surveys will assess
the effectiveness of partnerships and outreach. In-depth interviews with staff and volunteers will examine the
impact of professional development and staff training. Targeted observations, exit interviews, and surveys will
gather data and input from visiting families with and without special needs to provide insights on the effect of
Access Resources and accessible and inclusive STEM exhibits for people with disabilities.
Describe your project’s intended results that will address the need, problem, or challenge you have identified.
Through the Access From the Ground Up project, the JMZ will build deeper relationships with families who have
children with disabilities and the organizations that serve them. As a result we will provide crucial access to STEM
learning experiences for children with disabilities. By involving people who have disabilities throughout the
development process, the JMZ will build a Museum and Zoo from the ground-up that will be a model for inclusion
and access to other museums and zoos. This is essential to affecting change in our field. Professional development
and in-depth training will better prepare staff and volunteers to serve families who have children with disabilities,
thus addressing a problem identified by staff and parents. Access and inclusion will be integrated into all aspects of
JMZ business practices and address the challenge of ensuring a sustainable future of access at the JMZ.
How will the knowledge, skills, behaviors, and/or attitudes of the intended audience change as a result of your project?
Families of children with cognitive and physical disabilities will have increased access to science learning
experiences, thereby increasing their knowledge about STEM subjects and creating a positive feeling and long-term
capabilities for science learning. For JMZ staff and volunteers, their knowledge and skills to serve families who have
children with disabilities will greatly improve. Their behaviors and attitudes towards people with disabilities will
change with increased empathy and desire to support these families. As a result, our practices will be transformed so
that inclusion of people with disabilities becomes an engrained value of the new JMZ and is always considered in
decisions affecting policies, planning and business practices.
What tangible products will result from your project?
The following products will result from the Access from the Ground Up project:
1.Deeper Relationships and Partnerships: The JMZ will have a robust network of families and organizations, to
aid in marketing, to advise on future projects and to participate in STEM programming.
2.Accessible Exhibits and Visitor Experience Access Resources: This project will result in a Museum and Zoo
built from the ground up with accessible and inclusive experiences. This includes twenty-seven new permanent
Museum and Zoo exhibits that will be universally designed with accessible elements, a respite space (Calming
Nook) for visitors with sensory issues, and Access Resources to support visitors with disabilities.
3.Embedded Access in Business Practices and Trained Staff: Through professional development and staff
and volunteer training, this project will transform JMZ practices so that inclusion of people with disabilities is
always considered. Tangible products will include access policies, an ADA weekly checklist, a redesigned
accessible website, and a practice in place for ongoing staff training and professional development.
4.Summative Evaluation Report: The Summative evaluation report will document findings, inform remediation
and future strategies, and be disseminated to the informal science learning field.
How will you sustain the benefit(s) of your project?
The JMZ Strategic Plan directs the project objectives be sustained over the long-term. The AAC will continue as the
JMZ develops targeted accessible exhibits and projects in the future. The Access Project Coordinator will work with
three designated staff in different departments to assume the responsibilities of Access Leaders. The Exhibits
Director, Education Director, and Customer Service Lead will have different access roles and will support each
other as work continues. This approach will build a solid foundation for the future of accessibility at the JMZ.
Creating an accessible and inclusive experience for people with disabilities ultimately means the new JMZ will be a
better experience for all visitors. As a Museum and Zoo built from the ground up for accessibility, it will be a role
model for other institutions—exemplifying the inclusion of people with disabilities throughout the design process
and the innovation that people who experience the world differently can bring to that process.
