HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2713
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2713)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/18/2012
June 18, 2012 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 2713)
Summary Title: Adoption of a Resolution for Transportation Funds
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to File an
Application for 2012/2013 Transportation Development Act Funds in the Amount
of $43,359 for Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvements Project
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A)
authorizing submittal of Transportation Development Act (TDA) grant application
documents for fiscal year 2012-2013 requesting $43,359 for Fabian Way
Enhanced Bike Lane Improvements Project in the City of Palo Alto.
Background
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) issued a call for bicycle and
pedestrian projects on March 1, 2012 for the Fiscal Year 2012-2013
Transportation Development Act Article 3 funding program. The deadline to
submit project applications to VTA was on April 13, 2012 (with which staff
complied). A Resolution adopted by the City Council supporting the project
submittals is due to VTA. VTA staff will review the project proposals for eligibility,
completeness and compliance. The resulting countywide list of projects will be
reviewed by the VTA Advisory Committees prior to adoption by the Board of
Directors in June. The countywide list will be forwarded to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and MTC will issue funding allocations in the fall.
There are two components to the TDA Article 3 program in Santa Clara County:
1. Bicycle Expenditure Program
June 18, 2012 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 2713)
Per VTA Board policy, 25% of Santa Clara County’s TDA fund is dedicated for
projects that are on the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 Countywide
Bicycle Plan Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) list. There is $250,000
available for BEP projects this year. Palo Alto is not requesting funds under
the Bicycle Expenditure Program for this fiscal year because the City does
not have any shovel-ready bicycle projects for which design and
environmental studies is complete. The City is in the process of completing
preliminary design for the Adobe Creek/Highway 101 crossing making this a
competitive project for TDA BEP funding next year.
2. Guarantee Funds
The remaining 75% of this year’s TDA funds ($1,405, 422) will be assigned
to the Guarantee Fund. The monies in the Guarantee Fund are distributed
to local jurisdictions on a population-based apportionment formula. These
monies are available to local jurisdictions exclusively for eligible projects of
their choosing as per TDA guidelines. There is no competition amongst local
jurisdiction to acquire these funds for eligible projects. Palo Alto’s total
guaranteed amount for this fiscal year is $43,359.
Discussion
Staff proposes to request an allocation of $43,359 in TDA funds this year from the
City’s Guarantee share for the Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvements
Project in the City of Palo Alto. This project consists of providing enhanced bike
lanes on Fabian Way between East Meadow Drive and Charleston Road through
restriping of the street. The restriping will include a lane reduction from 4-lanes
to 3-lanes resulting in one travel lane per direction of Fabian Way, a dedicated
two-way left turn lane for access to parcels along the corridor, widened bike
lanes/parking lanes, and enhanced crosswalk treatments. Green bike lane
treatments will be provided at key intersection conflict points.
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) Review
As required by the MTC grant application policies, the project mentioned above
was reviewed by PABAC at the April meeting and the committee supports this
project and funding for its implementation.
Public Outreach
The City has completed a concept plan line study for the improvements on Fabian Way
between E Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. These plans were shared with Loral Space
June 18, 2012 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 2713)
Systems and the Jewish Community Center for preliminary input, both of which received
positive response. The City will schedule community outreach meetings for this project in the
Fall following approval of the TDA funding allocation. Staff conducted an environmental review
for this project as per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and prepared an Initial
Study and negative declaration, discussed below.
TDA Grant Requirements
The TDA grant funds are allocated on a three-year basis. The funds are claimed by
the City on a reimbursement basis. MTC requires that City Council adopt a
Resolution authorizing staff to submit applications requesting TDA funding. Since
2002, the MTC has attached findings to the resolution authorizing submittal of the
TDA grant application. Staff has provided sufficient information in this staff report
to support the required findings and is not aware of any issues that would
preclude the Council from adopting the findings for this grant request.
Resource Impact
No local match is required for TDA Guarantee funds. However, because TDA funds
are disbursed on a reimbursement basis, the City will have to spend the budgeted
funds and then apply for reimbursement by TDA funds. The capital funding and
the staff resources in the Planning and Transportation Division are available to
implement this project in the coming years.
