Public Utilities Commission of the State of CaliforniaThe City of East Palo Alto’s Runnymede Storm Drain Improvement Project began in late 2014 and has been on hold since March 2015

September 15, 2016 Advice 4916-E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company ID U 39 E) Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Subject: Grant of Storm Drainage Easement to the City of East Palo Alto for

the Runnymede Storm Drain Phase II Improvement Project – Request for Approval Under Section 851 and General Order 173

Purpose Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) requests approval under Public Utilities Code Section 851 (“Section 851”) and General Order 173 to grant to the City of East Palo Alto (“City” or the “Grantee”) a storm drainage easement (“Easement”) for the installation of a flood berm within PG&E’s fee strip (SBE 135-41-040 A Parcels 1 & 2). The City has requested that PG&E allow the installation of the flood berm within PG&E’s fee strip that contains overhead Electric Transmission facilities. PG&E’s Electric Transmission lines located on the fee strip are Cooley Landing-Palo Alto, Ravenswood-Palo Alto #1 and Ravenswood-Palo Alto #2. These facilities run in a North-South direction across the fee strip. The City is currently installing the flood berm under the terms of a Flood Control License agreement signed in 2015. PG&E has determined that an easement is more appropriate for this work. The City will pay to PG&E a one-time fee of $20,000.00 for the proposed easement. A copy of the Easement Agreement is attached as Attachment 1. PG&E has inspected the fee strip property and has determined that granting the easement will not interfere with PG&E’s operations or its ability to provide safe and reliable utility services to its customers. PG&E will not need to relocate any of its facilities to provide the requested easement. In addition, PG&E believes that granting the easement will not be adverse to the public interest, but instead will serve the public interest and safety by alleviating residential and commercial flooding in the eastern portion of the City. Project Background PG&E owns land, buildings, and other facilities in connection with the provision of electric and natural gas services to its customers throughout northern and central

Erik Jacobson Director Regulatory Relations

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale St., Mail Code B10C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 Fax: 415.973.1448

Advice 4916-E - 2 - September 15, 2016

California. In the provision of these services, PG&E relies on a portfolio of fee properties, rights-of-way, and facilities to support its electric and gas activities. Relevant to this advice letter, PG&E owns fee property located in the City of East Palo Alto (SBE 135-41-040 A Parcels 1 & 2). The Runnymede Storm Drain Improvement Project is designed to alleviate residential and commercial flooding in the eastern portion of the City. The drainage ditch in the Project Area receives water from the Runnymede storm drain and transports it to the detention basin at the O’Connor Pump Station where it is pumped into San Francisquito Creek. The drainage ditch and detention basin have been neglected for a number of years, resulting in a build-up of sediment and vegetation which has diminished the ditch’s storm water conveyance capacity. Due to its diminished capacity, the drainage system currently provides inadequate flood protection for nearby residential and commercial areas. The Project was separated into two projects which have been treated and permitted as separate projects. The Runnymede Storm Drain Phase II Improvement Project area is located adjacent to the baylands of the San Francisco Bay, in a narrow strip between the end of Runnymede Street extending southerly to and including the pump station forebay and outfall at the end of O’Connor Street in East Palo Alto to the west and the Faber-Laumeister Tract of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge to the east. The project is located entirely on land owned by the City of East Palo Alto, the City of Palo Alto and PG&E. The City of East Palo Alto secured grant funds from the U.S. EPA and the State of California Department of Water Resources to perform maintenance and structural repairs to the Runnymede Storm Water Drainage System. The proposed easement associated with the project falls within PG&E’s 3.31 acre fee property (SBE 135-41-040 A Parcels 1 & 2). PG&E’s Electric Transmission lines Cooley Landing-Palo Alto, Ravenswood-Palo Alto #1 & Ravenswood-Palo Alto #2 run North-South across the fee strip. The proposed easement contains 38,881 square feet. PG&E has reviewed the Grantee’s plans and has determined that the drainage improvement project (Runnymede Storm Water Drainage System Improvement Project) will not impede PG&E’s ability to access, maintain, repair, and replace its facilities. The easement defines the allowable uses by the City of the easement area and is attached as Attachment 1. Among the terms and conditions of the easement, PG&E reserves the right to use the easement area at any time and for any purpose it deems necessary or appropriate when in the interest of its service to its customers or the public. The easement precludes the City from altering, adding or improving any buildings or structures on the easement area that encroaches upon or over the easement area. Further, the easement prohibits the City from fencing or enclosing the


easement area except wherein the parties have permission from PG&E (Page 2 Section 2: a, b, c & d of the easement document). The City of East Palo Alto’s Runnymede Storm Drain Improvement Project began in late 2014 and has been on hold since March 2015 pending the relocation of the main sewer line. PG&E is working with the East Palo Alto Sanitary District on a separate filing to the Commission for approval to grant a sewer easement to the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. The actual depths of the sewer lines that cross the work area were more shallow than anticipated, and it was determined that excavation within portions of the storm water drainage ditch was not feasible without risking damage to the sewer lines. Additionally, due to environmental restraints, construction can only take place during the months of September through January. Delays in construction could cause the City of East Palo Alto to lose their permits for this project For the above reasons, PG&E respectfully requests the Commission approve this Section 851 request to grant the City of East Palo Alto the Storm Drainage Easement on PG&E property as soon as possible, and find that doing so is not adverse to the public interest1 because it will not impair PG&E’s provision of safe and reliable utility service. Rather, PG&E will be advancing the public interest and safety by supporting the community’s flood control efforts. PG&E Review of Project During the City’s construction of the flood berm, the existing main sewer line was found to be located at a more shallow depth than originally anticipated and further excavation of the storm water drainage ditch could damage the sewer line. The Sanitary District decided the best way to address this potential conflict is to relocate the sewer line outside the drainage channel further inland. The City contacted PG&E in November 2015 for an easement for the proposed sewer line relocation. In support of the sewer line relocation, PG&E continues to work with the East Palo Alto Sanitary District to separately file for Commission approval of a sewer line easement. During the sewer project review process, PG&E discovered that the City had been installing the berms under the terms of a license agreement signed in 2015. Due to the permanency of the berm installation, PG&E determined that a permanent easement is more appropriate. PG&E requests Commission approval of a drainage easement for the Runnymede Storm Drainage Improvement Project. In accordance with General Order 173, Rule 4, PG&E provides the following information related to the proposed transaction: 1 “The Commission has long recognized that the public interest is served when utility property

is used for other productive purposes without inferring with the utility’s operations or the provision of utility services to the public.” (D.06-07-023, p. 1.)