Fiscal Year Spending Plan for the IMLS Grant Funds for Access From the Ground Up project
Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo
IMLS Activity FY 2017‐18 FY 2018‐19 FY 2019‐20 FY 2020‐21 TOTAL
Access Project Coordinator 24,721$ 32,962$ 35,022$ 8,240$ 100,945$
LEAD conference ‐$ $ 6,252 3,126$ 3,126$ 12,504$
Stipends for Focus Groups 1,500$ $‐ ‐$ ‐$ 1,500$
Accessibility Prototypes 2,000$ $ 5,813 ‐$ ‐$ 7,813$
Exhibit Fabrication ‐$ $‐ 86,625$ ‐$ 86,625$
Staff Training ‐ Hourly staff pay 1,743$ $ 1,743 2,730$ ‐$ 6,216$
Staff Training ‐ Contractor 1,000$ $ 1,000 1,500$ ‐$ 3,500$
Access Resources ‐ Lighthouse Contract ‐$ $‐ 9,422$ ‐$ 9,422$
Access Resources‐ In‐house ‐$ $‐ 1,500$ ‐$ 1,500$
Marketing ‐$ $‐ 2,000$ ‐$ 2,000$
Summative Evaluation ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 38,100$ 38,100$
SUBTOTAL 30,964$ 47,770$ 141,925$ 49,466$ 270,124$
Official Award Notification for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements
Recipient Project Director :
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301-2531
Recipient Authorizing Official :
John Aikin
City of Palo Alto
Org. Unit: Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo
Tina Keegan
Recipient Name :
Recipient Unique Entity Identifier : 050520782
TIN No : 946000389
Recipient Information
Basic Award Information
Museums for America
CFDA Name : CFDA Number: 45.301
Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) :
MA-10-17-0327-17
Federal Award Date : August 10, 2017
October 01, 2017Period of Performance Start Date :
September 30, 2020
Amount of Federal Funds Obligated by this Action :
08/10/2017 $270,124.00 Original Award
$ 270,124.00
Total Amount of Federal
Funds Obligated :
Total Approved Cost
Sharing or Matching :$ 332,101.00
Indirect Cost Rate :
Period of Performance End Date :
0.00
Federal Award Performance Goals :
Reporting Schedule :Interim Financial Dec 30 2018
Interim Narrative Dec 30 2018
Interim Financial Dec 30 2019
Interim Narrative Dec 30 2019
Final Financial Dec 29 2020
Final Narrative Dec 29 2020
Page 1
Grantee is to report on performance as presented in their final approved grant application.
Recipient Address :
Official Award Notification for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements
1. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) provides this grant support pursuant to 20 USC §
9101 et seq.
2. The award is made in support of the purposes set forth in the original application or, if noted in the special
terms and conditions of the award, in a revised plan of work that has been approved by IMLS program staff.
3. The administration of this grant and the expenditure of grant funds are subject to any special terms and
conditions of this award, which may be attached as additional pages of the award notification, and the General
Terms and Conditions for IMLS Discretionary Awards. The latter document incorporates by reference the
uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for Federal awards promulgated
by the Office of Management and Budget.
4. The first request for payment will indicate the grantee’s acceptance of the award.
Signature
Name and Title
Christopher J. Reich
Chief Administrator, Office of Museum Services
59170301P0.2017.MP170.65010.410
IMLS Contacts
Questions related to the programmatic aspects of the grant should be addressed to :
Program Staff Contact : Program Staff Contact Phone : Program Staff Contact EMail :
Steve Shwartzman 202-653-4641 sshwartzman@imls.gov
Questions related to the financial aspects of the grant should be sent to the financial specialist for your award,
whose name and contact information may be found at : http://www.imls.gov/recipients/administration.aspx
Accounting Code
IMLS Authorized Official
Page 2
Basic Award Information
Activity Name Duration (Days)Start Date Finish Date
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov
2017 2018
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov
ARB FORMAL REVIEW PROCESS:105 4/27/17 9/21/17 105
Formal ARB Review #1 70 4/27/17 8/3/17
70
Formal ARB Submittal #1 0 4/27/17 4/27/17 4/27/17
DRC Review Meeting 0 5/17/17 5/17/17 5/17/17
City Review Process #1 70 4/28/17 8/3/17 70 8/3/17
Formal ARB Meeting #1 0 8/3/17 8/3/17 8/3/17
Formal ARB Review #2 17 8/30/17 9/21/17
17
Formal ARB Submittal #2 (TBD)0 8/30/17 8/30/17 8/30/17
City Review Process #2 (TBD)16 8/30/17 9/20/17 16 9/20/17
Formal ARB Meeting #2 (TBD)0 9/21/17 9/21/17 9/21/17