Policy Implications
The recommended actions in this report are consistent with Comprehensive Plan
transportation policies, the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Transportation
Strategic Plan.
Environmental Review
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study
has been prepared for the project, and a Negative Declaration was issued May
25th, 2012 (Attachment D) and circulated for a 20 day public review period, which
ended on June 13th. The Director of Planning and Community Environment has
approved the Negative Declaration, and it has been provided to the Council for
review prior to adoption of the attached resolution.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Authorizing the Filing of TDA application for Fabian Way Bike
Lane Enhancements (PDF)
June 18, 2012 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 2713)
Attachment B: TDA Article 3 Project Application form (DOC)
Attachment C: Memo from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority dated March 1,
2012 (PDF)
Attachment D: Initial Study and Negative Declaration (PDF)
Prepared By: Ruchika Aggarwal,
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
NOT YET APPROVED
120611 sh 8269034
Resolution No. ____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City
Manager to File an Application for 2012/2013 Transportation
Development Act Funds for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
RECITALS
A. Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities
Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional
transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit
and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and
B. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional
transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC
Resolution No. 875, Revised, entitled “Transportation Development Act, Article 3,
Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects,” which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of
requests for the allocation of “TDA Article 3” funding; and
C. MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised requires that requests for the allocation
of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim
from each county in the San Francisco Bay region; and
D. The City of Palo Alto desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation
of TDA Article 3 funds to support the project described in Attachment B to this
resolution, which is for the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. The City of Palo Alto declares it is eligible to request an allocation
of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code.
SECTION 2. There is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely
affect the project described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the
ability of the City of Palo Alto to carry out the project.
SECTION 3. The City of Palo Alto attests to the accuracy of and approves the
findings set forth in Attachment A to this resolution.
SECTION 4. A certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any
accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management
agency, countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of
governments, as the case may be, of County of Santa Clara for submission to MTC as
part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim.
NOT YET APPROVED
120611 sh 8269034
SECTION 5. A Negative Declaration for the proposed project was prepared
and circulated for public review pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the Council considered it prior to adopting this
resolution.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ______________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager
______________________________
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
______________________________
Director of Administrative Services
NOT YET APPROVED
120611 sh 8269034
ATTACHMENT A
The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby makes the following findings:
1. That the City of Palo Alto is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation
Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the City of Palo Alto legally impeded from
undertaking the project described in “Attachment B” of this resolution.
2. That the City of Palo Alto has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the
project described in Attachment B.
3. A review of the project described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of
all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits
and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project.
4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances
for the project described in Attachment B will be reviewed in a manner and on a
schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being
requested.
5. That the project described in Attachment B complies with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et
seq.); an Initial Study/Negative Declaration has been circulated for review pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15301(c) and approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment.
6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description of the project in Attachment B, the
sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the
project(s). No sources of funding other than this grant are required for completion of
this project.
7. That the project described in Attachment B is for capital construction and/or design
engineering; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to
motorized traffic; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for
the development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the
development of a comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an
allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by the City of
Palo Alto within the prior five fiscal years.
8. That the project described in Attachment B which is a bicycle project has been
included in a detailed bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general plan, or
included in an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section 2377 of
the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section 2370 et seq.).
NOT YET APPROVED
120611 sh 8269034
9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a “Class I Bikeway,” meets the
mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California
Highway Design Manual.
10. That the project described in Attachment B is ready to commence implementation
during the fiscal year of the requested allocation.
11. That the City of Palo Alto agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the
project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the
public.
NOT YET APPROVED
120611 sh 8269034
ATTACHMENT B
Short title description of the project:
Fabian Way improvements: Fabian Way corridor is currently a Class II bikeway and is
popular with cyclists as it provides a convenient connect to the Baylands, Mountain
View and to the East Bay. The route connects businesses such as Loral Space Systems
and community facilities such as the Kehilah Jewish High School and Jewish Community
Center to the Highway 101/Adobe undercrossing. The proposed project would include
enhancements to make this corridor more attractive and safe for cyclists and
pedestrians. Such enhancements would include modifications to vehicular traffic lanes
from two lanes to one in each direction and a center two-way left turn lane; widening
bike lanes with green bike lane treatments at key intersection conflict points, and
enhanced midblock crosswalks. There are five midblock crosswalks that are used
extensively by many employees of Loral space systems located on both sides of the
street; each of the crosswalks will be improved as part of the project.