(a) Identity and Addresses of All Parties to the Proposed Transaction:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Darren P. Roach Law Department P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Telephone: (415) 973-6345 Facsimile: (415) 973-5520 Email: [email protected]

City of East Palo Alto Attn: Public Works Director Kamal Fallaha 1960 Tate Street East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 853-3117 Email: [email protected]

East Palo Alto City Clerk Attn: Terrie Gillen 2415 University Ave East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 853-3100 Email: [email protected]

(b) Complete Description of the Property Including Present Location,

Condition and Use: The Property is located in the City of East Palo Alto, County of San Mateo, California, more specifically the Legal Description and Drawing of the area is attached hereto as Exhibit A in Attachment 2. It is identified as SBE 135-41-040 A Parcels 1 & 2. PG&E was granted the 3.31 acre fee property on February 28, 1962. PG&E’s Electric Transmission lines Cooley Landing-Palo Alto, Ravenswood-Palo Alto #1 & Ravenswood-Palo Alto #2 run North-South across the fee strip. PG&E granted to the Redevelopment Agency of San Mateo an easement, dated April 11, 1973 to construct, maintain and use a street within PG&E’s fee strip.

(c) Intended Use of the Property: The City will utilize the easement to install a flood berm within PG&E’s 3.31 acre fee property (See Exhibit A of Attachment 1). The maximum dimensions of the berm will be 3.5 ft. in height and 15 ft. wide. The proposed storm drainage easement will encumber 38,881 square feet, of the fee strip.

(d) Complete Description of Financial Terms of the Proposed Transaction:

PG&E will receive a one-time fee of $20,000.00 from the City for the easement.


(e) Description of How Financial Proceeds of the Transaction Will Be

Distributed: PG&E will account for the one-time fee as Electric Other Operation Revenue.

(f) Statement on the Impact of the Transaction on Ratebase and Any Effect

on the Ability of the Utility to Serve Customers and the Public: There is no impact to PG&E’s rate base nor will granting the proposed easement affect PG&E’s ability to service customers and the public.

(g) The Original Cost, Present Book Value, and Present Fair Market Value for Sales of Real Property and Depreciable Assets, and a Detailed Description of How the Fair Market Value Was Determined (e.g., Appraisal): Not Applicable.

(h) The Fair Market Rental Value for Leases of Real Property, and a Detailed Description of How the Fair Market Rental Value Was Determined: Not Applicable.

(i) The Fair Market Value of the Easement or Right-of-Way, and a Detailed Description of How the Fair Market Value Was Determined: The fair market value of the proposed easement is $20,000.00 based on the appraisal at Attachment 2. The appraisal was prepared for the City of East Palo Alto to comply with Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code,2 and is intended to be an Appraisal Report as defined in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

2 California Government Code Section 7267.2. (a) (1) states, in part: “Prior to adopting a

resolution of necessity pursuant to Section 1245.230 of the Code of Civil Procedure and initiating negotiations for the acquisition of real property, the public entity shall establish an amount that it believes to be just compensation therefor, and shall make an offer to the owner or owners of record to acquire the property for the full amount so established, unless the owner cannot be located with reasonable diligence. The offer may be conditioned upon the legislative body's ratification of the offer by execution of a contract of acquisition or adoption of a resolution of necessity or both. The amount shall not be less than the public entity's approved appraisal of the fair market value of the property.”


(j) A Complete Description of any Recent Past (Within the Prior Two Years)

or Anticipated Future Transactions that May Appear To Be Related to the Present Transaction:

There are no recent past or anticipated future transactions that appear related to the present transaction.

(k) Sufficient Information and Documentation (Including Environmental

Information) to Show that All of Eligibility Criteria Set Forth in Rule 3 of General Order 173 are Satisfied: PG&E has provided information in this Advice Letter to satisfy the eligibility criteria under General Order 173 in that:

• The activity proposed in the transaction will not require environmental review by the CPUC as a Lead Agency.

• The transaction will not have an adverse effect on the public interest or on the ability of PG&E to provide safe and reliable service to its customers at reasonable rates;

• The transaction will not materially impact the rate base of PG&E; and • The transaction does not warrant a more comprehensive review that

would be provided through a formal Section 851 application.

(l) Additional Information to Assist in the Review of the Advice Letter: No information is readily available other than what has already been included within this advice letter filing.

(m) Environmental Information

Pursuant to General Order 173, the Advice Letter program applies to proposed transactions that will not require environmental review by the CPUC as a lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA") either because: (a) a statutory or categorical exemption applies (the applicant must provide a Notice of Exemption from the Lead Agency or explain why an exemption applies), or (b) because the transaction is not a project under CEQA (the applicant must explain the reasons why it believes that the transaction is not a project), or (c) because another public agency, acting as the Lead Agency under CEQA, has completed environmental review of the project, and the Commission is required to perform environmental review of the project only as a Responsible Agency under CEQA.

For this advice letter, the Grantee has completed environmental review as a Lead Agency, and the Commission can serve as a Responsible Agency.


c. CPUC as a Responsible Agency under CEQA

If another public agency, acting as the Lead Agency under CEQA, has completed an environmental review of the project and has approved the final CEQA documents, and the Commission is a Responsible Agency under CEQA, the applicant shall provide the following.

a. The name, address, and phone number of the Lead Agency, the

type of CEQA document that was prepared (Environmental Impact Report, Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration), the date on which the Lead Agency approved the CEQA document, the date on which a Notice of Determination was filed.

Lead Agency City of East Palo Alto

Community Development Department1960 Tate Street East Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 Attention: John Doughty Phone: (650) 853-3189

Type of CEQA Document Prepared

Runnymede Storm Drain Phase II and Repair of the O’Connor Pump Station Outfall Structure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)

Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted

May 21, 2013

Date Notice of Determination Filed

May 22, 2013

b. A copy of all CEQA documents prepared by or for the Lead

Agency regarding the project and the Lead Agency’s resolution or other document approving the CEQA documents.

See Attachments 3, 4 & 5 c. A list of section and page numbers for the environmental impacts,

mitigation measures, and findings in the prior CEQA documents that relate to the approval sought from the Commission. The environmental impacts and mitigations measures for the project and initial study are included in Attachment 3 Appendix C.


d. An explanation of any aspect of the project or its environmental

setting which has changed since the issuance of the prior CEQA document.