HRB REVIEW PROCESS:0 6/22/17 6/22/17 0
HRB Meeting #1 0 6/22/17 6/22/17 6/22/17
PRC REVIEW PROCESS:25 8/22/17 9/26/17 25
PRC Update (by John Aikin)0 8/22/17 8/22/17 8/22/17
PRC Approval of PIO 0 9/26/17 9/26/17 9/26/17
CEQA PROCESS:91 5/16/17 9/19/17 91
Completion of Historical Evaluation 10 5/16/17 5/29/17 10 5/29/17
Publish Final Initial Study 0 7/14/17 7/14/17 7/14/17
Public Comment Period 20 8/9/17 9/5/17 20 9/5/17
Community Meeting 0 8/10/17 8/10/17 8/10/17
Public Comment Period Closes 0 9/5/17 9/5/17 9/5/17
Planning Director Review: MND 10 9/6/17 9/19/17 10 9/19/17
PLANNING DIRECTOR & CITY COUNCIL REVIEW 47 9/22/17 11/27/17 47
Planning Director Approval (ARB & MND)10 9/22/17 10/5/17 10 10/5/17
City Council Presentation and Approval (TBD)40 10/3/17 11/27/17 40 11/27/17
DESIGN, DOCUMENTATION AND PERMIT PHASE 228 8/3/17 6/18/18 228
Friends Give Notice to Proceed 10 8/3/17 8/16/17 10 8/16/17
Design Development 57 8/17/17 11/3/17 57 11/3/17
Cost Estimate Phase 15 11/6/17 11/24/17 15 11/24/17
Value Engineering & Budget Alignment Process 15 11/20/17 12/8/17 15 12/8/17
Construction Documentation 80 12/11/17 3/30/18 80 3/30/18
Building Department Application and Submittal 0 2/26/18 2/26/18 2/26/18
Building Department Review (Duration to be Confirmed)40 2/27/18 4/23/18 40 4/23/18
Building Department Re-Submittal 40 4/24/18 6/18/18 40 6/18/18
Building Permit 0 6/18/18 6/18/18 6/18/18
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION PHASE 506 6/18/18 5/26/20
Start of Construction 0 6/18/18 6/18/18 6/18/18
Construction Phase (Approximately 16 Months)380 6/19/18 12/2/19 380
JMZ Staff Move-in & Commissioning (Approximately 6
Months)
126 12/3/19 5/26/20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO PROJECT SCHEDULE OCTOBER 12, 2017
Activity Name Duration (Days)Start Date Finish Date
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
2018 2019 2020
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
ARB FORMAL REVIEW PROCESS:105 4/27/17 9/21/17
Formal ARB Review #1 70 4/27/17 8/3/17
Formal ARB Submittal #1 0 4/27/17 4/27/17
DRC Review Meeting 0 5/17/17 5/17/17
City Review Process #1 70 4/28/17 8/3/17
Formal ARB Meeting #1 0 8/3/17 8/3/17
Formal ARB Review #2 17 8/30/17 9/21/17
Formal ARB Submittal #2 (TBD)0 8/30/17 8/30/17
City Review Process #2 (TBD)16 8/30/17 9/20/17
Formal ARB Meeting #2 (TBD)0 9/21/17 9/21/17
HRB REVIEW PROCESS:0 6/22/17 6/22/17
HRB Meeting #1 0 6/22/17 6/22/17
PRC REVIEW PROCESS:25 8/22/17 9/26/17
PRC Update (by John Aikin)0 8/22/17 8/22/17
PRC Approval of PIO 0 9/26/17 9/26/17
CEQA PROCESS:91 5/16/17 9/19/17
Completion of Historical Evaluation 10 5/16/17 5/29/17
Publish Final Initial Study 0 7/14/17 7/14/17
Public Comment Period 20 8/9/17 9/5/17
Community Meeting 0 8/10/17 8/10/17
Public Comment Period Closes 0 9/5/17 9/5/17
Planning Director Review: MND 10 9/6/17 9/19/17
PLANNING DIRECTOR & CITY COUNCIL REVIEW 47 9/22/17 11/27/17
Planning Director Approval (ARB & MND)10 9/22/17 10/5/17
City Council Presentation and Approval (TBD)40 10/3/17 11/27/17
DESIGN, DOCUMENTATION AND PERMIT PHASE 228 8/3/17 6/18/18
Friends Give Notice to Proceed 10 8/3/17 8/16/17
Design Development 57 8/17/17 11/3/17
Cost Estimate Phase 15 11/6/17 11/24/17
Value Engineering & Budget Alignment Process 15 11/20/17 12/8/17
Construction Documentation 80 12/11/17 3/30/18
Building Department Application and Submittal 0 2/26/18 2/26/18
Building Department Review (Duration to be Confirmed)40 2/27/18 4/23/18
Building Department Re-Submittal 40 4/24/18 6/18/18
Building Permit 0 6/18/18 6/18/18
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION PHASE 506 6/18/18 5/26/20 506
Start of Construction 0 6/18/18 6/18/18
Construction Phase (Approximately 16 Months)380 6/19/18 12/2/19 12/2/19
JMZ Staff Move-in & Commissioning (Approximately 6
Months)
126 12/3/19 5/26/20 126 5/26/20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO PROJECT SCHEDULE OCTOBER 12, 2017
Attachment I
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Council Members. These plans are available to the
public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th
floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
2. Search for “1451 Middlefield Road” and open record by clicking on the green dot
3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option
4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments”
5. Open the attachment named “November Plan Set for Council”.