ATTACHMENT B
Page 1
TDA Article 3 Project Application Form
Fiscal Year of this Claim: 2012-2013 Applicant: City of Palo Alto
Contact person: Ruchika Aggarwal
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto 94303
E-Mail Address: ruchika.aggarwal@cityofpaloalto.org Telephone: 650-617-3136
Secondary Contact (in event primary not available): Jaime O. Rodriguez
E-Mail Address: jaime.rodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org Telephone: 650-329-2136
Short Title Description of Project: Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvements
Amount of claim: $43,359
Functional Description of Project:
This project consists of providing enhanced bike lanes on Fabian Way between East Meadow Drive and Charleston Road through restriping of the street.
The restriping will include a lane reduction from 4-lanes to 3-lanes resulting in one travel lane per direction of Fabian Way, a dedicated two-way left turn
lane for access to parcels along the corridor, widened bike lanes/parking lanes, and enhanced crosswalk treatments. Green bike lane treatments will be
provided at key intersection conflict points.
Financial Plan:
List the project elements for which TDA funding is being requested (e.g., planning, environmental, engineering, right-of-way, construction,
inspection, contingency, audit). Use the table below to show the project budget. Include prior and proposed future funding of the project. If the
project is a segment of a larger project, include prior and proposed funding sources for the other segments.
Project Elements: The project would include a restriping of Fabian Way between East Meadow Drive and Charleston Road to provide enhanced bike
lane facilities with green bike lane treatments and enhanced midblock crosswalks. Cost includes purchase of green bike lane material, construction,
contingencies and inflation.
Funding Source All Prior FYs Application FY Next FY Following FYs Totals
TDA Article 3 $43,359 $43,359
list all other sources:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Totals $43,359
Project Eligibility: YES? /NO?
A. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? (If "NO," provide the approximate date approval is
anticipated). Approval is anticipated on May 14th.
No
B. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? If "YES," provide an explanation on a separate page. No
C. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to Chapter 1000 of the California
Highway Design Manual? (Available on the internet via: http://www.dot.ca.gov).
Yes
D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee? (If "NO," provide an explanation). Yes
E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project (pursuant to CEQA) been
evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk or county recorder? (required only for projects that
include construction).
no
F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion date of project
(October 2013)
yes
G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant arranged for such
maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to maintain the facility provide its name:
)
yes
Short title description of the project:
Fabian Way improvements: Fabian Way corridor is currently a Class II bikeway and is popular
with cyclists as it provides a convenient connect to the Baylands, Mountain View and to the East
Bay. The route connects businesses such as Loral Space Systems and community facilities such
as the Kehilah Jewish High School and Jewish Community Center to the Highway 101/Adobe
undercrossing. The proposed project would include enhancements to make this corridor more
attractive and safe for cyclists and pedestrians. Such enhancements would include modifications
to vehicular traffic lanes from two lanes to one in each direction and a center two-way left turn
lane; widening bike lanes with green bike lane treatments at key intersection conflict points, and
enhanced midblock crosswalks. There are five midblock crosswalks that are used extensively by
many employees of Loral space systems located on both sides of the street; each of the
crosswalks will be improved as part of the project.
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: TDA Article 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Grant Applicants
Technical Advisory Committee Members
FROM: Bill Hough, Transportation Planner III
DATE: March 1, 2012
SUBJECT: Call for Projects, Transportation Development Act Article 3
FY 2012/13 Program
TDA Article 3 Funds Available
This memorandum serves as the General Call-for-Projects for the FY 2012/13
Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Program funding cycle. There are two
components to the TDA Article 3 program:
1. Bicycle Expenditure Program
The VTA Board of Directors took action on December 9, 2004 to dedicate 25% of Santa
Clara County’s TDA Article 3 funds to projects on the countywide Bicycle Expenditure
Program (BEP) list through 2030. On November 5, 2009, the Board committed $150,000
of the TDA3 BEP set-aside to County Expressway Pedestrian Projects.