PG&E is not aware of any changes since the issuance of the prior

CEQA document.

e. A statement of whether the project will require approval by additional public agencies other than the Commission and the Lead Agency, and, if so, the name and address of each agency and the type of approval required.

The City has already received permits for Section 401 Water Quality Certification, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Nationwide Permit, Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Permit, National Marine Fisheries Service/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NMFS/USF&WS) Section 7 Biological Assessment and Consultation, Section 106 permit under the National Historic Preservation Act, San Francisco Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit. USACE: 1455 Market St #16, San Francisco, CA 94103; (415) 503-6988 NMFS/USF&WS: 5-100, 650 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 930-3600 BCDC: 55 Golden Gate Ave Suite 10600, San Francisco, CA 94102; (415) 352-3600

Protests Anyone wishing to protest this filing may do so by sending a letter by October 5, 2016, which is 20 days from the date of this filing. The protest must state the grounds upon which it is based, including such items as financial and service impact, and should be submitted expeditiously. Protests should be mailed to:

CPUC Energy Division ED Tariff Unit 505 Van Ness Avenue, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94102 Facsimile: (415) 703-2200 E-mail: [email protected]


Copies of protests also should be mailed to the attention of the Director, Energy Division, Room 4004, at the address shown above. The protest shall also be sent to PG&E either via E-mail or U.S. mail (or by facsimile, if possible) at the address shown below on the same date it is mailed or delivered to the Commission:

Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations c/o Megan Lawson Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Mail Code B10C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, California 94177 Facsimile: (415) 973-1448 E-mail: [email protected]

Any person (including individuals, groups, or organizations) may protest or respond to an advice letter (General Order 96-B, Section 7.4). The protest shall contain the following information: specification of the advice letter protested; grounds for the protest; supporting factual information or legal argument; name, telephone number, postal address, and (where appropriate) e-mail address of the protestant; and statement that the protest was sent to the utility no later than the day on which the protest was submitted to the reviewing Industry Division (General Order 96-B, Section 3.11). Effective Date Pursuant to the review process outlined in General Order 173, PG&E requests that this Tier 3 advice filing become effective upon approval by a Commission resolution. Notice In accordance with General Order 96-B, Section IV, a copy of this advice letter is being sent electronically and/or via U.S. mail to parties shown on the attached list. Address changes to the General Order 96-B service list should be directed to PG&E at email address [email protected]. For changes to any other service list, please contact the Commission’s Process Office at (415) 703-2021 or at [email protected]. Send all electronic approvals to [email protected]. Advice letter filings can also be accessed electronically at: http://www.pge.com/tariffs. /S/ Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations


Attachments Attachment 1 – Drainage Easement Agreement (City of East Palo Alto) Attachment 2 – Summary Appraisal Valuation Statement Attachment 3 – Runnymede Storm Drain Phase II and Repair of the O’Connor Pump

Station Outfall Structure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND);

Attachment 4 – Resolution No. 4403 and 4440 Attachment 5 – Notice of Determination


************ SERVICE LIST Advice 4916-E *********** APPENDIX A

Jonathan Reiger Legal Division 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 355-5596 [email protected] Mary Jo Borak Energy Division 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 703-1333 [email protected] Andrew Barnsdale Energy Division 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 703-3221 [email protected] Robert (Mark) Pocta Office of Ratepayer Advocates 505 Van Ness Avenue San Franisco, CA 94102 (415) 703-2871 [email protected]

City of East Palo Alto Attn: Public Works Director Kamal Fallaha 1960 Tate Street East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 853-3117 Email: kfallaha@cityofepa.

East Palo Alto Sanitary District Attn: Richard Laureta 901 Weeks Street East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 344-9901 Email: [email protected] East Palo Alto City Clerk Attn: Terrie Gillen 2415 University Ave East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 853-3100 Email: [email protected]

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ADVICE LETTER FILING SUMMARY

ENERGY UTILITY

MUST BE COMPLETED BY UTILITY (Attach additional pages as needed)

Company name/CPUC Utility No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (ID U39 E)

Utility type: Contact Person: Kingsley Cheng

ELC GAS Phone #: (415) 973-5265

PLC HEAT WATER E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]

EXPLANATION OF UTILITY TYPE

ELC = Electric GAS = Gas PLC = Pipeline HEAT = Heat WATER = Water

(Date Filed/ Received Stamp by CPUC)

Advice Letter (AL) #: 4916-E Tier: 3 Subject of AL: Grant of Storm Drainage Easement to the City of East Palo Alto for the Runnymede Storm Drain

Phase II Improvement Project - Request for Approval Under Section 851 and General Order 173

Keywords (choose from CPUC listing): Compliance, Agreements

AL filing type: Monthly Quarterly Annual One-Time Other _____________________________

If AL filed in compliance with a Commission order, indicate relevant Decision/Resolution #: N/A

Does AL replace a withdrawn or rejected AL? If so, identify the prior AL: No

Summarize differences between the AL and the prior withdrawn or rejected AL: ____________________

Is AL requesting confidential treatment? If so, what information is the utility seeking confidential treatment for: No

Confidential information will be made available to those who have executed a nondisclosure agreement: N/A

Name(s) and contact information of the person(s) who will provide the nondisclosure agreement and access to the confidential information: __________________________________________________________________________________________________

Resolution Required? Yes No Requested effective date: Upon Commission Resolution No. of tariff sheets: N/A

Estimated system annual revenue effect (%): N/A

Estimated system average rate effect (%): N/A

When rates are affected by AL, include attachment in AL showing average rate effects on customer classes (residential, small commercial, large C/I, agricultural, lighting). Tariff schedules affected: N/A

Service affected and changes proposed: N/A

Pending advice letters that revise the same tariff sheets: N/A

Protests, dispositions, and all other correspondence regarding this AL are due no later than 20 days after the date of this filing, unless otherwise authorized by the Commission, and shall be sent to:

California Public Utilities Commission Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Energy Division EDTariffUnit 505 Van Ness Ave., 4th Flr. San Francisco, CA 94102 E-mail: [email protected]

Attn: Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations c/o Megan Lawson 77 Beale Street, Mail Code B10C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 E-mail: [email protected]

Advice 4916-E September 15, 2016

Attachment 1

Drainage Easement Agreement


Attachment 2

Summary Appraisal Valuation Statement

May 21, 2014 1 14-ASJ-186-A.v1

SUMMARY APPRAISAL VALUATION STATEMENT

Permanent Easement Acquisition

Lands of PG&E City of East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, California

14-ASJ-186-A Appraiser: Chris Carneghi, MAI Company Carneghi-Blum & Partners, Inc. Address: 1602 The Alameda, Suite 205, San Jose, California 95126 Phone: (408) 535-0900 Fax: (408) 535-0909 This summary of the basis of our appraisal is prepared for the City of East Palo Alto to comply with Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code and is intended to be an Appraisal Report as defined in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. If called, I will testify to the matters and opinions set forth herein.