There is $250,000 available for BEP projects this year. Projects must be on the current
Board-adopted BEP project list. BEP project sponsors must submit MTC’s TDA
Article 3 Project Application Form and must include a transmittal letter that states
when they expect the project begin construction. In the event that BEP applications
are oversubscribed, preference will be given to projects that are ready for
construction and/or have other funding sources that could be jeopardized if the
project is not delivered in a timely manner.
2. Guarantee Funds
Table 1 below shows each city and the County’s “Guarantee” share of MTC’s TDA
Article 3 Fund Estimate. There is $1,405,422 available for “Guarantee” projects this year.
The guarantee share is based on California Department of Finance (DOF) population
projections and funds banked or rescinded from previous years, where applicable. An
agency’s total applications cannot exceed its guarantee share listed in the following
table:
Page 2 of 5
Table 1
2012/13 TDA ARTICLE 3 ESTIMATE FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Agency
Guarantee Amount
(Includes banked and rescinded funds
from prior years.)
Campbell $28,268
Cupertino $39,222
Gilroy $57,870
Los Altos $19,479
Los Altos Hills $13,005
Los Gatos $34,535
Milpitas $45,050
Monte Sereno $2,246
Morgan Hill $44,835
Mountain View $86,152
Palo Alto $43,359
San Jose $640,126
Santa Clara $135,754
Saratoga $20,159
Sunnyvale $94,203
Santa Clara County $101,158
$1,405,422
Rescind/Reallocation Requests
Agencies may only allocate up to their estimate in any given year. Sponsors may rescind
prior year projects, but VTA cannot reallocate them until the next TDA funding cycle.
Funds rescinded in 2012 will be added to the sponsor’s guarantee in 2013.
It is the responsibility of the project sponsor to monitor project expiration deadlines and
to apply for rescind/reallocation of funds in a timely manner. Failure to do so will result
in the sponsor losing the funds.
Banking Funds
TDA Article 3 funds may be banked for up to two years plus one year to program funds.
To bank TDA funds, project sponsors must submit a letter or email stating that funds will
be banked. If banked funds are not programmed by the end of the 3rd Year, they will be
redistributed to the countywide TDA Article 3 pool for the following fiscal year. If you
are planning to bank funds, please send a letter or email to that effect to Bill Hough at the
address below. A member agency must inform VTA in writing of its intent to either
claim or bank its TDA3 guarantee funds; failure to do so means that the funds
revert to the countywide pool in the next cycle.
Page 3 of 5
Project Types and Guidelines
Your TDA Article 3 project must be ready to implement within ONE year of the
application cycle.
Eligible Project Types
The following project types are eligible for TDA Article 3 Funding:
Design & construction of on and off-street bicycle facility projects – including but not
limited to bicycle parking.
Design & construction of on and off-street pedestrian facility projects
Maintenance of Class I bikeways (unlimited)
Maintenance of Class II bikeways. Countywide, the total funds allocated to Class II
bikeway maintenance cannot exceed 20% of the total countywide TDA estimate. Call
Bill Hough at (408) 321-5735 if you plan to exceed 20% of your agency’s guarantee
amount.
Bicycle Safety Education Programs (not more than 50% of the project’s budget and
not more 5% of the countywide TDA Article 3 funds)
Comprehensive Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Plans (not more than once per
jurisdiction every 5 years)
Projects identified in a recent (within 5 years) comprehensive local bicycle or
pedestrian plan
Annual TDA Article 3 Audits
Other Eligibility & Procedural Issues
Environmental clearance is required for construction projects only. If you are submitting
an application for design, you are not required to submit a County stamped notice.
Additional information on the TDA Article 3 procedures and criteria can be found in the
MTC TDA Article 3 Rules and Procedures, which is available on the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission website at:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/sta-tda/res-0875.doc
Bicycle Advisory Committee and Bicycle Plan Requirement
Cities and counties may not receive TDA Article 3 funds for bicycle projects unless the
jurisdiction has established a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and the project is
included in an adopted plan as stipulated in the MTC TDA Article 3 Rules and
Procedures. This requirement does not apply to pedestrian projects.
VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines
The VTA Board of Directors approved the VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines update on
December 13, 2007. The purpose of the Guidelines is to provide a uniform set of
optimum standards for the planning, design, and construction of bicycle facilities that are
part of the countywide bicycle system. Bicycle projects funded by TDA Article 3 funds
must comply with the Guidelines. For a copy of this document, please contact Michelle
Page 4 of 5
DeRobertis at (408) 321-5716 or Michelle.DeRobertis@vta. org. It is also available on
the VTA website at http://www.vta.org/schedules/bikeways_program.html
Application Submittals
MTC’s TDA Article 3 Project Application Form and resolution boilerplate is located at:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/STA-TDA/TDA_Article_3_Claim_Forms.doc
Project sponsors must use this form to submit applications. Late applications will
not be accepted.
Complete one application for each project. PLEASE NOTE: VTA should receive 2
copies of each project application. .
2012/13 TDA Article 3 Detailed New Project Submittal Requirements
Number of Copies Item
1 per agency Cover letter that indicates whether application is for guarantee
and/or BEP funding. The cover letter must include a statement
that the project must be ready to implement within ONE year
of the application cycle.
2 per agency Governing body resolution wording and Council Resolution
supporting the project(s) (due on May 25, 2012). The sample
is on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission website:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/STA-TDA/
2 per project MTC’s TDA Article 3 Application (See Application Form –
available on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
website: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/STA-TDA/)
2 per project A vicinity map showing the project’s general location in your
jurisdiction
2 per project A detail map showing the project and phases where applicable
2 per project Documentation of environmental clearance (for applicable
projects). The county clerk must stamp the environmental
document.
Completed project applications should be submitted to VTA by 4:00 p.m. on Friday,
April 13, 2012.
Please send applications to:
Bill Hough, Transportation Planner III
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Programming & Grants
3331 North 1st St., Bldg. B2
San Jose, CA 95134-1906
Page 5 of 5
Evaluation Process, Programming and Drawing Programmed Funds
VTA staff will review project applications. The resulting countywide program will be
reviewed by the VTA advisory committees before adoption by the VTA Board of
Directors at its June 2012 meeting.
The VTA Board-adopted project priorities will be forwarded to MTC for review and
adoption. Once MTC has adopted the program, MTC’s Finance Section will issue
allocation instructions to your agency. Please read these instructions carefully, they will
provide your agency with guidance on invoicing and annual audit and reporting
requirements. All project invoicing goes directly to MTC. All work must be completed
by June 30, 2015 and MTC needs to receive reimbursement requests by August 1,
2015.
TDA Audit Information
In accordance with MTC Resolution 875, all claimants that have received an allocation of
TDA funds are required to submit an annual fiscal and compliance audit to MTC and to
the Secretary of Business and Transportation Agency within 180 days after the close of
the fiscal year. Your audits are due to MTC by December 31 of each year. Failure to
submit the audit will prohibit MTC from making a new TDA allocation. If no TDA funds
were expended during the fiscal year, the applicant should file a statement to that effect
with MTC. Please contact MTC’s TDA program manager Cheryl Chi, at 510-817-5939
or cchi@mtc.ca.gov, for additional information on audit requirements.
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 1 Initial Study
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane
Improvement Project
Initial Study
May 23, 2012
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 2 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ..................... 5
A. AESTHETICS ......................................................................................................... 6
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ................................................ 7
C. AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................ 8
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 9
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 10
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY .............................................................. 11
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 12
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 14
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 15
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 16
K. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 17
L. NOISE .................................................................................................................... 17
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................... 19
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 19
O. RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 20
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 20
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 22
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................... 23
III. SOURCE REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 25
IV. DETERMINATION....................................................................................................... 26
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 3 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Clare Campbell, Planner
City of Palo Alto
650-617-3191
4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division
Jaime Rodriquez, Chief Transportation Official
5. APPLICATION NUMBER - NA
6. PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located in the city of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west
of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real). The project area is limited
to Fabian Way between East Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, as shown on Figure 1,
Vicinity Map.