1. Description of subject property taken: See Exhibit “A”

2. Conclusions: a. Fair Market Value of the subject property being taken: $20,000

b. Amount of Severance Damages: N/A c. Amount of Benefits: N/A d. Total Real Estate Compensation $20,000 e. Amount of Other Compensations N/A

My conclusion is based, in part, on the opinion of N/A

3. Basic Data and Opinions a. Estate or interest valued Permanent Easement

b. Date of Valuation: May 12, 2014 c. Highest and Best Use of Property:

Summary Appraisal Statement Lands of PG&E East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, California

May 21, 2014 2 14-ASJ-186A.v1

The larger subject site, identified as Lands of PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company), is located within the City of East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, California. The larger subject property has neither a legal address nor a County of San Mateo assessor parcel number (APN). However, the site is reportedly included on the California State Board of Equalization Map 135-41-40 and on San Mateo County Assessor Parcel Map 063-38. According to an undated document prepared by PG&E and provided to the appraiser by the client, the larger site contains a total of approximately 3.31 gross acres, or 144,184 square feet of land area. The boundaries of the larger site can roughly be defined as the eastern terminus of Garden Street on the north, the northern boundary of Martin Luther King Park on the south, an existing flood channel on the east, and the adjacent residential properties on the west. The site has an irregular, roughly triangular shape. The shape, orientation, and boundaries of the larger site are best illustrated by the maps and photographs in Exhibit A. The larger parcel is both General Planned and zoned Resource Management (RM). Furthermore, the site is vacant of building improvements, but includes two sets of over-head electrical transmission lines and associated poles and towers. Physically Possible The larger subject site contains a total of approximately 3.31 acres, or 144,184 square feet of land area and has a roughly triangular shape. Although the larger subject property has frontage at the termini of Garden Street, Cypress Street, and Beech Street, existing electrical transmission lines significantly limit any potential for development. Legally Permissible According to the City of East Palo Alto’s General Plan document, the subject is located in an area designated as Baylands. The Baylands area, located in the northeasterly portion of the city, is comprised of approximately 214 acres of open space land intended for passive recreational use. The subject has both a General Plan and zoning designation of Resource Management (RM). The Resource Management designation provides for preservation of environmentally sensitive open space lands in a natural condition. Furthermore, according to conversations with Mr. Guido Persicone with the City of East Palo Alto Planning Department, development is generally not permitted in the RM district. Mr. Persicone indicated that lands located within the RM district are intended for parks and recreational uses.


May 21, 2014 3 14-ASJ-186A.v1

Economic Feasibility Generally speaking, the volume of public park/open space land transactions is limited. Besides local governmental agencies purchasing land for community public parks, the current demand for open space land in the Peninsula and South Bay area primarily comes from non-profit organizations such as Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) who purchase open space land for preservation and conservation reasons. In addition, some smaller non-developable land areas may be purchased by developers/investors in order to purchase “credits” for hillside development. Highest and Best Use Conclusion After analyzing the larger subject site based on the four highest and best use criteria, the highest and best use of the subject’s is concluded to be open space, parklands, and/or habitat.

d. Market Data: See Exhibit “B”

e. Description and value of Entire Property:

(1) Description Gross Land Area: 3.31 acres 144,184 SF Existing Improvements: N/A Legal Identifications: State Board of Equalization Map: 135-41-40

(2) Fair Market Value of the Larger Site: $145,000


May 21, 2014 4 14-ASJ-186A.v1

4. We, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct; the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; we have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved; we have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment; our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results, our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal; the appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan; our analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, we have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report; no one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this certification. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this report Chris Carneghi has completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. In accordance with the Competency Provision in the USPAP, we certify that our education, experience and knowledge are sufficient to appraise the type of property being valued in this report.

Chris Carneghi, MAI Certified General Real Estate Appraiser State of California No. AG001685 Bradley Carneghi Certified General Real Estate Appraiser State of California No. AG044571


May 21, 2014 5 14-ASJ-186A.v1

EXHIBIT “A”

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TAKEN

(1) Subject Property Photos

(2) Take Area Map

(3) Take Area Description

(4) PG&E Larger Subject Property Map

(5) Assessor Parcel Map

(6) Aerial Photograph

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

14ASJ186A

Subject Property—Facing East

Subject Property—Facing North

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

14ASJ186A

Subject Property—Facing North

Subject Property—Facing South

devin

Polygon

devin

Callout

Subject Property

devin

Polygon

devin

Callout

Subject Property

devin

Text Box

Aerial Photograph


May 21, 2014 6 14-ASJ-186A.v1

EXHIBIT “B”

COMPARABLE DATA

Exhibit B

LandCOE Sale Area Grantor/Grantee

No. Location Date Price (Ac/SF) Zoning Price/SF Document #

1 Loma Court 4/14 $16,000 0.25 R-1/S-91/ $1.45 Christopher LundRedwood City 11,000 DR Joseph ErinanAPN: 051-022-160 #28079

2 Thone Avenue 2/14 $25,000 0.34 PUD $1.67 Bridgewater Holdings LLCHalf Moon Bay 15,000 V. WuyyuruAPN: 065-153-170 thru -190 #6877

3 Marburger Avenue 12/13 $40,000 0.91 HRO-2 $1.01 HWH Family TrustBelmont 39,640 NGO KristineAPN: 043-202-620 #163478

4 La Honda Road 9/13 $20,000 0.87 R-E/S-11 $0.53 Krishna ReddyLa Honda 37,900 John CacklerAPN: 078-070-020 #135012

5 Marburger Avenue 8/13 $18,000 0.41 HRO-2 $1.02 Harris Ranch Beef CoBelmont 17,700 Hashim C AbdulkaderAPN: 043-203-360, 370 & -030 #127763

6 Loma Court 7/13 $10,000 0.70 R-1/S-101/ $0.33 Catherine B McKeeRedwood City 30,492 DR Jeff & Christine FerryAPN: 051-472-060 #99280

7 Marburger Avenue 5/13 $25,000 0.50 HRO-2 $1.14 Harris Ranch Beef CoBelmont 21,900 Major Deep LLCAPNs: 043-202-500, 510 & -520 #68469

Subject Property 3.31 RM Pacific Gas & ElectricPG&E Land 144,184East Palo AltoAPN: n/a

Source: Carneghi-Blum & Partners, Inc., May 2014Brad14asj186A PGE

Comparable Land SalesAppraisal of PG&E LandEast Palo Alto, California

Copyright © and (P) 1988–2006 Microsoft Corporation and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved. http://www.microsoft.com/streets/Portions © 1990–2006 InstallShield Software Corporation. All rights reserved. Certain mapping and direction data © 2005 NAVTEQ. All rights reserved. The Data for areas of Canada includes information taken with permission from Canadian authorities, including: © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, © Queen's Printer for Ontario. NAVTEQ and NAVTEQ ON BOARD are trademarks of NAVTEQ. © 2005 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. Tele Atlas and Tele Atlas North America are trademarks of Tele Atlas, Inc.

Comparable Land Sales Map

0 mi 2 4 6 8 10 12

devin

Polygon

devin

Callout

Comparable 1

devin

Polygon

devin

Callout

Comparable 2

devin

Polygon

devin

Callout

Comparable 3

devin

Polygon

devin

Callout

Comparable 5

devin

Polygon

devin

Callout

Comparable 7

devin

Polygon

devin

Callout

Comparable 4

devin

Polygon

devin

Callout

Comparable 6


May 21, 2014 7 14-ASJ-186A.v1

EXHIBIT “C”

VALUATION NARRATIVE

VALUATION TABLE


May 21, 2014 8 14-ASJ-186A.v1

Valuation Narrative An approximately 38,881 gross square foot, or 0.893 acre, portion of the larger subject property, located roughly down the middle of the larger site, is being proposed for acquisition by The City of East Palo Alto for a public works project. According to conversations with representatives of The City of East Palo Alto, an approximately 4-foot high berm is proposed to be constructed on the take area for storm drain/flood control purposes. The acquisition will consist of a permanent storm drain easement. The following analysis involves the valuation of the larger subject property in the before condition, valuation of the proposed take area, and valuation of the larger remainder subject property in the after condition to determine severance damages. Consideration for benefits due to the project will also be given. I. Value of the Larger Property in Before Take Condition

The larger subject property consists of an approximate 3.31 acre, or 144,184 square foot site which is vacant of building improvements. However, various physical and legal restrictions, as well as existing overhead electrical transmission lines, significantly limit development potential of the larger property. Furthermore, the highest and best use of the subject site was previously concluded as open space, parklands, and/or habitat. The value of the larger subject property in the before take condition will be analyzed based on the Direct Sales Comparison Approach to value. Direct Sales Comparison Approach Exhibit B shows the comparable sales used by the appraisers in estimating market value for the subject property in the before condition. Like the subject property, all of the sale comparables are considered to have significantly limited developmental potential due to various combinations of physical and legal restrictions. Comparable Sale 1 represents the sale of an approximately 11,000 gross square foot site located on Loma Court in an unincorporated portion of San Mateo County, but within the Redwood City sphere of influence. The site has a basically rectangular shape, includes frontage on both Loma Court and Los Cerros Road, and has a residential zoning designation. However, the site has a very heavily sloping and uneven topography which significantly limits development potential. Furthermore, the site had previously failed a percolation test which further limits any potential for development. In April 2014, the site transacted at a sales price of approximately $16,000, equivalent to a unit value of $1.45 per square foot of land area. Comparable Sale 2 represents the sale of an approximately 15,000 gross square foot site addressed on Thone Avenue in the City of Half Moon Bay. However, Thone Avenue, as


May 21, 2014 9 14-ASJ-186A.v1

well as most of the surrounding streets identified on the assessor map, represents a “paper street” which does not physically exist and lacks access from any public right of way. The site is located in the Wavecrest PUD (Planned Unit Development) area. However, according to conversations with the City of Half Moon Bay Planning department, there is not currently approved development plan for the Wavecrest PUD area. Furthermore, the Planning Department indicated that there are significant legal complications involved with securing a development plan for the Wavecrest PUD area and development potential is considered very limited. Additionally, the site was marketed as not buildable and many of the immediately surrounding properties have been donated to open space funds. In April 2014, the site transacted at a sales price of approximately $25,000, equivalent to a unit value of $1.67 per square foot of land area. Comparable Sale 3 represents the sale of an approximately 39,640 gross square foot site located on the dirt road Marburger Avenue in the City of Belmont. The site has a long and narrow, but basically rectangular shape, includes approximately 50 feet of frontage on Marburger Avenue, and has a residential zoning designation. However, the site has a very heavily sloping topography which significantly limits development potential. Furthermore, based on the slope of the site and zoning requirements, it is likely that the property does not meet the minimum site size requirement for residential development. In December 2013, the site transacted at a sales price of approximately $40,000, equivalent to a unit value of $1.01 per square foot of land area. Comparable Sale 4 represents the sale of an approximately 37,900 gross square foot site located on La Honda Road/Highway 84 in the town of La Honda in unincorporated San Mateo County. The site has a somewhat long and narrow, but basically rectangular shape and has a residential zoning designation. However, the site has a very heavily sloping and uneven topography which significantly limits development potential. It should also be noted that although the assessor map appears to show the site having frontage along La Honda Road, physically (as of the date of sale), the site does not appear to be accessible from any public right of way. In September 2013, the site transacted at a sales price of $20,000, equivalent to a unit value of approximately $0.53 per square foot of land area. Comparable Sale 5 represents the sale of an approximately 17,700 gross square foot site located on the dirt road Marburger Avenue in the City of Belmont. The site has an irregular roughly P-shape, includes frontage along Marburger Avenue, and has a residential zoning designation. However, the site has a very heavily sloping topography which significantly limits development potential. Furthermore, based on the slope of the site and zoning requirements, it is likely that the property does not meet the minimum site size requirement for residential development. In August 2013, the site transacted at a sales price of $40,000, equivalent to a unit value of approximately $1.02 per square foot of land area. Comparable Sale 6 represents the sale of an approximately 30,492 gross square foot site located just north of the Loma Court terminus in an unincorporated portion of San Mateo County, but within the Redwood City sphere of influence. The site has a roughly