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 4 Initial Study
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The project area has Light Industrial and Mixed Use land uses, as designated in the Palo Alto
1998 – 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The project will not result in a change of use and would not
conflict with the existing land use designations.
8. ZONING
The project area has multi-family residential zoning (PC-4917), mixed use zoning (PC-4918)
and General Manufacturing (GM). There are businesses such as Loral Space Systems and
community facilities such as the Kehilah Jewish High School and Jewish Community Center in
this area. The project will not result in a change of use and would not conflict with the existing
zoning.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Fabian Way has existing bike lane facilitie and is identified in the Draft Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation Plan as an Enhanced Bikeway to facilitate bicycle movements towards the
existing Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Underpass and future overcrossing.
Project
Location
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 5 Initial Study
The project consists of providing enhanced bike lanes on Fabian Way between East Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road through the restriping of the street. The restriping would include a
lane reduction from 4-lanes to 3-lanes resulting in one remaining travel lane per direction on
Fabian Way, a dedicated two-way left turn lane for access to parcels along the corridor,
widened bike lanes/parking lanes, and enhanced crosswalk treatments. Green bike lane
treatments would be provided at key intersection conflict points.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The project area is surrounded by industrial and residential uses, with a school use in the
immediate area.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
Not applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or
less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less
than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier
Analysis,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 6 Initial Study
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer
and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
1,2,5,6 X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
public view or view corridor?
1, 2-Map L4,
5,6
X
c) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
1, 2-Map L4,
5,6
X
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan
policies regarding visual resources?
1,2,5,6 X
e) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1,5,6 X
f) 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?
1,5,6 X
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 7 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is typical of bike lane enhancement projects with signage, crosswalk
improvements, and pavement markings, including the new standard bike lane treatment with green
colored paving. The overall aesthetic impact to the existing roadway is considered to have a less than
significant impact to the area, but it is acknowledged that there is a change to the existing condition;
these changes are not uncharacteristic of features of a typical streetscape.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
1, 2-MapL9 X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)1) or
timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 45262)?
1 X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
1 X
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 X
1 PRC 12220(g): "Forest land" is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species,
including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and
other public benefits.
2 PRC 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land
designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a
crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including
Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after
consultation with the district committees and others.
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 8 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
The project area is not located in a “Prime Farmland”, “Unique Farmland”, or “Farmland of Statewide
Importance” area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by
the Williamson Act. The project area is within a fully developed urban area and has no impacts on
forest or timberland.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
1,5,6,9 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PM10);
1,5,6,9 X
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
1,5,6,9 X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
1,5,6,9 X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels
of toxic air contaminants? 1,5,6,9 X
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 9 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)
exceeds 10 in one million
1,6,9 X
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEI
1,6,9 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? 1,6,9 X
f) Not implement all applicable construction
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
1,6,9 X
DISCUSSION:
Based on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) thresholds, it is not
anticipated that the project would affect any regional air quality plan or standards, or result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The extent of the effects on air quality
will be temporary only, during the period of site preparation and construction. The City of Palo Alto
uses the BAAQMD’s Basic Control Measures to reduce particulate emissions during project
construction to a less than significant level. The project and related construction activities are
anticipated to have a less than significant impact on air quality.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 2-MapN1,
5
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, including federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
1,2-MapN1,
5
X
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 10 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
1,8-MapN1,
5
X
d) 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)?
1,2,3,4,5 X
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The project area is located within a fully developed urban setting. There are no sensitive plants or
animal species identified in this area and the project does not include the removal of any existing
vegetation.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
1,10 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
1,2-MapL8 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
1,2-MapL8 X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1,2-MapL8 X
e) 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?
1,2-MapL7,
10
X
f) Eliminate important examples of major periods
of California history or prehistory? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 11 Initial Study
The proposed project involves minor construction activities within the public right-of-way that is
located within a fully developed and previously disturbed area; the project requires little to no grading.