May 21, 2014 10 14-ASJ-186A.v1

trapezoidal shape and a residential zoning designation. However, the site has a very heavily sloping and uneven topography which significantly limits development potential. Furthermore, the site lacks access from a public right-of-way. In July 2013, the site transacted at a sales price of $10,000, equivalent to a unit value of approximately $0.33 per square foot of land area. The property was purchased by an adjacent property owner. Comparable Sale 7 represents the sale of an approximately 21,900 gross square foot site located on the dirt road Marburger Avenue in the City of Belmont. The site has an irregular roughly P-shape, includes frontage along Marburger Avenue, and has a residential zoning designation. However, the site has a very heavily sloping topography which severely limits development potential. Furthermore, based on the slope of the site and zoning requirements, it is likely that the property does not meet the minimum site size requirement for residential development. In May 2013, the site transacted at a sales price of $25,000, equivalent to a unit value of approximately $1.14 per square foot of land area. Comparable Analysis and Value Conclusion of the Larger Property - Before Take The selected comparables indicate a range from approximately $0.33 to $1.67 per square foot of land area. In determining an appropriate unit value for the subject property, the comparable improved transactions are analyzed and adjusted based on their differences in physical/locational characteristics. Similar to the subject property, all of the selected comparables represent sales of sites with significantly limited potential for development. Furthermore, all of the selected comparables transacted within the past twelve months, are located within San Mateo County, and are generally considered a good indicator of value for the larger subject site. However, properties located in East Palo Alto typically command lower per unit values as compared to other areas in San Mateo County, all other factors being equal. Furthermore, the selected comparables range in size from approximately 11,000 to 39,640 square feet of land area and the larger subject site contains a total of approximately 3.31 acres or 144,184 square feet. Generally speaking, larger properties will transact at a lower per unit value as compared to smaller properties, all other factors being equal, due to economies of scale. Both of these characteristics would suggest an appropriate per unit value for the subject at the low end of the range indicated by the sale comparables. However, the low end of the range is represented by Comparables 4 and 6 which appear to lack access to any public right-of-way and a higher per unit value is indicated for the subject. Therefore, based subject’s physical and locational characteristics, and in consideration of current market conditions, a price per square foot of land area near the lower middle of range indicated by the selected comparables, at $1.00 per square foot of land area, is considered reasonable for the larger subject site. Applying the concluded price per square foot to the subject’s approximately 144,184 square feet of land area results in a fee simple market value conclusion for the larger property, in before take condition, as follows:


May 21, 2014 11 14-ASJ-186A.v1

144,184 SF Land x $1.00/per SF = $144,184 Rounded: $145,000

II. Value of Permanent Take as Part of the Whole

A portion of the larger subject property is being proposed for acquisition by The City of East Palo Alto for a public works project. The proposed permanent take is for a storm drain easement for flood control purposes. The easement is proposed to cover an area of approximately 38,881 gross square feet, or 0.893 acres, and is located roughly down the middle of the larger site. The easement area has an irregular shape which is best illustrated by the map prepared by Wilsey Ham, dated October 10, 2013, a copy of which is reproduced in Exhibit A. The easement will allow for the construction of an approximately 4-foot high berm. Furthermore, the presence of the berm will prevent the underlying title holder from using the surface portion of the property for any other purpose other than landscaping. However, the placement of the easement/berm should not affect the current use of the property for overhead electrical transmission line purposes. The proposed easement area is currently used as part of a high voltage line right of way. While the take will result in the property owner losing most surface rights to the easement area, the existing overhead high voltage line use will not be effected. Overall the value of the easement is considered to be 50 percent of the underlying fee simple value of the site as both the dominant and serviette tenements are allowed their respective uses. Therefore, the resulting calculation of the value of this easement is as follows:

38,881 SF Land x $1.00/per SF x 50% = $19,441 Rounded: $20,000

III. Severance Damage

The value, if any, of severance damages to a property is based on the value in before condition less the value of the property in after condition, with an additional deduction from the difference for the permanent take value already estimated. Valuation - After Take In the after condition, the subject property will consist of approximately 105,303 square feet of unencumbered land area and 38,881 square feet encumbered by the new easement. The same value per square foot of land area is considered appropriate for the subject property in the after condition. A factor of 50 percent is applied to the value of the land


May 21, 2014 12 14-ASJ-186A.v1

area encumbered by the new easement, reflecting the remaining rights retained by the fee title holder. Therefore, the resulting value of the subject property in the after condition is indicated at $125,000, rounded. Damages Subtracting the estimated value of the take and the after-take value of the subject property from the before-take value of the entire property results in a difference as follows: Value in Before-Take Condition $ 145,000 Less Value of Permanent Take ($ 20,000) Less Value in After-Take Condition ($ 125,000) Difference – Severance Damages $ 0 There are not concluded to be any damages as a result of the proposed partial take.

IV. Benefits

The subject property is not considered to be impacted by any benefits as a result of the proposed partial acquisition.

V. Total Value of Acquisition

The total value of the acquisition reflects the sum of the value of the permanent take and damages, less benefits. Therefore, the total value of the acquisition is estimated as follows:

Value of Permanent Take $20,000

Damages None

Benefits None

Total Value of Acquisition $20,000

Exhibit C

LARGER PARCEL VALUATION

Direct Sales Comparison Approach $1.00 /SF Land Area x 144,184 SF = $144,184

Rounded: $145,000

TAKE PARCEL VALUATION

Value of Take $1.00 /SF Land Area x 38,881 SF x 50% = $19,441

Rounded: $20,000

DAMAGES CALCULATIONS

Larger Parcel Before Value $145,000Less Value of Take ($20,000)

Difference $125,000

Less After Take Value $1.00 /SF Land Area x 105,303 SF x 100% = $105,303$1.00 /SF Land Area x 38,881 SF x 50% = $19,441

Total: $124,744

Rounded: ($125,000)

Damages $0

BENEFITS CALCULATIONS

Total Benefits Due to Project None

TOTAL VALUE OF ACQUISITION $20,000

SouSource: Carneghi-Blum & Partners, Inc., May 2014Bra Brad14asj186A PGE

East Palo Alto, California

Valuation SummaryAppraisal of PG&E Land


May 21, 2014 13 14-ASJ-186A.v1

EXHIBIT “D”

SCOPE OF WORK

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

DEFINITION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE


May 21, 2014 14 14-ASJ-186A.v1

Scope of Work The scope of work for this appraisal is to use the appropriate approaches to value in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) to arrive at a market value conclusion. Specific steps include the inspection of the subject property and the research, analysis and verification of comparable data to arrive at a value indication as put forth in this report. The Direct Sales Comparison Approach is considered to be the best indicator for the subject property. The Cost and Income Approaches were not used, due to the fact that the market for this type of property does not rely on these approaches General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

1. It is the client’s responsibility to read this report and to inform the appraiser of any errors

or omissions of which he/she is aware prior to utilizing this report or making it available to any third party.

2. No responsibility is assumed for legal matters. It is assumed that title of the property is marketable and it is free and clear of liens, encumbrances and special assessments other than as stated in this report.

3. Plot plans and maps are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the appraiser, and contained in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items furnished the appraiser is assumed by the appraiser.

4. All information has been checked where possible and is believed to be correct, but is not guaranteed as such.

5. The appraisers assume that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable. The appraisers assume no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors. It is assumed that no soil contamination exists as a result of chemical drainage or leakage in connection with any production operations on or near the property.

6. Neither all nor part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, new sales, or other media without the written consent and approval of the appraiser, particularly as to the valuation conclusions, the identity of the appraisers, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or the MAI designation.


May 21, 2014 15 14-ASJ-186A.v1

Definition of Fair Market Value The measure of “just compensation” is “market value.” Section 1263.320 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines market value as:

(a) The fair-market value of the property taken is the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for so doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available.

(b) The fair-market value of property taken for which there is no relevant comparable market is its value on the date of valuation as determined by any method of valuation that is just and equitable


Attachment 3

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Attachment 3 Initial Study for the Runnymede Storm Drain Improvement Project

Link: http://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=492

http://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=492

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Name: City of East Palo Alto Runnymede Storm Drain Phase II and Repair of the O’Connor Pump Station Outfall Structure Project. Project Location: The Project Area is located adjacent to the baylands of the San Francisco Bay, in a narrow strip between the end of Runnymede Street extending southerly to and including the pump station forebay and outfall at the end of O’Connor Street in East Palo Alto to the west and the Faber-Laumeister Tract of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge to the east (APNs 063580100, -0040, -0050, 063600999, and -0060). The project is located entirely on land owned by the City of East Palo Alto, the City of Palo Alto, and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). The Project Area encompasses a man-made drainage ditch originating at the terminus of the storm drain at Runnymede Street and extending south approximately 2,100 feet to a storm water detention basin referred to as O’Connor Pond. Included in the Project Area is the O’Connor Pump Station which pumps water from the detention basin into San Francisquito Creek. The Project Area also includes a vacant lot at the end of Beech Street. Project Description: As part of the Runnymede Storm Drain Improvement Phase II and the Repair of the O’Connor Pump Station Outfall Structure Project, the City proposes to excavate accumulated sediments and widen the Runnymede drainage ditch, install new culverts under an existing footpath, install an additional footpath with culverts underneath, complete the box culvert outfall which feeds the Runnymede drainage ditch at the north end, and repair the O’Connor Pump Station outfall structure. The project proposes to excavate accumulated sediments and widen the drainage ditch and associated detention basin. The drainage ditch is proposed to be excavated to an elevation of +1 foot National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). The bottom of the channel will be approximately 10 feet wide with 2:1 side slopes, each 6 feet wide. The upper bank of the ditch will be at approximately +4 feet elevation and will be 22 feet wide. Approximately 9,160 cubic yards of material will be excavated from the drainage ditch and the detention basin. Excavated materials will be deposited west of the channel to construct a berm that will further aide in flood prevention. The berm will rise to a height of no more than approximately 3 feet above existing grade (or approximately +7 feet in elevation) and will be approximately 14 feet wide. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to occur over a three month period. Excavated material will be extremely wet and will need to be dried prior to use in berm construction. The excavated materials would not be stored or stockpiled. Instead the excavated material would be used to construct the berm in a phased layered manner which would allow for concurrent excavation and berm construction. The berm would be compressed to further reduce water

City of East Palo Alto Runnymede Storm Drain Phase II and Repair of the O’Connor Pump Station Outfall Structure Project CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration

2 March 2013

content of wet material and expedite the drying process. After drying, the volume of the excavated material will be reduced to approximately 7,330 cubic yards. The dredged material would be balanced on-site for the construction of the berm and new footpath. The City has negotiated with PG&E to place the berm within PG&E’s existing utility corridor. This will allow for placement of the berm outside of wetlands mapped at the site by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The location of the berm is shown in the 30% design drawings (Initial Study Figures 3-7). To accommodate access for utility maintenance, ramps leading to the berm will be installed at Garden Street and Beech Street and the berm surface will be used as an access road. Following construction, the berm surface will be seeded with a grassland seed mix appropriate for the site. Construction access has been defined and is being proposed along the berm alignment and along the western side of the drainage ditch, with connections at the northern side of the O’Connor detention basin, at the location of the existing pedestrian crossing south of Beech Street, and at the Garden Street cul-de-sac. This proposed access route is shown in Figures 3-7. The proposed flow of construction traffic is indicated by arrows along the delineated route. As shown in the draft construction drawings, the cul-de-sac at Garden Street is proposed as the primary turnaround for construction vehicles. The proposed ramps leading up to the berm will be permanent but revegetated. The remaining temporary portions of the access route will either be preserved through the use of swamp mats or similar materials to protect the wetland surface or will be restored to pre-construction conditions through grading and revegetation following construction. If the latter option is chosen, revegetation will be conducted according to the appended Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) developed for the proposed project and project site (Initial Study Appendix C). Excavation of accumulated sediments from the O’Connor detention basin will occur from the northern end of the basin in an area identified as the “Excavator Pad” (Initial Study Figures 3-7). Similar to the temporary construction access route, this area will either be protected using swamp mats or similar materials or will be returned to pre-construction conditions according to the HMMP as described above. The project proposes to leave in-place the existing pedestrian footpath located in between Beech Street and O’Connor Street and replace the single 48-inch diameter corrugated metal culvert underneath the crossing with two 54-inch corrugated metal culverts. One new pedestrian footpath will be constructed over the ditch at the eastern terminus of Cypress Street. The new pedestrian footpath will be constructed on excavated sediments built up to the elevation of the adjacent levee. The new footpath at Cypress Street would be an all season safe connection to the Bay Trail. Two 54-inch corrugated metal culverts will be installed beneath the new footpath at Cypress Street. A flapgate with a backflow preventer will also be installed at the Cypress Street crossing. The 1,650 feet of existing chain link fencing on both sides of the channel are proposed to be removed, preserved, and reinstalled on both sides of the new drainage ditch alignment. As part of Phase I of the Runnymede Storm Drain Improvement Project a new box culvert structure was constructed at the north end of the Runnymede ditch where storm water emerges