Although the project area has been identified as having moderate sensitivity for archeological
resources, the proposed project would not create any new impacts to the affected area. For all projects,
if during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered,
construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa
Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to
proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall
cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage
Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations
and be involved in mitigation planning.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
11 X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-MapN10 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
2-MapN5 X
iv) Landslides? 2-MapN5 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
1 X
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
2-MapN5 X
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
2-MapN5 X
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 12 Initial Study
f) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
1 X
g) Expose people or property to major
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project includes improvements within the public right of way of a fully developed
industrial and residential area. The project area has been identified as having violent ground shaking
and is within an area with the potential of four feet of ground subsidence. The project scope is limited
to improvements at or near the existing grade and is anticipated not to significantly impact the existing
conditions. The proposed project would not create any new geology, soils and seismicity impacts.
Generally, the City of Palo Alto would experience a range from weak to very violent shaking in the
event of a major earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward fault. Although hazards exist,
development would not expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be addressed
through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques, as required by building
codes. With proper engineering new development is not expected to result in any significant adverse
short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
1,5,9 X
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1,5,9 X
DISCUSSION:
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for
state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards.
SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present and
future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative
basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in
size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s
individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 13 Initial Study
project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality
would be considered significant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of
Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a
project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to
reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would
generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially
to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:
• For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction
Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e; or 4.6 MT
CO2e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial,
industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
• For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that
emit GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of
operational-related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate
change.
The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If
a project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the
screening criteria, then the project’s air quality impacts may be considered less than significant. Below
are some screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010
(Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes).
Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size **
Single-family 56 du
Apartment, low-rise 78 du
Apartment, mid-rise 87 du
Condo/townhouse, general 78 du
City park 600 acres
Day-care center 11,000 sf
General office building 53,000 sf
Medical office building 22,000 sf
Office park 50,000 sf
Quality restaurant 9,000 sf
**If project size is => screening size, then it is considered significant.
Based on the types of projects that would be considered to have a significant GHG impact, the
proposed project, due to its limited scope, has been determined to not exceed the significance
thresholds established by the BAAQMD, and therefore does not have significant impact for creating
GHG emissions.
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 14 Initial Study
Mitigation Measures: None Required
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the
primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
1,5 X
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?
1,5 X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
1,5 X
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
1,5 X
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
1,2-MapN9
X
f) 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, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
1 X
g) 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?
1 X
h) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
1,2-MapN7 X
i) 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?
1,2-MapN7 X
j) 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 in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
1,5 X
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 15 Initial Study
for the site?
DISCUSSION:
The project area is located within 2,500 feet from a toxic gas facility. The project scope is limited to
improvements at or near the existing grade and is anticipated to have a less than significant impact
with regards to hazardous conditions. The proposed project does not involve the use, creation or
transportation of hazardous materials. Fabian Way is not designated as an evacuation route nor located
within or near the wildland fire danger area. The proposed project would have less than significant to
no impacts with regard to public safety, hazards and hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 1,2,5 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
2-MapN2 X
c) Substantially 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 would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
1,5 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
1,5 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
1,5 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X
g) 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?
2-MapN6
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
2-MapN6 X
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 16 Initial Study
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam or being located within a 100-year
flood hazard area?
2-MapN8 X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
2-MapN6 X
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The project area is located within the 100-year flood hazard area. Since the project does not involve
the construction of structures and is only impacting the roadway, the project is not anticipated to create
any new hydrology and water quality impacts.
All development is required to comply with building codes that address flood safety issues.
Development projects are required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction
activities as specified by the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (CASQA,
2003) and/or the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995).
The BMPs include measures guiding the management and operation of construction sites to control
and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to storm runoff from these areas. These measures
address procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation and managing all aspects of the
construction process to ensure control of potential water pollution sources. All development projects
must comply with all City, State and Federal standards pertaining to storm water run-off and water
quality.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,5,6 X
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?
1,2,3,4,5,
6
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1,2 X
d) Substantially adversely change the type or
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
1,5 X
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with
the general character of the surrounding area,
1,5 X
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 17 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
including density and building height?
f) Conflict with established residential,
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
1,5 X
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
1,2,3 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor work in the public right-of-way and does not impact the existing
land uses along Fabian Way. The improvements are intended to improve safety within the existing
neighborhood and are not anticipated to create any land use impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
1,2 X
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?