3 March 2013

from underground culverts. This project additionally proposes the completion of the box culvert outfall which will entail adding a pre-cast concrete outfall structure and energy dissipation materials, such as rip rap, to the northern end of the ditch. The project also proposes to repair the O’Connor Pump Station outfall structure that discharges storm water to San Francisquito Creek. As stated above, the floor of the outfall structure has settled differentially over its lifespan causing cracks which prevent the outfall from functioning properly. The floor of the outfall structure is proposed to be repaired by pressure injecting grout under the slab which will elevate the slab to its original orientation. Additional bank stabilization is proposed around the outfall to prevent scour and protect the structure from erosion. An approximately four-foot wide strip of rip-rap is proposed to be placed on the upstream and downstream sides of the culvert outfall which will extend approximately 1.5 feet below the elevation of the outfall floor and will extend approximately 4 feet out from the outfall structure. An additional one foot of rip-rap is proposed to be placed on the front of the outfall on top of existing rip-rap that has subsided into the bank. Approximately 50 cubic yards of rip-rap consisting of 2- to 3-foot rocks will be installed. Prior to any excavation, construction, or repairs, the vegetation in the construction zone (approximately 50 feet wide along the ditch) will be grubbed using hand tools. In addition, the work zone will be surrounded by wildlife exclusion fencing to prevent the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse from entering the work area. Sheet piles are proposed to be installed in San Francisquito Creek “bay mud” around the O’Connor outfall structure to allow full dewatering prior to work. The sheet piles will be installed above the water line with either a vibratory hammer or an impact hammer. Prior to dewatering, City-approved fish biologists will perform sweeps of any standing water with beach seines and hand nets to assure absence of special status fishes. The fish biologists will also oversee the dewatering process to catch and relocate any remaining fish. Any fish removed from the work site will be released into San Francisquito Creek. Following construction, all mouse fencing will be removed and the ditch will be allowed to revegetate with pickleweed and salt grass, returning the site to salt marsh habitat. Findings and Basis for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: It is hereby determined that, based on the information contained in the attached Initial Study, the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Mitigation measures necessary to avoid the potentially significant effects on the environment are included in the Initial Study, which is hereby incorporated and fully made part of this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City of East Palo Alto has hereby agreed to implement each of the identified mitigation measures, which would be adopted as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Initial Study: A copy of the Initial Study on which the findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been based is available at the City of East Palo Alto Planning and Housing Division, 1960 Tate Street, East Palo Alto, CA 94303. A copy is also available at the San Mateo County Public Library located at 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303. Review Period: Comments on the IS and proposed MND must be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public comment period. The public review period is from March 27, 2013 to April 26, 2013. Public Hearings for this item will occur before the Planning Commission on May


4 March 2013

13, 2013 and the City Council on May 21, 2013. Written Comments regarding the IS/MND should be submitted by email or in letter prior to 5:00 pm on April 26, 2013. Contact Person: John Doughty - (650)-853-3189


Attachment 4

Resolution No. 4403 and 4440


Attachment 5

Notice of Determination

PG&E Gas and Electric Advice Filing List General Order 96-B, Section IV

AT&T Division of Ratepayer Advocates OnGrid Solar Albion Power Company Don Pickett & Associates, Inc. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Alcantar & Kahl LLP Douglass & Liddell Praxair Anderson & Poole Downey & Brand Regulatory & Cogeneration Service, Inc. Atlas ReFuel Ellison Schneider & Harris LLP SCD Energy Solutions BART Evaluation + Strategy for Social

Innovation SCE

Barkovich & Yap, Inc. G. A. Krause & Assoc. SDG&E and SoCalGas Bartle Wells Associates GenOn Energy Inc. SPURR Braun Blaising McLaughlin & Smith, P.C. GenOn Energy, Inc. San Francisco Water Power and Sewer Braun Blaising McLaughlin, P.C. Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Schlotz &

Ritchie Seattle City Light

CENERGY POWER Green Charge Networks Sempra Energy (Socal Gas) CPUC Green Power Institute Sempra Utilities California Cotton Ginners & Growers Assn Hanna & Morton SoCalGas California Energy Commission International Power Technology Southern California Edison Company California Public Utilities Commission Intestate Gas Services, Inc. Spark Energy California State Association of Counties Kelly Group Sun Light & Power Calpine Ken Bohn Consulting Sunshine Design Casner, Steve Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. Tecogen, Inc. Center for Biological Diversity Linde TerraVerde Renewable Partners City of Palo Alto Los Angeles County Integrated Waste

Management Task Force TerraVerde Renewable Partners, LLC

City of San Jose Los Angeles Dept of Water & Power Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. Clean Power MRW & Associates TransCanada Clean Power Research Manatt Phelps Phillips Troutman Sanders LLP Coast Economic Consulting Marin Energy Authority Utility Cost Management Commercial Energy McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP Utility Power Solutions Cool Earth Solar, Inc. McKenzie & Associates Utility Specialists County of Tehama - Department of Public Works

Modesto Irrigation District Verizon

Crossborder Energy Morgan Stanley Water and Energy Consulting Crown Road Energy, LLC NLine Energy, Inc. Wellhead Electric Company Davis Wright Tremaine LLP NRG Solar Western Manufactured Housing

Communities Association (WMA) Day Carter Murphy Nexant, Inc. YEP Energy Defense Energy Support Center ORA Dept of General Services Office of Ratepayer Advocates

Documents

Public Utilities Commission of the State of CaliforniaThe City of East Palo Alto’s Runnymede Storm Drain Improvement Project began in late 2014 and has been on hold since March 2015