1,2 X
DISCUSSION:
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 is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or
regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
L. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2,12 X
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 18 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
1,2,12 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
1,2,12 X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
1,2,12 X
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1 X
f) 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?
1 X
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
1 X
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
1 X
i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
1 X
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
1 X
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
1 X
l) Generate construction noise exceeding the
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
1,12 X
DISCUSSION:
All development, including construction activities, must comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance
(PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction
activity. Short-term temporary construction noise that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result
in impacts that are expected to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 19 Initial Study
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1 X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1 X
d) Create a substantial imbalance between
employed residents and jobs?
1 X
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local
population projections? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project includes improvements within the public right of way of a fully developed
industrial and residential neighborhood and does not encourage development and therefore will not
create any new population and housing impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection? 1 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 20 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project includes improvements within the public right of way of a fully developed area
and does not encourage growth and development and is not anticipated to generate new users as to
create impacts to the existing public services for the City.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
O. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 would occur or be accelerated?
1 X
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 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project includes improvements within the public right of way of a fully developed area
and does not encourage growth and development in the City and is not anticipated to generate new
users as to create impacts to the existing City recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing
circulation system, based on an applicable
measure of effectiveness (as designated in a
general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking
into account all relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited
to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
5,6 X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
5,6 X
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 21 Initial Study
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
5,6 X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
5,6 X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
5,6 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 5,6
X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
2,5,6 X
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
5,6 X
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
5,6 X
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
5,6 X
k) 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?
5,6 X
l) Cause any change in traffic that would
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
5,6 X
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 spillback queues on ramps.
5,6 X
n) Impede the development or function of 5,6 X
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 22 Initial Study
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a
result of congestion?
5,6 X
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 5,6 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project widens the existing bike lanes on Fabian Way between East Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road through a reconfiguration of the existing roadway markings from 4-lanes to 3-lanes,
including a new center two-way left turn lane. Existing on-street parking aisles will be preserved and
widened. Bike lane facilities will be widened to provide buffer space between parking aisles and
vehicle travel lanes. Four existing mid-block crosswalks along Fabian will be preserved and enhanced
with new roadway markings and vibrant signage, new median island will be provided at mid-block
crosswalk locations where possible to provide refuge locations for pedestrians. Existing overhead
pedestrian flashing beacon systems will be preserved but in-pavement lighting systems will be
removed and not replaced. At Fabian Way & East Meadow Dr and Fabian Way & Charleston Rd,
new green bike lanes will be provided to guide bicyclists to the intersection approaches and to advise
motorists of bicycle activity. The improvements are not anticipated to create new significant impacts
to the existing transportation and traffic conditions.
Mitigation: None Required
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
1,5 X
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
1,5 X
c) 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?
1,5 X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
1,5 X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
1,5 X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 1,5 X
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 23 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
1,5 X
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project does not encourage growth and development and therefore no increase in the
demand on existing utilities and service systems or impacts to these services are expected.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
1,2,3,4,6,10 X
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)?
1,6 X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
1,5,6 X
DISCUSSION:
The main objective of this project is to improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians; it does not cause
an increase in traffic nor directly adds vehicle trips to the area.
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 24 Initial Study
As discussed in the Biological Resources section, this project does not impact sensitive wildlife or
plant habitats.
The project’s cumulative impacts are limited to the GHG emissions. A project of this minor scope is
not anticipated to create cumulatively considerable impacts of any other nature. See the Greenhouse
Gas Emissions section for further discussion.
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 25 Initial Study
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 – Zoning Ord inance
4. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
5. Project Plans
6. Project Transportation Engineer’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project
7. Not Used
8. Not Used
9. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010 (BAAQMD)
10. Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory
11. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
12. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10-Noise Ordinance
Fabian Way Enhanced Bike Lane Improvement Project Page 26 Initial Study
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or
“potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
___________________________________ _________________________
Project Planner Date